Facebook’s Zuckerberg Tells Employees to Respect Diverse Views of Colleagues
wsj.com
wsj.com
Before I could even explain why, he responded with that I was a monster of a human to even put “the party that locks children up and votes for rapists” close to the goals of the Democrats. I was called a shit bag “Repug” and told to kill myself.
We haven’t talked since.
I also voted for Hillary, for pragmatic reasons.
If it’s tough to maintain friendships with differing views in this day and age, doing so in the workplace where the environment allows this to be a bit more in the open will be a tough HR friendly pill to swallow.
I too find this very hard to believe. I'd be interested in hearing your argument.
Neither party is concerned about privacy.
Lots of other things in common as well.
Which parts do you disagree with and what evidence would convince you otherwise?
You can tell me the political party you support and I can show you how they have strong pro-war elements.
If you aren't willing to spell that out, we're not having a meaningful conversation.
Like any political opinion it is based upon thousands of observations and arguments over a period of many years.
Would it convince you the Democrats are pro-war if I provide evidence of Hillary Clinton being a war hawk?
What kind of sources will you trust?
Surely if you follow US politics you are aware of the argument already so why don’t we skip the fluff and get into the details?
> If you're making a claim, the burden of proof rests upon you
Sure - so like I said let’s find our common ground and points of disagreement and we can go from there.
If you examine the history of political philosophy of Liberalism you shall see immediately that Republicans and Democrats are both part of the Liberal Party.
I know some people come to this conclusion by viewing it as a conspiracy but it's really not.
That modern day Democrats are called Liberals causes confusion because from the historical context they are just a subset of Liberals. The older definition includes most Conservatives and Libertarians.
Political philosophy is a family tree. If you go back into the history you find that apparent enemies are more accurately described as competitors.
This is demonstrated in the present each time there is an external threat too.
Communism and Monarchy are both Western political philosophies that reject Liberalism. If you say far right or far left and this group still supports the goals of political Liberalism then you've made a category error.
What exactly shows us this?
>This is demonstrated in the present each time there is an external threat too.
Can you list some examples?
I'm not trying to be difficult, but this thread is full of assertions and scant on arguments.
I'm genuinely interested, here, but someone has yet to make a substantive argument.
So if this is the stance Zuckerberg and Sandberg are taking, has that internal message been retracted? I'm in no position to demand or even suggest that some sort of consistency in conviction is warranted here-Sandberg is free to comment or not as she pleases, but it sure would be nice to see for once in these strange and heated times.
Seems to me you either respect Kaplan's decision to be present for his friend, redact statements that his personal political decisions were a 'mistake', or fire him as VP of Global Public Policy and admit it was because his appearance at the SJC hearings made for bad optics, and saving face matters more than consistent convictions and that this appeal to employees is proof.
Or do nothing and let people infer everything in between.
He can personally support Kav, have dinner with him, maybe not hide anything about his support or friendship ... but making public statements, such as appearing on TV is a whole other dimension given his role.
FB execs should not be involved in any kind of political controversy unless it directly affects FB.
So I think it's not hypocritical for Sandberg to indicate that it was a mistake, I think it was.
One person's political controversy could very well be another's platform.
Who are any of us to decide what that dichotomy looks like if not anything but bystanders? Furthermore, if that's an opinion you really want to take, then would you similarly argue that Facebook should therefore have nothing to say politically? Ever? About anything? In any shape or form on the platform-since as easily as someone could take Kaplan's appearance and assert it as a direct endorsement of Kavanaugh coming from Facebook, I can easily suggest that any political feature on Facebook and just as similarly say it has the the approval of "coming from" Facebook.
Do you see how easy it is to flip your conceit right on its head with such an absolutist demand?
Can I then ask Facebook stop putting banners up reminding me to register to vote (I already am) or that I should go out and vote in my local county elections (I already did), or to have a position on LGBT Rights? (I do)
If the execs shouldn't be involved in any political controversy, then the platform should be devoid of political calls to action similarly and follow that lead.
Taking the long view, I don't see either happening.
If you're referring to ads, then no. Those are not 'political features' because they have nothing to do with Facebook and everyone knows that, just as they know ads you see on TV have nothing to do with the network. Now if CBS execs were having public lunch every day with Donald Trump and appearing at his rallies, well, then that's going to be viewed as something else entirely.
