
Zuckerberg Asks Employees to Stop Crossing Out “Black Lives Matter” at FB HQ - coloneltcb
http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/25/mark-zuckerberg-asks-employees-to-stop-crossing-out-black-lives-matter-on-facebooks-walls/?ncid=rss
======
danso
Great response from Zuckerberg. This is something that easily could have been
dealt with in a much more ham-handed way or through middle management...to
have the CEO take a stand is very helpful.

I think he states the position well. "Black Lives Matter" is meant to be a
concise motto that is founded on the belief that society does not equally
value its African-American citizens. It does not preclude lives of ethnic
groups having value.

Perhaps the "All Lives Matter" group would argue that their stance is equally
amicable...sure, it's just as well-intentioned. But what BLM and, apparently
Zuckerberg believe is that this response insinuates that the BLM advocates are
unfounded in their beliefs that blacks aren't equally valued by society.

~~~
merpnderp
Usually people in the "All Lives Matter" group seem upset at the inherent
divisiveness of the "Black Lives Matter" slogan. I've never had a discussion
with anyone in either camp that believes the system is fair towards black
people. The actual divisiveness seems to happen when discussing if the system
is also unfair to non-black people, like poor whites, who some argue are more
likely to be shot by police than black people, which the "Black Lives Matter"
doesn't seem to concern itself with.

~~~
wpietri
Do you know of a useful slogan that concerns itself with all problems at once?

The theory behind the objection seems to be that black people must help white
people fix problems that white people experience before we can even talk about
the problems that black people experience. That seems crazy to me.

Even if the US hadn't uniquely maltreated black people for centuries, black
people are just 12% of the population. Why shouldn't they be able to call
attention to the problems they experience without white people saying, "But
what about meeeeeeee?!?"

Yes, there are a lot of things wrong that we should fix. But when somebody
tries to discuss problem A and somebody else immediately leaps in to say, "Why
don't you care about B?" I often suspect that the point is not to fix problem
B, it's to stop the discussion of problem A.

~~~
merpnderp
A useful slogan that concerns itself with all problems at once? Off the top of
my head "Police enforcement in the US is out of control?"

And I think we immediately stopped seeing eye to eye right here "The theory
behind the objection seems to be that black people must help white people fix
problems that white people experience before we can even talk about the
problems that black people experience. That seems crazy to me." No white
person is saying "help me fix my problems first". They're saying, this is a
single problem we all face and we should all work to fix it. They might even
go further and say race is a bullshit social construct used to oppress and
separate people and that their is no "us" and "them" only us.

~~~
wpietri
You see your problem as "police enforcement in the US is out of control".
Other people see different problems. You saying, "We should all work to fix my
problem because I am sure your problem is the same as mine" is effectively
saying, "help me fix my problem before I will listen to you about your
problem". Because your notion that you understand the problems of black people
better than they themselves do is definitely a sign that you aren't listening.

And sure, the American notion of race is a bullshit social construct, but it
is one that white people created, put into law, and enforced. And of course
used as a tool to gain power. So if white people would like race not to be an
issue anymore, they should get other white people to stop making it a thing.
Telling black people to stop noticing the racial bias directed against them by
white people will not actually end the bias, it just hides the evidence.

[1] e.g.:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)

~~~
merpnderp
Well when I see cops shooting people for the diciest of reasons, and enforcing
laws with little discretion and maximum force, I'm not convinced that I'm
wrong by the argument "Black lives matter". People are free to believe what
they want, but obviously there is a messaging problem with "BLM".

~~~
wpietri
You don't have to be convinced to be respectful. It is certainly not their job
and probably not their goal to convince you.

Also, it's not obvious at all that there's a messaging problem. I get that a
bunch of white people don't like the message. But a bunch of white people will
dislike anything black people do to push back against a system that harms
them.

For decades white people have been telling black activists that they're doing
it wrong. And their main cited evidence is that white people are
uncomfortable. MLK got a lot of that, and he responded to it here:

[https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....](https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html)

I certainly agree that the "Black Lives Matter" slogan makes me, a white
person, uncomfortable. But as far as I'm concerned, that's just what it should
be doing. If other people are being maltreated by a system that I have the
power to change, that shouldn't feel warm and fuzzy.

~~~
13thLetter
"You don't have to be convinced to be respectful. It is certainly not their
job and probably not their goal to convince you."

Sorry? If they want to create political change in a democratic society, it
_is_ their job to convince him.

~~~
wpietri
No, not at all.

Think about the technology adoption curve, as seen in Crossing the Chasm. It's
not the job, or even the goal, of a person creating a new technology to
convince _everybody_. At any moment, a small portion of people are open to
changing their minds on a given thing. Mostly, they do what they grew up with,
or what the people around them are doing.

