
I worked on Facebook's Trending team - simonebrunozzi
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/17/facebook-trending-news-team-curators-toxic-work-environment
======
smt88
> "Working at Facebook, even as a contractor, was supposed to be the
> opportunity of a lifetime."

Does anyone really say that working at a tech giant as a non-engineer is an
opportunity of a lifetime?

I have had multiple friends who worked at Google on AdSense sales, and it
certainly didn't do anything for their careers. I can't imagine it did much
for their savings, either.

~~~
lucasmullens
Google is a powerful name, no matter what you did there. It got Google on your
friends' resumes, so certainly that has some impact to some recruiters.

~~~
home_boi
Is it really? I'm thinking about the reverse case with a Software Engineer at
a bulge bracket bank, which isn't seen as a resume boost at all.

~~~
clappski
I think it depends what you do there. If you're a quant developer, or actually
working in the investment bank (rather than retail) it's a really good thing
to have on your CV. Especially if you actually want to work in fintech.

------
dmix
The majority of this sounds like low grade managerial issues. Not much here
sounds like a big deal IMO. The type of stuff you hear people complain about
often when they work at big corporate machines. Even more so when they're
stuck in non-core business units, staffed with contractors.

I have a feeling the curators were seen as a necessary evil until the machines
were good enough to replace them. So they were treated as such and their work
wasn't well planned/prioritized from the top.

The lack of direct guidelines and hand-holding from management indicates that
there wasn't much interest in establishing long-term processes. Which high-
turnover contractor worker bees usually require, compared to leaving them
alone where they are required to make their own decisions (with potential
consequences).

~~~
emodendroket
Well, maybe so, but it's hardly surprising that people feel a little resentful
about this when they're working at one of the world's premiere workplaces and
can see people right in front of them doing much better.

------
kukx
>"Every day, I sifted through hundreds of topics (or “keywords”) that Facebook
told me were trending on the platform. Then I’d choose a story about the
keyword(...)"

>“Facebook relies heavily on just 10 news sources to determine whether a
trending news story has editorial authority.”

>"Several times curators were penalized for using Twitter in descriptions."

It seems that Facebook is likely to manipulate the news by selecting the
"right" sources. If there's bias it most likely come from the selection, I
wonder what are the source titles. Also, penalizing for mentioning Twitter
shows that they put their own intrest over their users. It is understandable
to some degree from the economic point of view, but it also shows the danger
of having one company dominating the market. Facebook is not that benign, even
now.

~~~
chris_wot
Even if you have the score and sources, I still think you'd need good
guidelines. The problem is, nobody seems to know what these guidelines are
_in_ Facebook, and nobody outside of Facebook can review them!

------
amaks
The most disturbing to me is not even favoritism and sexism conditions at work
(which is ironic given Sheryl Sandberg's book and official line), but the fact
that Facebook: 1. uses humans to pick the trending topics, which are
inherently biased in one way or another; 2. the trending sources are very
limited and curated (e.g. no Twitter), which is clearly anti-competitive
practices.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
What obligations does Facebook have to include Twitter sources, or to ensure
trending topics are unbiased?

~~~
Animats
Wikipedia doesn't consider Twitter a reliable source. Why should Facebook?

~~~
ucaetano
Facebook uses Facebook as a source, which is as reliable as Twitter.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Perhaps that obviates the need to include Twitter

------
bluegate010
Off-topic, but The Guardian's article landing page really needs to be cleaned
up: [http://i.imgur.com/3LGXU7g.png](http://i.imgur.com/3LGXU7g.png)

I can't make heads or tails of what I'm supposed to pay attention to.

~~~
mrweasel
Sadly that seems to be a trend. Sites started to assume that your screen is
taller than it is wide a while back.

It might be a combination of designers and writers working on large monitors,
having multiple tall narrow windows open, and people using iPads in portrait
mode.

Users of 11" and 13" laptops seems to have been forgotten in this new design
trend.