"or to have a position on LGBT Rights? (I do)"
Facebook is not telling you to have a position on LGBT rights and nobody seeing ads on Facebook believes those ads are representative of Facebooks views.
"Do you see how easy it is to flip your conceit right on its head with such an absolutist demand?"
There's nothing either conceited or absolutist about my 'demand', in fact, it's fairly standard across most major corporations.
If you're an exec and you start appearing at Trump rallies, and it might upset/offend your customers, you're going to get fired for cause right away. And rightly so. Nobody cares that much who you make donations to, or are friends with, or have dinner with. But public endorsements are that: public endorsements, and if you represent the company, then you have to check your behaviour.
The exec at Facebook must be thick to think that a national appearance in front of millions during one of the biggest political nuclear wars of our generation was going to be 'ok'.
Well apparently Facebook disagrees with you, and they are perfectly happy to have execs do politically controversial things.
It is Facebook's right to be as political as they want, and apparently their choice is to allow their employees to do exactly any of these things.
I'd also like to point out that in the state of California, firing employees because of out of work political activities is literally illegal.
So you should be very careful about suggesting that companies engage in what may be illegal discrimination in the state of California. (Perhaps the rules are a bit different for execs, but still, be careful with your line of thinking)
But Facebook is justifying post ad hoc here, Sandberg said it was obviously a mistake. He would have been told 'no' if he were to have asked. Which is probably why he didn't.
See my comment above about 'California's laws'.
You're misunderstanding the roles of executives if you think they are going to appear in highly controversial political ads and then get some kind of legal protection, frankly, the same would apply for employees. Legal protection doesn't matter anyhow - if you're going to bring harm to the company, why would the company employ you? This is not about 'voting' or 'donations' it's about 'public support / appearances' etc.. Executives are normally not this out of touch.
Go ahead and appear in an aggressive NRA TV ad imploring that 'all teachers should be armed' and see how long you last at your job. You'll be out right away, one way or another, even as an employee.
So again, nobody cares about voting, or donations, or even canvasing or merely attending rallies or whatever, but public participation i.e. TV sports, or major social media presence on some controversial issue is out of bounds, and if it brings harm to your company then you need to chose between being on that team, or your political activities.
Except in California, where Facebook operates you would be taken to court quick fast and in a headspinning hurry for firing someone for appearing at a Trump rally. So for the context of this discussion, FB and how their executives seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths here, you seem to be effectively asking Facebook to break the law.
When an executives public appearances cause damage to the company they will be fired.
First - those laws are to protect individuals from attending political rallies.
As I said - merely attending a rally is not a big deal. But an an executive appearing at a rally, on stage, making political claims? That's a different world of participation.
Second - those regs are to protect employees from regular political participation. Not public agitation, moreover, executives are in a completely different category.
Executives generally are not completely stupid, and are not completely out of touch, and so they generally do not do public things which are going to get them in trouble. Now CEO's may take a risk an do something for attention one way or another, like Elon Musk, but political rallies and speeches are altogether another territory.
How many current CEO's and Executives do you see giving speeches at political rallies? Basically none. Why is this you might wonder?
California state law seems to disagree.
CHAPTER 5. Political Affiliations [1101 - 1106] 1101. No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: [...](b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.
I mean that seems pretty cut and dry to me, Kaplan's actions seem pretty objectively covered here. It doesn't make exception for executives, it doesn't specify who is or isn't covered (except for section 1106 which has very specific applications of chapter 1102 governing public emplyoees), it doesn't say what the merit of their political activity needs to be, it doesn't say anything about 'public agitation', nor does any portion of Chapter 5 s But IANAL.
I'd be more than willing to read any case law you have that should refute this.
But an an executive appearing at a rally, on stage, making political claims?
Perhaps I missed something: what claims did Mr. Kaplan make at the confirmation hearing or about the hearing that you claim are political? I'd like to read a source of any statements he's made that you refer to here.