The same is generally true socially. Consider this graph:

[http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Prod...](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/bb8ic2qate-
wa_cbgc2ifg.png)

Now subtract the death rate from that graph. If you do, you'll see that a
relatively small number of people changed their minds at any given point. Much
of the change comes because old bigots died off, taking their retrograde
opinions to the grave with them.

So basically, an activist who wants to change minds, like a technology
marketer, shouldn't focus their efforts on convincing everybody. Persuasive
efforts are best spent on the people who are most ready to change. Which in my
experience is generally the person listening carefully, not the guy who runs
up to shout, "No, you're doing it all wrong. Do it _my_ way."

------
JPKab
Spent my high school years in a poor, rural county in southeastern Virginia
that was mostly black. All of these folks were descended from slaves, and
there was never a doubt in my mind that white oppression in the past had
created numerous, deep disadvantages for my friends and classmates who had the
misfortune of being part of families who had suffered from the legacy of
slavery and Jim Crow.

That being said, I've always found that black ethnocentrism has a similar
effect to white ethnocentrism: it causes further division and worsens the
problem it claims to try to solve.

The statement "Black Lives Matter" offends me, because it makes the assumption
that because I'm not black, I don't think black lives matter, and therefore
have to be told that they do. Most of my friends growing up were black. My
best friend was closer to me than my brothers, was best man at my wedding, and
I at his. It also over-simplifies a complex problem, that has at its root the
fact that the hostile relationship between blacks and police is not one-
directional. It was started by white police with decades of oppression, but
the current situation is a cycle perpetuated by the thought that police are
the enemy. If you have been told your whole life that police are the enemy,
then you are going to behave differently when they approach you than someone
else. If the police are in a community where everyone has been taught this,
they will behave in a way that ends up supporting this belief, and the seeds
of conflict are sown.

Ethnocentrism has never, ever helped unify people. My personal experience
growing up and socializing in a mostly black social environment left me with
the impression that there is a minority of black Americans who, similar to a
minority of white Americans, are ethnocentric and racist towards those who
don't share their race. The difference is that the black variety of
ethnocentric activists are openly tolerated and encouraged by white people who
have never in their life spent ten minutes under the roof of a black person's
home, let alone attended black churches or been involved in family events such
as Thanksgiving dinners, weddings, funerals, etc.

Racism is a part of the human condition, as is its direct precursor,
ethnocentrism. Pretending that it's different depending on the person's
complexion tells me that these white folks view black Americans as different
than themselves, almost less human. I hold all humans, no matter how difficult
their background, to a higher standard.

~~~
skybrian
I think the solution is to stop taking offense. The point isn't to say other
injustices don't matter - it's to shine a spotlight on a particular type of
injustice that needs attention.

And you can't say it hasn't helped. People are more aware of problems between
the police and the black community than they were even a few years ago.

------
dcgudeman
_Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is asking his employees to stop being ignorant
and racist (my words, not his)_

It's pretty hard to take an article seriously when the author starts it like
that. I wish the people reporting on these issues would leave the hyperbole
out.

~~~
patricklynch
But if you clicked through to that point and were served ads, they kind of
already won. At least short term.

~~~
adiabatty
I'm happy I have a habit of clicking through to the HN comments before reading
the article, then.

------
phonyphonecall
"There are specific issues affecting the black community in the United States,
coming from a history of oppression and racism..."

For anyone looking to read more on this subject, "The New Jim Crow: Mass
Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness", was a helpful resource for me.
([http://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-
Colorblindn...](http://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-
Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/))

------
no_wave
The article disapprovingly states that 55% of Facebook is white as if that's a
disproportionate amount, even though 63% of the USA population identifies as
non-hispanic white. What's up with that

------
jobu
And now it got crossed off the front page of Hacker News... sad.

@Dang - was this flagged by users? Seems crazy that it had 30 points in 20
minutes and now it's gone.

Zuckerberg's statement on this seemed really well written. The "Black Lives
Matter" vs. "All Lives Matter" has been discussed endlessly, but he had
another great point about crossing out the Black Lives Matter being
essentially the same as silencing free speech.

~~~
minimaxir
The submission was flagkilled.

I vouched for it since despite what people may think about BLM, Zuckerberg's
response is important and relevant.

~~~
Larrikin
I really would like to know the rationale behind the people trying to flagkill
it

~~~
tizzdogg
I think its probably the exact same rationale as crossing out "Black Lives
Matter".

