I can’t read the whole article due to the pay wall, but it was my impression that his firing had less to do with the fact that he supported Trump than the ways he went about showing his support. For example, donating money to organizations that were pretty clearly dedicated to trolling and antagonizing using misinformation.
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.
Palmer here. I am not a racist or sexist, and if you think I was funding "memes with blatant racist/sexist undertones", you probably don't have a good handle on what actually happened.
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.
Okay fair, I rescind my comment saying that you in particular are a racist/sexist (I'm outside my edit time window for my parent comment).
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?
The only shitposting that I funded was that single billboard, and calling it shitposting is already a stretch. The narratives about me funding troll groups making memes are totally false.
But in this case you would also have to be imagining the world where you were donating to progressive causes that were also committed to disinformation campaigns and dishonest behaviour.
Unethical behaviour is unethical, even if it at its core a politically motivated act.
You don't have to imagine it, because it's exactly what Hillary Clinton did. She ran an extremely dishonest campaign against Sanders. There was also a progressive group that sounds very analogous (but actually more nefarious) than the group Luckey donated to. It's called Correct The Record and it was all about spreading memes and false information.
In this mirror world that you imagine do you also imagine that these progressive causes you are donating time and money to are using your help to spread misinformation? Or do truth and lies get transposed in the mirror as well?
It's a fair point. I think I'm just cautious about who decides where the line is between a valid cause and a harmful one involving misinformation and whatnot.
At the same time, I also think corporations should be able to fire people for no reason at all.
According to this [0], it looks like disinformation campaigns, which is exactly what Facebook needs to not be doing. I’m not surprised he was fired for it.
why does Facebook have an obligation to define "disinformation"? This is thought policing and nothing more. If he had supported liberal platforms he would be celebrated
Facebook has an obligation to define disinformation in the same way an unregulated food processing plant would have an obligation to define sanitary. These should be just basic moral standards that any participant in society should be held to.
You're right, it was about the donation to the Nimble America organization, not about his political beliefs. And this is according to the very WSJ article we're discussing. But the submitter changed the HN title to make it seem that it was over his political views.
That was my assumption too, but the WSJ article claims that even after Luckey was found to have lied about it, they still did not accuse him of violating any internal policies.
Canadian but I believe it comes down to whether or not your state has “at will” employment or not - which is basically: it’s my company so I can fire you for whatever I want. I don’t believe California is an at-will employement state.
“at will” employment [...] it’s my company so I can fire you for whatever I want
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.
No, it’s any reason as long as it’s discriminatory:
“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”
As was I. Apparently it's not protected nationally, but it IS in California where FB is HQ'd.
> 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]
In California, where Luckey was employed by Facebook, it is generally illegal. I think this article is a reasonable summary of the California specific law:
"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.
>Executives from Facebook, Twitter Inc. and Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc., have had to answer questions from lawmakers about potential bias in their treatment of conservative viewpoints.
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.
The editorialized headline is strange. Luckey is not the first facebook figure to publicly support Trump - Thiel is. WSJ chooses to frame this as "FB is left learning, and they didn't like Luckey", but that doesn't explain why Thiel has been largely immune.
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.
Thiel has liquidated nearly all of his FB stock. He appears to own a mere ~$8.7m worth of shares, basically a token sum likely retained because he's on the board.
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"
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.
If Hollywood is so leftist, why are they such capitalists?
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?
Because job prospects are tied to taking the preferred political actions.
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.
I meant, what does this have to do with Harvey Weinstein being an abuser? His accusers say he blacklisted them for rebuffing his sexual misconduct, not because they conflicted over politics. I don't think there's much disagreement that Weinstein abused his power.
In my admittedly conservative mind, here's how I see it:
- 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?
