
“Today, I submitted my resignation to Facebook” - aaronbrethorst
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/timothy-j-aveni_blacklivesmatter-activity-6673316720993824768-q_dU/
======
minimaxir
Facebook is apparently currently having an all-hands that is not going well:

> have to say, from what me, @sheeraf and @ceciliakang are hearing....this is
> not going over super well.

> Zuckerberg spent probably 20-30 minutes delivering his reasons for the post
> staying up. now taking pointed and heated questions from employees directly

[https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/1267894523700457472](https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/1267894523700457472)

~~~
lostmsu
Prior to hearing what he had to answer, I'd like to applaud Mark for daring to
speak and argue directly about the heated matters.

~~~
burkaman
He runs the company? It is not brave to talk to people you are paying to do a
job.

~~~
brlewis
On the contrary, when you're paying people to do a job, explaining why you've
decided a certain way is not your obligation. And when the people you're
paying are software engineers, you're unfortunately inviting verbal abuse.
(This should change.)

[Obligatory disclaimer that I don't approve of everything he does]

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
> when you're paying people to do a job, explaining why you've decided a
> certain way is not your obligation.

Isn’t this at odds with your tagline:

 _HowTruthful helps you make better evidence-based decisions, and helps you
communicate opinions effectively._

Communicate opinions effectively, unless you’re paying someone to enact your
opinions, in which case _fuck them_.

~~~
brlewis
I'm not saying using HowTruthful is an obligation either. It's a good thing to
choose to do.

------
Mirioron
This is why large social media platforms need to have their hands tied when it
comes to free speech. They either have it or they don't. This kind of back and
forth where they claim to support free speech, but any time somebody says
something they don't like it becomes "an issue that must be addressed" needs
to stop. The end result of this is that some people's speech is free, but
others' isn't. Either you have free speech for everyone or you just don't have
free speech.

I do applaud him for standing up for his convictions.

~~~
jjjensen90
There is no free speech on private social media platforms

~~~
vorpalhex
There can be. There's no legal right to free speech on social media platforms,
but a platform can (and I'll argue should) support free speech.

I think if a platform wants to not support free speech, that's a fair choice
to make, but as a user I want them to communicate that in abundance. I don't
expect the Disney Club to support sex workers describing their
autobiographies, but I would expect them to not pretend they are a bastion of
free speech or a platform for the world.

~~~
rorykoehler
For that to work it needs to be one person one profile with real identities.
No bots.

~~~
vorpalhex
To be anonymous is necessary for free speech. You should never confuse social
media for the public opinion.

~~~
rorykoehler
What we have now is a DDOS on free speech. How to solve it?

~~~
vorpalhex
A DDOS is an attack because it removes resources. Other people having opinions
that disagree with yours isn't removing resources from you.

Whether it's newspapers or a town square, there have always been people who
have been loud. Loud does not mean right. It also doesn't mean you need to
muzzle the people who are loud.

~~~
rorykoehler
1 person can be millions of people online. Based on your response I don’t get
the perception you understand the gravity of the problem we are facing.

~~~
vorpalhex
Who is we? And why is that a problem?

~~~
naasking
"One person, one vote." There's probably an analogous argument to be made
regarding speech online, ie. "one person, one account on platforms critical to
democratic discourse".

I agree with you that anonymity is important too though.

Fortunately, there are ways to ensure data came from an original source
without actually disclosing that source's actual identity.

This will probably require considerable mobilization of tech companies,
governments, and citizens, but I think democracy and free speech online is
important enough to warrant the effort.

~~~
ddalex
and then perhaps only one comment per user per day - because some users may be
more vocal than others, right ?

