The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg | Hacker News Reader

The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg

thehill.com

> She is politically engaged, having contributed $120,000 to Democrat campaigns in 2016. Her book tours have taken on the feel of someone sounding out campaign themes.

Having worked in politics in DC I can tell you that this is a very small amount of money to donate for someone who's politically motivated or interested in running

Book tours often act like campaign tours, especially when your book is promoting a certain attitude or culture (Lean In)

If this is the only evidence of a political run the author has, I wouldn't hold your breath for a 2020 run.

Plus its The Hill, which is a very politically focused news source in general, so that probably was just added to make it a little more interesting for its reader-base

As someone who does work on the Hill, that's not an insignificant amount, and not when its coming from Sandberg. I don't see that she's interested, or shown interest, in running for office. Mark on the other hand... That's a different story. As one of Facebook's most politically connected executives, it is very strange why no one has heard from Sheryl.

I know of at least one instance (which probably means more) of her traveling to fundraise/campaign on behalf of other candidate. She recently headlined a fundraiser for a D Gov candidate here in Colorado a few weeks ago.

So not personally donating more than the (tiny) CO State election limit but her 'draw' brings in more money and persuasion.

I don’t think it benefits anybody two have two mixed messages coming from two different FB leaders right now, and if only one of them is going to speak up it might as well be Mark.

Her saying “ditto” a lot is not going to help. Her job right now should be inward focused while Mark takes the heat. If his messaging doesn’t work, she’s plan B when they need to pivot.

(Disclaimer: I’ve never worked at FB and I hope it goes away in its current form.)

Maybe it's just me, but did social norms around first names change? I wouldn't call Steven Spielberg "Steven." I'd say "Steven Spielberg" or "Spielberg." But this is HN and it's entirely possible you've worked with Mark Zuckerberg.

It is just you.

I really don't like how people on HN and otherwise have taken to calling Mark Zuckerberg "Zuck". At this point I feel like its some kind of playground insult people are using because it rhyme's with the word "fuck". Am I misinterpreting it?

I don't think its meant as an insult. I think people use it because it implies familiarity, is fun to read/say, and AFAIK is Zuckerberg's old IM/IRC handle which makes it a way to reference his past as an actual coder/hacker. I see it more as a sign of respect when used on HN.

You’re misinterpetting it. He’s been known as Zuck since Facebook started. It’s even his email and login.

The playground insult version of Zuck is Zucc for reference. Also has become the term for when a Facebook page gets shut down, they get "zucced".

Out of context yes, you’d be making a reasonable point, but we have context for the names.

It’s informal yes, but this isn’t a place for formal writing.

So it’s mostly just you.

>> It’s informal yes, but this isn’t a place for formal writing.

>> So it’s mostly just you.

It's more likely a generational thing, so not just him/her. It's also less about formal writing than it is with familiarity.

My (older) generation typically doesn't refer to someone by their first name only unless we actually know the person.

That is precisely why those who want to place themselves in the in crowd use first names.

Perhaps it once was but it's a really common thing now so it's hardly just for that reason.

Or perhaps narcissism and attention-seeking behaviours are "a really common thing now" and, as a consequence, referring to wealthy strangers by first name is also becoming more common.

No offense, but this comes across very "old man yells at cloud" or "darn kids" and I'm 37.

Common among a particular age group or demographic doesn't necessarily mean it's a universal behavior.

It's not just you. Your point is entirely valid.

The first-name thing and the casual workplace attire and the fun offices in Silicon Valley are all part of a trend to offset accelerating inequality with the illusion of egalitarianism.

Or maybe it's just more comfortable to wear jeans and you're reading too much into it.

When Mark Zuckerberg starts wearing swetpants to the office I'll buy this.

Agreed. I find the entire thesis of this article extremely obnoxious, as it basically boils down to "Why isn't she doing more 'stuff'?!". What does the author actually want her to do that would change anything? I feel so much that in the modern world we've substituted face time, even if it's meaningless blather, with actual work. Granted, social networks like Facebook are a big factor in this, so perhaps it's fair after all...

