6 ms·
Mark Zuckerberg blamed Sheryl Sandberg for Meta 'inclusivity' push: report
- ggm 2y agoReturning to his value roots I see.
- henning 2y ago[flagged]
- sandspar 2y agoYes he's a chameleon and yes he's a turncoat and so on, but it's interesting that he's gone all in on this. There's some debate whether wokism is finished for good or if it's merely gone dormant. He seems to be betting that it's gone for good.
- add-sub-mul-div 2y agoSchool integration was woke. Women voting was woke. Interracial marriage was woke. Gay marriage was woke. Over the long run, progress only goes in the right direction. There's no debate, just noise. The year to year skirmishes aren't terribly important in the big picture.
- sandspar 2y agoDo you really want to get into this?
- nahnahno 2y agoMoving away from color and race blind hiring to discriminatory hiring was not woke, by your definition.
- cycrutchfield 2y agoYou think hiring was previously not discriminatory? Wanna explain this one: https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/employers-replies-racial-names https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/employers-replies-racial-n...
- Gvaskas 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y agoWe've banned this account for using HN primarily for political/nationalistic/racial battle. Please don't create accounts to do that with. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Gvaskas 2y ago[dead]
- krick 2y agoThat's exactly what confuses me. Yes, I would expect some easing on that, but it's so 180° that I find myself wondering, what exactly is that force that defines the direction. Like, who dictates the agenda. I mean, I would always assume that any 4chan-level explanations that have an actual person making the order of how this will go are not exactly true and things must be a little more complicated than that. But how something "a little more complicated" can lead to this? Why yesterday Zuckerberg felt that he must, and today he is totally convinced he must not? Surely he has a better grasp of that than me, but how the fuck does it work? Who decides that one day we are woke, and the next day we aren't? After all, nobody assumed that wokism is dead the last time Trump was elected. If anything, it was harsher than ever. Why today major supporters of it suddenly say "fuck that"? Please don't tell me that it has anything with Zuckerberg becoming BJJ aficionado, because I won't buy that shit.
- toasterlovin 2y agoIntellectual fads—memeplexes, if you will—burn through populations. There’s a whole lifecycle to a memeplex taking up residence in a host, then eventually getting ejected. Once you’ve ejected a particular memeplex from your mind, it’ll probably never make it back in. You have antibodies. Repeat that for enough people and the tide can permanently turn on a memeplex. Or at least for several decades, until there is a whole new generation of hosts who don’t have immunity. It’s seemed pretty clear to me that this would eventually happen for wokism (or whatever you want to call it). It’s simply not sustainable to tell the majority of your potential hosts that, because of their inborn, unchangeable attributes (being white and/or male), they are the problem. And people really do not like feeling physically unsafe, which they do in most coastal blue cities, and which almost all women do when there is a man in the bathroom with them. So the difference between 2024 and 2016 is that the memeplex was just getting rolling in 2016, but today enough people have antibodies that, to any keen observer, it’s days are clearly numbered.
- sweeter 2y agoIt would take a LOT of explaining about the context and political climate as to why this is the case. Im on mobile so I'll give a very reductive take, the political guard rails have been removed. Billionaire after billionaire, politician after politician has gone to Maralago to meet with Trump and kiss the ring, they've been making donations of millions to his inauguration fund. Trump specifically threatened Zuckerberg with prison, so he fell in line, and that is the "right" thing to do in his eyes because he stands to gain a lot by getting on his good side, he could even get tiktok. On the other hand, his other option is prison or endless harassment from the government. This is the same deal with Bill Gates and many others. It's all performative bs and these corporations have never had any convictions other than to make the most money possible and to accrue power by taking the path of least resistance.
- whatnotests2 2y agoFingered again
- rcpt 2y ago[flagged]
- forgingahead 2y agoAn MSN repost of a Fox Business article, that lifted a specific sentence from a NYTimes article, where the source was "people familiar with the meeting". This is likely as accurate as the game of broken telephone that kids play.
