
Facebook’s Zuckerberg Tells Employees to Respect Diverse Views of Colleagues - Leary
https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebooks-zuckerberg-tells-employees-to-respect-diverse-views-of-colleagues-1538767936
======
iFred
I told a friend that the genrerized differences between the end goals of main
stream Republicans and Democrats were about as different as Diet Coke and Diet
Pepsi.

Before I could even explain why, he responded with that I was a monster of a
human to even put “the party that locks children up and votes for rapists”
close to the goals of the Democrats. I was called a shit bag “Repug” and told
to kill myself.

We haven’t talked since.

I also voted for Hillary, for pragmatic reasons.

If it’s tough to maintain friendships with differing views in this day and
age, doing so in the workplace where the environment allows this to be a bit
more in the open will be a tough HR friendly pill to swallow.

~~~
presscast
>I told a friend that the genrerized differences between the end goals of main
stream Republicans and Democrats were about as different as Diet Coke and Diet
Pepsi.

I too find this very hard to believe. I'd be interested in hearing your
argument.

~~~
sheepmullet
Both parties are pro-war, pro-big business, big government blood suckers.

Neither party is concerned about privacy.

Lots of other things in common as well.

~~~
presscast
That's not really an argument, that's an unargued statement of opinion.

~~~
sheepmullet
It’s the start of a conversation.

Which parts do you disagree with and what evidence would convince you
otherwise?

You can tell me the political party you support and I can show you how they
have strong pro-war elements.

~~~
presscast
I just want to hear _why_ you think it's true. If you're making a claim, the
burden of proof rests upon you, so please tell us what evidence you're
considering.

If you aren't willing to spell that out, we're not having a meaningful
conversation.

~~~
sheepmullet
> I just want to hear why you think it's true.

Like any political opinion it is based upon thousands of observations and
arguments over a period of many years.

Would it convince you the Democrats are pro-war if I provide evidence of
Hillary Clinton being a war hawk?

What kind of sources will you trust?

Surely if you follow US politics you are aware of the argument already so why
don’t we skip the fluff and get into the details?

> If you're making a claim, the burden of proof rests upon you

Sure - so like I said let’s find our common ground and points of disagreement
and we can go from there.

------
dvtrn
_Ms. Sandberg has previously posted an internal message calling Mr. Kaplan’s
appearance at the hearing “a mistake.”_

So if this is the stance Zuckerberg and Sandberg are taking, has that internal
message been retracted? I'm in no position to demand or even suggest that some
sort of consistency in conviction is warranted here-Sandberg is free to
comment or not as she pleases, but it sure would be nice to see for once in
these strange and heated times.

Seems to me you either respect Kaplan's decision to be present for his friend,
redact statements that his personal political decisions were a 'mistake', or
fire him as VP of Global Public Policy and admit it was because his appearance
at the SJC hearings made for bad optics, and saving face matters more than
consistent convictions and that this appeal to employees is proof.

Or do nothing and let people infer everything in between.

~~~
sonnyblarney
It's not a 'personal' decision to appear on TV in front of hundreds of
millions of people when you're a representative of the company. High profile
actions will be interpreted as representing the interest of the company.

He can personally support Kav, have dinner with him, maybe not hide anything
about his support or friendship ... but making public statements, such as
appearing on TV is a whole other dimension given his role.

FB execs should not be involved in any kind of political controversy unless it
directly affects FB.

So I think it's not hypocritical for Sandberg to indicate that it was a
mistake, I think it was.

~~~
dvtrn
_FB execs should not be involved in any kind of political controversy unless
it directly affects FB._

One person's political controversy could very well be another's platform.

Who are any of us to decide what that dichotomy looks like if not anything but
bystanders? Furthermore, if that's an opinion you really want to take, then
would you similarly argue that Facebook should therefore have _nothing_ to say
politically? Ever? About anything? In any shape or form on the platform-since
as easily as someone could take Kaplan's appearance and assert it as a direct
endorsement of Kavanaugh coming from Facebook, I can easily suggest that any
political feature on Facebook and just as similarly say it has the the
approval of "coming from" Facebook.

Do you see how easy it is to flip your conceit right on its head with such an
absolutist demand?

Can I then ask Facebook stop putting banners up reminding me to register to
vote (I already am) or that I should go out and vote in my local county
elections (I already did), or to have a position on LGBT Rights? (I do)

If the execs shouldn't be involved in any political controversy, then the
platform should be devoid of political calls to action similarly and follow
that lead.

