
Rifts Break Open at Facebook Over Kavanaugh Hearing - coloneltcb
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/technology/facebook-kavanaugh-nomination-kaplan.html
======
dvtrn
_Mr. Kaplan’s surprise appearance prompted anger and shock among many Facebook
employees, some of whom said they took his action as a tacit show of support
for Judge Kavanaugh — as if it were an endorsement from Facebook itself._

This is about as far removed as I can possibly take myself from casting value
judgement in one direction or another wrt Kavanaugh and the allegations
against him but there's something weird in the air when one can't even be seen
in the same vicinity as someone accused of {thing_goes_here} without _someome_
somewhere connecting all sorts of dots that have no business being connected
and being one reflexive twitch away from having their character assassinated
in the worst possible ways.

~~~
lenzm
It's not just being seen with someone. He went to a public, televised hearing
to sit behind him. It's a show of support coming from a public face of FB.

~~~
dvtrn
"him" is his friend FTA. I feel like there's a gap between appearing at these
hearings at surface level and showing up because _its your friend giving
testimony_.

Maybe I'm being too nuanced and applying too much of the human element by
looking at it like so but it's that very gap between supporting Kabanaugh the
nominee who lost his temper in a SJC hearing and supporting Kavanaugh his
friend accused of sexual assault and the focus of a Senate confirmation and
FBI investigation that makes me take the position I have here.

~~~
paulmd
It's pretty well-established that you can be fired or suffer repercussions by
your employer, for things that you do on your own personal time. There's
plenty of people who did something shocking or offensive, a video went viral,
and they found they'd lost their mcjob, so let's not pretend this is unusual
at all.

If anything _stricter_ standards should be applied to upper management than to
the rank-and-file, because part of the job is absolutely to be publically
representing facebook, so it's really unsurprising that people are perceiving
it as such. Keeping your nose clean is part of why they pay you the big bucks.

Kaplan is free to go to this as a private citizen, people are free to be
shocked by it, and Facebook is free to do something about it if the negative
attention becomes a liability. That's how things work.

Unlike the McJob worker, if they do want to get rid of him, he'll have a nice
golden parachute, I'm sure.

~~~
aliston
While all those statements are technically true, the band of what has become
acceptable in Silicon Valley has apparently swung so far to the left that
supporting a respected US Circuit Judge in his nomination to the Supreme Court
is enough to cause “shock.” In my view, that is the problem - some in our
generation believe there is a right to be shielded from dissenting viewpoints
to the extent that it has become acceptable in SV to potentially fire someone
for what is considered a perfectly reasonable position in most parts of the
country.

~~~
archagon
Respected by _who_? The ACLU, a number of bar associations, several law
schools, countless other judges, and even his own roommates have publically
denounced Kavanaugh. Don’t pretend this is a matter of ideology.

~~~
dvtrn
Interesting that you bring up the ACLU here, several lawyers I know have
expressed a bit of surprise at the ACLU denouncing Kavanaugh-as they have a
long and established track record of _NOT_ speaking out one way or another on
SCOTUS nominations-to say nothing of this move being outside of their very on
policy on the affair.

------
thrower123
I'm very grateful to be working at a little company that makes a technically
interesting but politically boring product. Work is, for me, not a place to
get feather-white about politics, I just fix bugs and talk to customers and
troubleshoot problems and develop some features and go home. Talk to the
coworkers about our kids and what we're doing over the weekend. It's a very
laid-back atmosphere that prioritizes what's right in front of you and doesn't
demand a lot of idealism, just competence and bringing in enough profit that
we do alright.

~~~
raphlinus
I'm with you. Whichever side you're on, Facebook's products and services now
have a role in society where their decisions will inevitably have a deep
impact. In some cases, like the Rohingya crisis, lives are literally at stake.

It's not just Facebook, either. I got tired of getting a sick feeling every
time I woke up to see my employer in another controversy, which is a large
part of the reason I'm an indie game developer now.

------
jwineinger
It seems like it is a problem for these people because they've assumed guilt
already. Accusations are not proof in and of themselves. I've got no problem
with someone supporting a friend while they're defending themselves, no matter
their role in a company.

