12 ms·

Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

140 points by trobertson 4y ago

pacarvalho 4y ago
Tricky. Politics/societal/economic/etc issues such as this one are very important to be discussed. However, companies are a place for work. Talking to co-workers can be quite fulfilling and exciting when conversing about engineering, marketing, or other work related subjects you are passionate about. However, anytime politics, etc are brought up I (for one) leave the conversation feeling in a worse state of mind than when I first got into it. That is very unproductive. For this reason, I believe that the workplace should be left to work related things (including conversations) and anything else should ideally be done out of work. Even if involving the same group of people.
- spacexsucks 4y ago
  Policy affects daily life. A stable daily life leads to a productive worker. Wanting stable work but not doing anything to support the workers life is the biggest most capitalistic thing too. Heartless and inhumane
  - panaceaeaea 4y ago
    > Wanting stable work but not doing anything to support the workers life is the biggest most capitalistic thing too. I think that companies can fight the recent decision without allowing employees to get in arguments with one another and be at each others throats over such a polarizing issue. Not allowing people to proselytize at work would likely make it more stable. It's sort of like in ancient Persia where they didn't allow missionaries: because they cause unnecessary friction
  - nso95 4y ago
    Arguing about it on Slack isn't going to fix any of it though
    - JKCalhoun 4y ago
      It's venting. It's bonding with coworkers who also feel their world is collapsing. Hard to focus on work, talk about the preso when, for example, people are storming our Capitol.
      - yabatopia 4y ago
        Venting doesn't work: https://slate.com/technology/2022/03/venting-makes-you-feel-worse-psychology-research.html https://slate.com/technology/2022/03/venting-makes-you-feel-... . HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30601594 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30601594 .
        stormcode 4y ago
        It sure works for me.
        spoils19 4y ago
        Did you even read the article? It doesn't work.
      - Thorrez 4y ago
        I don't think the venting will be beneficial if it ends up in a debate. Talking about abortion will be more likely to stir up a debate than talking about the storming of the Capitol.
    - drewcoo 4y ago
      It depends on what "fix" means. It could get people more informed, involved, etc. Banning political speech is a great step toward convincing employees to unionize, so I applaud Meta for this, though.
  - snidane 4y ago
    The company doesn't have the power to change politics like that, so there is no point in getting the company involved or pick sides. The only neutral solution is to ban political discussions in the workplace, same as it should be in schools. Any other way leads to a psychologically unsafe environment to work at, which definitely doesn't lead to a stable daily life and thus a productive worker.
    - jen20 4y ago
      Companies absolutely have the power to change this: with their donations. There is a reason that “Citizens United” is such a drag on humanity.
    - genocidicbunny 4y ago
      A company like Meta absolutely has the power to weigh in on the politics. It wouldn't be pretty and would get a lot of blowback, but they can absolutely affect the politics. They could ban any anti-abortion messaging, they could promote pro-choice viewpoints, they could block proponents of the recent decision. They could change their algorithms to manipulate people's feeds in any which way -- for example, show a pro-lifer only pro-choice topics. They could do the complete opposite of that too. If they wanted to, they could absolutely shut down one side of the debate to the benefit of the other.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      Meta doesn’t have the power to change politics? Hasn’t the last two years of Section 230 handwringing focused squarely on their outsized influence over political discourse?
    - stormcode 4y ago
      You're saying Meta doesn't have the power to change politics? Where have you been since 2016.
    - drewcoo 4y ago
      > The company doesn't have the power to change politics like that, Then tell them to stop lobbying. Period.
- anothernewdude 4y ago
  You'd love the show Severance.
- zeronine 4y ago
  better keep my mouth shut then, can't have the productivity police issuing me a conversation penalty or i might end up in the stop-being-human prison
  - gruez 4y ago
    >can't have the productivity police issuing me a conversation penalty or i might end up in the stop-being-human prison Alright, it's clear that you're against this, but what's the argument for allowing this? In other words, why should the company tolerate using its channels as a soapbox to advance your political agendas, especially if it's a drain on productivity? I want to shitpost on company time/equipment/networks as much as the other guy, but let's not pretend it's some sort of right, or that being denied the ability to do that is some sort of moral tragedy.
    - z3phyr 4y ago
      In the past, the power to set policy was in the hands of the few aristocrats, whose full time job was to discuss and fight over policy, while the lay people worked their fields. We fought hard to take that power from them. Now a company asks its employees to forgo that power and liberty. Why did we take the power of policy from the aristocrats in the first place? We can of course go back to shut up, work the field peasant model and let them enjoy discussing policy for us while we produce goods. What comes first? Your employer or your rights?
      - drewcoo 4y ago
        > In the past, the power to set policy was in the hands of the few aristocrats, whose full time job was to discuss and fight over policy, while the lay people worked their fields. I don't think the French, for example, applied guillotines to solve the problem of "aristocrats talking too much policy."
  - Hydraulix989 4y ago
    You're at work doing a job, you aren't getting paid to converse about non work matters. If working at say Coinbase or any other apolitical tech company isn't your cup of tea, then there are plenty of politically charged places you can work instead that also need software engineers such as the CTO office of the President, Defense tech, think tanks, Congressional offices, Twitter, Planned Parenthood, PETA, and any other activist group really. It depends on what you're looking for. I can certainly understand why some companies may wish to be politically neutral, as choosing sides can be bad for business and against shareholder interests.
- CalChris 4y ago
  > However, companies are a place for work. That is a fine rule if work expects nothing of you when you clock out at 5 pm.
  - drewcoo 4y ago
    Actually, it's not fine then either. People have rights. And they have needs and desires. And companies that are driven primarily to make profit will ignore those things.
- jimbob45 4y ago
  Managers cited a policy that put "strong guardrails around social, political and sensitive conversations" in the workplace, according to company insiders, the newspaper reported. While I fully agree with what you’re saying, I’m wondering if Facebook actually agrees with you and that this is simply an application of existing policy or if this is a one-off experiment for them. The article seems a bit unclear.
- 015a 4y ago
