4 ms·

So what does it mean, concretely? What repercussions will he personally suffer?

yifanl 5mo ago
People will snark him 30% harder for a week. I dunno what you expect, everyone wants to avoid the negative consequences of their actions, should we be surprised that the rich and powerful can actually do it?
- jastuk 5mo ago
  No one is surprised, but why shouldn't it be called out and ridiculed as fake accountability and moral theater.
ergocoder 5mo ago
If you hire a house cleaner, and the house cleaner doesn't do a good job, would you fire yourself from the house? What repercussions will you personally suffer?
- jastuk 5mo ago
  Are you implying the 10% being fired are all bad workers? What if the house cleaner was not the problem here?
  - noisy_boy 5mo ago
    It is irrelevant if the workers did a good job. They are at the service and discretion of the house. The house, i.e. the owner, always remains. Until everything burns down. In case of Meta, pipe-dream, one can only hope.
    - jastuk 5mo ago
      [dead]
  - 9rx 5mo ago
    A closer analogy would be that you asked the house cleaner to clean the pool house when you actually needed the main house cleaned. The house cleaner recognized that you asked for the wrong area to be cleaned, but went ahead and did it anyway, but did a great job cleaning the wrong thing. The cleaner isn't the problem with respect to the cleaning itself, but what about the culpability in exploiting someone who has lost their mind? In this case Zuckerberg is willing to accept the exploitation that occurred in the past simply for what it is, but now that he has had a moment of clarity he also cannot let it continue.
  - ergocoder 5mo ago
    Ok, let's continue the analogy. The house cleaners weren't the problem. They are the best of the best at cleaning the pool. You have the pool but now want to get rid of the pool. You thought you liked the pool but you don't. It was your own mistake for wanting the pool and changing your mind. Would you fire yourself from the house? You did make a mistake.
    - jastuk 5mo ago
      The missing bit is where you say "I take full responsibility for this situation", to the cleaners who's lives are impacted by this significantly more than yours. > Would you fire yourself from the house? You keep pushing this false framing/binary for some reason. You made a bad call, you lost the money, that's a given (a passive if you will). Where's the active "taking responsibility" part? That's the main critique.
      - ergocoder 5mo ago
        > The missing bit is where you say "I take full responsibility for this situation" > Where's the active "taking responsibility" part? But what is the implication of taking full responsibility? What actions would he be taking for "taking full responsibility"? I don't think you meant you merely wanted the performative sound of "I take full responsibility for this situation" to come out of his mouth. Without actions, the words mean nothing. So, what would be the actions you were looking for here? I don't quite get it.
        jastuk 5mo ago
        > I don't think you meant you merely wanted the performative sound of "I take full responsibility for this situation" to come out of his mouth. Without actions, the words mean nothing. 100% agree, and that's precisely the critique towards Mark as those words presumably came out of his mouth. > So, what would be the actions you were looking for here? Claw back his executive compensation, forfeit bonuses for the fiscal year and use that to fund better severance / transition support? There's smarter people than me who can answer this, I am merely pointing out and ridiculing this fake accountability and moral theater.
- NegativeK 5mo ago
  If I had a roommate who spent huge swaths of our monthly budget on house cleaning we didn't need, I might tell them to go find another place to live. Or to stop stretching metaphors.. The investors should be mad that the layoffs were even necessary.
  - IncreasePosts 5mo ago
    But they were fine with the hiring in the first place. Making mistakes is allowed - it's worse to pretend like everything you did in the past was flawless. Also, Zuck controls 61% of the vote for Meta. Investors knew that it was his show when they invested
  - ergocoder 5mo ago
    Yes, and being mad is not 0 or 1. Investors are mad to a certain degree for a mishap, but then investors are also happy about something else. To continue analogy, Zuck has made $10,000 for shareholders and had a mishap of $1000. How much should Zuck be punished here? I don't have a good answer but it is certainly not firing himself for it.

People will snark him 30% harder for a week. I dunno what you expect, everyone wants to avoid the negative consequences of their actions, should we be surprised that the rich and powerful can actually do it?

jastuk 5mo ago
No one is surprised, but why shouldn't it be called out and ridiculed as fake accountability and moral theater.

ergocoder 5mo ago

If you hire a house cleaner, and the house cleaner doesn't do a good job, would you fire yourself from the house? What repercussions will you personally suffer?

jastuk 5mo ago
Are you implying the 10% being fired are all bad workers? What if the house cleaner was not the problem here?
- noisy_boy 5mo ago
  It is irrelevant if the workers did a good job. They are at the service and discretion of the house. The house, i.e. the owner, always remains. Until everything burns down. In case of Meta, pipe-dream, one can only hope.
  - jastuk 5mo ago
    [dead]
- 9rx 5mo ago
  A closer analogy would be that you asked the house cleaner to clean the pool house when you actually needed the main house cleaned. The house cleaner recognized that you asked for the wrong area to be cleaned, but went ahead and did it anyway, but did a great job cleaning the wrong thing. The cleaner isn't the problem with respect to the cleaning itself, but what about the culpability in exploiting someone who has lost their mind? In this case Zuckerberg is willing to accept the exploitation that occurred in the past simply for what it is, but now that he has had a moment of clarity he also cannot let it continue.
- ergocoder 5mo ago
  Ok, let's continue the analogy. The house cleaners weren't the problem. They are the best of the best at cleaning the pool. You have the pool but now want to get rid of the pool. You thought you liked the pool but you don't. It was your own mistake for wanting the pool and changing your mind. Would you fire yourself from the house? You did make a mistake.
  - jastuk 5mo ago
    The missing bit is where you say "I take full responsibility for this situation", to the cleaners who's lives are impacted by this significantly more than yours. > Would you fire yourself from the house? You keep pushing this false framing/binary for some reason. You made a bad call, you lost the money, that's a given (a passive if you will). Where's the active "taking responsibility" part? That's the main critique.
    - ergocoder 5mo ago
      > The missing bit is where you say "I take full responsibility for this situation" > Where's the active "taking responsibility" part? But what is the implication of taking full responsibility? What actions would he be taking for "taking full responsibility"? I don't think you meant you merely wanted the performative sound of "I take full responsibility for this situation" to come out of his mouth. Without actions, the words mean nothing. So, what would be the actions you were looking for here? I don't quite get it.
      - jastuk 5mo ago
        > I don't think you meant you merely wanted the performative sound of "I take full responsibility for this situation" to come out of his mouth. Without actions, the words mean nothing. 100% agree, and that's precisely the critique towards Mark as those words presumably came out of his mouth. > So, what would be the actions you were looking for here? Claw back his executive compensation, forfeit bonuses for the fiscal year and use that to fund better severance / transition support? There's smarter people than me who can answer this, I am merely pointing out and ridiculing this fake accountability and moral theater.
NegativeK 5mo ago
If I had a roommate who spent huge swaths of our monthly budget on house cleaning we didn't need, I might tell them to go find another place to live. Or to stop stretching metaphors.. The investors should be mad that the layoffs were even necessary.
- IncreasePosts 5mo ago
  But they were fine with the hiring in the first place. Making mistakes is allowed - it's worse to pretend like everything you did in the past was flawless. Also, Zuck controls 61% of the vote for Meta. Investors knew that it was his show when they invested
- ergocoder 5mo ago
  Yes, and being mad is not 0 or 1. Investors are mad to a certain degree for a mishap, but then investors are also happy about something else. To continue analogy, Zuck has made $10,000 for shareholders and had a mishap of $1000. How much should Zuck be punished here? I don't have a good answer but it is certainly not firing himself for it.