Taking the long view, I don't see either happening.

~~~
sonnyblarney
"I can easily suggest that any political feature on Facebook and just as
similarly say it has the the approval of "coming from" Facebook."

If you're referring to ads, then no. Those are not 'political features'
because they have nothing to do with Facebook and everyone knows that, just as
they know ads you see on TV have nothing to do with the network. Now if CBS
execs were having public lunch every day with Donald Trump and appearing at
his rallies, well, then that's going to be viewed as something else entirely.

"or to have a position on LGBT Rights? (I do)"

Facebook is not telling you to have a position on LGBT rights and nobody
seeing ads on Facebook believes those ads are representative of Facebooks
views.

"Do you see how easy it is to flip your conceit right on its head with such an
absolutist demand?"

There's nothing either conceited or absolutist about my 'demand', in fact,
it's fairly standard across most major corporations.

If you're an exec and you start appearing at Trump rallies, and it might
upset/offend your customers, you're going to get fired for cause right away.
And rightly so. Nobody cares that much who you make donations to, or are
friends with, or have dinner with. But public endorsements are that: public
endorsements, and if you represent the company, then you have to check your
behaviour.

The exec at Facebook must be thick to think that a national appearance in
front of millions during one of the biggest political nuclear wars of our
generation was going to be 'ok'.

~~~
stale2002
> If you're an exec and you start appearing at Trump rallies, and it might
> upset/offend your customers, you're going to get fired for cause right away.

Well apparently Facebook disagrees with you, and they are perfectly happy to
have execs do politically controversial things.

It is Facebook's right to be as political as they want, and apparently their
choice is to allow their employees to do exactly any of these things.

I'd also like to point out that in the state of California, firing employees
because of out of work political activities is literally illegal.

So you should be very careful about suggesting that companies engage in what
may be illegal discrimination in the state of California. (Perhaps the rules
are a bit different for execs, but still, be careful with your line of
thinking)

~~~
sonnyblarney
Of course Facebook can allow it's staff to do this, nobody is doubting that.

But Facebook is justifying post ad hoc here, Sandberg said it was obviously a
mistake. He would have been told 'no' if he were to have asked. Which is
probably why he didn't.

See my comment above about 'California's laws'.

You're misunderstanding the roles of executives if you think they are going to
appear in highly controversial political ads and then get some kind of legal
protection, frankly, the same would apply for employees. Legal protection
doesn't matter anyhow - if you're going to bring harm to the company, why
would the company employ you? This is not about 'voting' or 'donations' it's
about 'public support / appearances' etc.. Executives are normally not this
out of touch.

Go ahead and appear in an aggressive NRA TV ad imploring that 'all teachers
should be armed' and see how long you last at your job. You'll be out right
away, one way or another, even as an employee.

So again, nobody cares about voting, or donations, or even canvasing or merely
attending rallies or whatever, but public participation i.e. TV sports, or
major social media presence on some controversial issue is out of bounds, and
if it brings harm to your company then you need to chose between being on that
team, or your political activities.

------
joananand
The article shows how diversity is fundamentally flawed. Diversity as
currently applied says: “We welcome all points of view and all backgrounds
unless they differ from our own.” Which is the exact opposite of diversity.

------
dawnerd
I don’t see why a company can’t be biased. It wasn’t that long ago the right
was championing a companies right to not bake a cake for a gay couple. It
seems a bit hypocritical that they support a companies right unless that
company is left leaning.

~~~
keketi
It's ok for a company to be biased as long as they don't claim to be neutral.

Zuckerberg to US congress:

> Congressman, I do agree that we should work to give people the fullest free
> expression that is possible. That's what — when I talk about giving people a
> voice, that's what I care about.

> [...] And I think that that — it — our general responsibility is to — is to
> allow the broadest spectrum of free expression as we can ...

In the same hearing:

> I'll ask — my — my question is, on this, do you agree that Facebook and
> other technology platforms should be ideologically neutral?

> ZUCKERBERG: Congressman, I — I agree that we should be a platform for all
> ideas, and that we should focus on that.

Transcript of the hearing: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2018/04/11...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2018/04/11/transcript-of-zuckerbergs-appearance-before-house-
committee/)

~~~
dawnerd
Yeah I agree that’s pretty dumb to tell Congress one thing but do another. I
wish they’d just be honest about it.

My comment was more of a general sense of any company, not necessarily just
Facebook.

------
tempodox
A billionaire tells his underlings to not mess up his money-making machine.
I‘m touched.

~~~
samat
This belongs to n-gate.com :)

~~~
tempodox
I suddenly found myself channeling him, I swear :)

------
writepub
I remember a time in America when a Republican & Democrat could peacefully
disagree with dignity, and follow that up with an evening out as friends

~~~
rabidrat
I remember a time when Republicans and Democrats shared a consistent view of
reality.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
This is closer to the truth.

I remember when the net first came up, I'd watch my friends in both parties
argue online. They'd do some research, agree on the underlying facts, then
things would progress.

