Why Did Facebook Fire Palmer Luckey? It Had Something to Do With Trump
wsj.com
wsj.com
https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/TDJNDN_2018111159...
Mr. Luckey has told people he did vote for Mr. Johnson, but only to avoid having his credibility questioned if he was asked about the issue under oath in unrelated litigation.
Surely you can't compel someone to testify under oath about their constitutionally-protected secret ballot?
The irony is significant that while being hated and vilinized by the left, America’s adtech duopoly was assembled and appears to continue to be run by people who would largely identify as the liberal left.
0. https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/535jkk/about_wh...
1. https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-palmer-luckey-oculus-rift...
Imagine the uproar if that company had fired people just because they happened to attend another church. Quite a lot more uproar in fact than that which is now caused by Facebook firing someone because he happens to attend a different political party. It does not take much imagination to realise the uproar would also have been markedly higher if the stakes were turned in that a 'right-wing' company had fired someone because of his 'left-wing' tendencies.
All animals are equal or so it is said, but some are a lot more noisy than the others.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that "at will" employment allows an employer to fire a worker for no reason (just like an employee can decide to quit without providing a reason) but not for any reason. In particular, you can't fire someone for being black, for being pregnant, for refusing to do something illegal, etc.
This is why there is common advice of "don't tell people why you're firing them" -- as soon as you give an explanation, there's a risk that your words could be twisted into implying that you fired them for a bad (i.e., illegal) reason rather than simply for no reason.
“At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
I can fire you for being a fan of the Raiders because I am a fan of the Chargers.
https://www.rocketlawyer.com/article/what-states-are-at-will...
> Political Affiliation Discrimination occurs when an employee is treated adversely due to differing political membership or political views than his or her employers. Political Affiliation is not traditionally a protected class, but with politics so controversial, political affiliation discrimination is on the rise.
> There are only three jurisdictions in the United States that explicitly bans political affiliation and activity discrimination, California, D.C., and New York. New York does not cover political affiliation discrimination, only political activity discrimination. Federal law discrimination law does not cover political affiliation or political activity. However, many states prohibit employers from influencing the votes of their employees. [1]
[1] https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-aff...
"Can I fire the Trump supporter who reports to me?"
In California, the answer is clear — the law expressly prohibits employers from forbidding an employee from participating in politics, or controlling or directing an employee’s political activities or affiliations. Employers are also barred from firing or threatening to fire an employee in order to coerce him or her into any particular course of political activity. (California Labor Code Sections 1101 & 1102.)
These provisions encompass and protect more than simply supporting a particular candidate or party. The California Supreme Court has decided the term “political activities” includes all activities that may indicate support for a particular candidate or a political cause. This broad definition of “political activities” protects California employees from discrimination based not only on which candidate the employee supports, but also on support for or involvement in the many social and political movements of today’s political landscape.
Employees may not be fired or otherwise disciplined for participating in a climate march or attending an Ann Coulter speech; nor for going to a “Black Lives Matter” protest or supporting a border wall between the United States and Mexico; nor for countless opinions and activities in between.
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/05/16/can-i-fi...
"Tediously political" is subjective. If the person fired had been a leftist, I doubt this story would have been flagged.
The more likely cause is, Luckey (aka NimbleRichMan) was known to fund facebook groups that spread disinformation, an issue that FB is struggling with majorly right now. It doesn't help your cause when one of your highest profile exec if pouring more fuel in the fire.
If he was really fired for supporting Trump I'd imagine there would be some legal grounds for Palmer to sue on. However, WSJ does a disservice here and I'm looking forward to when Cruz cites this article as evidence for his base that the coastal elite boogeyman is out to get them.
He has more clout. Also I think he’s sold all his fb stock.
Nov 2017: "Thiel, who is a member of Facebook’s board had already sold more than $1 billion worth of its stock before the filing made on Tuesday. It said he had sold another 160,805 shares for about $29 million, leaving his holdings at 59,913 Class A shares in the company"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-stake/peter-thie...
Any time I read stuff like this I imagine a mirror world where I'm employed in a hyper conservative tech industry, judged and scrutinized and maybe fired for donating time and money to progressive causes.
Lucey was funding memes that brought out the worst in people, memes with blatant racist/sexist undertones.
And a lot of executives jobs now have some clause about personal character outside of work, as they very well should. Being a racist/sexist outside of work should be costly and it is.
I funded a single billboard that depicted Hillary Clinton and the text "Too Big to Jail". That is it. This whole racist/sexist/anti-semitic trolling machine narrative was invented from whole cloth. If there were any examples to back it up, you have to imagine someone somewhere would have something to show.
Still however, there seem to be a lot of articles claiming that you funded things other than just the billboard you talk about. Specifically, that you funded troll groups who were making the memes [ https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/23/13025422/palmer-luckey-oc... ].
Is this not true? If it is true that you were funding the shitposting, then surely you don't know the content of all that was funded from your pockets -- memes that very well could have been racist/sexist/in poor taste, right?
This is not perfect, but it goes over how people got mislead into thinking otherwise: https://venturebeat.com/2017/04/29/the-timeline-of-the-tweet...
Unethical behaviour is unethical, even if it at its core a politically motivated act.
At the same time, I also think corporations should be able to fire people for no reason at all.
[0] https://www.thedailybeast.com/palmer-luckey-the-facebook-nea...
People at facebook are very anti-Trump.
If the lawmakers accept refusing customers based on their sexuality, I don't think they can't object against "No Trump Supporters" into executive positions policy either. Executives represent the company in a way that normal workers don't.
There is obviously line somewhere in the sand, but it's different for different people in different issues.