How about no ? Voting and Speech are separate issues, lets' not confound them

~~~
naasking
There is no conflation. "One person one vote" was a principle formulated to
ensure the will of the people is known, and that entrenched powerful interests
cannot undermine this will by having more voting power than the average
person.

"One person, one voice/account" has a similar rationale behind it. Technology
is a force multiplier. The human mind gives more credence to things they
hear/see repeatedly and from multiple different sources. This is a somewhat
robust heuristic only when they are _actually_ different sources. The
"powerful interests" here are those with the knowledge to broadcast their
message widely under multiple different aliases. This is why social media is
such a problem.

If a particular platform is shown to be important to democratic discourse,
there's a compelling argument that that platform should have rules ensuring
the authenticity of the people's voice.

------
somecommit
After all the shitty things facebook did in the whole world, inducing
depression, suicidal behaviors for the most fragile etc... this person resigns
because the CEO refused to censor the elected POTUS. I have a hard time to
figure what's going on in his head, and how he thinks it's helping democraty.

~~~
newbie578
Now that you say it that way, that is actually a pretty good point.

He was fine with Facebook breaking users privacy, aggregating data, spying on
users over smartphone mics, but a Tweet cuts the line?

Admirable of him, but I have a pretty big feeling that although he is
working(ed) at Facebook, he is quite green for the real world.

~~~
koheripbal
It's one single employee at Facebook. He probably left for other reasons, but
just wanted his 5 minutes of internet fame.

The only reason this made it up on HN is because people have an emotional
hatred for FB.

------
turndown
We live in such cynical times that instead of simply applauding someone for
doing the right thing they are either accused of virtue signalling or
criticized for having associated with people before it was totally apparent
what their moral stances were.

~~~
brink
Not everyone (me included) believes the censorship he's calling for is the
right thing.

~~~
commandlinefan
I really worry about where this is going. I think about Howard Stern moving
over to Sirius satellite radio - as quaint as it seems in today's climate, he
was at least as controversial (although in command of fewer armies) as Donald
Trump is. The people who hated him then hated him as much, if not more, than
the people who hate Donald Trump do now. I imagine some people quit Sirius in
protest, but for the most part, people separated their own preferences from
their jobs AND accepted that just because somebody isn't their own cup of tea
doesn't mean that they shouldn't be _anybody 's_ cup of tea. This ideological
purity test has me worried, though - I can easily imagine that the Trump-
haters will view anybody who stayed at FB and opposed arbitrary censorship in
an "if you're not with us, you're against us" way and blacklist ex-FB
employees for _not_ joining this guy. An eye for an eye makes the whole world
blind, but that seems to be what a disturbing number of people are hoping for.

~~~
dpau
bad analogy. trump has far, far greater power than any talk show host and is
advocating violence against americans.

------
NickM
I'm always conflicted when I read about this kind of thing. I do think
Facebook is actively making the world worse in many ways, but is it better for
the people who care about this to quit in protest, or is it better if they
stay and try to make things better from the inside? Will actions like this
actually hurt the company, or will it just prompt them to hire replacements
who have no such ethical qualms, and who may nudge the company in an even
worse direction?

I don't have an easy answer, and I can certainly imagine how difficult it
would be to get up and go to work for an employer every day that you see as
evil, so I don't judge the author of this post for leaving...but I think it is
still a question worth contemplating. I'd love to hear what other peoples'
thoughts are on this.

~~~
throwanem
Is there any example of "change the system from within" having _ever_ worked?
I can't bring one to mind off the top of my head, but that doesn't necessarily
mean much.