------
billhendricksjr
The broader conversation is very interesting on a number of levels, but I have
a specific question for this audience... do you actually pay attention to the
trending topics on Facebook? They're not prominently displayed and if FB
really wanted to influence the conversation on X, they could be doing so much
more IMO. I feel like they're still trying to test their way into this
experience.

~~~
emodendroket
Once in a while.

------
sidcool
>"A former contractor says that while the social media company did not impose
political bias upon news ‘curators’, she and other employees were subject to
poor management, intimidation and sexism that left them feeling voiceless"

That's quite disturbing

------
fieryeagle
Contractors are second-class citizens at best, at any places so what was she
expecting exactly? I don't mean to deride the writer but I'm honestly not sure
if the janitors would think that working at FB is the opportunity of a
lifetime, and I place more values at keeping places clean and tidy than
curating news with an obvious bias (hint - I don't read them). There is
nothing world-changing about picking out articles as a stepping stone for
being replaced by algorithms. If you can't speak up, it means you are weak,
the environment is toxic or both. So do something about it, or walk away like
what the men do.

~~~
k__
Depends in what you do for the company.

If they just need you to get more work done, you may be right.

But if you got a skill no one else at the company has, they are rather nice to
you.

~~~
fieryeagle
When you have the unique skill, you're better off being labelled as
'consultant'. The terms might be used interchangeably yet I've seen the power
dynamics being consultant > full-timer > part-timer > contractor.

------
JacobJans
This was eerily similar to The Circle, by Dave Eggers.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_%28Eggers_novel%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_%28Eggers_novel%29)

------
rdlecler1
Reading her comments it made me wonder if women might be disposed to scar more
easily (or men are more defiant) from this kind of treatment, creating a
negative feedback loop in subsequent jobs and roles which negatively affects
their careers. This is not intended to be a criticism of women, but rather
it's question which may have important implications. Men may externalize this
kind of sandbagging and stonewalling while women may tend to internalize it.
If so it may be a much bigger deal than it may appear to a man because we're
damaging our talent pool.

~~~
timmytokyo
That's a whole lot of hypothetical generalizing about women and men, based on
absolutely no evidence. Try swapping "men" for "women" (and vice versa) in
your comment to see how obnoxious it sounds.

~~~
thenomad
Let's see:

"Reading his comments it made me wonder if men might be disposed to scar more
easily (or women are more defiant) from this kind of treatment, creating a
negative feedback loop in subsequent jobs and roles which negatively affects
their careers. This is not intended to be a criticism of men, but rather it's
question which may have important implications. Women may externalize this
kind of sandbagging and stonewalling while men may tend to internalize it. If
so it may be a much bigger deal than it may appear to a woman because we're
damaging our talent pool."

Could have maybe used a couple more "tend to" statements, but doesn't seem
horribly unreasonable to me.

(And looks, in many ways, equally valid as a hypothesis. Not in all elements,
but there is a culture of the "strong man" who simply internalises stress and
conflict in a lot of places.)

------
pervycreeper
Unfortunately, the article provides no insight about the recent allegations
regarding political bias in "trending" topics.

~~~
ecdavis
I disagree. The article states:

> There is no political bias that I know of and we were never told to suppress
> conservative news.

But then later goes on to say:

> “Facebook relies heavily on just 10 news sources to determine whether a
> trending news story has editorial authority.” The problem is, even after
> repeated questions and requests for guidance, no one ever explained what
> that meant. Much of it was left to interpretation for curators and copy
> editors. Topics are treated differently depending on who you are working
> with.

Which leads to a fairly obvious observation: providing insufficient editorial
guidelines leaves room for unconscious bias to take over.

Of course, qualified journalists should be aware of their own biases and be
able to compensate for them. Unfortunately, journalism in the US is becoming
increasingly less valued and more partisan.

I wouldn't be surprised if this whole bias fiasco was an unexpected side-
effect of Facebook hiring largely left-leaning editorial staff.

~~~
jyrkesh
> I wouldn't be surprised if this whole bias fiasco was an unexpected side-
> effect of Facebook hiring largely left-leaning editorial staff.

I always assumed that this was exactly what's going on. You don't need a
handbook that says "stifle conversative stuff", you just need vague rules,
managers playing the world's worst game of corporate telephone, and a bunch of
disorganization.

Life at large companies...

~~~
airtonix
The left never think they are biased.

If you are unable to see through the looking glass, then why would you ever
come to the conclusion that you're biased?

~~~
Sacho
Wouldn't that statement be just as correct for the "right"?

~~~
kagamine
Platitudes are true for everyone, the comment you replied to was without
value.