Conservatives should not try to argue that that that kind of discrimination should not exist. They should argue on principles and map out principles.
(I think that's what you're saying anyway, just wanted to add my $0.02)
Are you sure? Start from the most extreme political positions and walk back from there.
Edit: posted to wrong comment, should have been above.
In my opinion differing political opinions should be tolerated as much as possible.
> In one post on a Reddit chain dedicated to supporting Mr. Trump, the author, called “NimbleRichMan,” said he was donating to the group so it could spread unflattering memes about Mrs. Clinton.
> Mr. Luckey’s donation and the perception he might be leading a pro-Trump online campaign ignited a firestorm.
So, contrary to the title of this HN submission, the firing was not because he supported Trump, but because he was donating to, and possibly running, a political organization dedicated to trolling people online — according to this WSJ article.
> Then Mr. Luckey and his lawyer negotiated a payout of at least $100 million
Poor feller.
> political beliefs are chosen and based on ideology
Aren't religious beliefs pretty darn similar to political ones, based on that?
The threat of losing a job is one of the most powerful coercion mechanism in modern western society. For vast majority of people, it's not far from threatening a person and their family with bodily harm. If you allow for that, then people won't really be free to choose their political beliefs.
(Firings for politicking at work instead of actually working are another thing, though.)
> political beliefs are chosen and based on ideology.
By both sides. Why should it be allowed to fire people based on ideology?
If someone is stuck in a single job and unable to get employed anywhere else, that's an entirely separate societal problem.
> "By both sides."
I said as much in my original post.
> "Why should it be allowed to fire people based on ideology?"
Because the relationship between employer-employee should always be voluntary and never compelled. If it's known that I want to expel all white (or black, fill in the blank) people from the country, and this is an incompatible view with the company, they should not be forced to continue the relationship. If I want to abolish the Constitution and force everyone to worship me by law, the employer should not be forced to continue this relationship. These are merely examples.
In reality if you're firing people for all but the most extreme political beliefs, you'll likely damage your business either directly or indirectly through public perception.
Your comment makes sense if it is McDonalds or Nike or Wallmart. Their CEO's aren't being asked everyday by every govt on the planet what they are doing about disagreeable info.
Think about Harvey Weinstein-- Hollywood super-mogul, pre-eminent power player, prominent supporter of ONE political party.
Weinstein was a vicious sexual predator for decades. He was able to operate because he used fear and intimidation, especially fear of employment prospects. Do you ever wonder why Hollywood is almost exclusively left-leaning? Why the awards ceremonies have only left-leaning outbursts?
It is easy to imagine the same thing happening in tech. This is not good, not good at all.
Why aren't Hollywood studios worker-owned cooperatives?
Why aren't Hollywood elites advocating for getting rid of private property and giving power to the workers, rather than buying up mansions, yachts, and private jets for themselves?
Private property and capitalism is alive and well in Hollywood, and both are about as anit-left as you can get.
All the items you cite do align more closely with the right side of the American political spectrum, not the left.
Yet the messaging that comes out of Hollywood is overwhelmingly leftist. You can't watch an awards show without seeing several 'spontaneous' outbursts against Republican politicians, in favor of left-leaning policies, etc.
Why is this? Why do these people look like typical Republicans but speak like rabid Democrats?
My theory (as explained above, and bolstered by testimony from Allen, Woods, etc.) is that money, job prospects, and awards are used as incentives to publicly tow the party line (without regard to the person's actual opinions.) We know these tactics were used to great avail in the Weinstein playbook. It's why none of his victims came forward-- they were mostly starlets that wanted to work.
Of course I'm not certain. Does anybody have a better theory for why those people seem to 'live' right-side, but 'shout out' left-side?
OK I give up, why?
It's been stated by James Woods, Tim Allen, and others. If an actor or actress makes right-leaning political statements, their job prospects are diminished. Tim Allen said Hollywood is now like Germany in the 30s
It's the same methodology Weinstein used-- you want to work, you fall in line.
https://deadline.com/2017/03/tim-allen-says-being-conservati...
- Weinstein continued his predatory ways by threatening the careers of anyone who might expose him.
- Weinstein was also a major Democratic donor. (Many Democrats denounced him after his downfall.) Tellingly, as he was suffering the first wave of accusations he tried to say he'd be back and battling against the gun industry-- he tried to cling a left-side pillar. I find it easy to imagine that Weinstein would use his influence to tip the scales politically as he did with his sexual abuses. He would threaten the career of anyone who didn't follow his instructions.
As noted above, James Woods, Tim Allen, and other conservatives have noted that they believe the Hollywood environment is toxic to conservatives. I have no reason to doubt them, they know that world better than I do. All I can see is that the vast majority of Hollywood celebs speak out from the left side, not the right. I have to wonder: For what reason, if not what I have said above?
In any case, Harvey Weinstein has no relevance here. It's no big surprise that a scumbag acts like a scumbag, or that he tries to change the subject when exposed. No different than when Bill O'Reilly blamed far-left activists and "forces of evil" for ending his career [0].
0. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/350710-oreilly-...
Also: Apply the same standards to any left-siders you DO listen to. I imagine I can come up with some that are more egregious than Woods. (He doesn't seem too far out, compared to Kathy Griffin, Rob Reiner, etc., does he?)
The title is heavily editorialized which I suspect is a big reason this is flagged.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/business/oculus-palmer-lu... https://variety.com/2016/digital/news/oculus-backlash-palmer... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/how-your-oculus-...
Submitters: Changes like that have strong degrading effects on discussion, so please don't do that.