Free Speech Champion Mark Zuckerberg Announces Plan to Censor His Employees
gizmodo.com
gizmodo.com
"Employees shouldn’t have to confront social issues in their day-to-day work unless they want to." - What part of that is bad?
Regardless of your opinions, your ability to do great work should be separated from your ability to have social/political arguments.
Much like you shouldn't force anyone at work to be Vegan, because you are, or to avoid Gluten, because you do, you also should not insist that employees participate in discussions that are otherwise none of their interests.
Making sure that employees can ignore the social noise and continue to do their job is a net positive - better for the employer, and better for the employee.
Maybe those black employees can try to not force other employees to be black.
My point being, for some people, this is a life or death situation happening in America and to treat it as "just politics" is extremely, hurtful.
>"Employees shouldn’t have to confront social issues in their day-to-day work unless they want to." - What part of that is bad?
>Regardless of your opinions, your ability to do great work should be separated from your ability to have social/political arguments.
That seems to be ignoring that the discussion these employees were wanting to have was about the societal impacts of their work, not some abstract discussion about societal issues - I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to be exposed to a discussion on the societal impacts of their work.
Especially when the impacts are as extreme as murder (Kenosha), genocide (Myanmar), or furthering conspiracy theories (Qanon)
The stance of the loud is: "This is an important issue and we should all talk about this until the society is better!" But that actually disenfranchises the quiet ones who just want to get work done. Not everyone cares, and forcing them to care is wrong.
It doesn't sound like Zuck will stop you for sitting around the lunch table and discussing the issues, but he will make sure that no one calls you names, or passes you for a promotion ..etc, for wanting to opt out.
I don't really have any information on what's happening on the inside, but judging this from the information we got publicly, it really seems to me as a way to enable every employee whose voice is being outnumbered.
THAT is the opposite of free speech.
Free speech should not be only available to those you agree with. When an ideology is being forced on you by a loud group that says "you are either with us, or you are against us," that is not free speech.
Think he's onboard for that?
It's very well documented that some people in high places can't control their emotions when it comes to politics (im thinking of the video where google execs are crying about Trump's election, which is always hard to find on Google for some reason). I would not be comfortable sharing my views at the Google (if i had any). I'd probably dye my hair pink and buy those thick-rimmed glasses to avoid raising suspicion that i might be apolitical.