
Why Did Facebook Fire Palmer Luckey? It Had Something to Do With Trump - kyleblarson
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-did-facebook-fire-a-top-executive-hint-it-had-something-to-do-with-trump-1541965245
======
cft
Text without paywall:

[https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-
jones/TDJNDN_2018111159...](https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-
jones/TDJNDN_20181111592/why-did-facebook-fire-a-top-executive-hint-it-had-
something-to-do-with-trump.html)

~~~
wyclif
Why was this story flagged? As far as I can tell, the WSJ is the only news org
that covered this story.

------
cperciva
A buried lede:

 _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?

------
AJ007
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.

------
danso
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.

0\.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/535jkk/about_wh...](https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/535jkk/about_what_happened_tonight/?st=JODF17RJ&sh=69ed43b9)

1\. [https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-palmer-luckey-oculus-
rift...](https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-palmer-luckey-oculus-rift-lie-
nimble-america/)

------
ColanR
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?

------
Yetanfou
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.

~~~
danso
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](https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm)

------
Cyclone_
Curious what the legality of this sort of thing would be, can you really fire
someone for political preference?

~~~
lwansbrough
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.

~~~
cperciva
_“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.

~~~
paulcole
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”

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-
will_employment](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.

~~~
cperciva
Sure. Perhaps I should have said "for no reason, or for any non-illegal
reason".

------
tdurden
I am curious why this was flagged?

~~~
DanBC
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".

~~~
wyclif
But if you posted the article without editing the title, as per HN guidelines,
it's still gonna get flagged.

"Tediously political" is subjective. If the person fired had been a leftist, I
doubt this story would have been flagged.

------
nemothekid
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.

~~~
adamnemecek
> but that doesn't explain why Thiel has been largely immune.

He has more clout. Also I think he’s sold all his fb stock.

~~~
nemothekid
FWIW, he is still on the board. I don't think he has sold his stock.

~~~
adventured
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"

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-stake/peter-
thie...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-stake/peter-thiel-sells-
most-of-remaining-facebook-stake-idUSKBN1DM2BQ)

------
drivingmenuts
I thought it was because he was financing trolls and when that got out, it was
affecting Oculus.

------
diazon
It looks like the same thing Mozilla did to Brendan Eich, fired after being
caught donating to a conservative movement, so this is hardly a first.

------
tessi3r
Ofc this got flagged...

------
phren0logy
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.

~~~
Waterluvian
Was it his money or Facebook corporate funds?

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.

~~~
JamisonM
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.

~~~
Waterluvian
I reject that Facebook gets to decide where the line is between acceptable and
unacceptable causes.

~~~
JamisonM
I reject that anyone _else_ gets to tell them where that line is on their own
platform.

------
nabla9
>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.

~~~
muro
So yours and your employer's political views now need to be in sync?

Edit: posted to wrong comment, should have been above.

~~~
nabla9
No. That was not what I wrote.

In my opinion differing political opinions should be tolerated _as much as
possible_.

------
eugeniub
> 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

Poor feller.

------
Kaveren
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.

~~~
d0gsg0w00f
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?

~~~
Kaveren
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.

------
RickJWagner
Absolutely chilling.

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.

~~~
danso
> _Do you ever wonder why Hollywood is almost exclusively left-leaning? Why
> the awards ceremonies have only left-leaning outbursts?_

OK I give up, why?

~~~
RickJWagner
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.

[https://deadline.com/2017/03/tim-allen-says-being-
conservati...](https://deadline.com/2017/03/tim-allen-says-being-conservative-
in-hollywood-living-30s-germany-video-jimmy-kimmel-1202046726/)

~~~
danso
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.

~~~
RickJWagner
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?

~~~
danso
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].

0\. [https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-
room/350710-oreilly-...](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-
room/350710-oreilly-blames-radical-left-for-fox-ouster-these-forces-of-evil-
and)

------
alphabettsy
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.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/business/oculus-palmer-
lu...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/business/oculus-palmer-luckey-new-
start-up.html) [https://variety.com/2016/digital/news/oculus-backlash-
palmer...](https://variety.com/2016/digital/news/oculus-backlash-palmer-
luckey-alt-right-1201869275/) [https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2016/09/how-your-oculus-...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2016/09/how-your-oculus-rift-is-secretly-funding-donald-trumps-racist-
meme-wars/)

~~~
dang
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.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