  I'm not sorry for taking the opposite opinion, and its strictly for the reason that: these megacorps will, at the drop of a hat, spend millions in donations and lobbying for whatever causes their executives believe furthers the goals of the business [1]. "We the executives" are allowed to talk about it, and pay for what we believe is right, but "you the line workers", shut up, if you don't like it go work somewhere else. If they want to stay out of politics, then do that. But its extremely difficult for modern businesses to not have a hand in politics. That's fine; and to some degree I respect the line companies like Coinbase walk, where they push agendas that are fairly directly related to their business. Meta goes far beyond that, into financing for (great and important!) issues like voter suppression & minority representation. If they're going to open the floodgates, they can't be uncomfortable when some murky water comes flooding in. [1] https://about.facebook.com/facebook-political-engagement/ https://about.facebook.com/facebook-political-engagement/
  - bogantech 4y ago
    > "We the executives" are allowed to talk about it, and pay for what we believe is right, but "you the line workers", shut up, if you don't like it go work somewhere else. Yes because the line workers don't just discuss it they fight over it and make everyone angry / depressed and destroy productivity
    - Volundr 4y ago
      And the executives don't make people depressed and angry and destroy productivity?
      - bogantech 4y ago
        Not as much as people who don't stop screaming about <latest outrage> in slack all day every day. There's always something and it never stops
        Volundr 4y ago
        I can't agree with this. I've never found disagreement between co-workers to have near the effect on moral as having some executive take the opportunity to lecture people about it in an all hands or make their personal opinion the official position of the company.
- hestefisk 4y ago
  It’s hard to segregate politics from other things in life. Politics influences most things in life - our work, our school, what we can and can’t do. If I follow your claim, then corporations shouldn’t take a stance on climate change either. Is that really right?
  - andrew_ 4y ago
    Only for people who accept that as fact, or who openly invite into every aspect of their lives. Before the internet it was not so common to air one's bullshit, if you will.
    - drewcoo 4y ago
      Were you alive before the Internet? Life used to be, if anything, more political. Earlier in the 20th century, there were a lot more (local) newspapers and they all had very pointed points of view. Radio stations tended to be independent and if they had news broadcasts, it would be hyper-local and often political. Hell, thriving union membership gave us the greatest prosperity this country has seen and unions are very political. In the first half of the 20th century we even had such a healthy, political society that more than two parties were often deemed viable. In the 19th century the arguments for papers still hold. And voter turnout was much higher[1], albeit more male and more white. [1] https://historyincharts.com/the-history-of-voter-turnout-in-the-us/ https://historyincharts.com/the-history-of-voter-turnout-in-...
      - andrew_ 4y ago
        Approximately half of my life has been pre-broadband (which for me defines the arrival of the modern, very-online Internet). I find your points to be heavily biased and unrelatable. You're also conflating the media with the individual. My own experience before the arrival of very-online-internet does not match what you describe. Sure, there were media outlets and those outlets spoke about politics. However, individuals had no easily accessible soap boxes to speed vitriol and hurl accusations at others anonymously as they do now. Individuals didn't announce their preferences and every opinion to the neighborhood.
- in_cahoots 4y ago
  Companies proudly proclaim that employees should bring their ‘whole selves’ to work. They sponsor resource groups for parents, women, minorities, gay/lesbian/trans, Christian/Muslim/Jewish, and vet employees. But when employees want to actually talk about the issues rather than watch ‘empowering’ motivational speakers, then bringing your whole self to work is suddenly a distraction. They can’t have it both ways.
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    Just as importantly they are very toxic to a set of political viewpoints. In some industries (O&G) that is liberal ones. In some industries (tech) that is conservative ones. In some industries (finance) that is most things outside centrist (Romney Republican, Manchin Democrat). When the "activist" types push politics into workplaces they are not doing it so they can talk about what they feel. They are doing it so they can find the people who disagree and damage their careers. Maybe I am cynical here but I have seen careers be seriously damaged this way.
    - ungamedplayer 4y ago
      > They are doing it so they can find the people who disagree and damage their careers. This leads to some people actively avoiding working with and for any kind of activist, or anyone related to activists. If you can see middle ground in any non extreme argument, one must be a bigot.
    - zer01 4y ago
      > When the "activist" types push politics into workplaces they are not doing it so they can talk about what they feel. They are doing it so they can find the people who disagree and damage their careers. This sounds like your position is that anyone who advocates for anything (esp. when it's directly impacting them, but unrelated to work) only has one singular goal of weeding out disagreement and getting rid of it, which I think is ridiculous. Humans are social creatures and we largely shape our perspectives by iterating with new data and communication. People can be (and IMO largely are) advocates for things that are important to them, have opinions on things, and don't have a singular focus of destroying anyone with different viewpoints. On the other side, all humans have their limits to cooperation. As you have social interactions with anyone your viewpoint of them change, and realistically if I find out something about a co-worker through discussion like they believe that the 2020 election was stolen because Trump told them so it does inevitably make me scrutinize this person harder. What if you found out that a co-worker thought black people were genetically inferior or that women don't deserve to vote? At that point it's hard to work with someone with such a fundamentally different view of the world. Is it "cancel culture" to say "we don't want nazis to work here"?
s1k3 4y ago
As it should be. Politics at work makes for untenable working conditions. Large enough companies will tend to have people deeply on both sides of the political spectrum. Encouraging or even allowing discussion on hot political issues is a recipe for disaster. It can ruin what we’re otherwise perfectly good working relationships.
- Gibbon1 4y ago
  Why? Meta is using the money they make off the women working for them against them.
  - djohnston 4y ago
    Wat?
    - Gibbon1 4y ago
      If you are a woman working for Facebook the fact is the owner Mr Zuckerberg is actively supporting a political movement whose state goal is to reduce you to the status of chattel. Not only are most people on the thread okay with that. They think women pushing back against it is not okay.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  Maybe this was true when it was Carter vs. Reagan or what(when)ever, but we live in very different times now where it has become impossible to ignore what is happening around us politically.
  - fatherzine 4y ago
    Carter vs. Reagan, 1980. USA: 23,368 nuclear warheads. USSR: 30,062 nuclear warheads. We are talking about peak Cold War, which will see some detente only after 1985 and Gorbachev reforms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_sto...
- 4y ago
gsatic 4y ago
Every year the corporate mega machine gets more efficient at tuning its cogs - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xz7KLSOJaTE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xz7KLSOJaTE
numair 4y ago
https://www.businessinsider.com/facebooks-joel-kaplan-rallied-support-for-kavanaugh-scotus-nomination-book-2019-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/facebooks-joel-kaplan-rallie... Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg and the Facebook/Meta executive team are partly responsible for the reversal. No surprise that they don’t want their staff thinking a bit too much about this.