~~~
rytill
It's definitely frustrating when advocates of this argument are those that
benefit from the subject exerting effort keeping the system in-place. I feel
it's an overreaction to broadly generalize "change the system from within"
arguments to this extent though.

~~~
throwanem
I didn't make a generalization. I asked a question.

------
RickJWagner
I once had a work/politics conflict.

I did not like the idea of the ACA (Obamacare). I've seen government run
healthcare and did not think it was good. But the will of the people was
implemented, and ACA was put in place.

The launch was awful. The website crashed multiple times daily, and people
lost their input data all the time. It was generating very big headlines. Then
my company was asked to help make things better (along with Google, Oracle and
a few others.) I was one of a relatively small number of people asked to help
fix it.

I did the best job I could. I didn't like the idea personally, but I
considered it professionalism to make my best effort.

My contributions were small, but I did what I could. Other members of the so-
called 'Tiger Team' found bigger chunks that could be straightened out, and
before too long the site was up and running.

Today, this is one of my proudest work moments.

------
cheesecracker
I wonder what future prospective employers think about his tendencies to
publicly call out the company he works for? If eventually he quits his next
job, what are the odds for him to be writing an inflammatory blog post about
the company?

It seems to me to not be a prudent strategy to bring politics into one's work
(unless the job is political of course).

On the other hand, maybe he finds a politically minded employer that way -
maybe a leftist NGO or think tank?

I frankly don't understand why such moves receive so much attention. People
evaluate their employers or employment prospects all the time, and decide
against jobs for a variety of reasons. What's the big deal?

------
Gunax
Facebook cannot be the arbiter of facts and truth. IMO people are assigning
way too much power to facebook. Everyone knows Facebook is just the national
enquirer of the internet--no one really cares what shows up there.

The reason censorship is flawed is not that everything is true--it's that
handing over the power to censor has never turned out well.

Was Obama lying when he said 'if you like your healthcare, you can keep it'?
Well, it depends on who you ask and your interpretation of that, but he later
apologized for the remark.

Don't be so quick to call for a revolution, lest you find yourself at the
pitchfork's tip.

~~~
hejja
words are never exact and therefore the message is always subjective.

censorship is bad.

------
FabHK
> since June 2019 I have been at Facebook, working on battling the spread of
> misinformation.

I applaud his principled stance. But he is probably the last person that
should leave FaceBook now.

~~~
thephyber
Users on social networks are fickle. They will tire of the existing FB
platforms soon enough and his talent and integrity and will be more useful on
the next FB replacement.

~~~
mytherin
Then FB will buy the next FB replacement, and he will be back to square one.
At this point I find it unlikely that FB will be dethroned unless government
steps in. The lock-in is too widespread, and their cash reserves too large for
anyone to threaten their position. FB is not going to fall like MySpace did.
The internet has changed a lot since 2005.

~~~
thephyber
> Then FB will buy the next FB replacement, and he will be back to square one.

That seems like a function of how much the owners of the new company value
their integrity and how much of a price they extract from Zuck _if_ they do
sell. At some point, _not_ selling to FB could be a currency (the new upstart
could pull talent which would otherwise not want to work at FB).

> FB is not going to fall like MySpace did

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes."

I suspect we will have to check back in on the health of Facebook after
another 6 months of the COVID-economy ravages the advertising market. I think
FB will be able to see the need to pivot; whether they are able to is not yet
known.

> I find it unlikely that FB will be dethroned unless government steps in.

I think more likely users will just leave/atrophy on it like Gen Z largely did
or possibly just suffer a slow death if global advertising doesn't recover to
previous levels.

~~~
hejja
they will acquire, or deploy capital to make a better clone. example a:
instagram stories after snapchat declined an offer. the only competition its
had in the last 10 years is chinese state funded tik tok

~~~
thephyber
There will always be excuses. We can play game theory predictions or you can
look at history.

Most companies die or significantly evolve over the long term, even the ones
that were monopolies. Would you rather own Blockbuster Video store/chain in
the year 2000 or 2020? Same with retail music stores that sell CDs. Social
media moves at 10x that speed, 100x the speed for those young kids who aren't
afraid/wary to install new apps.

------
morethanjs
Hey Facebook I'll take this guy's position. My code's way better and I won't
even publicly shame you when I leave.

~~~
vntok
No need for signalling point #1, point #2 alone makes you a much better fit to
any company than that guy.

------
99_00
"I cannot stand by Facebook’s continued refusal to act on the president’s
bigoted messages aimed at radicalizing the American public."

What is this message and does anyone have a source?

~~~
malloreon
You must have missed when trump tweeted/fbed “when the looting starts, the
shooting starts” late last week.

~~~
99_00
He clarified his comments and his explanation is not inflammatory.

