
The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg - onewhonknocks
http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/381404-the-infuriating-invisibility-of-sheryl-sandberg
======
cgb223
> She is politically engaged, having contributed $120,000 to Democrat
> campaigns in 2016. Her book tours have taken on the feel of someone sounding
> out campaign themes.

Having worked in politics in DC I can tell you that this is a very small
amount of money to donate for someone who's politically motivated or
interested in running

Book tours often act like campaign tours, especially when your book is
promoting a certain attitude or culture (Lean In)

If this is the only evidence of a political run the author has, I wouldn't
hold your breath for a 2020 run.

Plus its The Hill, which is a very politically focused news source in general,
so that probably was just added to make it a little more interesting for its
reader-base

~~~
Overtonwindow
As someone who does work on the Hill, that's not an insignificant amount, and
not when its coming from Sandberg. I don't see that she's interested, or shown
interest, in running for office. Mark on the other hand... That's a different
story. As one of Facebook's most politically connected executives, it is very
strange why no one has heard from Sheryl.

------
dbt00
I don’t think it benefits anybody two have two mixed messages coming from two
different FB leaders right now, and if only one of them is going to speak up
it might as well be Mark.

Her saying “ditto” a lot is not going to help. Her job right now should be
inward focused while Mark takes the heat. If his messaging doesn’t work, she’s
plan B when they need to pivot.

(Disclaimer: I’ve never worked at FB and I hope it goes away in its current
form.)

~~~
tarboreus
Maybe it's just me, but did social norms around first names change? I wouldn't
call Steven Spielberg "Steven." I'd say "Steven Spielberg" or "Spielberg." But
this is HN and it's entirely possible you've worked with Mark Zuckerberg.

~~~
ben_jones
I really don't like how people on HN and otherwise have taken to calling Mark
Zuckerberg "Zuck". At this point I feel like its some kind of playground
insult people are using because it rhyme's with the word "fuck". Am I
misinterpreting it?

~~~
jonathankoren
You’re misinterpetting it. He’s been known as Zuck since Facebook started.
It’s even his email and login.

------
psyc
Sandberg comes across to me like a bad actor in the video (in the Hollywood /
stage sense) and I mean more than usual / more than I expect even from an
executive. I could barely watch it, it oozed inauthenticity so badly. Not too
sympathetic on the gut level.

~~~
oflannabhra
Yeah, talk about heavily scripted responses.

~~~
Panjam
It's what they call "lawyered responses" in Singapore.

Watch this prat from Facebook get his arse served to him by a Singaporean MP.

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ziTfDdffUKs](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ziTfDdffUKs)

This is funny in a way, but I think it's also very shocking that the FB
spokesman felt sufficiently mandated to talk to a democratic representative in
that way. I guess the spokesman might have jut been having a bad day, but I
did wonder whether the rudeness was the function of a really toxic - I would
even say colonialist - culture at FB.

~~~
psyc
That was really satisfying to watch. The difference in tone and articulation
between the prat and the mature, thoughtful, and seemingly genuine MP is
striking.

------
naturalgradient
As someone entering the workforce soon, it's very disappointing to see teach
leaders who enjoyed the spotlight on their elevator ride up completely
disappearing and pretending they have nothing to do with what they brought
onto the world.

Even if you pretend you didn't know (and at the top, it's your responsibility
to know), you can't pretend not to know going forward. Quit. Do something.

Had a lunch conversation with other CS PhDs today (mostly in machine learning)
- Facebook is so out, everyone actively spoke out against working there. Was
uplifting to hear.

~~~
Rafuino
Where are those other CS PhDs looking to work instead? Am very curious to know
how these highly in-demand people make decisions about where to work and the
impact their work can have.

~~~
naturalgradient
At Oxbridge, DeepMind is definitely the preferred employer, alsmost nobody is
interested in an academic career, finance is not especially popular but always
an option in London, hedgefunds heavily recruit. I would say next popular
option after DeepMind or big tech in Silicon Valley is London startup scene
for many.

------
brandon272
Can we stop calling Sheryl Sandberg the "adult in the room"? Mark Zuckerberg
is 33 years old, not 16.