~~~
obpacheco
That's the craziness of this whole thing, we're dividing America over an
accusation that hasn't been able to be substantiated by any other parties.
We're confronted with the most basic form of a "he said, she said" scenario.
And you have half the country who assumes innocence, and half who assumes
guilt, and these assumptions are made completely on where your political
allegiances lie.

~~~
gnicholas
I've been talking with a lot of friends and family about the Kavanaugh
situation. I have only had two conversations where someone's belief about what
should happen here differed from their personal preference about whether
Kavanaugh become a SCOTUS justice.

In the vast majority of cases, people's beliefs about what happened just so
happens to align with what they want the outcome to be.

~~~
tomp
Not a personal conversation, but I'd (very slightly) prefer that K wasn't a
supreme court justice, although I completely support him in this "innocent
until proven guilty" quest, and in fact, since the allegations came out, I
even support his nomination, because I think people shouldn't suffer any
consequences from unproven allegations (because otherwise it's too easy to
hurt someone or make their lives miserable), and it's not like he's getting
any other job, _ever_.

But what I find really, extremely sad, is that the majority of the discussion
was on this silly inconsequential topic (inconsequential because it's not like
there _can_ be any proof of what happened 35 years ago, so it's never getting
resolved one way or the other), instead of on his actual leanings, policy,
politics, opinions, etc - what kind of Justice he'll be. That's also why I
wrote _" (very slightly)"_ above - I'd prefer the court to be as balanced as
possible, and K seems to lean right, but I've such low confidence in this
belief (e.g. his actual stances could be "libertarian", like Kennedy's, which
is IMO preferable while being neither left nor right) that ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

------
gcc_programmer
Why are people outraged _before_ a sentence is pronounced? Are allegations now
enough to convict someone? What happened to the West? Is this the beginning of
the end ?

~~~
tzs
Part of the outrage is that the Senate first tried to not consider the
allegations at all. Then they didn't listen to all of the evidence known at
the time when they did hold hearings. Then they used a limited FBI
investigation that appears to have skipped a lot of evidence.

Enough people who knew Kavanaugh in high school, college, and law school have
now come forward with memories that contradict some of his recollections and
testimony, especially about the frequency and severity of his drinking, that
even if he did NOT do anything to Ford in high school they should raise at
least sufficient doubts about his fitness for the Court on other grounds to
justify more investigation.

Yet, the Senate majority is rushing to vote. What's the hurry? A couple years
ago they said there is no problem whatsoever with the Court only having 8
Justices for an extended time (at least three Senators--Burr, Cruz, and Paul--
said they were willing to hold it open for five years if Clinton got elected).

Surely they can take a couple weeks or even a month now and _thoroughly_ vet
Kavanaugh?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I'm thinking its time to pull the plug. Why are we looking to lower the bar
for this guy? We can find somebody, easy, who doesn't drink like a fish and
harass women. Maybe a woman judge would fill the bill?

We're not trying to fill this post with not-quite-the-bottom-of-the-barrel,
and we should stop trying. Lets try somebody clean to start with? Look for the
best, instead of the not-the-worst?

And this dude is not being 'unfairly treated', forget that. I don't get to be
a Supreme Court Justice either. Almost nobody does. He wants to do public
service he can go volunteer at a Senior Center. Hell, he can take up
woodworking, I don't care. He should just get the hell off the stage and lets
start looking again.

~~~
repolfx
_We can find somebody, easy, who doesn 't drink like a fish and harass women_

No you can't. No judge the Republicans nominate will not be the target of some
accusation by some woman at this point. If "the bar" is that no Democrat
female accuses the nominee of something then then Supreme Court will be ...