The coverage I've read indicates (and if you have something that suggests he made actual statements about Kavanaugh's confirmation, the committee process, or the allegations against him I would implore you to share it, if you'd be so kind) that he was seen in attendance at the hearings. Anything else is speculation, conjecture and supposition and makes for a poor argument for why Kaplan should not be allowed to attend the confirmation of a personal friend to the Supreme Court.
Are you suggesting that his attendance at these hearings constitutes a political 'claim'?
In one case of this, one of the founders of Reddit, after some redditors complained about some admin intervention, said "Reddit was never meant to be a bastion of free speech". Some users then started collecting places where representatives of Reddit (including founders and CEOs) had said just that: https://www.reddit.com/r/BOFS
In the case of Facebook specifically, I find a bunch of stories from just this July, with an example headline "Mark Zuckerberg stands up for free speech on Facebook, even for Holocaust deniers".
Is it illegal to break implicit (or even explicit) promises to users? If money hasn't changed hands and there isn't any legal contract, then maybe not. (I've heard of laws about "common carrier" status, but don't know if that applies.) But users are quite within their rights to consider it a betrayal and to complain loudly.
It’s totally OK for a company to be biased, absolutely. But that company cannot reasonably expect to benefit from the privileges of common carrier status. Facebook wants to play both sides. It must be made to choose one or the other.
Example: it's OK for a newspaper to take an editorial position because the editor and ultimately the owners of the paper take responsibility for whatever they publish and can be held responsible by the courts if they don't. Facebook does not want to take responsibility for what it publishes, it wants to be protected like the postal service - but still take a position.
The problem with Facebook is precisely that they have an extremely powerful monopoly, as is the case with Google. The Colorado bakery has no monopoly on baking cakes, it's trivial to find alternative service offerings. If they did have a monopoly on baking cakes, then it would be reasonable to require that they bake cakes for everyone (or no one).
This is why Republicans don't widely expect or demand the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, etc. to not lean left. The NY Times for example has basically been left leaning for its entire history. They don't have monopolies on news, or monopolies in newspapers.
When the three broadcast networks held their co-monopoly over TV, imagine them deciding they were only going to allow right or left views on television and strictly exclude all others. Now magnify that by several fold in terms of the reach, financial success and influence that Facebook has today.
And since Facebook is a large communication platform, with WhatsApp, Messenger, Instagram and the core FB service, a telecom common carrier is perhaps an even more apt example: imagine the AT&T monopoly deciding to remove all left or right leaning persons from their telecom service. Oh you want phone service? How did you vote in the last election?
It becomes very obvious very quickly why it's going to be necessary to regulate the tech platform monopolies as common carriers and treat them as something closer to public utilities.
Zuckerberg to US congress:
> Congressman, I do agree that we should work to give people the fullest free expression that is possible. That's what — when I talk about giving people a voice, that's what I care about.
> [...] And I think that that — it — our general responsibility is to — is to allow the broadest spectrum of free expression as we can ...
In the same hearing:
> I'll ask — my — my question is, on this, do you agree that Facebook and other technology platforms should be ideologically neutral?
> ZUCKERBERG: Congressman, I — I agree that we should be a platform for all ideas, and that we should focus on that.
Transcript of the hearing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/04/11...
My comment was more of a general sense of any company, not necessarily just Facebook.
I remember when the net first came up, I'd watch my friends in both parties argue online. They'd do some research, agree on the underlying facts, then things would progress.
They might never come to agreement, but they began a discussion on the terms of the discussion, which was progress. If done well, everybody could part as friends. This is the dialectic. It's what friends do. It's designed to understand the issue by understanding one another better. This is how productive conversations are supposed to happen.
But folks caught on to that, so they started flooding the internet with a lot of rhetoric. Now, if you disagree, there are a hundred sites on your side that are quite happy to provide you with all the emotional ammunition you need. This is argumentation, what lawyers do. It's designed to win at all costs. Conversations are battles to be won. Combine that with some nice rhetorical tricks and there's really no need to discuss facts anymore.
Take a look at what education a lot of the talking heads on TV have had. They were trained in rhetoric, the legal profession. That's no accident.
Sounds like what the ancient Greek sophists taught. That rhetoric was a useful tool for winning debates and being persuasive, particularly in politics.
Two thousand years later, and Socrates is still relevant.