~~~
ggm
The metaphorical value here is that she is perceived as the hire to "be" the
adult in the room, because Zuckerberg was perceived as being incapable of
fulfilling the role.

Both of them display the same flaws btw. If we should cease to say this, its
only because its an impossible goal. But, as a sharp-edged reminder of
expectations vs reality it still has some merit. And, humour.

TL;DR no, it doesn't literally mean to _be_ the only adult, it means to be
expected to behave like one: age is immaterial

------
foobaw
It's obvious her PR team thinks it's better to just stay quiet than putting
any sort of statement out.

If you've met her, you'll know she's extremely brilliant, but I don't think
this situation is something that can be solved by a statement. I'm assuming a
lot of actions will be taken first internally before she speaks publically.

~~~
adventured
They've been working pretty hard to avoid Sandberg getting any of the credit
that she apparently deserves. Facebook bent the NY Times to altering one of
its recent stories that noted Sandberg's culpability in one of the messes.

"Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigation
and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of
other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief
operating officer, according to the current and former employees, who asked
not to be identified discussing internal matters."

"Perlroth [NY Times reporter], however, confirmed that a change occurred after
Facebook’s public relations team reached out to the New York Times with a
statement some time after the story was published."

[https://lawandcrime.com/exclusive/facebook-forces-nyt-to-
qui...](https://lawandcrime.com/exclusive/facebook-forces-nyt-to-quietly-
delete-unflattering-reference-to-sheryl-sandberg-in-story-about-russian-
trolls/)

~~~
exolymph
NYT heavily disputed that: [https://www.cjr.org/the_new_gatekeepers/nytimes-
facebook.php](https://www.cjr.org/the_new_gatekeepers/nytimes-facebook.php)

------
dawhizkid
It is pretty amazing how few controversies of this scale have surfaced given
how controversial the company has always been ( I recall seeing survey results
on how little the public trusted FB compared to other tech cos years ago). I
guess people don't ask too many hard questions when the story has been about
the skyrocketing stock price over last few years.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
... But it's where all the people I didn't like in highschool signed up to so
... I need it?

edit: wow HN... maybe you don't really get that people go out of their way to
intentionally ignore controversy because of a shallow periceved value? That no
one questions a stock price when it's on the way up for "household names"?
Perhaps I could have been less subtle.

------
kenjackson
The sheer amount of ads that popped up on that page made it unusable.

------
chiefalchemist
She's hiding. She was aware of all these (profitable) transgressions.

Bottom line (pun intended): She's keeping a __low__ profile out of fear of
being called to testify under oath. That would be risky, to say the least.

------
mcknz
One of the things I've learned about The Hill's opinion page is to background
check the contributor -- seems like just about anyone can get an article
there.

~~~
cgb223
Did you background check this contributor?

What did you find?

~~~
mcknz
First Google result is a link to Fox News, and an article titled "Liz Peek:
Census 2020 – Liberals, get over it, we must ask about citizenship!"

People can agree or disagree with that, but The Hill does not appear to have a
consistent editorial stance that is separate from individual authors.

I have seen moderate contributors as well as more extreme partisan ones.

~~~
opmelogy
"Liz Peek: Census 2020 – Liberals, get over it, we must ask about
citizenship!"

This is enough to ignore the author and bury the article. Anyone that uses the
term "liberal" or "conservative" as a way to drive a wedge between Americans
in order to offend, distract, and "win" are not worth the time.

~~~
sincerely
First of all, a lot of people will self-identify as liberal or conservative,
which usually lines up with whether or not they tend to support Republicans or
Democrats. They're not incredibly loaded terms.