 _... Maybe a woman judge would fill the bill?_

Ah, now I get it.

Yes that's right. Make it impossible for a man to be a judge by insisting that
any and all claims must be believed no matter how ancient, vague or
implausible, to ensure that the court ends up packed with women.

If America continues down this path it will end very, very badly for women. We
could easily end up returning to a time where women are _disbelieved_ by
default when they make an accusation of something. The Kavanaugh case has to
be one of the clearest cases I can see of a frivolous politically motivated
complaint (which is very likely false). Accusations of sexual assault are not
tools to try and tilt the composition of courts.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
You can look for conspiracy all you want. I don't find it at all unusual to
think this guy was everything he was said to be.

There are plenty of folks who have sterling records and stainless background,
lets not kid ourselves. Pretending its persecution doesn't get you far.

There's no evidence its come to anything extreme. How about, try one more
time? Is two people too many to ask?

------
dunpeal
Are the political moods and opinions of big tech employees now a matter of
daily news reports?

For every event, there will be front page news stories alerting us to Facebook
/ Google / Amazon / Apple employees' reactions?

This is our news now?

~~~
Jach
At least until the companies figure out how to crack down on whoever leaks
internal discussions to the press.

I clicked this after seeing "Rift" and "Facebook" thinking it was some Oculus
news, should have read the full title first...

~~~
dunpeal
> At least until the companies figure out how to crack down on whoever leaks
> internal discussions to the press.

Considering these companies have tens of thousands of employees, that will
never happen.

It's impossible to prevent leaks with these kinds of numbers, and you can be
sure the media would raise a huge stink if even one employee is punished for
leaking. They would ruthlessly protect their sources.

It's just very unfortunate how politics is becoming such a major issue in
what's supposed to be the leading edge of American technology. Instead of
innovation, technical merit, sound engineering, and all the other things these
employments are _supposed_ to be about.

Politics and divisive discourse and posturing are squeezing out the important
matters, and making people uncomfortable at work, a place supposed to be about
_work_.

~~~
lovich
You cannot get to the scale of Facebook or Google without being political.

These are tech companies in that they sell tech. They are not tech companies
as in parties who are only interested in building the best products using
technology. As far as how they act silicon valley is turning just as bad as
Wall Street

~~~
dunpeal
> You cannot get to the scale of Facebook or Google without being political.

There's plenty of counterexamples.

There's huge companies much bigger than FB and Google that were never
political outside of tech. Even in tech, you have Microsoft for example. I
don't recall them ever being political in the 90s when they got huge. In fact,
they don't seem political right now.

~~~
lovich
They all lobby, that is political just as a general example. Once you get big
enough even the lack of action is a political choice.

My point is that when you are at that scale your very existence is political,
so there is no sense in trying to pretend politics does not exist.

------
monochromatic
What an awful place to work. Show of support for a conservative friend?
Browbeat him into submission, punish the wrongthink!

------
guelo
_“If you need to change teams, companies or careers to make sure your day-to-
day life matches your passions, we will be sad to see you go, but we will
understand,” Mr. Bosworth wrote. “We will support you with any path you
choose. But it is your responsibility to choose a path, not that of the
company you work for.”_

Wow. I hope engineers do quit. It's been unhealthy to the Silicon Valley
ecosystem how many engineers Facebook has been hoovering up.

~~~
repolfx
I hope they do too. I don't know who Bosworth is or if he's implementing
officially decided policy here, but I hope he is.

It's been incredibly unhealthy for tech firms to cowtow to every whim of their
most extreme employees. I spent years at Google and it was astonishing
sometimes the ludicrous crybaby behaviour some engineers could get away with.
When it was just complaints about the food or reskinning a product it was not
that dangerous. Now it's become a tool of all out political warfare, it's well
past time these employees are told to get a grip or leave. Facebook won't
suffer for it, it'll benefit - yes they may have a marginally smaller
workforce, but which would they prefer? A slightly lower number of A/B
experiments on their new dating product or whatever the marginal recent
increase in headcount is working on? Or a happier and healthier internal
atmosphere for all?

