
Inside Silicon Valley, Many Have Long Known Sheryl Sandberg Isn’t a Saint - madmax108
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/11/silicon-valley-many-have-long-known-sheryl-sandberg-isnt-a-saint
======
AYBABTME
Reads like a personal vendetta. It's basically throwing shade at someone with
no backing at all, openly referring to overheard stories and people wishing
ill on someone else.

If you find-and-replace "Sheryl Sandberg" with any other name, the article
just reads like a vile piece.

~~~
billfruit
But many such pieces float around in the media with Zuckerberg's name.
Sandburg is very vested in FBs actions and policies, however most media
coverage on her treated her as 'saint' compared with the distrust showered on
Zuckerberg by the same media.

Perhaps, I do feel they feel Sandburg comes across to them as a normative
person, while Z often acts and speaks like someone on the Spectrum.

------
projectramo
Ugh. I don’t know Sandburg but this article was awful.

It took one incident — she said hi to Obama when there were cameras around -
and then went on for paragraphs about how conniving she supposedly is.

The article just goes on and on without any content.

~~~
gedy
It reads and feels like part of Sandberg getting pushed out of the in-crowd as
punishment for Facebook "enabling" Trump, Russia, or whatever.

------
seibelj
Anyone with enough money can invent whatever public persona they want about
themselves. You hire a ghost writer to pen a book for you, then you hire PR
agents to get you written up in the NYT and on various news and talk programs
to shill your book. This was Sandberg, Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos, and
countless other people. The key thing is to have a lot of money and some
reason to do this. Even if you never did anything important, maybe you just
start giving money away and write a manifesto. I’ve watched this happen with
people I’ve known professionally on a more regional scale.

Also, you don’t need to write a book to do this, but it’s a sophisticated and
high-brow way. For example, business people and even actors usually get long
form interviews on NPR only when they write a book, and with that as the
catalyst the conversation covers the other aspects of their lives.

~~~
Maro
Comparing Sharyl Sandberg to Elizabeth Holmes, who straight out lied, stole
people's money to the tune of $1B, endangered patient's life and is currently
on trial is a cheap logical fallacy.

~~~
seibelj
Rather I’m contrasting them to show that being fawned over in top tier media
doesn’t meant anything relevant to their personality traits

~~~
Maro
But you're comparing her to a criminal, hence your logical fallacy.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence)

~~~
tomsthumb
The keyword there was “contrast.”

------
mckee1
The headline and tone of the article implies that they have evidence of some
underhand or nasty behaviour by Sandberg. But there is none - having the
political intelligence to make the most of a photocall does not make you a bad
person.

~~~
NotSammyHagar
That sounds like what PR would write! I think the problem is the world does
not benefit from artificially constructed public personas. We're all better
off if there is less artifice there. Rich people can't help it almost, they
hire all these 'helpers' (press agents, pr, lawyers) and they just want to
make them look good. But power corrupts, and we should be rightfully
suspicious or at least skeptical of the aims and goals of the powerful.

------
dawhizkid
No one gets to that level in the corporate world by being nice...is this
really that surprising?

~~~
cowpig
I think this kind of cynicism is harmful and also very untrue.

~~~
ben_jones
Agreed, I'm willing to admit its common but not universal. Whether its someone
like Woz who got his corporate seat and influence by being there from the
beginning, Lebron James who is a once in a generation athlete but runs various
companies while knocking elbows with high ups a Nike etc., there are counter-
examples of good people who also hold positions of authority in corporate
circles.

~~~
oculusthrift
right but those are the exceptions that prove the rule. its so rare that its
known as exceptional when it does happen

------
hodgesrm
Would Facebook actually behave differently with another executive in charge?
Focusing on Sandberg just seems like another deflection from the effect
Facebook's business model has on public discourse.

------
Maro
I worked at the FB London for a brief bit; Zuck didn't visit the office, but
Sharyl visited once. It was a big deal and quite the spectacle. She seemed to
have an entourage of several people, and even inside the office there were
bodyguards with her, the ex-secret service looking ones. She did an internal
QA session, and after it a lot of employees went up to get selfies, it took
her like 5-10 mins just to get out of the room. She looked very politician
professional, incredibly well groomed, neutral blue dress, straight lines;
like a corporate, improved version of Hillary. Exactly what she looks like on
the pictures. She was incredibly professional at answering questions, like a
politician. I had no positive or negative takeaway, I just thought, this is
what a powerful person looks like up close. Btw. Zuck to me doesn't give off
this "powerful" vibe.

I read the article, it seems like a cheap shot / character assassination
attempt, and not a good one. Essentially it says she knows how to handle
herself in PR ("Sandberg waited for the exact moment that the photographers
started taking pictures to reach across the table and greet the president."),
she can play politics ("Sandberg was a political animal, and a brilliant one
at that"), she's calculating ("In news interviews on television, Sandberg
dictates every last detail, including the kinds of questions that can be
asked, and those that cannot."), professional, good at what she does. Well,
duh, that's her job, that's why she's the COO of Facebook.

Other cheap shots: "In contrast, Sandberg tends to lay blame on others." The
"evidence" is a _leak_ about a supposed _internal meeting_ where she gave
somebody a hard time.

This one is just wtf: "Sandberg’s potential political career seems toast." So
Trump got elected after the Access Hollywood tapes, but Sandberg's political
career is toast because she worked at a company that got hacked/misused.

------
motohagiography
Utterly fanciful speculation here, but my impression was many of the current
scandals facing Facebook are to determine whether Zuck can be marginalized
into a non-operational Bill Gates-like role, making room for Sandberg to
become Internet Queen. I only half joke, but it's an immensely powerful global
role, but senior geeks within FB are still a bit idealistic and principled and
will defer to Zuck on any of her ambitions to operate FB like the institutions
she cut her teeth at, e.g. as a private state department, or a para-
governmental agency, like something with the power of the Fed but for global
politics.

This caps her ability to wield FB's political power to its fullest extent, and
for someone of her calibre, she's only going to see it as a constraint in the
way of her full potential.

If Zuck manages to weather the scandals, it means she needs to be thinking
about what's next, as she's not going to be content as #2. The most obvious
"next," given her background and record was the democratic nomination to make
a cakewalk run for president in 2020. 2016 made it obvious it's anyone's to
lose, but the firmness of the ceiling at FB needed to be proven out first.
E.g. ruling out internet queen before giving up one of the most powerful
private sector jobs on earth on a presidential run. That's why we saw Zuck
pushed to the fore earlier this year, because if he was vulnerable to being
politically isolated (and sent out to philanthropic pasture), that opportunity
would mean growth within FB for Sandberg.

Turns out, dude is made of teflon, and then something else happened.

The mid-terms mediocre showing (e.g. no blue landslide) means the competition
for the 2020 nomination is suddenly less urgent because the president still
has a reasonable chance of re-election. Democrats will field good candidates,
but nobody is going to give up a global power role to take the chance while
the president's base is holding. Certainly not the sort of chances you'd give
up being internet queen for.

So, by this view, expect the FB scandals to fall off because Sandberg has
always been capable of single handedly containing them, and only while she
made her decision about 2020 was it briefly useful to expose Zuck to the
elements and see if he survived. Now that the mid-terms have taken 2020 off
the table, she can use her role to build a juggernaut base of operations for a
2024 run.

I'm not involved at all, to the point where this borders on weird fanfic, but
reading the tea leaves, in her position, what else would you do?

~~~
patrickg_zill
There is absolutely no chance of Sandberg putting together an effective run
for president. Further I can't see a reason why this would be the most likely
scenario.

Get out of the SV/HN hothouse and talk to some people who are not in tech.

