5 ms·

What this means in intent and practice is that you are not allowed to discuss social issues that the hierarchy and those that align with the hierarchy find obje

by xnyan 6y ago

What this means in intent and practice is that you are not allowed to discuss social issues that the hierarchy and those that align with the hierarchy find objectionable. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that if a facebook employee wants to talk about poverty in underdeveloped countries on internal social media, then that's going to be ok, but if the discussion concerns people who were harmed because they followed bad medical advice that was spread by use of facebook, all of a sudden that's an unacceptable socal issue at work.

clomond 6y ago
I.e. it’s all good as long as you don’t rock the boat.
searchableguy 6y ago
I wonder if free-speech or political protection in workplace can be abused by competitors to destroy your culture as proposed by people in the comments. Is there a chance of that happening or does it already happen?
- an_opabinia 6y ago
  > Is there a chance of that happening or does it already happen? Nah. Every Facebook employee I've met, every one that I'm reading, they are sincere about what they're angry about. It's a bad look, to assume some Facebook employee's opinions are being co-opted by... fucking Google? Apple? That's ridiculous. I'm not even going to speculate why anyone questions some random Facebook employee's sincerity. Instead I offer: Imagine if someone told you, every opinion you had, all the time, talked over you or told you to shut the fuck up and said, "Oh you're getting co-opted by Google, this is exactly what they want you to do, 'destroy our culture.'" And then, in the same breath, that guy defends, breathlessly, some idiot outraged over the removal of master/slave nomenclature, or some idiot trying to mainsplain crackpot sex difference theories to his female coworkers. C'mon, you'd be mad as hell, it's so utterly ridiculous.
  - fxtentacle 6y ago
    "some idiot outraged over the removal of master/slave nomenclature" Since GitHub repositories renaming their master branch did cost us significant money and almost caused downtime, I would be fully understanding if someone else is feeling outraged about it. I belive you need to work on your example of a bad person ;) How about we go with? And then in the same breath that gal defends selling people's secrets for pennies on the dollar and willingly accepting that they'll likely have very real negative consequences for your users once the private data in your database invariably gets leaked onto the internet. Oh wait, that wouldn't leave much left at Facebook, wouldn't it? So let's just question the moral integrity of anyone working at Facebook. Seems reasonable, given what egregious privacy infringements their work enables.
    - kelnos 6y ago
      > Since GitHub repositories renaming their master branch did cost us significant money and almost caused downtime, I would be fully understanding if someone else is feeling outraged about it. I think "outrage" is an inappropriate response. We're talking about removing nomenclature that has been (and continues to be) used to oppress an entire segment of society. I think removing that is worth a little money and downtime, if it comes to that. People who are "outraged" that it cost them some time and work probably could stand to show some compassion for their fellow humans.
      - fxtentacle 6y ago
        Surely it is very easy to take the moral high ground on these issues. But if you're the one working over-hours to fix the resulting mess, you start to wonder why those knights in shining armor forgot to show you the same compassion. Usually, when open source projects introduce a breaking backwards-incompatible change, they will first deprecate things and then wait some months to give people time to update. After this nomenclature had been in use for 10+ years, I can't help but wonder why there was no time to take the user-friendly path in this instance. So to the people who are fixing the mess, it certainly feels more like you got kicked because someone else wanted to show off his/her moral superiority. There existed a reasonable way to change the nomenclature, but it wasn't taken.
drevil-v2 6y ago
That is such a Motte & Bailey fallacy you are spouting. We all know this situation exists because a handful of Facebook employees are adamant (almost psychotically imo) to shove their woke ideology down every one else's throats. Try saying a trans "woman" is biologically male on Twitter and you will be banned. These FB employees want the same deal on their employers platform. And that is just for starters. I say good for the Zuck. At least he has got the balls to stand up to these children.
- ryguytilidie 6y ago
  This is the most I've cringed at an HN post in years, and that is saying a LOT.
  - StanislavPetrov 6y ago
    It was poorly phrased but its more and more clear how eager some people are to force their ideology down the throats of others. Its perfectly reasonable for Facebook to tell their employees to keep their political and ideological crusades (whatever they may be) out of the workplace.