They might never come to agreement, but they began a discussion on the terms
of the discussion, which was progress. If done well, everybody could part as
friends. This is the dialectic. It's what friends do. It's designed to
understand the issue by understanding one another better. This is how
productive conversations are supposed to happen.

But folks caught on to that, so they started flooding the internet with a lot
of rhetoric. Now, if you disagree, there are a hundred sites on your side that
are quite happy to provide you with all the emotional ammunition you need.
This is argumentation, what lawyers do. It's designed to win at all costs.
Conversations are battles to be won. Combine that with some nice rhetorical
tricks and there's really no need to discuss facts anymore.

Take a look at what education a lot of the talking heads on TV have had. They
were trained in rhetoric, the legal profession. That's no accident.

~~~
goatlover
> This is argumentation, what lawyers do. It's designed to win at all costs.
> Conversations are battles to be won. Combine that with some nice rhetorical
> tricks and there's really no need to discuss facts anymore.

Sounds like what the ancient Greek sophists taught. That rhetoric was a useful
tool for winning debates and being persuasive, particularly in politics.

~~~
gaius
_That rhetoric was a useful tool for winning debates and being persuasive,
particularly in politics_

But that cuts both ways: two skilled rhetoriticians in debate each won't
permit the other to deploy a logical fallacy. Therefore they will always
converge on the truth.

Rhetoric can only be weaponised when your opponent is unaware of it, and is
powerless when they don't care about debate because their mind is already made
up.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
_But that cuts both ways: two skilled rhetoriticians in debate each won 't
permit the other to deploy a logical fallacy. Therefore they will always
converge on the truth._

Been thinking about this all day. I didn't want to flippantly disagree, but
there was something about your comment that bugged me.

I think maybe you have overstated. I would phrase it this way: skilled
rhetoriticians _tend_ to converge on a semantic definition around the meaning
of words and phrases.

I don't think they come to any ultimate truth, no matter what the greeks
thought. I think what happens in any productive conversation is something more
along the lines of _shared mental model alignment_ , which I would argue is
vastly more important.

Thanks for giving me something to cogitate on yesterday!

------
benatkin
This seems to be a reference to James whats-his-name. He's really had a
lasting impact.

~~~
Radim
OP paywalled, but what's funny is that your comment could be read in two
completely opposing ways:

1\. Zuckerberg tells employees not to mistreat diverse views like Google did
with Damore

2\. Zuckerberg tells employees not to mistreat diverse views like Damore did
at Google

I find there's a bi-modal distribution in how people interpret Damore's memo.
It's like that blue-gold dress debate again:

1\. evil sexist falsehood propaganda by a closet neo-nazi, meant to hurt

2\. a well-sourced, accurate and well-meaning text by a nerd, meant to help

I read Damore's memo and reached my own conclusion (which is irrelevant to my
point so I won't even state it), but isn't this dichotomy fascinating?

~~~
mcintyre1994
His memo just seemed to me like the view a Republican holds on a polarising
topic - so it's not surprising it splits into two polarised bimodal responses
in my opinion.

~~~
benatkin
To me, there seem to be reactionaries on both the left wing and the right wing
- the horseshoe effect
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory)

~~~
cm2187
I think part of the problem is largely calling "right wing", "alt-right",
"bigot" any view one disagrees with.

------
danieltillett
What I find most fascinating is how powerless Mark looks.

------
mcintyre1994
Vox had quite an interesting take from the left on how it's a bit odd that
Facebook are taking threats from Republicans to punish them for alleged bias
seriously. The example they used was Hollywood, Republicans hate Hollywood for
being too liberal, they have an endless decades long culture war over it, but
whenever a Republican comes into power they make sure to force other countries
to enforce copyright laws that Hollywood wants and do precisely nothing to
damage them. Just like Trump just did with Canada.

~~~
dvtrn
Was it this one? [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2018/9/12/17848026/f...](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2018/9/12/17848026/facebook-thinkprogress-weekly-standard)

~~~
mcintyre1994
It was on their 'The Weeds' podcast, on the latest episode called 'Alexa,
raise the minimum wage'. It was in a segment discussing Kevin Roose's daily
Twitter updates about the top performing Facebook stories on Kavanaugh/Ford.
It looks like the latest one he did was October 4th
([https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1047614324225847296](https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1047614324225847296)):

Sources of today's top performing Facebook posts about Kavanaugh, per
@crowdtangle:

1\. Fox News 2\. Ben Shapiro 3\. CNSNews ("News the Lefty Media Doesn't Want
You to Have") 4\. Breitbart

About Dr. Ford: 1\. Fox News 2\. CNN 3\. Daily Caller 4\. Breitbart

------
sidcool
Is this with respect to PHP still being used at FB? /s

~~~
anothergoogler
With short tags and error_reporting(0)!

