Censorship champions are really desperate for any hint of hypocrisy to distract from their own lack of principles. Oh, so you think the global forum you run should allow other viewpoints, but the internal forum for your company should be moderated? Incredible hypocrisy indeed.
You have an endless number of outlets to organize and discuss your political views in 2020. Any political discussion at work is likely to be of low value anyway due to one-sidedness, which stems from the high-risk nature of presenting out-of-line views with one's primary income at stake.
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.
Free speech advocates should be celebrating this decision, rather than trying to portray it as something evil.
"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.
p.s. It's very likely that this response will get instantly down-voted because it doesn't align with current socio-political stance prevalent on the forum. That in itself is however a prime example of what Zuck is trying to avoid at Facebook.
>Free speech advocates should be celebrating this decision, rather than trying to portray it as something evil.
>"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)
In my opinion the difference is whether you have the discussion from your free will or because it is being imposed on you.
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.
It’s isolating and restricting speech, that’s why. Analogous to the “free speech zones” on university campuses, which in some cases, even require you to get advance permission to speak in them. The opposite of free speech is not silence.
Free speech is when anyone can say anything they want, but if you've followed the trends in Silicon Valley for the last couple of years, there is no more free speech. One cannot for example say they are pro-Republicans, or against housing, or basically pro/against anything that is not in line with the mob, without getting in trouble. Professors are being fired, executives are being let go, all because what they say goes against the group-think.
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.
I think quashing divisive conversations in the workplace is generally a healthy thing to do for the well-being of your employees, however Facebook has put itself in a unique position which also makes the move hypocritical.
13 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 28.8 ms ] threadIt'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.
Think he's onboard for that?
"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.