
Free Speech Champion Mark Zuckerberg Announces Plan to Censor His Employees - appleflaxen
https://gizmodo.com/free-speech-champion-mark-zuckerberg-announces-plan-to-1845097521
======
tallgiraffe
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.

~~~
garblegarble
>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)

~~~
tallgiraffe
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.

------
amadeuspagel
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.

------
BoiledCabbage
I wonder how he feels about auto-promoting the most controversial divisive
opinions to his employees to drive internal engagement?

Think he's onboard for that?

------
dozzman
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.

------
tootahe45
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.

------
downrightmike
This is legalism, if you have enough money, certain laws don't apply.