Secondly, writers almost never get to choose the title their piece runs under.
You'll notice that often the headline of an article doesn't /quite/ seem to
match the content.

~~~
opmelogy
Agreed on both counts. Although your second point just seems to feed into the
idea of not just rolling in "journalists" into the ignore category, but news
outlets if they are actively involved in this BS.

For the actual quote, it comes from here:
[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/28/liz-peek-
census-20...](http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/28/liz-peek-
census-2020-liberals-get-over-it-must-ask-about-citizenship.html)

"Liberals are outraged over the Trump administration’s decision to include a
citizenship question on the 2020 census."

That's the first line from the article, which clearly pits liberals as being
the problem here while implying that conservatives automatically disagree (or
in this case, "you are on the right side if you agree with me."). It's basic
manipulation. People that behave this way are not worth the energy. They just
get in the way most of the time.

------
erdojo
Either she's hoping that a short digital trail will limit the damage this
event will have on any political ambitions, or this event has caused such as
rift between her and Zuck that he's intentionally keeping her out of the
spotlight.

If the latter, expect her "resignation" for "family reasons" in about 60-90
days.

------
throwaway84742
I think she might be harboring hope of becoming the CEO of FB one day. If
that’s the case, letting Zuck accumulate bad PR baggage is a good move.

------
methodover
Yet another article mining (mostly misplaced) FB outrage for clicks and views.
Yawn.

------
lr4444lr
She doesn't want to lean in _too_ far.

------
megamindbrian2
She quits

------
feelin_googley
"Zuckerberg's resignation would open up the possibility of a world-changing
and reputation-enhancing second chapter, not only for him personally but also
for Facebook the corporation.

...

That said, the new CEO should not be Sheryl Sandberg. She's just as culpable
as Zuckerberg, in terms of how Facebook got into its current predicament, and
she's far too associated with the ancient regime."

Source:

[https://www.wired.com/story/the-case-for-a-zuck-free-
faceboo...](https://www.wired.com/story/the-case-for-a-zuck-free-facebook/)

------
feelin_googley
Actual title: "The infuriating invisibility of Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg"

"Mar. 20, 2018 3:34 PM ET

With criticism swelling about the _lack of a public statement from Facebook_
(NASDAQ:FB) CEO Mark Zuckerberg on the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the
company held an open employee meeting today to discuss the matter, but neither
Zuckerberg _nor Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg_ attended, the Daily
Beast reports."

Source:

[https://seekingalpha.com/news/3340524-report-zuckerberg-
sand...](https://seekingalpha.com/news/3340524-report-zuckerberg-sandberg-
skip-facebook-employee-meeting)

Could be she is "invisible" because shes just too busy working behind the
scenes.

"Sandberg: We did disclose -- on the Russian manipulation, we did disclose. We
gave the information to Congress. We made it clear to people if they had seen
those pages. There's a place you can go we [oops dont suggest its their
responsibilty to look, rephrase] -- every situation we worked to get to the
bottom of this _we want to_ disclose. Sometimes, and I would say certainly
this past week, we speak too slowly. If I could live this past week again, I
_would have_ definitely had Mark and myself out speaking earlier, _but we were
trying to get to the bottom of this and make sure we could take strong
action_. Our commitment is clear. We know this is an issue of trust. We know
this is a critical moment for our company, for the service we provide. We _are
going to_ do everything we can. There will always be bad actors and I don't
want to minimize that. But _we are going to_ do everything we can to find bad
actors. _We 're going to_ open tools transparently so _people can help us_
find the bad actors on our platform. _We 're gonna_ notify users and _we 're
gonna_ shut them down _as fast as we can_."

Source:

[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/22/cnbc-exclusive-cnbc-
transcri...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/22/cnbc-exclusive-cnbc-transcript-
sheryl-sandberg-sits-down-with-cnbcs-julia-boorstin-today.html)

------
boomzilla
Two words: plausible deniability

------
JustSomeNobody
If she is gonna run in 2020 she doesn't want to give anyone any talking points
to use against her.

Also, her absence isn't surprising given how dismissive Facebook in general is
being about this.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
If she’s planning to run for President, running away from this challenge is
hardly going to improve her chances.

It’s not as if the media haven’t noticed her absence.