But that cuts both ways: two skilled rhetoriticians in debate each won't permit the other to deploy a logical fallacy. Therefore they will always converge on the truth.
Rhetoric can only be weaponised when your opponent is unaware of it, and is powerless when they don't care about debate because their mind is already made up.
Been thinking about this all day. I didn't want to flippantly disagree, but there was something about your comment that bugged me.
I think maybe you have overstated. I would phrase it this way: skilled rhetoriticians _tend_ to converge on a semantic definition around the meaning of words and phrases.
I don't think they come to any ultimate truth, no matter what the greeks thought. I think what happens in any productive conversation is something more along the lines of shared mental model alignment, which I would argue is vastly more important.
Thanks for giving me something to cogitate on yesterday!
One side now lives in an alternate reality and is forcing somewhat objective people (scientists, FBI) to parrot that reality or face punishment...
And the media megacorps are playing this up hard, really trying to push that divide to get people to view their reactionary bullshit, bringing in the ad revenue. And it's working probably even better than they intended, since Americans seem to hate each other more than they have in almost 150 years.
One party's views have not changed dramatically with time, and still have arguments and discussions grounded in reality.
Another party's views are being shaped by propagandistic forces that have no interested in basing themselves under any realistic interpretation of reality.
I am not even sure if I am the dunce here for not getting that you wrote it that way on purpose and I'm explaining you your own joke.
One party places anti-immigration rhetoric that completely contradicts the experts' understanding of immigration policies, from experts with all sorts of political backgrounds.
One party denies the entirety of the fields of climate science, environmental science, and has no trouble entertaining Creationist ideals that reject the entirety of the field of biology.
One party rejects our current understanding of policies that reduce violent crime, and incarceration. The other one at the very least has an internal dialogue where positions are based on known statistics.
This repeats itself on and on. The fact that there are people who reject our current understanding of topics on all political sides doesn't mean that there is one party whose political interests are completely disconnected to the point where there are no real internal arguments for logical cohesiveness.
I think you have inadvertently stumbled upon the real fundamental change in politics over my lifetime - it seems a lot more of the younger generations have been brought up to believe the experts.
50 years ago we all knew the experts were a bunch of quacks.
Of course that is what everyone ideologically invested in their own side thinks.
And the Democrats? I remember the Democrats laughing at McCain talking about the Russian threat.
> On trade and commerce? Deficits?
Largely the same?
> Military intervention?
Ok sure the Republicans aren’t the war hawks they once were but many of the same neocons are still there biding their time.
The Obama administration warned about the Russian threat. The Republican party has been coopted by it. How does that place any blame on the left when it has been the RNC who's allowed itself to be infiltrated by external actors?
> Largely the same?
The GOP had never been in favor of the tariffs Trump proposes. The current platform is entirely inconsistent.
This is my problem with the people who think it's not a "both sides" issue or that both sides dont have serious issues that makes people want to have nothing to do with their affiliations. Not that they disagree with my personal critiques of the left; but that they are typically so married to their party it is functionally impossible for them to find any fault or willingess to critique their side for the better when it's absolutey called for and necessary. Instead it's a matter of"YOU tell ME what wrong with the party and I'll tell you why you're wrong".
They will turn right around and blame "the other" or explain every failing of their opponents with vigor, with a straight face and not a single hint of irony or self-awareness for things like straight ticket voting or blind partisan loyalty
If you ignore the baggage in your ranks, you be signaled to everyone else it's fine for them to do the same.
No. Obama mocked McCain in the 2012 presidential debates for claiming Russia was a major threat.
“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War has been over for 20 years” - President Obama
The Obama admin only started talking about Russia much later when it became politically convenient.
> The GOP had never been in favor of the tariffs Trump proposes.
The GOP has no ideological problem with tariffs as evidenced by Bush implementing Steel tariffs back in 2002.
If the statement reads as confusing to you, because it lacks any meaningful pointers to identify who it's talking about congratulations on being a rational nuanced thinker..
If it makes perfect sense on the other hand...you've probably been drinking too much "everyone else is wrong but me and people who think like me kool-aid"
Q: I remember when people who disagreed could still be friends. Can't we get along a bit better?
A: (you) No, because people I disagree with are basically Hitler and aren't based in "reality" so we can never be friends.