Sandberg comes across to me like a bad actor in the video (in the Hollywood / stage sense) and I mean more than usual / more than I expect even from an executive. I could barely watch it, it oozed inauthenticity so badly. Not too sympathetic on the gut level.

Yeah, talk about heavily scripted responses.

Even more than that, it looks like she's struggling to swallow what she herself is saying.

It's what they call "lawyered responses" in Singapore.

Watch this prat from Facebook get his arse served to him by a Singaporean MP.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ziTfDdffUKs

This is funny in a way, but I think it's also very shocking that the FB spokesman felt sufficiently mandated to talk to a democratic representative in that way. I guess the spokesman might have jut been having a bad day, but I did wonder whether the rudeness was the function of a really toxic - I would even say colonialist - culture at FB.

That was really satisfying to watch. The difference in tone and articulation between the prat and the mature, thoughtful, and seemingly genuine MP is striking.

As someone entering the workforce soon, it's very disappointing to see teach leaders who enjoyed the spotlight on their elevator ride up completely disappearing and pretending they have nothing to do with what they brought onto the world.

Even if you pretend you didn't know (and at the top, it's your responsibility to know), you can't pretend not to know going forward. Quit. Do something.

Had a lunch conversation with other CS PhDs today (mostly in machine learning) - Facebook is so out, everyone actively spoke out against working there. Was uplifting to hear.

Sandberg is a classist asshole.

Correction: What we're seeing is not leadership. Leadership is a verb. It's actions, not words.

In the context of that definition, SS is not a leader, and should not be referred to as such.

Leadership is a noun.

Thanks mom. Are you done proof reading my paper yet? Did you get to the part on metaphors and analogies?

Where are those other CS PhDs looking to work instead? Am very curious to know how these highly in-demand people make decisions about where to work and the impact their work can have.

Palantir

At Oxbridge, DeepMind is definitely the preferred employer, alsmost nobody is interested in an academic career, finance is not especially popular but always an option in London, hedgefunds heavily recruit. I would say next popular option after DeepMind or big tech in Silicon Valley is London startup scene for many.

I don't think Sheryl Sandberg is pretending anything.

The scrutiny on her as COO is disproportionate here.

Can you even name an equivalent person at Google (now) or Microsoft? Or a presently troubled company - Tesla, maybe? I'm doubtful, and I'm willing to say there's probably a sexist element to this inappropriate scrutiny.

She's the de facto CEO. She's placed there by investors to manage Zuck and stop him doing anything that might jeopardise all that IPO capital - and after her time at Google, she proved she knew how to manage ASD idealists. I'm rather glad this has happened, someone who built the two biggest douchebag business models the world has ever seen is not fit for public office.

Facebook may be the next Yahoo!

What I fear is what replaces it ... it may be an even more unscrupulous company that avoids the outrage simply by being less transparent.

Those who want to use our data and take our privacy aren't going anywhere. Don't ever trust any company, ever - it's about what data is being collected, not who is collecting it.

Can we stop calling Sheryl Sandberg the "adult in the room"? Mark Zuckerberg is 33 years old, not 16.

The metaphorical value here is that she is perceived as the hire to "be" the adult in the room, because Zuckerberg was perceived as being incapable of fulfilling the role.

Both of them display the same flaws btw. If we should cease to say this, its only because its an impossible goal. But, as a sharp-edged reminder of expectations vs reality it still has some merit. And, humour.

TL;DR no, it doesn't literally mean to be the only adult, it means to be expected to behave like one: age is immaterial

"The neurotypical in the room" ??

He’s not much younger than Sandberg was when she became Facebooks COO (38 yrs old).

It's obvious her PR team thinks it's better to just stay quiet than putting any sort of statement out.

If you've met her, you'll know she's extremely brilliant, but I don't think this situation is something that can be solved by a statement. I'm assuming a lot of actions will be taken first internally before she speaks publically.

> If you've met her, you'll know she's extremely brilliant

Any examples?

Does brilliant need to be quantified?

Replying to my reply. What I mean is the phrase "extremely brilliant" could be restated as just "brilliant." This wasn't a slight on your comment, I'd also like to hear some examples.

