It's not entirely clear how they came to that conclusion without any data to back it up. How could they know? Was there an internal survey or something?
Or perhaps Facebook employees generally lean right maybe? Any FB employees here care to comment?
Or perhaps Facebook employees generally lean right maybe? Any FB employees here care to comment?
It’s impossible to tell, especially working remotely. It’s not like you can ask these kinds of questions over Workplace chat unless you’re close with other team members.
But the perspective that there are people who agree with Zuck’s decision and aren’t speaking up is valid. I’m one of them despite generally agreeing with BLM _and_ being a person of color.
You have people changing their profile pics to BLM icons which makes it ever so apparent that a non-negligible percent (20%-30% maybe) of co-workers in each group chat support the cause.
During Q&As, 95% of the comments are from BLM supporters making quite blunt remarks about Zuck’s decision making.
Director+ levels are also vocally against Zuck’s decision (although they accept that they can’t change his mind). I’m not willing to torpedo my career progression here, and imagine others feel the same.
So yeah, I’ll be keeping my mouth shut and silently nodding along with the rest while Zuck gets rocks thrown at him.
Have you actually experienced firings / ostracism from people at the company? While I do feel like your points would be contrarian (and may get shouted at), I'm wondering what the actual repercussions would be.
Most of what I've seen (in regards to dissenters) have been relatively spirited debates and strong digital dissension but no strong tangible effects.
I'm asking this in good faith as someone who sits on the other side of the fence on this issue (though like with most things am not 100% assured of my decision).
Anyway, I think the idea was someone needed statistics on how many people were stealing things after some sort of event, but obviously they couldn't just ask people because who would admit to breaking the law.
So what you do is you ask the question: "Are you stealing" then you have the person flip a coin out of your view. If the coin is heads then they answer honestly, but if the coin is tails, then they always answer yes. This way the person in question has plausible deniability (I didn't steal, I said that I did because the coin came up tails). Then once you have the data you just need to divide by half and maybe tweak some other parameters, but you end up with realistic data (or so the statisticians say).
What if all of Trump's worst posts were removed, such that every potential voter reading them then has a less-aligned view of what he supports, and decides to vote for him, when they would not have had his posts not been selectively filtered? Just one of many possibilities