------
smsm42
This is getting insane. So ousting people from jobs for holding non-lefty
political views is not enough. Now a person who has a non-lefty friend or is
seen in public with a non-lefty person that is currently undergoing
unpersoning campaign is a ground for profound apologies too (and maybe much
more, the deed is not done yet and I won't surprise if by the end of it Joel
Kaplan decides to spend more time with his family).

No, I stand corrected. This is not _getting_ insane. This is firmly, two feet
planted, _inside_ insane territory. Is that what working at Facebook is like -
if you go as controversial as supporting a Supreme Court judge, or a lifelong
friend, or the idea of due process, you are basically not fit to work there?
The small spark of sanity from Zuckerberg does not overcome the overall
impression.

Maybe NYT is exaggerating things and this is just small vocal minority which
does not reflect the climate in this huge company. One can certainly hope so.
But is it true? Is here somebody working for FB that can say if it's indeed as
this article seems to suggest - that FB has "policies" that one may violate by
merely appearing in public near somebody like Judge Kavanaugh? That your
position in the company and your job may be questioned and threatened if you
do something like that?

~~~
nutmegged
I think you are missing one big point here. Not just someone working at FB
went to support Kavanaugh. This person is the VP of global policies so
technically he represents FB and the values of it and he did it without
seeking any consultations from the company.

Nowadays it seems like everything remotely related to politics has to be
discussed in left/right sides, no buffering area. People has to be left or
right. What surprises me is the lack of sympathy, seeing things from other
people's perspective in both sides. At first I felt like that some of my
female friends were overreacting to this Kavanaugh case because Kavanaugh
could be totally innocent but I then learned that some of the
complaints/remarks are not even about politics. It's more about their personal
experience related to sexual harassment. And they did soften their views on
the Kavanaugh case when I explained my perspective to them. The point here is
that people should communicate, not start internet fights. Sympathy is the key
and face-to-face communication probably work better than internet. What I see
mostly on the internet when it comes to politics, even on YC, is pointing
fingers at each other and that drives people even further away, more extreme
to their views.

Back to Facebook, I think it's one of the greatest companies in the world.
Just how many companies in the world that would allow such discussion inside
the company? Questioning one of the highest executives? Questioning the
CEO/Boss? The opinion of every employee matters? And still function so well?
Wow, unheard of. People in Silicon Valley is definitely leaning way more
toward left than right, especially at big tech firms. However, such open
communication inside the company is remarkable and it kind of mirrors the real
word when it comes to US politics. Though such open communication can be
biased, skewed to one-sided opinion but removing the open communication will
not resolve the root problems. Open communication, even online fights, is
better than no communication at all. I originally came from a country with
complete dictatorship and any discussions about politics/government is banned
completely online. It seems very "peaceful and stable" and does have quite a
lot of advantages (with millions of problems lurking around) than democracy.
However, I think in US it may seem very chaotic/annoying inside the
company/country, but it performs well as a whole. The VP who supported
Kavanaugh and Zuckerberg seemed to stand their original side and no stories of
FB employees going crazy/quitting job coming out (yet?) after this. The point
here is democracy, in my opinion, is a privilege and credits should be given
to Facebook/Zuckerberg for cultivating such open and unique culture.

That's my two cents. Peace out.

~~~
smsm42
> This person is the VP of global policies so technically he represents FB

When he talks about global policies at work - sure. Otherwise - no, he does
not. Out of work, he does not represent anybody but himself.

> the values of it and he did it without seeking any consultations from the
> company.

The idea that a person should seek a permission from a company lawyer to live
their personal life is mind-bogglingly wrong and misguided.

> The point here is that people should communicate, not start internet fights.