- jjulius 4y ago
  I'm as militantly "Fuck Facebook" as the next guy, but neither Zuckerberg nor Sandberg are named in that article at all. Do you have any actually citable evidence that shows that either of them were involved in the push for Kavanaugh's nomination and/or confirmation?
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    Why do they have to be directly named? One of the highest held positions in FB pushed for and advocated for political positions that directly impact workers. You could argue that his personal political beliefs have nothing to do with the company, but he serves as an advocate for conservative voices within FB. For better or worse, his political beliefs are a large part of Facebook and the other executives enable that. The executive team directly represents the company in a way that your average worker does not and for workers to not discuss things executives do that directly impact them is wrong.
    - xbar 4y ago
      You could argue all those things. The pre-existing policy that they are enforcing suggests that they came up with this ban at some point in the past. Perhaps during Trump-era nonsense. Which side were the execs on? I don't actually think it matters--if you have100,000 Facebookers, you keep them from squabbling over politics in groups larger than 20 because it's good for productivity and retention. You don't fret about which employee side is winning.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      >Why do they have to be directly named? OP said: >Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg ... are partly responsible for the reversal [of Roe v Wade]. I would wager that it's fair to say that Kaplan would've pushed for Kavanaugh whether he was employed by FB or someone else. Unless someone can show me where he did this with the instruction and/or support of Zuckerberg/Sandberg, I am reluctant to hold them "partly responsible" for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, despite my pre-existing misgivings towards both of them. Kaplan, on the other hand? Sure. >One of the highest held positions in FB pushed for and advocated for political positions that directly impact workers. Yup! On this we agree. But again, that's Kaplan we're talking about, not Zuckerberg/Sandberg. >You could argue that his personal political beliefs have nothing to do with the company, but he serves as an advocate for conservative voices within FB. For better or worse, his political beliefs are a large part of Facebook and the other executives enable that. The executive team directly represents the company in a way that your average worker does not and for workers to not discuss things executives do that directly impact them is wrong. Just because I am reluctant to toss blame around with abandon doesn't mean that I don't share this viewpoint.
panaceaeaea 4y ago
Seeing the way these threads play out on HN, I think this is a good decision. Some people just don't know how to be civil when it comes to things like this. If I had to work with someone every day who insists on talking about something that'll be filling up the next month of news cycle, I'd rather find somewhere else to work edit: I personally support choice, but I don't support people who try to maneuver every conversation in a political us vs them direction. People who do this irl are insufferable and unprofessional edit: and not only this, but people who will harass, sabotage, and smear coworkers over things like this. If someone thinks this kind of behavior is OK, it makes me much less likely to be sympathetic to whatever they're trying to accomplish. This kind of behavior should be banned for the same reason that prayer in school should be banned, and for the exact same reasons
CodeBeater 4y ago
I think that we are missing the point here. Meta is banning open discussion on their internal platform. It does not mean that you can't chat about it with a co-worker that also happens to be your friend. I think it's reasonable. It has nothing to do with not getting people distracted, but all to do with having one less problem to deal with.
- xbar 4y ago
  You are right. Limiting discussion groups to 20 people. Has anyone here organized a political discussion at work involving more than 20 people?
- unityByFreedom 4y ago
  Thing is, by banning a certain viewpoint on an open platform, you are promoting another viewpoint. Those who want to be vocal about this right now are largely opposed to the court's decision. So this does not appear to be a neutral decision.
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    No this is the most neutral position they could possibly take. I'm not sure where you're getting your logic from. I go to work to work, not argue politics. I suspect you and I are on the same side of this argument given this is a tech forum, but I don't to hear it at work. I want to hear it at a protest, over a beer, etc. I go to work to program no to project my politics, and I expect others to do the same. I don't want to discuss or hear about your politics, religion, sexual preferences, kids, or anything else at work and I promise you I won't subject you to mine.
    - unityByFreedom 4y ago
      Neutral would be doing nothing and letting people work out their frustrations without an intermediary deciding for them. But that's not Facebook's culture, internal or external. In a different world, managers could still have discussions with employees about hitting their work targets without needing to tell them what to talk about with other employees. You don't need to participate in these discussions or read them. I'd say it's fine to relegate such discussion to certain channels within the company. But banning it altogether is taking a position. Not to mention the fact that Facebook influences politics every day. Blocking employees from having a discussion about that, which is very work-related, is authoritarian. Zuck is still running the Thiel playbook here.
thomassmith65 4y ago
I look forward to Meta following the trajectory of Coinbase, so the more notes Meta cribs from Brian Armstrong, the better.
Mezzie 4y ago
Probably a wise decision, and not just because of conflicts between the different sides (I can't imagine there's a large pro-life contingent at Meta), but because of the dumpster fire that intra-political discussions have turned into. Some people feel like discussing this in anything other than emotional terms is inappropriate, some people feel like we need to discuss the legal theory and history behind what happened, and some people feel like we should focus on the material/economic affects of the ruling. Each group feels that the others are ignoring the important parts, so it turns into a mess. Especially once you add into that that a proper understanding of the issue requires understanding some basic constitutional law, civics, and female anatomy, so a bunch of people are just saying things that are incorrect. Also wise for their communication/public facing employees, who are going to be wading through a lot of related bullshit and should have SOME respite from it.
- endurance789xx 4y ago
  Totally agree! I feel helpless and afraid of the Supreme court ruling. At the same time, I have seen firsthand how ridiculous such internal discussions have become at Twitter, and they silently take away so much of my work time and put me on the path of depression!
  - thr0wawayf00 4y ago
    > At the same time, I have seen firsthand how ridiculous such internal discussions have become at Twitter, and they silently take away so much of my work time and put me on the path of depression To be frank, this is Twitter in a nutshell to an outsider like me: a major personal time-waster that typically ends in anger and depression. I guess it's not surprising that internal conversations for the platform that owns a significant share of the public discourse can't figure out how to discuss topics like this, but that sure makes me sad. Is it even possible to have effective conversations about these topics online at all? If Twitter can't figure out how to do it, then who can?
