6 ms·
Having listened to the book on Audible, I'm both shocked at the behavior of the executive team, and not surprised all at the same time. What bothers me about a
by gortok 6mo ago
Having listened to the book on Audible, I'm both shocked at the behavior of the executive team, and not surprised all at the same time. What bothers me about all of this is what it says about us. It says we're willing to give rich and powerful people a pass just because they make overtures towards something we care about.
We wouldn't give our children a pass like this, nor would we teach our children to act this way, but we're perfectly willing to allow fully grown adults to act like this.
Here's just one example, there are plenty more:
Cheryl Sandberg inviting the author of the book to sleep in her bed next to her on the company jet, and the petulent and vindictive behavior when the author said 'no'.
Everyone in the orbit of the executive team knew about this behavior, and everyone gave it a pass, even going so far as to defend it and to protect Cheryl. This behavior should be universally deplored, and yet is not.
- captainbland 6mo agoI think the overtures about things we care about more just provide plausible deniability and that when you dig down, people are more concerned about the risks of challenging the wealthy than they are about such window dressing.
- yoyohello13 6mo agoBy allowing powerful adults to act this way, we are in a sense teaching our children to act this way too.
- ElProlactin 6mo agoGetting rich has been the American dream for a very long time. Unfortunately, many Americans only pretend to care that it matters how you get rich.
- scrubs 6mo agoAmerica doesn't own greed. Hardly. But like the movie American Psycho the American presentation of greed is starkly in your face ... it's something horrifying to see
- Henchman21 6mo agoThis right here, this is it. You've nailed the reason I stopped caring about what Trump is destroying. Yes, yes he's destroying gestures wildly at everything -- but god dammit we need to destroy a lot of this stuff. We need to rebuild institutions that have failed us, from your local DMV and/or public school all the way up to Congress, the Supreme Court, the Executive. All of it has been so thoroughly corrupted that it needs to be destroyed and recreated.
- peddling-brink 6mo agoYes, once the orderly destroying is done, the sensible people can step in and recreate these institutions from scratch while everyone else waits patiently. Or, everything just gets way worse, for almost everyone.
- scrubs 6mo agoWell absolutely. Half the times we're tough on kids is in hopes they don't permanently turn into adults their behavior reminds of And as kids learning from adults (although the subject matter is different) is exemplified in To Kill a Mockingbird. As of today I am periodically embarrassed to be an American. Periodic in the sense that every once in a while the shameless behavior of elites feels like I ok'd in the presence of foreigners. Today's climate reminds that in our society i guess as always the suck-ups, butt kisserers, and hustle at all costs is alive and well in the top 10% of society. Relatedly, this is ultimately why European courts went they way of the dodo. Moody kings, palace intrigue, the maneuvering for kinship to power, the gossip, the scandals whilst spending stupid money so aggravated people we quit. I seriously dislike this current environment. And I can report not everybody is that way. They're still a few classy lads and ladies out there... but gosh the players are no longer afraid of sunlight at the same time
- gyomu 6mo ago> Relatedly, this is ultimately why European courts went they way of the dodo. Moody kings, palace intrigue, the maneuvering for kinship to power, the gossip, the scandals whilst spending stupid money so aggravated people we quit. European courts went the way of the dodo because the insane material affluence unlocked by industrialization definitely swayed the balance in favor of the merchant class over nobility. The average person under monarchy had absolutely no exposure to palace intrigue & gossip.
- scrubs 6mo agoYou make a good point; I agree.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- Noaidi 6mo agoYes, all of this happens (and worse!) and still no boycott of Facebook. We have been turned into a country of dopamine deficient addicts. And now these same companies are funding a useless war, killing innocent children, and soon, collapsing the world economy. If you still use these platforms knowing what we know now you are just as complicit as every executive. https://www.resistandunsubscribe.com/ https://www.resistandunsubscribe.com/
- nubinetwork 6mo agoHard to boycott something you quit using 10 years ago.