"Looting leads to shooting, and that's why a man was shot and killed in
Minneapolis on Wednesday night - or look at what just happened in Louisville
with 7 people shot," Trump tweeted

[https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-defends-his-when-
the-l...](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-defends-his-when-the-looting-
starts-the-shooting-starts-tweet-2020-5)

People should be given a chance to explain what they said if it is
misinterpreted. Focusing on the misinterpretation after the explanation has
been made is in-fact inflammatory and divisive.

~~~
IvyMike
His explanation feels disingenuous in the context of his other tweets, his
"you have to dominate" statements, and the use of the military the past few
days. Trump has continued to escalate things, and while I hope that it doesn't
lead to shooting, it feels plausible that Trump would threaten people with
"thats where things are heading!"

(The origins of the of the "looting leads to shooting" statement should also
speak for itself. I know Trump claims ignorance of that statement, but there
are reasons to doubt that as well.)

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Recent polling suggests a majority of Americans would like to see the military
used, so this isn't exactly a fringe call to violence. And it doesn't split
along many of the fault lines you might expect either; 48% of Democrats and
37% of African-Americans are on board.

([https://assets.morningconsult.com/wp-
uploads/2020/06/0118162...](https://assets.morningconsult.com/wp-
uploads/2020/06/01181629/2005131_crosstabs_POLICE_RVs_FINAL_LM-1.pdf))

~~~
AnimalMuppet
That's the most frightening thing I've heard in this entire mess. The rule
against the military intervening in domestic affairs is _hugely_ important. We
can't afford to lose that in the heat of the moment.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Do remember that the military was deployed to quell domestic riots as recently
as 1992. It's a big failure if we end up having to do it, but it's not an
unprecedented nor unrecoverable one.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
_If_ the state wants it, I have no problem with it. If the state doesn't want
it, though, and Trump says "You're getting them anyway, because you're out of
control", well, that's quite different.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Completely agreed.

------
pwdisswordfish2
Ultimately, it is Mark Zuckerberg's website and therefore the content reflects
the views of Mark Zuckerberg. He has the final say on whether something is
published on the website or not.

It really should not matter how many "members" or "guest contributors" he has,
even if it is in the billions. User-generated content is just a way to get
traffic.

What if the controversial speaker had his own website where he published his
comments? Would Cloudflare keep it online? Instead of an overgrown website
eclipsing the web, the issue then shifts to one or a few companies dominating
access to hosting.

Common words used in idealistic HN comments are "decentralisation" and
"democracy". Neither concept suppports the idea of "minority rule" which is
what we have in the case of the FAANG and a few other companies.

------
r00fus
MZ has autocratic control over Facebook, for better or worse, and it doesn't
seem like he's interested changing his mind.

If you disagree with MZ to the point where you can't be effective/happy, this
is probably the best course of action.

I used to advocate for changing systems from within, but if an institution is
simply incapable of change, then it will change you.

------
bambataa
Complete sidenote to the post: I'm looking at this guy's CV and when
describing what he did as a head TA he says "developed and taught lectures;
designed and administered exams". I thought TAs were meant to be secondary
help when running a course. Sounds like the TAs were running this course. Is
that normal?

~~~
Gunax
When reading a resume, it's important to remember that often one attributes
group effort to oneself. That's just the generally agreed upon etiquette for
resumes.

So a programmer who says 'Designed and developed a Ruby web app' probably did
not do it herself from start to finish--she worked on a team with 20 others.
That is meant to be understood in resume-speak and isn't misleading.

If I were reading that, I would infer that he assisted a professor in
preparing/reviewing material, lead discussions (perhaps in study sessions or
small groups), and suggested or wrote exam material on behalf-of and with the
professor's approval.

------
klingonopera
The problem with being a Facebook-user is quitting it while trying to keep in
touch with your friends. Presently, this only works if Facebook itself would
fail.

I believe if it were still possible to keep in touch with Facebook friends and
content without being a Facebook-user yourself, we can subvert the _Network
Effect_ , which in the first place is what Facebook owes its dominance to.

A solution may be to force social media companies by law to adhere to a
standard on information exchange, much like e-mail and http protocols.

If there is such a thing as "OpenBook" and it still allows me to communicate,
comment, view and react to FB-content, I'd ditch FB in an instant.