    - Syonyk 4y ago
      > Is it even possible to have effective conversations about these topics online at all? Yes. Just not at scale, and not in a way that prioritizes ad revenue via "engagement" at all cost. Prioritizing longer form, in depth content, and discouraging "rapid reaction hot takes" helps a lot. The social media companies could optimize for this, and you see it on HN with the "Sorry, this particular thread is getting short, snippy, and too rapid, you can't reply to it for a while" mechanism. But short, snippy, and angry is good for engagement. So it remains.
Aeolun 4y ago
Got to love the tacit admission that discussions on the platform inevitably turn into flamewars.
- zffr 4y ago
  Even if the discussions are civil, should employees use company time and internal platforms for discussing this issue?
- ergocoder 4y ago
  It would be a flame war where people would sabotage each other's career. The topic has all the right factors: - Nobody actually wants to change their minds. - Each side thinks the other side is worse than a serial killer. - No feasible way to make a judgement who is right or wrong. - No way to get people to accept that judgement.
robonerd 4y ago
Does anybody really believe that workplace debates will sway the votes of senators?
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I have emailed and written more than one (state) senator because of workplace debates and discussions. My coworker made excellent points, and I felt compelled to extend them to my representative.
exolymph 4y ago
IANAL, but I can imagine this being a necessity from a liability perspective because religious beliefs are involved. Can someone with a better understanding of labor law speak to that aspect?
- Ferrotin 4y ago
  It’s a non sequitor.
anonygler 4y ago
Excellent. Allowing politics and activism at work has made workplaces unbearably stupid. Come to work and leave your baggage at home.
seibelj 4y ago
If you don’t like how your company is run, go work someplace else. Or even better, found your own company and let everyone while away the day bickering about intense political subjects. I’m sure your company will be harmonious and productive!
31835843 4y ago
- kennywinker 4y ago
  Straight guy here. This ruling will have a huge impact on MANY straight men. Many more than will expect it, I think. It’s big boy pants time indeed
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
woodruffw 4y ago
The learned oblivion in this discussion is very disheartening: every person saying to “leave politics at home” should understand that our basic boundaries around personal and working time came from long and protracted political battles over the powers of our employers. Those battles were fought because people complained, loudly at their workplaces, and won their colleagues over. Abortion is not the labor movement, but the principle holds.
- thr0wawayf00 4y ago
  I agree. At the same time, I think we're sadly coming to terms with the reality that our voices don't matter in the political arena anymore. If anything, I think social media has created the illusion that being loud and angry online is an effective replacement for actual strikes, protests, etc. We can tweet angrily all day long, but those in power are going to continue doing what they do because they know we're just going to tweet about it and that just doesn't matter.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    I absolutely agree, and I think this nicely summarizes why political discussion at work is more important than ever: it amounts to real discussions between human beings with emotional and professional ties, not flame wars between angry Tweeters. I don’t agree with my coworkers on everything. But when they talk about politics I listen, and try my best to engage in a cogent discussion. Maintaining a culture of political discussion at work is critical to both healthy corporate cultures and healthy civic processes, which might provide a hint as to why Meta is opposed to it (outrage is their business model.)
    - icelancer 4y ago
      Meta isn't banning discussion of politics in groups of employees. It's banning discussion in open channels. If you want to listen to employees talk pro-life / pro-choice, join the groups for that and do so. Keeping Roe v. Wade discussion out of the equivalent of Slack #general or All-Hands email list seems more than reasonable.
drewcoo 4y ago
[flagged]
1B05H1N 4y ago
It feels sort of of helpless all around, but I feel like fb/meta had a very large part in the turmoil we're in.
_8j50 4y ago
I dislike meta but as a principle, you should not discuss politics or other conteoversial topics when your audience is forced to listen to you and disagreeing would cause them harm. It isn't just unkind but harmful to the stability and wellbeing of a free society. If you want to discuss it with them, hang out with them after work and have a chat. It is common to have a text/signal/whatsapp group chat among friendly colleagues these days where it is safe to discuss these things.
nsonha 4y ago
I have a strong opinion on this, but I don't want to talk about it at work. When I sign the contract I don't remember any part of it being, "fix the world with your debating skill", or "being accused of complicit if you don't engage in discussion of some social issue of the week".
unityByFreedom 4y ago
Policing speech isn't going to end well for an organization of any size, from countries to companies to families. If someone is not meeting their work targets due to distractions, deal with that as it's always been handled. You can trust people to manage their own distractions with slight adjustments from authority. Facebook's policy here is micro management to the extreme.
xg15 4y ago
I'm pretty surprised how many people in this thread are suddenly in favour of censorship.
- Thorrez 4y ago
  I think there's a bit of a difference between rules of what I can say in internal communication channels at work vs rules of what I can say in general.
- drewbug01 4y ago
  It’s largely because they know they won’t face consequences for their views; and thus they see no problem with censorship. They wont be the ones censored.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
Since Meta is a business and not a political forum this seems appropriate. However, it would be good if they help employees relocate to more sane states and/or offer financial assistance to fly those seeking abortions to states that aren't medieval leaning.
vegai_ 4y ago
Sam Harris's latest podcast[0] with David French touches the issues of toxicity around online discussion. [0] https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/285-american-division https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/285...
cvccvroomvroom 4y ago
TBH, talking politics at work anywhere is a terrible idea. FYI: Meta doesn't use email much, 99% of internal comms is done within the walls of Workplace. I'm curious if it has a CLI or an API.
Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
The last thing this country needs is places where people can discuss opposing viewpoints on controversial subjects. Especially at a workplace where people have existing common ties.
RickJWagner 4y ago
Great decision. When activism enters the workspace, professionalism leaves.
tonymet 4y ago
Anyone who’s been inside a tech company office is aware of the constant leftist political soap-boxing from employees and leadership. Activists are complaining that for the first time ever they are restricted from championing a left-leaning issue on employee-facing forums. For those who prefer to focus on product development (i.e. “work”) , this restriction is a welcome reprieve from the near-constant virtue signaling and propaganda that distracts from getting work done. Context matters here. media are positioning this as censorship, when in fact it’s one issue among dozens throughout the year where the activists have been “throttled”. If anyone is being censored, it would be the employees who would rather just work during the day and keep politics outside of the office.