Why do people seem to think all journalists are left-leaning?

~~~
humanrebar
The data seems to back it up pretty clearly. There is other data out there on
overwhelmingly Democrat political donations.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2014/05/06/ju...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-
less-than-even-a-decade-ago)

------
xufi
FB in my view can pretty much dictate what it wants news wise which doesn't
affect me because I don't get my news from once source but I wonder whom the
people that sort of the stories are after they are spit out by the algorithm ?

------
Smaointe
The Trending Team seem to be treated as if they are a tool of the engineers. A
very good piece of software that the engineering can make use of and integrate
into their systems. They mustn't forget that they are actually people!

------
multinglets
When people at large start to notice that a given publication or platform --
reddit for instance -- has been compromised by certain left-wing ideologies,
you will inevitably see a narrative about its behind-the-scenes/"subtle"
sexism/discrimination in very short order.

It's becoming a very predictable trick. I can't imagine I'm the only one who
sees this.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Reddit appears to have been taken over by Trump supporters for a while now.

~~~
venomsnake
The_Donald has 130000 subs ... that is peanuts. It is on par with fatlogic.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Can't say I've seen it. Donald routinely has spam-like levels of highest
ranking post. To me it appears to be the most active sub by far.

------
powertower
> There is no political bias that I know of and we were never told to suppress
> conservative news. There is an extraordinary amount of talent on the team...

I don't use Facebook, but over the last several years I kept hearing from a
number of non-PC type news outlets (that I subscribe to) that even as their
media platform grew and doubled and tripled, at the same time their Facebook
engagement became a small fraction of what it used to be.

I've also heard that one of the quickest ways to get your Facebook account
terminated in Germany is to say anything negative about the current migration
situation that becomes popular or starts to get views.

This article IMO is a way to hide the real story with another story.

~~~
mulmen
Do you have any evidence of this beyond what you have heard? I believe the
down votes are a result of your lack of evidence.

I'm not defending Facebook but I have yet to see any substance to the argument
that they are manipulating the conversation on their platform.

~~~
powertower
Only anecdotal. And you can see some of it if you google 'facebook
censorship'.

But here is one about Germany -
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/26/mark-
zuck...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/26/mark-zuckerberg-
hate-speech-germany-facebook-refugee-crisis)

Though to understand what it is really talking about, you have to understand
the redefinition of "hate speech" that has happened through-out the EU.

~~~
mulmen
Can you elaborate on the redefinition of "hate-speech"? How was it previously
defined and how has that definition changed? Who changed it?

As an American this is especially interesting to me because we place such
value on our freedom of speech but also pay a high price in the hate speech
that is viewed as a necessary evil. It seems that the EU has made an attempt
to manage this hateful speech but I'm not familiar with the specifics.

~~~
Kristine1975
AFAIK there has been no "redefinition of hate speech" throughout the EU. It's
just that in Germany, Facebook started removing posts that are illegal under
German law (libel, incitement of violence...) after they were reminded that
they were legally required to do so.

German blog post about it: [http://www.internet-law.de/2015/09/muss-facebook-
staerker-ge...](http://www.internet-law.de/2015/09/muss-facebook-staerker-
gegen-rassistische-postings-vorgehen.html)

------
mrits
I have tons of friends at Facebook and have gone to the Holiday parties for
the last 7 years. I have heard a few similar stories, but the vast majority
seem to love it. I think if someone is willing to publicly shame a company so
big because of their bad experience, it really shows their lack of
intelligence. Certainly experiences vary and if it was really a toxic
environment for women, why do so any women love it?

------
exodust
> _" I still carry the fear of speaking up with me. I find myself holding back
> when I see a problem or afraid to speak up when I have an idea."_

This sounds a bit drama-queeny. She manages to seamlessly blend workplace
sexism with product failures and other complaints all in a few sentences. To
me that sounds like a broad swipe at her employer, the details and truth of
which are far from conclusive based on her words alone.

It's not an easy topic to sum up neatly, but sexist allegations often have an
unjustified momentum. Joining dots and drawing conclusions about co-worker and
manager intent, when often the explanation is quite different.

For example, the first time someone complains about a discrepancy, it may be
ignored not because the complainer was a woman, but that it was the _first
complaint_. When others start to complain about the same thing, action is more
likely to happen. A woman seeking evidence of sexism in the workplace will
ignore the sensible explanation, and hurry to point the finger: "you ignored
my complaint because I'm a woman".

Cognitive bias in the workplace is unfortunately the more likely story, less
interesting as it may be. I enjoy a good "what did FB do wrong now" article,
but I can't swallow this one.