That would be nice, but if mere act of being present next to an unperson
brings calls to fire the thouughtcriminal, is there communication intended? Do
the people who demand it want communication or they want prosecution and
banishing the heretic?

> Just how many companies in the world that would allow such discussion inside
> the company?

Depends on the discussion. If you try to out-politcorrect your peers -
probably any of them. But try to go the opposite direction - and you find
yourself out of the door holding a box pretty quickly. Yes, in this case in FB
sanity prevailed, after personal involvement of the CEO. But who can guarantee
it would prevail the next time?

> The opinion of every employee matters?

I wonder how much would employee opinion matter if the employee would question
some PC-approved company move and for how long such employee would remain an
employee. We know the answer for Google. Is it different for FB? I suspect we
may find out soon.

> The point here is democracy, in my opinion, is a privilege and credits
> should be given to Facebook/Zuckerberg for cultivating such open and unique
> culture.

It's not their culture. It's our culture, whole people, and FB employees that
try to remove an executive because he sat on the wrong side on a wrong hearing
are not contributing to this culture, they are hurting it. Of course, the
democracy in the US is way bigger than Facebook, and Facebook will not hurt
it, but people in FB that do things like described above are working against
it, and deserve not praise but condemnation.

------
Gatsky
This seems like an odd reaction from employees. There are many places you can
go to work where the institution has clear values and a mission. Fb isn’t one
of those places, that should be abundantly clear by now.

So what’s behind this overreaction? The dual need to get paid a fortune and be
able to virtue signal about your employer’s political alignment at dinner
parties?

~~~
r00fus
> Fb isn’t one of those places, that should be abundantly clear by now.

Do you work there or know someone close who does? This small glimpse into
their corporate culture (not to mention Mark or Sharyl's public speeches) is
not really indicative of what the ground-level culture is like.

My guess: they're an SV company and the liberal-majority culture of the valley
infuses FB.

------
adamrezich
Somewhat off-topic, but:

For the first time ever today, I got a "Sponsored (political)" tweet on my
timeline, from Kamala Harris (whom I do not follow), saying: "We need just
198,248 more people to reach our new goal of 1.5 million Americans against
Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States. Will
you add your name right now?"

When did Twitter start doing "Sponsored (political)"? This seems like a
terrible idea.

~~~
wmf
What's terrible about it? Do you object to political advertising in general?

~~~
adamrezich
I don't regularly consume content that contains political advertising. Until
today Twitter has never engaged in directly politically advertising to me.
Thus it was surprising to see this come up in my timeline--and not in a
positive way. The tweet itself also assumes I can't think logically for myself
and reach my own conclusions on this whole nomination shitshow, and instead
urgently advises me to join in with the [large number] of other people who all
believe the same thing, as if that number should be a reason for me to change
my mind. This particular tweet comes off as startlingly desperate, only made
worse by the fact that it's the first "Sponsored (political)" tweet I've had.
The whole thing was a highly negative experience and made me think less of
Twitter, the Democrats, Mrs. Harris, and this entire political _thing_
happening right now. Maybe that appeal to bandwagon bullshit sways the minds
of idiots, but not me. The whole thing is incredibly insulting to everyone's
intelligence.

------
40acres
When it comes to Fortune 500 companies, I think employees are looking for
their employers to display the types of values they hold in their actions.
Whether that means removing support for conflict minerals, fair wages, etc.

In all, its understandable. Americans tie their occupation to their identify,
but I think we are starting the encroach upon the limits of these
expectations.

I think the critism of Kaplan is fair not only because he's an executive at
Facebook, but because he's their top policy guy and Facebook as been
railroaded by the right because of suspicion of bias. It's obviously within
his will to show support for his friend, but as someone who I'd think has a
feel for politics this was a terrible political/optical move. Especially to be
within camera shot of Kavanaugh.

------
minimaxir
> folks i talk to recall the internal rancor as greater than after the 2016
> presidential election.

[https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/1047959561573822465](https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/1047959561573822465)

------
oh-kumudo
Damn, the outrage culture is just so uncomfortable. How could this be
contained?