140 points by trobertson 4y ago

Tricky. Politics/societal/economic/etc issues such as this one are very important to be discussed. However, companies are a place for work. Talking to co-workers can be quite fulfilling and exciting when conversing about engineering, marketing, or other work related subjects you are passionate about. However, anytime politics, etc are brought up I (for one) leave the conversation feeling in a worse state of mind than when I first got into it. That is very unproductive. For this reason, I believe that the workplace should be left to work related things (including conversations) and anything else should ideally be done out of work. Even if involving the same group of people.

spacexsucks 4y ago
Policy affects daily life. A stable daily life leads to a productive worker. Wanting stable work but not doing anything to support the workers life is the biggest most capitalistic thing too. Heartless and inhumane
- panaceaeaea 4y ago
  > Wanting stable work but not doing anything to support the workers life is the biggest most capitalistic thing too. I think that companies can fight the recent decision without allowing employees to get in arguments with one another and be at each others throats over such a polarizing issue. Not allowing people to proselytize at work would likely make it more stable. It's sort of like in ancient Persia where they didn't allow missionaries: because they cause unnecessary friction
- nso95 4y ago
  Arguing about it on Slack isn't going to fix any of it though
  - JKCalhoun 4y ago
    It's venting. It's bonding with coworkers who also feel their world is collapsing. Hard to focus on work, talk about the preso when, for example, people are storming our Capitol.
    - yabatopia 4y ago
      Venting doesn't work: https://slate.com/technology/2022/03/venting-makes-you-feel-worse-psychology-research.html https://slate.com/technology/2022/03/venting-makes-you-feel-... . HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30601594 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30601594 .
      - stormcode 4y ago
        It sure works for me.
        spoils19 4y ago
        Did you even read the article? It doesn't work.
    - Thorrez 4y ago
      I don't think the venting will be beneficial if it ends up in a debate. Talking about abortion will be more likely to stir up a debate than talking about the storming of the Capitol.
  - drewcoo 4y ago
    It depends on what "fix" means. It could get people more informed, involved, etc. Banning political speech is a great step toward convincing employees to unionize, so I applaud Meta for this, though.
- snidane 4y ago
  The company doesn't have the power to change politics like that, so there is no point in getting the company involved or pick sides. The only neutral solution is to ban political discussions in the workplace, same as it should be in schools. Any other way leads to a psychologically unsafe environment to work at, which definitely doesn't lead to a stable daily life and thus a productive worker.
  - jen20 4y ago
    Companies absolutely have the power to change this: with their donations. There is a reason that “Citizens United” is such a drag on humanity.
  - genocidicbunny 4y ago
    A company like Meta absolutely has the power to weigh in on the politics. It wouldn't be pretty and would get a lot of blowback, but they can absolutely affect the politics. They could ban any anti-abortion messaging, they could promote pro-choice viewpoints, they could block proponents of the recent decision. They could change their algorithms to manipulate people's feeds in any which way -- for example, show a pro-lifer only pro-choice topics. They could do the complete opposite of that too. If they wanted to, they could absolutely shut down one side of the debate to the benefit of the other.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Meta doesn’t have the power to change politics? Hasn’t the last two years of Section 230 handwringing focused squarely on their outsized influence over political discourse?
  - stormcode 4y ago
    You're saying Meta doesn't have the power to change politics? Where have you been since 2016.
  - drewcoo 4y ago
    > The company doesn't have the power to change politics like that, Then tell them to stop lobbying. Period.
anothernewdude 4y ago
You'd love the show Severance.
zeronine 4y ago
better keep my mouth shut then, can't have the productivity police issuing me a conversation penalty or i might end up in the stop-being-human prison
- gruez 4y ago
  >can't have the productivity police issuing me a conversation penalty or i might end up in the stop-being-human prison Alright, it's clear that you're against this, but what's the argument for allowing this? In other words, why should the company tolerate using its channels as a soapbox to advance your political agendas, especially if it's a drain on productivity? I want to shitpost on company time/equipment/networks as much as the other guy, but let's not pretend it's some sort of right, or that being denied the ability to do that is some sort of moral tragedy.
  - z3phyr 4y ago
    In the past, the power to set policy was in the hands of the few aristocrats, whose full time job was to discuss and fight over policy, while the lay people worked their fields. We fought hard to take that power from them. Now a company asks its employees to forgo that power and liberty. Why did we take the power of policy from the aristocrats in the first place? We can of course go back to shut up, work the field peasant model and let them enjoy discussing policy for us while we produce goods. What comes first? Your employer or your rights?
    - drewcoo 4y ago
      > In the past, the power to set policy was in the hands of the few aristocrats, whose full time job was to discuss and fight over policy, while the lay people worked their fields. I don't think the French, for example, applied guillotines to solve the problem of "aristocrats talking too much policy."
- Hydraulix989 4y ago
  You're at work doing a job, you aren't getting paid to converse about non work matters. If working at say Coinbase or any other apolitical tech company isn't your cup of tea, then there are plenty of politically charged places you can work instead that also need software engineers such as the CTO office of the President, Defense tech, think tanks, Congressional offices, Twitter, Planned Parenthood, PETA, and any other activist group really. It depends on what you're looking for. I can certainly understand why some companies may wish to be politically neutral, as choosing sides can be bad for business and against shareholder interests.
CalChris 4y ago
> However, companies are a place for work. That is a fine rule if work expects nothing of you when you clock out at 5 pm.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  Actually, it's not fine then either. People have rights. And they have needs and desires. And companies that are driven primarily to make profit will ignore those things.
jimbob45 4y ago
Managers cited a policy that put "strong guardrails around social, political and sensitive conversations" in the workplace, according to company insiders, the newspaper reported. While I fully agree with what you’re saying, I’m wondering if Facebook actually agrees with you and that this is simply an application of existing policy or if this is a one-off experiment for them. The article seems a bit unclear.
015a 4y ago
I'm not sorry for taking the opposite opinion, and its strictly for the reason that: these megacorps will, at the drop of a hat, spend millions in donations and lobbying for whatever causes their executives believe furthers the goals of the business [1]. "We the executives" are allowed to talk about it, and pay for what we believe is right, but "you the line workers", shut up, if you don't like it go work somewhere else. If they want to stay out of politics, then do that. But its extremely difficult for modern businesses to not have a hand in politics. That's fine; and to some degree I respect the line companies like Coinbase walk, where they push agendas that are fairly directly related to their business. Meta goes far beyond that, into financing for (great and important!) issues like voter suppression & minority representation. If they're going to open the floodgates, they can't be uncomfortable when some murky water comes flooding in. [1] https://about.facebook.com/facebook-political-engagement/ https://about.facebook.com/facebook-political-engagement/
- bogantech 4y ago
  > "We the executives" are allowed to talk about it, and pay for what we believe is right, but "you the line workers", shut up, if you don't like it go work somewhere else. Yes because the line workers don't just discuss it they fight over it and make everyone angry / depressed and destroy productivity
  - Volundr 4y ago
    And the executives don't make people depressed and angry and destroy productivity?
    - bogantech 4y ago
      Not as much as people who don't stop screaming about <latest outrage> in slack all day every day. There's always something and it never stops
      - Volundr 4y ago
        I can't agree with this. I've never found disagreement between co-workers to have near the effect on moral as having some executive take the opportunity to lecture people about it in an all hands or make their personal opinion the official position of the company.
hestefisk 4y ago
It’s hard to segregate politics from other things in life. Politics influences most things in life - our work, our school, what we can and can’t do. If I follow your claim, then corporations shouldn’t take a stance on climate change either. Is that really right?
- andrew_ 4y ago
  Only for people who accept that as fact, or who openly invite into every aspect of their lives. Before the internet it was not so common to air one's bullshit, if you will.
  - drewcoo 4y ago
    Were you alive before the Internet? Life used to be, if anything, more political. Earlier in the 20th century, there were a lot more (local) newspapers and they all had very pointed points of view. Radio stations tended to be independent and if they had news broadcasts, it would be hyper-local and often political. Hell, thriving union membership gave us the greatest prosperity this country has seen and unions are very political. In the first half of the 20th century we even had such a healthy, political society that more than two parties were often deemed viable. In the 19th century the arguments for papers still hold. And voter turnout was much higher[1], albeit more male and more white. [1] https://historyincharts.com/the-history-of-voter-turnout-in-the-us/ https://historyincharts.com/the-history-of-voter-turnout-in-...
    - andrew_ 4y ago
      Approximately half of my life has been pre-broadband (which for me defines the arrival of the modern, very-online Internet). I find your points to be heavily biased and unrelatable. You're also conflating the media with the individual. My own experience before the arrival of very-online-internet does not match what you describe. Sure, there were media outlets and those outlets spoke about politics. However, individuals had no easily accessible soap boxes to speed vitriol and hurl accusations at others anonymously as they do now. Individuals didn't announce their preferences and every opinion to the neighborhood.
in_cahoots 4y ago
Companies proudly proclaim that employees should bring their ‘whole selves’ to work. They sponsor resource groups for parents, women, minorities, gay/lesbian/trans, Christian/Muslim/Jewish, and vet employees. But when employees want to actually talk about the issues rather than watch ‘empowering’ motivational speakers, then bringing your whole self to work is suddenly a distraction. They can’t have it both ways.
- collegeburner 4y ago
  Just as importantly they are very toxic to a set of political viewpoints. In some industries (O&G) that is liberal ones. In some industries (tech) that is conservative ones. In some industries (finance) that is most things outside centrist (Romney Republican, Manchin Democrat). When the "activist" types push politics into workplaces they are not doing it so they can talk about what they feel. They are doing it so they can find the people who disagree and damage their careers. Maybe I am cynical here but I have seen careers be seriously damaged this way.
  - ungamedplayer 4y ago
    > They are doing it so they can find the people who disagree and damage their careers. This leads to some people actively avoiding working with and for any kind of activist, or anyone related to activists. If you can see middle ground in any non extreme argument, one must be a bigot.
  - zer01 4y ago
    > When the "activist" types push politics into workplaces they are not doing it so they can talk about what they feel. They are doing it so they can find the people who disagree and damage their careers. This sounds like your position is that anyone who advocates for anything (esp. when it's directly impacting them, but unrelated to work) only has one singular goal of weeding out disagreement and getting rid of it, which I think is ridiculous. Humans are social creatures and we largely shape our perspectives by iterating with new data and communication. People can be (and IMO largely are) advocates for things that are important to them, have opinions on things, and don't have a singular focus of destroying anyone with different viewpoints. On the other side, all humans have their limits to cooperation. As you have social interactions with anyone your viewpoint of them change, and realistically if I find out something about a co-worker through discussion like they believe that the 2020 election was stolen because Trump told them so it does inevitably make me scrutinize this person harder. What if you found out that a co-worker thought black people were genetically inferior or that women don't deserve to vote? At that point it's hard to work with someone with such a fundamentally different view of the world. Is it "cancel culture" to say "we don't want nazis to work here"?