Well the parent stated "if you met her, you'd know...". So I was wondering if they had specific examples that would lead someone who meets her to come to that conclusion. I wasn't paying attention to the "extremely" part.

Of course there's her background, but 1) that doesn't require anyone to know her and 2) it means she's successful, which may or may not mean she's brilliant.

Perhaps I'm just jaded by years in a BigCo. All a high position means to me is that they're "brilliant" at politicking and networking. (And staying silent in this case may be an example of that "brilliance").

This is obvious and the best move she can make for her employer. I don't get why this would be "infuriating" or a mystery. OF COURSE she's going to lay low.

OF COURSE only follows if this is such an unsolveable problem that running away is the only option.

Given that the FTC are making interested noises and the EU are very interested too, it’s just as likely she’s trying to avoid getting “her brand” too closely associated with the mess.

If I’m wrong and the problem is fixable, now is the perfect time to demonstrate extreme brilliance by fixing it.

They've been working pretty hard to avoid Sandberg getting any of the credit that she apparently deserves. Facebook bent the NY Times to altering one of its recent stories that noted Sandberg's culpability in one of the messes.

"Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigation and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief operating officer, according to the current and former employees, who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters."

"Perlroth [NY Times reporter], however, confirmed that a change occurred after Facebook’s public relations team reached out to the New York Times with a statement some time after the story was published."

https://lawandcrime.com/exclusive/facebook-forces-nyt-to-qui...

NYT heavily disputed that: https://www.cjr.org/the_new_gatekeepers/nytimes-facebook.php

It's laughable she is called brilliant: anyone with a shred of common sense would guess that a douchebag business model like FB is ultimately going to be a liability.

Honestly, it wouldn't matter what she would say, people will be outraged anyway.

It is pretty amazing how few controversies of this scale have surfaced given how controversial the company has always been ( I recall seeing survey results on how little the public trusted FB compared to other tech cos years ago). I guess people don't ask too many hard questions when the story has been about the skyrocketing stock price over last few years.

... But it's where all the people I didn't like in highschool signed up to so ... I need it?

edit: wow HN... maybe you don't really get that people go out of their way to intentionally ignore controversy because of a shallow periceved value? That no one questions a stock price when it's on the way up for "household names"? Perhaps I could have been less subtle.

The sheer amount of ads that popped up on that page made it unusable.

She's hiding. She was aware of all these (profitable) transgressions.

Bottom line (pun intended): She's keeping a __low__ profile out of fear of being called to testify under oath. That would be risky, to say the least.

One of the things I've learned about The Hill's opinion page is to background check the contributor -- seems like just about anyone can get an article there.

Did you background check this contributor?

What did you find?

First Google result is a link to Fox News, and an article titled "Liz Peek: Census 2020 – Liberals, get over it, we must ask about citizenship!"

People can agree or disagree with that, but The Hill does not appear to have a consistent editorial stance that is separate from individual authors.

I have seen moderate contributors as well as more extreme partisan ones.

"Liz Peek: Census 2020 – Liberals, get over it, we must ask about citizenship!"

This is enough to ignore the author and bury the article. Anyone that uses the term "liberal" or "conservative" as a way to drive a wedge between Americans in order to offend, distract, and "win" are not worth the time.

First of all, a lot of people will self-identify as liberal or conservative, which usually lines up with whether or not they tend to support Republicans or Democrats. They're not incredibly loaded terms.

Secondly, writers almost never get to choose the title their piece runs under. You'll notice that often the headline of an article doesn't /quite/ seem to match the content.

Agreed on both counts. Although your second point just seems to feed into the idea of not just rolling in "journalists" into the ignore category, but news outlets if they are actively involved in this BS.

For the actual quote, it comes from here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/28/liz-peek-census-20...

"Liberals are outraged over the Trump administration’s decision to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census."

That's the first line from the article, which clearly pits liberals as being the problem here while implying that conservatives automatically disagree (or in this case, "you are on the right side if you agree with me."). It's basic manipulation. People that behave this way are not worth the energy. They just get in the way most of the time.

For all of the aforementioned reasons I consider The Hill to be trash, even when I agree with an article's sentiment. I don't follow publications, I follow editorial policies, and The Hill appears to have none.

