5 ms·

>HR did not take any of it down. & >HR did later revoke open access to some of the specific details he used to make his case (conversations around investigati

>HR did not take any of it down. & >HR did later revoke open access to some of the specific details he used to make his case (conversations around investigating and escalating user reports). Aren't these essentially identical aside from the timeline?

fbthrowaway31FB 6y ago
HR did not take down the reposts (edited for tone) of the fired employee's claims and arguments, including high-level descriptions of specific escalation incidents. HR did remove access to actual "tasks" (similar to email threads at other companies).
- newbie789 6y ago
  So, they didn't remove the post, just access to things he specifically cited (for everybody?) ? I don't mean to split hairs here but could you perhaps elaborate on why they would do that? Edit: Or at least your opinion on why they would do that.
  - fbthrowaway31FB 6y ago
    The reposts were very different in tone and didn't name specific employees or make accusations about intentions or ethics. I have no opinion about why content was hidden. At nearly any other company the same content would have always been secret.
    - snowwrestler 6y ago
      How confident are you that you know how things work "at nearly any other company?" Is this something that someone told you, or do you have some way of knowing this yourself?
    - newacct583 6y ago
      But that content is not typically hidden at Facebook? And it's hidden now, precisely when it would provide evidence as to whether or not the alleged executive conduct happened? And you... have no opinion about that? Really?
    - newbie789 6y ago
      That kind of sounds like an opinion. If his cited sources (which presumptively were somewhat important to the point he was making) should (or would have, which may be subjective. I don't know because I'm not a Facebook employee and have no direct knowledge of the now-secret information) have been secret, then it stands to reason that it would have been more difficult for him to make his point. If that's the case, it sounds like they've changed an entire policy organization-wide to stop more posts like this, or they've made no global policy changes and selectively hidden information that would support his point. Either way I'm curious about this culture of openness and what defines its limits.
- currentFB9492 6y ago
  Huh? yes they did. They put it back up for a few hours after he was fired, but it was later removed again.

fbthrowaway31FB 6y ago

HR did not take down the reposts (edited for tone) of the fired employee's claims and arguments, including high-level descriptions of specific escalation incidents. HR did remove access to actual "tasks" (similar to email threads at other companies).

newbie789 6y ago
So, they didn't remove the post, just access to things he specifically cited (for everybody?) ? I don't mean to split hairs here but could you perhaps elaborate on why they would do that? Edit: Or at least your opinion on why they would do that.
- fbthrowaway31FB 6y ago
  The reposts were very different in tone and didn't name specific employees or make accusations about intentions or ethics. I have no opinion about why content was hidden. At nearly any other company the same content would have always been secret.
  - snowwrestler 6y ago
    How confident are you that you know how things work "at nearly any other company?" Is this something that someone told you, or do you have some way of knowing this yourself?
  - newacct583 6y ago
    But that content is not typically hidden at Facebook? And it's hidden now, precisely when it would provide evidence as to whether or not the alleged executive conduct happened? And you... have no opinion about that? Really?
  - newbie789 6y ago
    That kind of sounds like an opinion. If his cited sources (which presumptively were somewhat important to the point he was making) should (or would have, which may be subjective. I don't know because I'm not a Facebook employee and have no direct knowledge of the now-secret information) have been secret, then it stands to reason that it would have been more difficult for him to make his point. If that's the case, it sounds like they've changed an entire policy organization-wide to stop more posts like this, or they've made no global policy changes and selectively hidden information that would support his point. Either way I'm curious about this culture of openness and what defines its limits.
currentFB9492 6y ago
Huh? yes they did. They put it back up for a few hours after he was fired, but it was later removed again.