s1k3 4y ago

As it should be. Politics at work makes for untenable working conditions. Large enough companies will tend to have people deeply on both sides of the political spectrum. Encouraging or even allowing discussion on hot political issues is a recipe for disaster. It can ruin what we’re otherwise perfectly good working relationships.

Gibbon1 4y ago
Why? Meta is using the money they make off the women working for them against them.
- djohnston 4y ago
  Wat?
  - Gibbon1 4y ago
    If you are a woman working for Facebook the fact is the owner Mr Zuckerberg is actively supporting a political movement whose state goal is to reduce you to the status of chattel. Not only are most people on the thread okay with that. They think women pushing back against it is not okay.
JKCalhoun 4y ago
Maybe this was true when it was Carter vs. Reagan or what(when)ever, but we live in very different times now where it has become impossible to ignore what is happening around us politically.
- fatherzine 4y ago
  Carter vs. Reagan, 1980. USA: 23,368 nuclear warheads. USSR: 30,062 nuclear warheads. We are talking about peak Cold War, which will see some detente only after 1985 and Gorbachev reforms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_sto...
4y ago

gsatic 4y ago

Every year the corporate mega machine gets more efficient at tuning its cogs - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xz7KLSOJaTE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xz7KLSOJaTE

numair 4y ago

https://www.businessinsider.com/facebooks-joel-kaplan-rallied-support-for-kavanaugh-scotus-nomination-book-2019-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/facebooks-joel-kaplan-rallie... Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg and the Facebook/Meta executive team are partly responsible for the reversal. No surprise that they don’t want their staff thinking a bit too much about this.

