3 ms·

Why would they be unhappy or ashamed? Not everybody shares your views of politics.

by bzb3 6y ago

tech-historian 6y ago
Facebook is in Silicon Valley and I'm willing to bet most of its ranks are very liberal.
Enginerrrd 6y ago
Because ethics =/= politics and I think it's a pretty universal judgement that Facebook has done some ethically dubious things in the past, and not much has changed from the policies that led them there in the first place.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Okay but ethics isn't universal either. There is no objective moral framework. "Not everybody shares your views" == "Not everybody shares your ethics". Let me try and steel-man this for you: if you believe in classical liberal principles of free speech, then you might probably be "proud" to work at FB, as well as of Zuckerberg's stance. Here's a better articulation of that: https://stratechery.com/2020/zuckerbergs-choice-zuckerbergs-power-zuckerbergs-conviction/ https://stratechery.com/2020/zuckerbergs-choice-zuckerbergs-...
  - sneak 6y ago
    Ethics and morals are not the same thing. Morals are not universal. Ethical frameworks were created specifically to be an objective standard.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      > Ethical frameworks were created specifically to be an objective standard. Yes, and there are many ethical frameworks. You and I may subscribe to different ethical frameworks, and that's entirely a function of our morals.
  - _bxg1 6y ago
    Facebook and the like have directly driven a huge increase in worldwide division and polarization. And faced with that fact they've continued their course full-steam-ahead. I don't know of any moral framework where that isn't a negative for society. Some on the economic-right might argue it isn't Facebook's problem to worry about because something something The Market. But even they wouldn't say the full picture is a good one, and wouldn't deny the logic that working for the company, in practice, ends up contributing to that outcome.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      I really encourage you to try and construct the strongest counter-argument to yourself so that you might at least be able to empathize with why someone might be sympathetic to Facebook's current stances without jumping to the conclusion that they are cartoonishly evil. Remember that everyone is "the good guy" in their own story. The moral framework where Facebook "isn't a negative for society" is the one that says that a free society should be able to openly express itself, and insofar as there is a high degree of polarization/division, it's because society itself is divided, and the free expression simply exposes that. In other words, how do you know that Facebook caused the polarization? How can you definitely conclude that Facebook isn't simply a mirror on society, and that society was already divided to begin with?
      - _bxg1 6y ago
        > the conclusion that they are cartoonishly evil > The moral framework where Facebook "isn't a negative for society" is the one that says that a free society should be able to openly express itself I wasn't making any such grand claims. I intentionally scoped my argument to "Facebook has increased division in the world" and "increased division is bad", in an effort to keep it as non-subjective as possible. > In other words, how do you know that Facebook caused the polarization? I didn't have to look very far; Facebook did the study itself, internally, and executives directly chose to ignore it: https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-division-news-feed-algorithms https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-divisio...
        6y ago

Why would they be unhappy or ashamed? Not everybody shares your views of politics.

by bzb3 6y ago

Why would they be unhappy or ashamed? Not everybody shares your views of politics.

tech-historian 6y ago

Facebook is in Silicon Valley and I'm willing to bet most of its ranks are very liberal.

Enginerrrd 6y ago

Because ethics =/= politics and I think it's a pretty universal judgement that Facebook has done some ethically dubious things in the past, and not much has changed from the policies that led them there in the first place.

bhupy 6y ago
Okay but ethics isn't universal either. There is no objective moral framework. "Not everybody shares your views" == "Not everybody shares your ethics". Let me try and steel-man this for you: if you believe in classical liberal principles of free speech, then you might probably be "proud" to work at FB, as well as of Zuckerberg's stance. Here's a better articulation of that: https://stratechery.com/2020/zuckerbergs-choice-zuckerbergs-power-zuckerbergs-conviction/ https://stratechery.com/2020/zuckerbergs-choice-zuckerbergs-...
- sneak 6y ago
  Ethics and morals are not the same thing. Morals are not universal. Ethical frameworks were created specifically to be an objective standard.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > Ethical frameworks were created specifically to be an objective standard. Yes, and there are many ethical frameworks. You and I may subscribe to different ethical frameworks, and that's entirely a function of our morals.
- _bxg1 6y ago
  Facebook and the like have directly driven a huge increase in worldwide division and polarization. And faced with that fact they've continued their course full-steam-ahead. I don't know of any moral framework where that isn't a negative for society. Some on the economic-right might argue it isn't Facebook's problem to worry about because something something The Market. But even they wouldn't say the full picture is a good one, and wouldn't deny the logic that working for the company, in practice, ends up contributing to that outcome.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    I really encourage you to try and construct the strongest counter-argument to yourself so that you might at least be able to empathize with why someone might be sympathetic to Facebook's current stances without jumping to the conclusion that they are cartoonishly evil. Remember that everyone is "the good guy" in their own story. The moral framework where Facebook "isn't a negative for society" is the one that says that a free society should be able to openly express itself, and insofar as there is a high degree of polarization/division, it's because society itself is divided, and the free expression simply exposes that. In other words, how do you know that Facebook caused the polarization? How can you definitely conclude that Facebook isn't simply a mirror on society, and that society was already divided to begin with?
    - _bxg1 6y ago
      > the conclusion that they are cartoonishly evil > The moral framework where Facebook "isn't a negative for society" is the one that says that a free society should be able to openly express itself I wasn't making any such grand claims. I intentionally scoped my argument to "Facebook has increased division in the world" and "increased division is bad", in an effort to keep it as non-subjective as possible. > In other words, how do you know that Facebook caused the polarization? I didn't have to look very far; Facebook did the study itself, internally, and executives directly chose to ignore it: https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-division-news-feed-algorithms https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-divisio...
      - 6y ago