~~~
landryraccoon
This is weird. I’m not on facebook and I keep in touch with my friends. Whats
this weird jedi mind trick where Facebook has convinced people they can’t keep
in touch off of it?

~~~
throwanem
It's sticky. People do forget. I've seen it happen too, when everyone I knew
got on Facebook and I didn't. Over the course of a year or so, people just
gradually stopped returning emails, texts, and calls. And Facebook event
planning meant I never even found out about stuff until long after it
happened, as for example with the two weddings I wasn't invited to because
people used their Facebook friends lists as the only input to their invitation
lists. They apologized when I ran into them after the fact, but they didn't
change their behavior.

I don't blame them, because Facebook is designed to modify human behavior in
exactly this manner. You can be present on the platform to have revenue
extracted from your social life, or you can be punished as a means of
encouraging you to _get_ on the platform so revenue can be extracted from your
social life.

Whether anyone intends this dichotomy is irrelevant. The purpose of a system
is what it does. And this is what Facebook does.

~~~
landryraccoon
I hate to tell you this but those people aren't your friends.

I have plenty of friends. What's more, I know they're real.

I mean, how real are your friendships if they won't respond to an occasional
text? What even does friendship mean then?

~~~
throwanem
These were the people who rallied around to help me start recovering from a
decade-long abusive relationship, once I finally wised up and got out. Maybe
that by you doesn't qualify as friendship. I don't care what does.

~~~
landryraccoon
And those same people wouldn't answer a text message or pick up the phone if
you called them?

~~~
throwanem
Yeah, that checks out - some variety of this line of questioning plays out
every time I have this conversation, so it's just about time you got here.
Let's see if we can save some time here:

"Your friends must be terrible people!" \- no, as we've already covered,
they're not. They helped get me through some rough times. Terrible people, and
I've known my share, don't bother.

"Well, then, you must be a terrible person!" \- if that were the case, the
apologies I got wouldn't have happened, much less been heartfelt. They weren't
snubbing me on purpose, or deliberately cutting me out. I've seen my share of
that, too, from both sides. This wasn't it.

"Well, then, what you're saying just doesn't make sense!" \- sure it does.
We're all busy professionals, no longer young, many with young families, all
with significant demands on our time and mental energy. People drift apart, it
happens. That's probably what it looked like, from the perspective of people
on Facebook: me drifting apart from them. In a sense, I suppose it's even
true.

Just that it didn't happen that way because I wanted it to, or because they
wanted it to, but rather because Facebook wanted it to. Because as you grow
ever more accustomed to communicating with everyone you know via Facebook, it
gets ever easier just not to think particularly about communicating with
anyone any other way.

There's an activation energy barrier to everything, not just to joining the
mailing list for some SaaS startup. The more you get habituated to Facebook,
the higher that barrier gets with everything else by comparison.

And eventually you get tired of feeling like you're carrying the relationship,
and tired of feeling stung by hearing after the fact about another fun camping
trip or dinner or wedding that you didn't get an invite to because the whole
thing was planned on Facebook. Eventually you just give up, and maybe it takes
a few years to realize that you _weren 't_ at fault, and neither were your
friends. You both got screwed out of each other's company by a machine that is
designed to do exactly that, because it can't make money from social
interactions that occur outside its hegemony.

That's that punishment I was talking about. It isn't a metaphor. It is a
consequence imposed by design to convince Facebook abstainers to do otherwise.

And to forestall your next objection, no, I don't think anyone sat down and
planned it that way - probably not, anyhow; I don't put much past Silicon
Valley, these days. But even if it's an emergent property rather than an
intentional one, that's still no excuse. The purpose of a system is what it
does. And this, again, is what Facebook does.

Anything else?

~~~
klingonopera
Thank you for taking the time to write all that down. I fully agree with most
of it.

I tried quitting Facebook, WhatsApp, and whatnot, to no avail. It just doesn't
work out like that for me.