~~~
Jyaif
I think people have a fixed amount of complaining they need to do, regardless
of the environment they live in. As the standard of living improve, the
outrages will more and more concern non important things.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
No, I think the complaining has increased, not just stayed the same.

Maybe as things improve, expectations improve faster? "Perfection is almost
within reach! All we have to do is eliminate these _few_ remaining flaws..."

~~~
repolfx
I think it's just that everyone realised that powerful people can be
browbeaten into compliance with almost trivial levels of complaining if it's
phrased right. All you have to do is say, "I'm a woman and this is hurtful"
(as this article says explicitly is happening in Facebook) and executives,
politicians, academics, regulators etc all immediately fall into line. Telling
a woman to toughen up is culturally impossible which means all sorts of people
have realised they can grab the driving seat of powerful organisations
_without actually climbing to the top_. All the power, none of the
responsibility - who can resist such an offer?

So we get this cascade of ludicrous complaints, like the senior police officer
in the UK who was suspended for saying "our behaviour must be whiter than
white" because using a common idiom for 'not corrupt' is now racist. There's
no logic to it, but the ability to anonymously exercise power over a huge
organisation at will is irresistable to too many.

This will end only when strong leaders start firing people who try to claim
offence at trivial things. The pendulum will eventually swing back - it has
to, organisations that don't let it swing will be destroyed by the constant
infighting over power.

------
Firebrand
Maybe Facebook should shut down the message board or limit the discussion to
specific topics, at least.

Letting junior employees think their opinions matter is an enormous mistake.

------
kukx
I respect him for standing behind his long-time friend. And I am scared of
people that react to it as if they were fighting for their lives.

------
1999
Can anyone recommend a good book on the period before the American Civil War?
Not the war itself, just the wind up. I'd also be interested in something
similar but for the Yugoslav wars.

~~~
beat
Not the Civil War or Yugoslav war, but you might find the Hardcore History
podcast series "Countdown to Armageddon" enlightening. It's about World War I,
including the run-up to the war. He has 20+ hours of material, and it's
absolutely chilling.

If you're looking for an analogy to American politics as "second civil war",
it won't help. But if you're looking for how two sides are willing to destroy
themselves trying to destroy each other, it's amazing.

~~~
thrower123
To stick with Dan Carlin, I think another applicable episode is Prophets of
Doom, detailing the story of the city of Munster during the German Wars of
Religion. Populism, charismatic leaders, conflict of neighbor against
neighbor. The current situation has more of the feel of a religious schism to
me than something like the Civil War, which was a largely regional division.

------
jf-
American culture seems to have become deeply intolerant of differences of
opinion. Everything is now a scorched-earth, winner takes all battle, with no
attempt at compromise or de-escalation. Everyone is a combatant, every word
and action is seized upon to be weaponised. I’m not talking about the debacle
currently unfolding in the senate here either, I mean the entire atmosphere is
unbelievably toxic and has been for some time, and on both sides.

Americans are actively dehumanising each other. Everyone needs to calm down
and stop hating or this is going to end very badly.

~~~
unique_id
It's liberals that are intolerant of other peoples views (or so the studies
say).

~~~
obscurantist
Those studies have generally shown liberals to be only somewhat less tolerant,
as an aggregate. Most liberals are still tolerant, as are most conservatives.

~~~
unique_id
The difference is rather extreme:
[http://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2018/05/a-survey-of-
dart...](http://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2018/05/a-survey-of-dartmouths-
political-and-free-speech-climate)

What is intolerance anyway? It's not believing that a certain behavior is
wrong. That's not intolerance. Intolerance is shouting people down because you
don't agree with them or creating a hostile environment for opposing
viewpoints. That's a behavior that reminds me of one side much more than the
other.