jjulius 4y ago
I'm as militantly "Fuck Facebook" as the next guy, but neither Zuckerberg nor Sandberg are named in that article at all. Do you have any actually citable evidence that shows that either of them were involved in the push for Kavanaugh's nomination and/or confirmation?
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  Why do they have to be directly named? One of the highest held positions in FB pushed for and advocated for political positions that directly impact workers. You could argue that his personal political beliefs have nothing to do with the company, but he serves as an advocate for conservative voices within FB. For better or worse, his political beliefs are a large part of Facebook and the other executives enable that. The executive team directly represents the company in a way that your average worker does not and for workers to not discuss things executives do that directly impact them is wrong.
  - xbar 4y ago
    You could argue all those things. The pre-existing policy that they are enforcing suggests that they came up with this ban at some point in the past. Perhaps during Trump-era nonsense. Which side were the execs on? I don't actually think it matters--if you have100,000 Facebookers, you keep them from squabbling over politics in groups larger than 20 because it's good for productivity and retention. You don't fret about which employee side is winning.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    >Why do they have to be directly named? OP said: >Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg ... are partly responsible for the reversal [of Roe v Wade]. I would wager that it's fair to say that Kaplan would've pushed for Kavanaugh whether he was employed by FB or someone else. Unless someone can show me where he did this with the instruction and/or support of Zuckerberg/Sandberg, I am reluctant to hold them "partly responsible" for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, despite my pre-existing misgivings towards both of them. Kaplan, on the other hand? Sure. >One of the highest held positions in FB pushed for and advocated for political positions that directly impact workers. Yup! On this we agree. But again, that's Kaplan we're talking about, not Zuckerberg/Sandberg. >You could argue that his personal political beliefs have nothing to do with the company, but he serves as an advocate for conservative voices within FB. For better or worse, his political beliefs are a large part of Facebook and the other executives enable that. The executive team directly represents the company in a way that your average worker does not and for workers to not discuss things executives do that directly impact them is wrong. Just because I am reluctant to toss blame around with abandon doesn't mean that I don't share this viewpoint.

panaceaeaea 4y ago

Seeing the way these threads play out on HN, I think this is a good decision. Some people just don't know how to be civil when it comes to things like this. If I had to work with someone every day who insists on talking about something that'll be filling up the next month of news cycle, I'd rather find somewhere else to work edit: I personally support choice, but I don't support people who try to maneuver every conversation in a political us vs them direction. People who do this irl are insufferable and unprofessional edit: and not only this, but people who will harass, sabotage, and smear coworkers over things like this. If someone thinks this kind of behavior is OK, it makes me much less likely to be sympathetic to whatever they're trying to accomplish. This kind of behavior should be banned for the same reason that prayer in school should be banned, and for the exact same reasons

CodeBeater 4y ago

I think that we are missing the point here. Meta is banning open discussion on their internal platform. It does not mean that you can't chat about it with a co-worker that also happens to be your friend. I think it's reasonable. It has nothing to do with not getting people distracted, but all to do with having one less problem to deal with.

xbar 4y ago
You are right. Limiting discussion groups to 20 people. Has anyone here organized a political discussion at work involving more than 20 people?
unityByFreedom 4y ago
Thing is, by banning a certain viewpoint on an open platform, you are promoting another viewpoint. Those who want to be vocal about this right now are largely opposed to the court's decision. So this does not appear to be a neutral decision.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  No this is the most neutral position they could possibly take. I'm not sure where you're getting your logic from. I go to work to work, not argue politics. I suspect you and I are on the same side of this argument given this is a tech forum, but I don't to hear it at work. I want to hear it at a protest, over a beer, etc. I go to work to program no to project my politics, and I expect others to do the same. I don't want to discuss or hear about your politics, religion, sexual preferences, kids, or anything else at work and I promise you I won't subject you to mine.
  - unityByFreedom 4y ago
    Neutral would be doing nothing and letting people work out their frustrations without an intermediary deciding for them. But that's not Facebook's culture, internal or external. In a different world, managers could still have discussions with employees about hitting their work targets without needing to tell them what to talk about with other employees. You don't need to participate in these discussions or read them. I'd say it's fine to relegate such discussion to certain channels within the company. But banning it altogether is taking a position. Not to mention the fact that Facebook influences politics every day. Blocking employees from having a discussion about that, which is very work-related, is authoritarian. Zuck is still running the Thiel playbook here.

thomassmith65 4y ago

I look forward to Meta following the trajectory of Coinbase, so the more notes Meta cribs from Brian Armstrong, the better.

Mezzie 4y ago

Probably a wise decision, and not just because of conflicts between the different sides (I can't imagine there's a large pro-life contingent at Meta), but because of the dumpster fire that intra-political discussions have turned into. Some people feel like discussing this in anything other than emotional terms is inappropriate, some people feel like we need to discuss the legal theory and history behind what happened, and some people feel like we should focus on the material/economic affects of the ruling. Each group feels that the others are ignoring the important parts, so it turns into a mess. Especially once you add into that that a proper understanding of the issue requires understanding some basic constitutional law, civics, and female anatomy, so a bunch of people are just saying things that are incorrect. Also wise for their communication/public facing employees, who are going to be wading through a lot of related bullshit and should have SOME respite from it.

endurance789xx 4y ago
Totally agree! I feel helpless and afraid of the Supreme court ruling. At the same time, I have seen firsthand how ridiculous such internal discussions have become at Twitter, and they silently take away so much of my work time and put me on the path of depression!
- thr0wawayf00 4y ago
  > At the same time, I have seen firsthand how ridiculous such internal discussions have become at Twitter, and they silently take away so much of my work time and put me on the path of depression To be frank, this is Twitter in a nutshell to an outsider like me: a major personal time-waster that typically ends in anger and depression. I guess it's not surprising that internal conversations for the platform that owns a significant share of the public discourse can't figure out how to discuss topics like this, but that sure makes me sad. Is it even possible to have effective conversations about these topics online at all? If Twitter can't figure out how to do it, then who can?
  - Syonyk 4y ago
    > Is it even possible to have effective conversations about these topics online at all? Yes. Just not at scale, and not in a way that prioritizes ad revenue via "engagement" at all cost. Prioritizing longer form, in depth content, and discouraging "rapid reaction hot takes" helps a lot. The social media companies could optimize for this, and you see it on HN with the "Sorry, this particular thread is getting short, snippy, and too rapid, you can't reply to it for a while" mechanism. But short, snippy, and angry is good for engagement. So it remains.