- paulryanrogers 6mo ago'We' as in the nation (world?) at large. FaceBook hasn't faced a large-scale boycott
- none2585 6mo agoI'm in your boat, but I've been thinking more lately around how we create competitors to the sorts of things that people claim "lock them in" to using Facebook (events and messenger are the ones I hear the most anecdotally). Make these things reasonably self-sustaining monetarily (no ads) and just let it run.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- miki123211 6mo agoMessenger does 3 things right: 1. Being able to discover people by name / surname, no phone number necessary. This is the most important privacy feature people care about, it's ironic that Meta had it from the get-go, while other platforms have barely caught up. 2. Used to have frictionless message sync, including in the event of a catastrophic loss of all devices, which put it far ahead of most apps (sadly nerfed by E2E). 3. A much better group implementation than Whatsapp / iMessage (no need to maintain a contacts list, no need to share phone numbers with everybody, you know who everybody is by name and surname). This is perfect for semi-professional groups where people are acquainted but not close with each other, especially when some members hold positions of power and don't wish to receive calls from irate people). Parents / teachers or blue-collar coworkers are perfect examples. It's sad that all these apps are converging on the same set of features and mis-features, with nobody (except Telegram) really exploring the tradeoff space any more.
- Mezzie 6mo ago> We wouldn't give our children a pass like this, nor would we teach our children to act this way, but we're perfectly willing to allow fully grown adults to act like this. Speak to a group of K-12 teachers. We (as a society/culture) are absolutely giving our children passes and teaching them to act this way.
- II2II 6mo ago> Speak to a group of K-12 teachers. > We (as a society/culture) are absolutely giving our children passes and teaching them to act this way. That depends upon where you teach. I've worked in schools where families who would put up with that type of behaviour were an anomaly. The school sends the same message. Of course, one can argue that society is sending conflicting messages. Yet then my question would be: are those messages coming from people who are truly reflective of society? Those messages are certainly coming from the loudest voices, voices that are (more often than not) controlled by a few organizations that seem to have a moral compass that points towards the profit of the organization rather than social welfare. Even then I have to wonder whether the views of the organization reflect the views of the people it is composed of.
- Mezzie 6mo agoYes, it does. I was speaking generally. I think if you selected teachers at random from the entire set of K-12 teachers in America, you'd find more who do have to deal with that behavior than don't.
- II2II 6mo agoThat's the impression I have as well, but I am also cautious about accepting it. People tend to discuss the bad schools and ignore the good ones. They tend to focus upon the families who don't care for their kids (may they be poor or rich), and ignore the families who do care for their kids. It's easy to understand why. The kids who do act out need a disproportionate amount of attention to keep the system on track.
- 6mo ago
- prepend 6mo agoI think that was more about trying, in a dumb way, to make the pregnant woman not work all night than sexual harassment. The author was 8 months pregnant and was going to stay up for 12 hours doing stuff. This seemed more like a commanding boss trying to stop a workaholic from working.
- ndsipa_pomu 6mo agoDemanding that she sleep next to her on her bed does not sound like trying to stop a workaholic from working. It sounds creepy as hell.
- prepend 6mo agoIt’s both. There was only one bed on the plane. Were it me, I would give up my spot as it’s just weird to ask a coworker to sleep in the same bed.
- bostik 6mo ago> Cheryl Sandberg inviting the author of the book to sleep in her bed next to her on the company jet, and the petulent and vindictive behavior when the author said 'no'. Considering the timing... does that mean MeToo doesn't apply if the predator is also a woman? Sexual advances from a position of power are simply not okay. (Weirdly as a society we appear to have accepted that an older woman predating younger men is somehow a cool thing: we call them cougars.)
- miltonlost 6mo agoAge gaps in relationships is not inherently negative. Being a cougar is not a bad thing. The issue here was that Sandberg was the author's manager. Age isn't an issue when all parties are adults.
- ElFitz 6mo ago> Age isn't an issue when all parties are adults. I wouldn’t fully agree. All parties being adults doesn’t inherently remove the advantage very large age and experience gaps can give to one party over the other, especially when one is barely adult. 18 or 21 is just an arbitrary number, and one doesn’t suddenly become smart about these things just because the law says they are now legally full citizens, responsible for their acts and for themselves. But I also agree it doesn’t make age gaps between adults inherently negative. It’s just… complicated.