One side now lives in an alternate reality and is forcing somewhat objective people (scientists, FBI) to parrot that reality or face punishment...
But both sides of political extremes think that. Several people are pointing this out but it doesn't seem to be sticking.
Let me try. I read an interesting story on Hacker News recently about a scientist who gave a talk, and was punished for his views. He wasn't being punished by Trump-like pillars of conservatism. He was talking about discrimination against men and was suspended by his university administrators, because even though there is great consensus amongst scientists that women and men think differently, this 'scientific reality' is completely rejected by one political tribe (but not the other).
See... more or less any extremist criticism you can make of the other tribe can be easily turned around on you.
Is the right answer to dehumanize anyone with viewpoints and a political label different than the “correct” one? Should all Republicans be imprisoned, forcefully re-educated, and have their right to vote stripped from them as they committed the high crime of possibly voting for Trump?
I hope to God that it doesn’t take some kind of national unifying event that forcefully pulls us back together, neighbor to neighbor, because it shouldn’t take an immediate threat to survival for us to find common goals and listen to each other’s needs.
> Should all Republicans be imprisoned, forcefully re-educated, and have their right to vote stripped from them as they committed the high crime of possibly voting for Trump?
Comically, this is what the far left said was going to happen to them with Trump's Presidency. They're still saying it. John Ashcroft (whose policies I disliked immensely) was supposed to put everyone that disagreed with Bush into gulags. Reagan was going to get us all killed in a nuclear war, because he was crazy. And so on the hysterical behavior goes.
Maybe you've seen the insane chanting repetition videos online, where they indoctrinate the left marchers on what to say and how to behave, so they can put on an entirely fake show of protest. It's all about shrieking as loudly as possible to get as much attention as possible, and to intimidate others into capitulating. The concept is, the people that act out the most dramatically win, and get their way. The problem with that is, it loses its effect rapidly, you have to perpetually act crazier.
With as bad as it has all become lately, it can get worse yet. That's when the political class will begin locking down the capital and restricting access. We currently have Twitter flooded with death threats on Republican Senators, with the celebrity left saying the most vile, evil things possible about Senator Collins (and Twitter openly allowing it). Rand Paul's wife sent a letter to Cory Booker, pointing out that she now sleeps with a loaded gun next to her bed, because they're receiving endless numbers of death threats.
It can't end any other way than the US Government begins locking down its security and access further, cracking down on protest behavior, threats, etc.
Nothing that is happening right now is normal. Checks and balances are hanging on by a thread. Executive power is being consolidated in ways never seen before in the US. 2-year-olds are sitting in concentration camps in the desert and are being forced to defend themselves in court. All the while our politicians are lying to our faces to cover this up. We should marching in the streets every day, not trying to make friends.
In my opinion, these differences are irreconcilable. The only escape valve is a multi-party system. This is something all sides could in theory work towards. Will the Republicans be willing to give up power in order to do so? Unlikely.
1. Zuckerberg tells employees not to mistreat diverse views like Google did with Damore
2. Zuckerberg tells employees not to mistreat diverse views like Damore did at Google
I find there's a bi-modal distribution in how people interpret Damore's memo. It's like that blue-gold dress debate again:
1. evil sexist falsehood propaganda by a closet neo-nazi, meant to hurt
2. a well-sourced, accurate and well-meaning text by a nerd, meant to help
I read Damore's memo and reached my own conclusion (which is irrelevant to my point so I won't even state it), but isn't this dichotomy fascinating?
Your supporting link says it has no substance - it's a simple meme that is wrong.
This subject annoys me because I am convinced that not only does the Horseshoe Theory have no predictive power - but also that it denies something which really is true - that political violence can come out of the Center aka from Liberalism.
This is a huge blindspot in modern political culture. Conflict coming out of the Center would be a true Black Swan event.
I mean, it does no such thing, but that's how it feels, internally, and that's what generally happens.
Sources of today's top performing Facebook posts about Kavanaugh, per @crowdtangle:
1. Fox News 2. Ben Shapiro 3. CNSNews ("News the Lefty Media Doesn't Want You to Have") 4. Breitbart
About Dr. Ford: 1. Fox News 2. CNN 3. Daily Caller 4. Breitbart