I don't disagree that the majority of Hollywood is left-wing, but I take that as a function of the movie industry being nearly exclusively concentrated in America's most urban cities, and with theater and arts being liberal pursuits. With much of Hollywood hiring being based on who you know and who you're represented by (agent-wise), seems pretty obvious that an industry in extremely liberal cities, fueled by kids studying the liberal arts, is going to have a high concentration of liberals. That some of the few actors/producers who are conservatives are going to feel besieged seems, well, also obvious. A left-wing oil worker in North Dakota/Texas is going to feel similarly isolated, doesn't mean the industry is inherently and inextricably anti-liberal.
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].
If an honest conversation relies on you understanding the legitimate reasons why we don't listen to what James Woods has to say, then what are the odds of an honest conversation?
Why would you not listen to James Woods? If it's just because you disagree with his politics, then I don't find that a good reason.
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?)
> Mr. Luckey’s fallout with Facebook began in September 2016, when the Daily Beast revealed his $10,000 donation to NimbleAmerica, a pro-Trump group that paid for advertising mocking Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2016 election. At least one billboard paid for by the group featured a picture of Mrs. Clinton and the phrase “Too Big to Jail.”
> 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
Employers should be able to fire employees for their political beliefs no matter what they are. It's not remotely on the same level as race or gender or anything of the like; political beliefs are chosen and based on ideology. Laws against these firings are a government overstep.
Yes, they are, which is as much as argument that religious beliefs are too protected as it is an argument that political beliefs are not protected enough.
Who within the company makes that decision? What if a conservative white manager fires a liberal black employee citing that they were making other employees uncomfortable with their political diatribes?
That would be the employer's decision. If you are fired for these sorts of reasons, you should be more than welcome to tell your story to people. Perhaps it will hurt the company's business.
Er...then the employee is fired, if the employer is in a state that has no protections for political speech at work. I don’t understand this question. Is it your belief that white managers never fire black employees?
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?
It's pretty far from threatening a person and their family with bodily harm. You are not entitled to be employed by any particular employer.
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.
Well this is Facebook. How much political content moves through their platform everyday?
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.
Employers who aren't ruled over like slaves should be able to fire or hire employees for any reason, including race, gender, or political belief. Of course, it may benefit the public to know if an employer is hiring or firing based on bigotry, which is a much better "solution" than the resulting unintended consequences of government regulating this kind of discrimination.
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?
Politically and regulatorily it is not a good sign when both sides of the political spectrum are peddling the story that your company is a bad actor.
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.
Interesting article. I had always assumed that Luckey was forced to resign because of his “NimbleRichMan” charade, a subterfuge so cringey and shady that it was r/the_donald’s own version of the Digg revolt [0], which to me would be grounds for firing because of all the FEC problems it could get him and Facebook into. And then he lied about not being NimbleRichMan [1], which would seem to seal the deal for firing. But the WSJ article says FB’s investigation afterward that Luckey did not violate any internal policies. It still makes more sense to me that they fired Luckey for being a reckless liability. But they had the chance to say so and apparently didn’t.
This is a legitimate article from a good source about a major tech company. The only obvious reason for flagging is that it makes a conservative guy the victim of a liberal/progressive company. Why was it flagged?
I'm guessing for fucking about with the title or for being tediously political. The article has "Why Did Facebook Fire a Top Executive? Hint: It Had Something to Do With Trump".
They don’t seem to get into much of the other controversy about him. There’s an argument thhat this publicity also affected Oculus sales and public image.
The title is heavily editorialized which I suspect is a big reason this is flagged.
The submitted title was "Facebook Fired Palmer Luckey Because He Supported Trump". That indeed broke the site guidelines, which ask: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
Submitters: Changes like that have strong degrading effects on discussion, so please don't do that.
Remember the WordPerfect company? Based in Orem, Utah, founded by two Mormons (Bruce Bastian and Alan Ashton).
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.
It would be outright illegal for them to fire people for attending a different church. Religion is explicitly protected by federal employment law: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm
93 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 147 ms ] threadAny 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record
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.
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...
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.
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...
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?)
> 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.
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?
https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/TDJNDN_2018111159...
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...
"Tediously political" is subjective. If the person fired had been a leftist, I doubt this story would have been flagged.
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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
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.