- tasty_freeze 2y agoMore than once it has happened where some NYT article will discuss some private meeting at the White House and attribute it to someone like, "According to a credible source at that meeting, blah blah". Later it is confirmed that that well placed source was the President, or the secretary of state, etc. Credible news organizations don't just repeat whatever some random guy claims to have heard.
- HideousKojima 2y ago[flagged]
- refulgentis 2y agoWhat about it? IIRC Buzzfeed published it after it had well-leaked McCain had fowarded it to FBI?
- forgingahead 2y agoThe NYTimes has a history of fabricating and outright lying to serve their own corporate or affiliated agendas. See for eg: https://www.amazon.com/Gray-Lady-Winked-Misreporting-Fabrications/dp/B09HW1K6V8 https://www.amazon.com/Gray-Lady-Winked-Misreporting-Fabrica...
- kiitos 2y agoThe New York Times is probably the most trusted, and trustable, publication in all of journalism.
- 2y ago
- johnneville 2y agoi imagine they are still close enough, and perhaps she still has enough stock, that she understands he's willing to compromise his own morals for the financial benefit of the company on a personal level, it is demoralizing to read though
- mikojan 2y ago[flagged]
- echelon 2y agoProbably super easy to launch a Facebook or Instagram competitor app right now. All you have to be is the anti-Zuck and you get free marketing. It's the perfect window of opportunity. Launch, get traction, get funding, scale. It's all teed up.
- poisonborz 2y agoLiterally every social network launched in the last decade was outspokenly anti-Zuck, all of them failed or are struggling. People don't care.
- dredmorbius 2y agoMy read is less that anti-Zuck is the new Kryptonite than that that Kryptonite may be more effective than before. Even with that read, I have my doubts. Very few if any successful (that is, eventually dominant) social networks positioned themselves as anti-something. Rather, most were based on either an available and generally high-appeal founding cohort, in a largely unregulated space. Facebook was once Literally Harvard (<https://mastodon.cloud/@dredmorbius/1058991 https://mastodon.cloud/@dredmorbius/1058991>), Usenet similarly began at selective research universities, Slashdot with the early Internet / Free Software tech community, HN with the start-up space. Regulated spaces are far more difficult to grow: banking, finance, the military, and healthcare are cohesive and high-appeal cohorts, but each space has tight regulatory requirements which restrict both what may be discussed and who may join the networks. Bloomberg Terminal, health information systems, and internal communications amongst the banking and government sectors are strong markets of themselves but impose limits to potential expansion and entry by new competitors.
- Manuel_D 2y agoTo be clear, Meta's "Diverse Slate Approach" was explicitly discriminatory with regards to protected class. It prohibited hiring managers from proceeding with an offer until at least one of the on-site interviews contained an "underrepresented group", meaning women and URM males. In practice this meant that white and Asian men had to wait a long time to get an offer even after they passed the interview rounds. But women and URM never had to wait for the DSA to be fulfilled because their presence caused it to be fulfilled. To see how this is discrimination, consider a company that decides to wait 90 days before proceeding with any offer to a Catholic candidate, but no such delay if the candidate is not Catholic. Surely we see that this is discrimination. Even if we argue that the Catholic candidates are still getting their offer eventually it's still plainly discrimination. What if instead we rolled a dice and added 0 to 90 days of delay? Some Catholics have zero delay, just like non-Catholics. Is that still discrimination? Of course. Now considering how the DSA works. Most candidates are not "diverse". If you look at the sequence of candidates with non-diverse (N) or diverse (D) candidates the sequence looks something like this: NNNNNNNNNNNNDNNNNNNNNNNND So if we introduce the requirement that at least one interviewed candidate must be diverse, a non-diverse candidate may get lucky and the next candidate is diverse. Or maybe they'll be waiting a long time until a diverse candidate is interviewed and fulfills the DSA. But a diverse candidate never has to wait for th DSA to be fulfilled. Sounds like a familiar situation where an offer is randomly delayed on the basis of protected class, right? It's true that the DSA never lowered standards for diverse candidates. But the way it "improved" the demographics of Meta was through systematically delaying offers on the basis of protected class.