I'm born to expatriate parents in some country my Dad was working at the time.
Half of my relatives presently live more than 10,000 km away from me, the
other half are spread about in all of Germany. I was at two international
schools, and a local German school. From the former, my friends are spread out
all over the world. From the latter, all around Germany, and some around the
world. I presently live and work here in Germany, but I'm sure, if I ever
leave for another country, that something like Facebook will become even less
expendable. I'm grateful for social media, but I am indeed annoyed that
Facebook's the one that has prevailed (so far).

My best friends are the ones I text and call and hang out with. The others,
who don't get that privilege, we're both glad to be able to see what the other
is doing, without having to engage in direct contact. It doesn't make that
form of communication less valuable, because in fact, it adds another
dimension to it, increasing the total (social) value.

If all your friends are like Elliot Alderson, sure, I bet you don't need
Facebook or any social media. But I also have a ton of friends and relatives
who I'd honestly describe as "IT-handicapped", that wouldn't be able to make a
change away from Facebook. And these people for one do not understand why
Facebook is so bad, and are also too numerous to "convert" away from it, and
second, I also don't want to be the "Messiah" to do that.

It thus makes more sense to "convert" Facebook. It may be a privately owned
company, but if not already, the data we leave there belongs to us (maybe not
in the US, but the EU appears to be trying to head into that direction) and so
we should also have a say in that.

And, most of all, I want interoperability.

~~~
Evidlo
What about just using Facebook for its chat features and ignoring the timeline
altogether?

I use this even on desktop:
[http://m.facebook.com/messages](http://m.facebook.com/messages)

Alternatively you could bridge to Facebook from some more open system like
Matrix or Bitlbee.

------
anigbrowl
This is a nice gesture, but a more helpful one would be leaking their internal
documents/information to reduce the objectionable power asymmetry. Spill the
beans. Put money not into the nonprofit-industrial complex but toward the
development of better tools or to allow counter-campaigning in some form.
Offer to perform work for free for people who have been calling out this
problem for a long time, so as to map out radicalization networks without
having to get approval to use crowdtangle or sign NDAs.

------
29athrowaway
For years now, major internet companies operating in China had to comply with
censorship, surveillance, etc.

These companies have three options: comply with the local law (however abusive
or unethical it is), stop operations or be willing to be penalized.

Zuckerberg wants to just preserve the status quo, where Facebook is protected
from liability and can remain being profitable. The alternative is to wilfully
expose Facebook to an unacceptable amount of liability.

Facebook does not have as much power as you think in this situation.

------
WaitWaitWha
When BBSes started to come about, we were warned repeatedly that censoring
content would make us liable for the the contents themselves. If we did not,
we could not be held liable. The only place we were told we can limit, is at
account sign-up.

What happened to this legal quandary? Facebook is not only a "carrier of
posts" but also "arbiter of contents", in essence playing both.

Is Facebook then liable for the contents? I am not referring to DMCA, but
libel and related issues.

------
travisoneill1
Seems like this is an easy problem to solve. Allow users to control their own
content filters instead of removing the offending content from the platform
altogether. Unless this isn't actually about that, and is really just people
trying to shut down opinions they don't agree with...

~~~
programmarchy
I've wondered this myself. Platforms could censor illegal material as required
by law, then leave the gray areas to users. There's a pretty big technical
challenge, though, because instead of training a single one-size-fits-all
algorithm, you suddenly have to train N algorithms, where N is the number of
users on your platform. In order to scale, this training may have to be done
on the client.

But in addition to the technical challenge, I doubt these platforms want to
cede the enormous power they have over information distribution. Right now
Twitter can flex on the president of a global hegemon, which is crazy power.
Why would they give that up?

~~~
travisoneill1
N is the number of content types (still a lot), so FB only needs one
misinformation filter, and you the user could choose whether or not you want
that one.

------
GekkePrutser
Lol... A bit late to grow a conscience isn't it?

Better late than never I suppose. But it's clear Facebook has always been
rotten to the core. After the Cambridge Analytica thing, Zuckerberg
practically lying in inquiries...