- whynotminot 6mo agoCan we raise the age of adulthood from 18 to whatever acceptable age ends this discourse once and for all?
- Dylan16807 6mo agoProbably not, because there's inevitably a transition period.
- 6mo ago
- liendolucas 6mo agoWhat it would be terrific is that people that have access to Sheryl Sandberg in public repeteadly ask her: "Do you still invite your employees to sleep on your private jet's bed?" as reminder about how fucked up her mind and demands are. Same should be applied to the other nasty members of Zuck's inner past/present circle. My inner guts tell me that all these freaks just try out these out of place demands to see if people without their money and power would actually knee and say "yes" to every request that comes out of their mouth.
- astura 6mo ago>We wouldn't give our children a pass like this, nor would we teach our children to act this way Where do you live where this is the case? I'd love to move there!
- svnt 6mo agoThe job of execs/middle managers seems to often be dual parenting: 1) coordinate the capable well-parented employees below them, and 2) pander to the usefully myopic spoiled brats above.
- groundzeros2015 6mo agoI would personally met the most spoiled brats dealing with big tech employees.
- svnt 6mo agoIf this were true and you were their manager you would not have to deal with it. You could coach or remove them.
- groundzeros2015 6mo agoI don't think I get to remove employees for being from privileged families and having unrealistic expectations.
- mohamedkoubaa 6mo agoSandberg is famously not known for her ethics
- hn_throwaway_99 6mo ago> It says we're willing to give rich and powerful people a pass just because they make overtures towards something we care about. This encapsulates the entire moral bankruptcy of "the Epstein class" so perfectly. I highly recommend reading the series about the Epstein class by Anand Giridharadas (Giridharadas didn't actually coin the term "Epstein class", apparently that was Ro Khanna, but he really was the first to popularize and clearly define it).
- aaron695 6mo ago[dead]
- themafia 6mo ago> It says we're willing That's not at all what it says. No one is "willing" to have this. The fact that this outcome exists is not a demonstration of this fact. What it demonstrates is that the administrative enforcement system is broken. It simply does not work when capital exceeds an uncertain threshold or when the utility to the intelligence agencies is deemed to be of national importance. It also demonstrates that our legislative system is entirely captured. It could fix this with a pen stroke. The people would loudly and eagerly support this. Yet no one has put pen to paper? Something deeper is clearly wrong here. Blaming the public for being victims of this regime is insane.
- strulovich 6mo agoThat chapter struck me as paranoia and hit piece. What really happens there, if you ignore the author’s spin on it and concentrate on the facts is Sheryl is repeatedly asking her pregnant employee to please come stay in the big bed in the private jet and rest. Then author has good points, such as Sheryl not taking into account she’s expecting ready deliverables. But she also spins it as if something sexual might happen there, or that Sheryl saying “you should have slept in the bed” in the end of the flight is a mafioso threat - and literally suggesting that Sheryl stopped trusting her because she didn’t take that offer. (Worked at Meta for many years, not directly with Sheryl, and I am generally a fan of her, I think the book distorts at multiple times the messages she said)
- lixtra 6mo agoHN guidelines say: Assume good faith. We should apply it to Sheryl here as well. In Europe several of my acquaintances shared a bed with their professors/superior for various non-sexual reasons. It’s also a cultural thing.
- etc-hosts 6mo agodefinitely not a cultural thing in United States.
- bullshitcaller 6mo ago< In Europe...cultural thing. Go on, which culture is that? Most "cultures" in Europe I know of it would be a breach of many stated and unstated rules and norms (Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Poland, and Belgium).
- lixtra 6mo agoExample Finland. Could you end up in a nude Sauna with your superior? Yes, especially if it is same sex. Example Germany. Which law would be broken? Internal compliance rules, yes, that would be often the case.
- 6mo ago
- PunchyHamster 6mo ago> It says we're willing to give rich and powerful people a pass just because they make overtures towards something we care about. Nah, the "pass" only exists because we're not allowed by govt to shoot at billionaires