- Ozzie_osman 2y ago> NNNNNNNNNNNNDNNNNNNNNNNND If the pattern resembles this for a group that represents over 50% of the broader population (women and some subset of males), I'd argue that it's highly possible there are other, possibly discriminatory, factors at play.
- Manuel_D 2y agoSo we should expect 50% men in elementary schools? How about lumberjacks? Should those be 50% women too? A non discriminatory hiring process should reflect the demographics of the workers in the given field (other factors like geography matter too). Why would we expect, say, pediatricians (80% female) to have 50% men? Achieving a 50/50 split between men and women in a field that's 80% one gender requires hiring one gender at 4x the rate of the other. This line of thinking is what leads companies to set up discriminatory hiring practices in pursuit of DEI goals. The even government office of non discrimination compliance agrees: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/AAFAQs https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/AAFAQs > The purpose of affirmative action is to ensure equal employment opportunities for applicants and employees. It is based on the premise that, absent discrimination, over time a contractor’s workforce generally will reflect the demographics of the qualified available workforce in the relevant job market.
- drweevil 2y agoWow. Who was the boss? This is contemptible stuff.
- lotsofpulp 2y agoHe always has been (literally, due to the share structure of Meta and how much Zuckerberg owns), he is just trying to throw someone under the bus for the change in political winds.
- tantalor 2y agoThe buck stops somewhere else
- PakG1 2y agoPeople for some reason have an inability to separate the goals of DEI/EDI from the practice. It's possible that the goals are important and correct, but the implementation sucks. I am of this belief for many DEI programs I've seen. But I'm still pro-DEI. It just gets implemented often too simplistically and naively, enabling the creation of more controversy and also likely many poor outcomes in organizations. As for what percentage of DEI programs result in such poor outcomes, I dare not guess, I have too little data. However, the comments that Zuckerberg is making makes me think he really thinks that the goals of DEI are themselves intrinsically bad. He seems to be leaning into the stereotypical type of thinking that causes the issues that DEI is trying to address in the first place. I'm disappointed. I would have hoped that he'd be capable of diving into more nuance.
- johnneville 2y agofurthermore, he is blaming the company's decision on his COO and not on himself as CEO. more than almost any other founder, he maintained control over his company and for better or worse it is clear that he alone bears the responsibility for what the company does as a result of that control. blaming one of his most trusted, respected, and successful deputies for what he now describes as a failure does not reflect well on him as a leader in my esteem.
- PakG1 2y agoI think he did her dirty. Don't think he is where he is today without her being by his side back then. She was and remains a fantastic operator.
- Manuel_D 2y agoThe goals of most DEI programs can't be achieved without discrimination on the basis of protected class. If software developers are 18% women how can a company achieve 40% women software developers without discrimination? And that was a DEI goal a previous employer used. In fact they had the same goal for electrical engineer too despite being 10% women. Ambiguous goals like "make people feel welcome" doesn't require discrimination. But those are not the DEI goals people object to. 3 out of the 4 companies I've worked at implemented DEI goals in the form of numeric thresholds, and used discrimination to achieve them. Only one carried out DEI in the innocuous manner.
- xyst 2y agoyet another story pushed down the pipeline to push a culture war and divide us.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y agoText-only: https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1xolsJ https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1xolsJ
- jahlove 2y agoIs this pure JSON for anyone else? (Which admittedly, is in-fact text-only).
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y agocurl https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1xolsJ \ |sed 's/.*body":"//;s/","readTimeMin.*//' \ |tr -d '\n\134\xa0\xc2\xe2\x80\x93' > 1.htm firefox ./1.htm
- matrix87 2y agoThis level of political engagement seems kind of out of character for him Is he just kissing ass, or is there genuine frustration on decaying business culture? It feels like both he and Musk are idealizing some kind of past version of SV where WLB was less of a concern
- zug_zug 2y agoI think there's a few possibilities: Maybe he has some political ambitions. Maybe he's trying to get cred with trump so that he can try to have influence over the tik-tok ban (a huge competitor).