~~~
s5300
Are there people who were ever under the guise that it wasn't?

Are there people that work for Facebook that do not know of the nice words
Zuckerberg had to say about the people who initially gave Facebook their
information?

I'm not trying to sound snarky, but it's pretty damn obvious to anybody with a
functional & logical brain that Zuckerberg is internally an angry outcast of a
nerd fulfilling his fantasies of revenge... against, something that hurt him
sometime in his life...

------
minton
I think so few employees will actually walk away, that him leaving won’t have
any impact. They might have had more impact by sticking around to Exert some
influence from the inside.

~~~
subsaharancoder
> They might have had more impact by sticking around to Exert some influence
> from the inside.

Burn the house from inside while enjoying all the benefits it provides
including 6 figure salary, bonuses, perks and stock..this is what is wrong
with the current generation of keyboard activists!! (I'm not accusing you of
being one) if one fundamentally disagrees with the principles of a business
that they willingly signed up to work for, one should at least have the
conviction to walk away and advocate for change from the outside.

------
gruglife
I really don’t think FB’s brass really cares. I’m sure there are a lot of
people wanting to work at FB that these people are easily replaceable

~~~
throwanem
I just told a Facebook recruiter, in so many words, that I will not now or at
any future time work with Facebook in any capacity, and to ensure inasmuch as
it's possible that I'm never contacted by any internal or external Facebook
recruiter again.

Granted, I would've said that anyway. But I suspect there's more who'll say
the same today than there were a week ago.

------
thecleaner
I just looked at this guys resume. Its pretty great. Kudos for standing up
too. Hope he gets a great next job.

------
sizzle
Anyone know why downvote functionality is not working for me on this thread
only?

~~~
tobr
Probably because it was flagged to death.

I’m not sure if the word I’m looking for is ironic or pathetic, but there’s
something <that word> about flagging a discussion on this topic.

------
infoseek12
Maybe if Facebook closes down Trump's account he won't have any way to
communicate with the 42 percent, or so, of America that supports him. Maybe
they can ban all of the hundred million plus members who might speak
positively of him? Maybe when they do ban those people they will simply
disappear and only people who agree with us will remain on this corporal
plain?

That's not how it will play out. There will be no deus ex machina to save you
from much of humanities idiocy. Those people will move over to some other
platform that's friendly to their views. Many of you are programmers and you
know it's not impossible difficult to build a platform like Facebook or
Twitter.

Very quickly, you have a brand new self reinforcing network, populated by much
of America, that will be even more hostile to the values most of us hold dear,
America will be even more fractured, and Trump and his Red Hats will have
another talking point about the biased media that's "censoring the truth".

------
NonEUCitizen
Didn't FB recently create some oversight board? Has it weighed in yet?

------
jackdh
Everything else aside, is anyone else a fan of that CV layout?

------
dhruvkar
Are the views on MZ really that he's letting Facebook excuse Trump?

I see it as him trying to navigate the middle of pretty treacherous waters. I
don't see profit or unwilling to toe the line with the administration as being
a motive.

It genuinely seems that FB doesn't want to wade into the censorship game. And
is there a better path forward for Facebook (or any platform)?.

------
s5300
Page no longer found on LinkedIn?

~~~
thephyber
Works for me.

------
HissingMachine
I fully understand his reasoning and respect it as a principled action.

Though, viewing it from the company perspective it really isn't that easy to
just do those things he is demanding, and doing it could just cause a misstep
to even further in the hole. Twitter has taken a stand, but doing so they have
invited a lot of scrutiny on them, and escalation to further actions that
would just increase the pain, for the company and their community. On one hand
you have the demand to widen their actions to cover almost anything on their
platform, and if they don't they just appear hypocritical or worse politically
motivated, further movement to this would harm their community and make their
platform worse. Second the inevitable push back from various actors, like Ted
Cruz with the Iran sanctions, and Trump pushing to throw away the Section 230,
and who knows what else this all will lead to.