Aeolun 4y ago

Got to love the tacit admission that discussions on the platform inevitably turn into flamewars.

zffr 4y ago
Even if the discussions are civil, should employees use company time and internal platforms for discussing this issue?
ergocoder 4y ago
It would be a flame war where people would sabotage each other's career. The topic has all the right factors: - Nobody actually wants to change their minds. - Each side thinks the other side is worse than a serial killer. - No feasible way to make a judgement who is right or wrong. - No way to get people to accept that judgement.

robonerd 4y ago

Does anybody really believe that workplace debates will sway the votes of senators?

woodruffw 4y ago
I have emailed and written more than one (state) senator because of workplace debates and discussions. My coworker made excellent points, and I felt compelled to extend them to my representative.

exolymph 4y ago

IANAL, but I can imagine this being a necessity from a liability perspective because religious beliefs are involved. Can someone with a better understanding of labor law speak to that aspect?

Ferrotin 4y ago
It’s a non sequitor.

anonygler 4y ago

Excellent. Allowing politics and activism at work has made workplaces unbearably stupid. Come to work and leave your baggage at home.

seibelj 4y ago

If you don’t like how your company is run, go work someplace else. Or even better, found your own company and let everyone while away the day bickering about intense political subjects. I’m sure your company will be harmonious and productive!

31835843 4y ago

kennywinker 4y ago
Straight guy here. This ruling will have a huge impact on MANY straight men. Many more than will expect it, I think. It’s big boy pants time indeed
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

woodruffw 4y ago

The learned oblivion in this discussion is very disheartening: every person saying to “leave politics at home” should understand that our basic boundaries around personal and working time came from long and protracted political battles over the powers of our employers. Those battles were fought because people complained, loudly at their workplaces, and won their colleagues over. Abortion is not the labor movement, but the principle holds.

thr0wawayf00 4y ago
I agree. At the same time, I think we're sadly coming to terms with the reality that our voices don't matter in the political arena anymore. If anything, I think social media has created the illusion that being loud and angry online is an effective replacement for actual strikes, protests, etc. We can tweet angrily all day long, but those in power are going to continue doing what they do because they know we're just going to tweet about it and that just doesn't matter.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I absolutely agree, and I think this nicely summarizes why political discussion at work is more important than ever: it amounts to real discussions between human beings with emotional and professional ties, not flame wars between angry Tweeters. I don’t agree with my coworkers on everything. But when they talk about politics I listen, and try my best to engage in a cogent discussion. Maintaining a culture of political discussion at work is critical to both healthy corporate cultures and healthy civic processes, which might provide a hint as to why Meta is opposed to it (outrage is their business model.)
  - icelancer 4y ago
    Meta isn't banning discussion of politics in groups of employees. It's banning discussion in open channels. If you want to listen to employees talk pro-life / pro-choice, join the groups for that and do so. Keeping Roe v. Wade discussion out of the equivalent of Slack #general or All-Hands email list seems more than reasonable.

drewcoo 4y ago

[flagged]

1B05H1N 4y ago

It feels sort of of helpless all around, but I feel like fb/meta had a very large part in the turmoil we're in.

_8j50 4y ago

I dislike meta but as a principle, you should not discuss politics or other conteoversial topics when your audience is forced to listen to you and disagreeing would cause them harm. It isn't just unkind but harmful to the stability and wellbeing of a free society. If you want to discuss it with them, hang out with them after work and have a chat. It is common to have a text/signal/whatsapp group chat among friendly colleagues these days where it is safe to discuss these things.

nsonha 4y ago

I have a strong opinion on this, but I don't want to talk about it at work. When I sign the contract I don't remember any part of it being, "fix the world with your debating skill", or "being accused of complicit if you don't engage in discussion of some social issue of the week".

unityByFreedom 4y ago

Policing speech isn't going to end well for an organization of any size, from countries to companies to families. If someone is not meeting their work targets due to distractions, deal with that as it's always been handled. You can trust people to manage their own distractions with slight adjustments from authority. Facebook's policy here is micro management to the extreme.

xg15 4y ago

I'm pretty surprised how many people in this thread are suddenly in favour of censorship.

Thorrez 4y ago
I think there's a bit of a difference between rules of what I can say in internal communication channels at work vs rules of what I can say in general.
drewbug01 4y ago
It’s largely because they know they won’t face consequences for their views; and thus they see no problem with censorship. They wont be the ones censored.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

Since Meta is a business and not a political forum this seems appropriate. However, it would be good if they help employees relocate to more sane states and/or offer financial assistance to fly those seeking abortions to states that aren't medieval leaning.

vegai_ 4y ago

Sam Harris's latest podcast[0] with David French touches the issues of toxicity around online discussion. [0] https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/285-american-division https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/285...

cvccvroomvroom 4y ago

TBH, talking politics at work anywhere is a terrible idea. FYI: Meta doesn't use email much, 99% of internal comms is done within the walls of Workplace. I'm curious if it has a CLI or an API.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

The last thing this country needs is places where people can discuss opposing viewpoints on controversial subjects. Especially at a workplace where people have existing common ties.

RickJWagner 4y ago

Great decision. When activism enters the workspace, professionalism leaves.

tonymet 4y ago

Anyone who’s been inside a tech company office is aware of the constant leftist political soap-boxing from employees and leadership. Activists are complaining that for the first time ever they are restricted from championing a left-leaning issue on employee-facing forums. For those who prefer to focus on product development (i.e. “work”) , this restriction is a welcome reprieve from the near-constant virtue signaling and propaganda that distracts from getting work done. Context matters here. media are positioning this as censorship, when in fact it’s one issue among dozens throughout the year where the activists have been “throttled”. If anyone is being censored, it would be the employees who would rather just work during the day and keep politics outside of the office.