3 ms·

This is a dumb headline. She wasn’t working in her capacity as a FB exec. She was working as a loyal former aide.

by muglug 5y ago

cle 5y ago
That's a plausible hypothesis, but from the information given I can't really conclude that (nor the converse). It's worth investigating her role further to find out.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
She may have been doing cuomo work on the clock but i generally agreew with your statement At first stance it looked rsther bad but having read the article its much more flimsy. However the optics of this happening are bad for fb and i dont think its unreasonable for fb to act against her.
busterarm 5y ago
And for that same reason, Facebook's shareholders should be demanding her head on a platter. It's still extremely newsworthy.
- muglug 5y ago
  Unless she used her official FB email to send these docs I don't see why it would be much of a scandal. Probably won't help her career progression at FB, though.
  - busterarm 5y ago
    This is something that applies to managers but especially to executives: You are a representative of the company at all times. Especially in a communications role, you are the corporate mouthpiece. All of your actions are under extreme scrutiny and you should behave accordingly. More importantly, Facebook has to deal with sexual harassment allegations internally on their own all the time. If this is supposed to be acceptable behavior among Facebook's executives with regard to accusers, then I as an opposing counsel in a lawsuit with Facebook would be grinning from ear to ear right now. Odds are Facebook is about to settle on a handful of claims, even potentially-bullshit ones. And that's why shareholders should be out with pitchforks.
  - KaiserPro 5y ago
    I don't think that follows. It is deeply immoral to do what this person did. I'm not sure of the specifics but I suspect it might also be illegal. (however thats a guess, don't put weight on that) From a shareholder point of view, one doesn't want to have a person who will do something so down right nasty to protect the person they are serving.

This is a dumb headline. She wasn’t working in her capacity as a FB exec. She was working as a loyal former aide.

by muglug 5y ago

This is a dumb headline. She wasn’t working in her capacity as a FB exec. She was working as a loyal former aide.

cle 5y ago

That's a plausible hypothesis, but from the information given I can't really conclude that (nor the converse). It's worth investigating her role further to find out.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago

She may have been doing cuomo work on the clock but i generally agreew with your statement At first stance it looked rsther bad but having read the article its much more flimsy. However the optics of this happening are bad for fb and i dont think its unreasonable for fb to act against her.

busterarm 5y ago

And for that same reason, Facebook's shareholders should be demanding her head on a platter. It's still extremely newsworthy.

muglug 5y ago
Unless she used her official FB email to send these docs I don't see why it would be much of a scandal. Probably won't help her career progression at FB, though.
- busterarm 5y ago
  This is something that applies to managers but especially to executives: You are a representative of the company at all times. Especially in a communications role, you are the corporate mouthpiece. All of your actions are under extreme scrutiny and you should behave accordingly. More importantly, Facebook has to deal with sexual harassment allegations internally on their own all the time. If this is supposed to be acceptable behavior among Facebook's executives with regard to accusers, then I as an opposing counsel in a lawsuit with Facebook would be grinning from ear to ear right now. Odds are Facebook is about to settle on a handful of claims, even potentially-bullshit ones. And that's why shareholders should be out with pitchforks.
- KaiserPro 5y ago
  I don't think that follows. It is deeply immoral to do what this person did. I'm not sure of the specifics but I suspect it might also be illegal. (however thats a guess, don't put weight on that) From a shareholder point of view, one doesn't want to have a person who will do something so down right nasty to protect the person they are serving.