Here's her bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Peek

To sum it up: Wall Street (oil) -> law firm -> Treasury -> Fox News contributor. She's also Chair of the board of trustees for FIT (Fashion Institute of Technology in NYC).

She is not in tech.

Does that matter? The author is speaking on behalf of the shareholders (pension funds, mutual funds etc) who are supposed to be fiduciaries to clients that expect their funds to be invested responsibly (read hyperbolically as: not in companies that in any way threaten democracy). Sandberg architected the FB revenue model and as such should probably give reassurance that money will keep flowing to Facebook.

>One of the things I've learned about The Hill's opinion page is to background check the contributor -- seems like just about anyone can get an article there.

Or background check any facts they present in making their case, then form your own opinion.

Of course. I've just been confused in the past at the wide swing of opinion, having noted the objectivity of The Hill's news reporting.

Not to nitpick, but isn't news supposed to be objective and opinion not?

It seems kind of weird to wander into an opinion piece, then seem put-off that its author might be biased. Yes, it is very likely that if you check the author's background, then you will find threads that are consistent with the opinions expressed in an article that he/she produces. In fact the article itself is an expression of that background.

Again not being a pedant here. Just don't understand the admonition to check the background as the basis for dismissing a writer's opinion.

Yes, but I suppose it's a matter of expectation. When I read NYT or WSJ or Slate or National Review I will get a fairly consistent message.

We don't see a lot of extreme partisan publications linked in HN, probably for good reason. Just wanted to note that although The Hill is not on the MSNBC/Fox spectrum, its editorial content may well be.

Either she's hoping that a short digital trail will limit the damage this event will have on any political ambitions, or this event has caused such as rift between her and Zuck that he's intentionally keeping her out of the spotlight.

If the latter, expect her "resignation" for "family reasons" in about 60-90 days.

I think she might be harboring hope of becoming the CEO of FB one day. If that’s the case, letting Zuck accumulate bad PR baggage is a good move.

Yet another article mining (mostly misplaced) FB outrage for clicks and views. Yawn.

She doesn't want to lean in too far.

She quits

"Zuckerberg's resignation would open up the possibility of a world-changing and reputation-enhancing second chapter, not only for him personally but also for Facebook the corporation.

...

That said, the new CEO should not be Sheryl Sandberg. She's just as culpable as Zuckerberg, in terms of how Facebook got into its current predicament, and she's far too associated with the ancient regime."

Source:

https://www.wired.com/story/the-case-for-a-zuck-free-faceboo...

Actual title: "The infuriating invisibility of Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg"

"Mar. 20, 2018 3:34 PM ET

With criticism swelling about the lack of a public statement from Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) CEO Mark Zuckerberg on the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the company held an open employee meeting today to discuss the matter, but neither Zuckerberg nor Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg attended, the Daily Beast reports."

Source:

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3340524-report-zuckerberg-sand...

Could be she is "invisible" because shes just too busy working behind the scenes.

"Sandberg: We did disclose -- on the Russian manipulation, we did disclose. We gave the information to Congress. We made it clear to people if they had seen those pages. There's a place you can go we [oops dont suggest its their responsibilty to look, rephrase] -- every situation we worked to get to the bottom of this we want to disclose. Sometimes, and I would say certainly this past week, we speak too slowly. If I could live this past week again, I would have definitely had Mark and myself out speaking earlier, but we were trying to get to the bottom of this and make sure we could take strong action. Our commitment is clear. We know this is an issue of trust. We know this is a critical moment for our company, for the service we provide. We are going to do everything we can. There will always be bad actors and I don't want to minimize that. But we are going to do everything we can to find bad actors. We're going to open tools transparently so people can help us find the bad actors on our platform. We're gonna notify users and we're gonna shut them down as fast as we can."

Source:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/22/cnbc-exclusive-cnbc-transcri...

Two words: plausible deniability

If she is gonna run in 2020 she doesn't want to give anyone any talking points to use against her.

Also, her absence isn't surprising given how dismissive Facebook in general is being about this.

If she’s planning to run for President, running away from this challenge is hardly going to improve her chances.

It’s not as if the media haven’t noticed her absence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com