I'm not putting blame here. One side just takes politics more seriously, for
now.

~~~
lovich
>"I'm not putting blame here"

You just called out one side as worse and then try to claim you're not putting
blame? That's not really believeable.

If we're just throwing out reasons too, then how about how the Republican
party decided to not compromise on anything anymore after Obama was elected?
When one side refuses to compromise on anything, the other side can only lose
by attempting to compromise. This situation is the only possible result from
turning politics into a verbal form of total war

~~~
unique_id
I've been flagged four times now for correcting the person I responded to on
who is acting intolerant. That's an example of intolerance. Liberals are very
intolerant, as the studies show.

> You just called out one side as worse and then try to claim you're not
> putting blame?

I said one side takes politics more seriously, that's what I said. But sure,
if you believe in democracy then their behavior isn't exactly conducive to a
well functioning democracy, now is it?

> When one side refuses to compromise on anything

That's hilarious. The republican party is the democratic party, just 10 years
behind. It compromises on everything. The beautiful Republican party features
the likes of marxists turned neocons because they took an interest in Israel
(or so Wikipedia says).

~~~
lovich
[https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-
compromis...](https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-
pledge-044311)

>Here’s John Boehner, the likely speaker if Republicans take the House,
offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We're going to do everything — and I
mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we
can.”

It was a public and documented plan by the Republican party to not compromise
on a single issue with the Obama administration. You're evidence that liberals
are less tolerant is also a study of a single college campus. Bring some more
evidence if you are going to make claims that have gone against the past 10
years of public discourse

------
gdy
What a kindergarden

------
jobigoud
"Rift" is the name of a hardware device from Facebook. At first I was confused
about how on Earth Kavanaugh hearing was responsible for breaking open Oculus
Rifts.

------
bassman9000
_Rifts breaks because a reporter wants it to be real so it can be reported,
magnifying the response from some extremely vocal employees, and ignoring the
rest_

Sounds about right

------
r32a_
Can't remember the last time I heard a positive news from Facebook

------
poulsbohemian
When the senate majority leader is speaking on the floor of the senate and
complains about Americans using their constitutional rights to free assembly
and ability to petition their representatives, then frankly, our Republic has
jumped the shark. It's over. Forget pretending any of this is working, because
it's obviously not. The only question is how it will crumble from here.

~~~
eanzenberg
How is it not working in any real physical sense?

~~~
omegaworks
By confirming Kavanaugh, Senate Republicans are elevating a person that has
committed repeated acts of perjury in sworn testimony to the highest court in
the land[1].

He stands accused of sexual assault, and instead of fully reviewing the facts
and allowing a third party to investigate every lead, Republicans in the White
House have tied the FBI's hands[2]. Worse, they've done this and have chosen
to mislead the American public into believing that they are not doing this[3].

1\. [https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-
kavanaugh...](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-
lying)

2\.
[https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1047887560612216832](https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1047887560612216832)

3\.
[https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1047879134737780737](https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1047879134737780737)

------
flatline
And the conservative underbelly of SV once again peeks out from beneath its
plaid flannel facade. Tuck it back in there, Zuck, and all will be fine again
for a little while longer! This is another byproduct of the startup lottery
culture: we idolize the people who made it big, ignoring the realities of
classism in the fight to the top.

------
damm
I am thankful for the rift opening and the employee's pushing back against the
usual tactics. (You don't have to work here; don't push your personal
political agenda's into the company and make them front stage)

It's a way to dismiss a person in the worst way; saying your opinion doesn't
matter.

~~~
bnastic
> You don't have to work here; don't push your personal political agenda's
> into the company and make them front stage

Well, that used to be the case. When Facebook employees become as strongly
opposed to the shady, borderline criminal, activities of their employer that
they themselves (literally) enable through the code they write, then just
maybe I'll be inclined to be more sympathetic to their other grievances.