Though if I'm being more charitable, most likely some people see this as a
political article which shouldnt be on HN (whether you feel that way is
probably correlated to your opinion of Black Lives Matter).

~~~
wpietri
That is indeed quite charitable, given that the story is about Facebook,
startup culture, and the direct actions of one of the most prominent people in
tech.

If somebody only objects to political articles when it's politics they don't
like, I'd be curious as to how they resolve claiming to be against politics
while energetically politicizing something.

------
minimaxir
Primary source is Gizmodo ([http://gizmodo.com/mark-zuckerberg-asks-racist-
facebook-empl...](http://gizmodo.com/mark-zuckerberg-asks-racist-facebook-
employees-to-stop-1761272768)), but Gizmodo submission is heavily linkbait.

------
icomefromreddit
> The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the
> spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that
> spectrum. CHOMSKY.

I agree people shouldn't cross out black lives matter.

However, if you're going to let them write "black lives matter," you should
also allow people to write "all lives matter."

If our society has reached a point of guilt, where we can no longer
acknowledge that all lives matter, and doing so is "racist," that means blacks
(and allies) will have become the new de facto racist group.

~~~
emjoes1
"If our society has reached a point of guilt, where we can no longer
acknowledge that all lives matter, and doing so is 'racist,' that means blacks
(and allies) will have become the new de facto racist group."

This took a minute to sink in. Everyone should contemplate this statement for
a minute. For me the phrase All Lives Matter seems very guiltless and brings
feelings of unity, while Black Lives Matter brings feelings of division. Just
seems like it is doing nothing to unite people on the cause... like a bad
marketing campaign trying to guilt people into joining a cause.

------
zootam
what he should do is ask employees to stop writing any such things at FB hq in
the first place.

Individual Political messages like that don't belong in the workplace.

~~~
aws_ls
I totally agree with you. Political opinions are formed over a long time, and
are a function of our experiences, prejudices, reading, ignorance etc...all
very hard to change.

So its best to not have political discussions in a work place setting. These
kind of provisions invariably just end up causing a lot of heart burn, and
nothing more.

PS: I personally liked Zuckerberg's gesture as I know why it is important to
have specific/loaded statements which hint at history, than motherhood/generic
statements, which mean nothing, and often are the refuge of bigots. But at the
same time, I have seen nobody (or very few) change their positions in
arguments, and are just the cause of heart burns. God, how many people I
unfriended on FB (when I was using it) just cause they hurt me real bad (in
some cases, I regretted later on...that's why Facebook is a net negative IMHO,
but I digress, Sorry).

------
wkimeria
1 point by wkimeria 6 hours ago

Kudos to him. The tendency of people to refuse to understand what "Black Lives
Matter" means is infuriating. I love Arthur Chu's Tweet some time ago on this

[https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/538015166634680320?...](https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/538015166634680320?lang=en)

'Do people who change #BlackLivesMatter to #AllLivesMatter run thru a cancer
fundraiser going "THERE ARE OTHER DISEASES TOO"'

------
hsod
The Black Lives Matter vs. All Lives Matter debate is one where two friendly
colleagues can easily realize they hate each other.

I'm surprised FB wants any part of it.

------
awinter-py
No surprise that an organization engaging in large-scale behavioral
engineering ('click here') has a warped view of free speech.

I don't know how to reconcile 'we've never had rules about what people can
write' with 'my clear communication that this is unacceptable' (or even with
taking down photos of breastfeeding women).

His _interpretation_ is that BLM doesn't mean all lives don't matter,
therefore the crossouts are inappropriate. (1) I'm not sure social justice
movements want to be interpreted by nasdaq CEOs. And (2) crossing out isn't
censorship, it's debate.

Given that this whole company is about people writing on each other's walls,
you'd want them to have a more nuanced attitude towards graffiti.

------
throw7
I'm not black or white. I'm not impressed with "black lives matter" or
zuckerberg or "all lives matter" or whatever. The rule should be don't cross
out what others have written... write your own thing. jeez. freakin' high
school.

------
Kinnard
I have to wonder why this dropped off the front page. I feel like stories like
this get "crossed out" of HN. Anyone from HN wanna chime in?

~~~
Kinnard
There's a post with 10 votes that's 53 minutes old at #11. This one is at 32
votes 35 minutes old.

~~~
dang
HN doesn't compute story rank from points and timestamp alone.

~~~
Kinnard
Is the algorithm public?

~~~
dang
No. A version of HN's source code is included with the public release of Arc,
but HN's algorithm has many extensions that aren't public. It has to be that
way, because it would be too easy to game the system otherwise.

~~~
Kinnard
dang, that violate's Kerckhoffs's principle: "A system should be secure even
if everything about the system is public knowledge." Security through
obscurity.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle)

~~~
tptacek
Kerckhoff's Principle holds only if the adversary's cost are unbounded. In
reality, there's almost always a cost ceiling tied in some way to the value of
the target.

In other words: you are welcome to spend unlimited hours and dollars finding
and exploiting the flaws in HN's ranking model simply to prove a point, but
hopefully, you have better things to do. Similarly, the HN team has better
things to do than investing resources to defeat the (unlikely) adversaries who
harness both skill and irrationality.

(This wrinkle of Kerckhoff's Principle comes up a lot in systems security
work, which is why I was moved to comment about it.)

