3 ms·

I think it's somewhat important to understand meta and its products are _not_ tech products. Outside of React and llama and the like, Meta is not building for o

I think it's somewhat important to understand meta and its products are _not_ tech products. Outside of React and llama and the like, Meta is not building for or speaking to the tech community. If what they do or say sounds like populism, it's because it is. It can be ham fisted, because the majority of people are only barely paying attention, and the majority of people is who facebook wants to please. Like politics, things feel dumb and ham-fisted, because they are. They're playing at winning wide swaths of billions of people, and the majority of people aren't paying attention, so hypocrisy doesn't register as well as just being vaguely aligned with what's popular. I don't mean any of this in an derogatory "unwashed masses" sort of way, it's just how it is.

jdiez17 2y ago
Thank you for putting this so eloquently, especially “the majority of people are only barely paying attention”. It’s not necessarily bad, as you said, just the reality. We may wish that reality were different or so, but we shouldn’t resent this fact.
darkwizard42 2y ago
Yeah, I don't think the billions you are talking about care about Meta's hiring policies. I don't even think billions of people accurately understand what it means to work at "Meta" vs. Facebook, Instagram, or Whatsapp (and even then, I doubt majority know that Meta owns all three surfaces).
jorblumesea 2y ago
I don't think Meta was in any danger of anything, either implementing pro or anti DEI policies. Zuck is still owner founder. He does whatever he wants, see: metaverse fiasco. The average person could not care less about meta's DEI policy, unlike Meta's content moderation policy. Meta was not in danger of being regulated by congress, who can't seem to even fund the government properly, less agree on any kind of regulations on tech hiring. Who does this pander to exactly? Meta's reputation isn't exactly stellar to begin with among all sides. This feels like an incorrect read on the situation. More likely this is just a blank check to hire as many people on visa as they want without having to conflict with any official policies. Meta already has entire orgs staffed by people of certain countries (hint: not US).
- hyperadvanced 2y ago
  On the contrary, if DEI really is meaningless performative bloat which is resulting in labor problems, this is just an easy way out. It may not be popular or even possible to effectively legislate against the supposed legalized discrimination inherent in DEI, but it is pretty easy to take the L and save a few million in not having an army of lecturers on staff. The whole charade is telling for those who believe that businesses have any real mission other than to make money: with the carrot pulled out from in front of them and the sticks put away (and possibly other sticks being brandished as we speak) it’s not hard to see why something like this would happen every 4 or 6 years.

jdiez17 2y ago

Thank you for putting this so eloquently, especially “the majority of people are only barely paying attention”. It’s not necessarily bad, as you said, just the reality. We may wish that reality were different or so, but we shouldn’t resent this fact.

darkwizard42 2y ago

Yeah, I don't think the billions you are talking about care about Meta's hiring policies. I don't even think billions of people accurately understand what it means to work at "Meta" vs. Facebook, Instagram, or Whatsapp (and even then, I doubt majority know that Meta owns all three surfaces).

jorblumesea 2y ago

I don't think Meta was in any danger of anything, either implementing pro or anti DEI policies. Zuck is still owner founder. He does whatever he wants, see: metaverse fiasco. The average person could not care less about meta's DEI policy, unlike Meta's content moderation policy. Meta was not in danger of being regulated by congress, who can't seem to even fund the government properly, less agree on any kind of regulations on tech hiring. Who does this pander to exactly? Meta's reputation isn't exactly stellar to begin with among all sides. This feels like an incorrect read on the situation. More likely this is just a blank check to hire as many people on visa as they want without having to conflict with any official policies. Meta already has entire orgs staffed by people of certain countries (hint: not US).

hyperadvanced 2y ago
On the contrary, if DEI really is meaningless performative bloat which is resulting in labor problems, this is just an easy way out. It may not be popular or even possible to effectively legislate against the supposed legalized discrimination inherent in DEI, but it is pretty easy to take the L and save a few million in not having an army of lecturers on staff. The whole charade is telling for those who believe that businesses have any real mission other than to make money: with the carrot pulled out from in front of them and the sticks put away (and possibly other sticks being brandished as we speak) it’s not hard to see why something like this would happen every 4 or 6 years.