by xnyan 6y ago

clomond 6y ago

I.e. it’s all good as long as you don’t rock the boat.

searchableguy 6y ago

I wonder if free-speech or political protection in workplace can be abused by competitors to destroy your culture as proposed by people in the comments. Is there a chance of that happening or does it already happen?

an_opabinia 6y ago
> Is there a chance of that happening or does it already happen? Nah. Every Facebook employee I've met, every one that I'm reading, they are sincere about what they're angry about. It's a bad look, to assume some Facebook employee's opinions are being co-opted by... fucking Google? Apple? That's ridiculous. I'm not even going to speculate why anyone questions some random Facebook employee's sincerity. Instead I offer: Imagine if someone told you, every opinion you had, all the time, talked over you or told you to shut the fuck up and said, "Oh you're getting co-opted by Google, this is exactly what they want you to do, 'destroy our culture.'" And then, in the same breath, that guy defends, breathlessly, some idiot outraged over the removal of master/slave nomenclature, or some idiot trying to mainsplain crackpot sex difference theories to his female coworkers. C'mon, you'd be mad as hell, it's so utterly ridiculous.
- fxtentacle 6y ago
  "some idiot outraged over the removal of master/slave nomenclature" Since GitHub repositories renaming their master branch did cost us significant money and almost caused downtime, I would be fully understanding if someone else is feeling outraged about it. I belive you need to work on your example of a bad person ;) How about we go with? And then in the same breath that gal defends selling people's secrets for pennies on the dollar and willingly accepting that they'll likely have very real negative consequences for your users once the private data in your database invariably gets leaked onto the internet. Oh wait, that wouldn't leave much left at Facebook, wouldn't it? So let's just question the moral integrity of anyone working at Facebook. Seems reasonable, given what egregious privacy infringements their work enables.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    > Since GitHub repositories renaming their master branch did cost us significant money and almost caused downtime, I would be fully understanding if someone else is feeling outraged about it. I think "outrage" is an inappropriate response. We're talking about removing nomenclature that has been (and continues to be) used to oppress an entire segment of society. I think removing that is worth a little money and downtime, if it comes to that. People who are "outraged" that it cost them some time and work probably could stand to show some compassion for their fellow humans.
    - fxtentacle 6y ago
      Surely it is very easy to take the moral high ground on these issues. But if you're the one working over-hours to fix the resulting mess, you start to wonder why those knights in shining armor forgot to show you the same compassion. Usually, when open source projects introduce a breaking backwards-incompatible change, they will first deprecate things and then wait some months to give people time to update. After this nomenclature had been in use for 10+ years, I can't help but wonder why there was no time to take the user-friendly path in this instance. So to the people who are fixing the mess, it certainly feels more like you got kicked because someone else wanted to show off his/her moral superiority. There existed a reasonable way to change the nomenclature, but it wasn't taken.

drevil-v2 6y ago

That is such a Motte & Bailey fallacy you are spouting. We all know this situation exists because a handful of Facebook employees are adamant (almost psychotically imo) to shove their woke ideology down every one else's throats. Try saying a trans "woman" is biologically male on Twitter and you will be banned. These FB employees want the same deal on their employers platform. And that is just for starters. I say good for the Zuck. At least he has got the balls to stand up to these children.

ryguytilidie 6y ago
This is the most I've cringed at an HN post in years, and that is saying a LOT.
- StanislavPetrov 6y ago
  It was poorly phrased but its more and more clear how eager some people are to force their ideology down the throats of others. Its perfectly reasonable for Facebook to tell their employees to keep their political and ideological crusades (whatever they may be) out of the workplace.