So making it sound like it's just a choice between coffee and frappuccino,
instead of potentially throwing your whole company with the platform and it's
community to a chaos, isn't a light decision. And making it sound like it is,
isn't actually helping neither Twitter nor Facebook.

------
timonoko
What? Donald Trump is on Facebook too. I only recently heard about his Twitter
account, but not because of what he was tweeting. But because he cannot
unfriend anybody (as a public official?).

Most of the Finnish Government has unfriended me, so important Corona-related
Health Ministry tweets have not reached me.

------
mr_spothawk
so, he waited for the 12 months to finish so he could keep whatever equity &
then bailed.

good for him, 4.0, expensive school, facebook pedigree... this guy is going
places.

------
ALittleLight
Personally, I agree with Zuckerberg. Facebook in particular, and tech
companies in general, should not be unilaterally making choices that
fundamentally affect our government. Facebook is right to keep both harsh
words from Trump and the video of Floyd's murder.

That said, I applaud the author for standing by his principles and putting his
money where his mouth is.

------
lr4444lr
You've gotta be kidding me. No, I'm not defending anything Trump has said on
the platform, but I see FAR worse from many other people, the same people over
and over, routinely, that goes unchecked.

~~~
jfengel
Most of them don't have the power to actually order people to shoot.

------
malloreon
This is the bare minimum.

This person worked for Facebook for just under a year taking its money while
building and securing a platform/growth opportunity for white supremacy and
other extremist views, and given what we know about Facebook compensation,
likely did very well for that almost year.

This is a good first step, but I’m curious why Facebook’s defense/promotion of
white supremacy, its support for Brett Kavanaugh, and the genocide in Myanmar,
which this engineer mentioned in their resignation post, wasn’t worth quitting
over two weeks ago.

Edit: referring to this tweet screenshotting the same engineer’s post about
resignation.

[https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1267864584867557376?s=...](https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1267864584867557376?s=20)

Quoting the resigned: “Facebook, complicit in the propagation of weaponized
hatred, is on the wrong side of history.”

~~~
birdyrooster
They drank too much of their own Kool-Aid thinking they could reform Facebook,
an undemocratically governed institution.

Facebook has lost a lot of great talent because of how they treat not only
their customers but their employees too. Draconian performance metrics keeping
top performers from getting raises, and letting people who game the system
increase their pay. Because of their engagement with universities, a lot of
their employees have very little experience in any other corporate environment
so they don’t recognize mismanagement when they see it.

------
davidajackson
>> According to FB:

We remove language that incites or facilitates serious violence

Backstory to that Trump comment:

In 1967, Miami police Chief Walter Headley used the phrase "when the looting
starts, the shooting starts" during hearings about crime in the Florida city,
invoking angry reactions from civil rights leaders, according to a news report
at the time.

"He had a long history of bigotry against the black community," said professor
Clarence Lusane of Howard University.

\-------------

I think suggesting shooting people sounds like "serious violence". It doesn't
seem FB is following their own guidelines. Also, you don't suggest shooting
someone for a crime instead of having a trial, that's not how justice should
work. I agree with Twitter's stance on this. Put a flag next to the comment
and let the public decide.

I find it hypocritical that Facebook makes their logo black and then leaves a
racist comment like that up.

~~~
tomp
Maybe he wasn't threatening ("I'll shoot you" or "I'll order the police/army
to shoot you") but instead warning ("violence might result in _someone_
starting shooting").

~~~
davidajackson
>> The police, Chief Walter Headley warned, would use shotguns and dogs at his
command.

The undertones of the original comment Trump is echoing imply differently.

~~~
Hitton
>The undertones of the original comment Trump is echoing imply differently.

That wouldn't be removing just "language that incites or facilitates serious
violence" but also "language that has undertones that echo inciting or
facilitating serious violence".

~~~
davidajackson
Trump is a powerful enough person that his undertones have the ability to
incite people. I know I'm getting downvoted into oblivion and I understand the
importance of free speech. I just like Twitter's approach better.

------
vthallam
[disclosure: I work on Instagram at Facebook]

While some are feeling sad and think quitting is the only way, I feel it's
important for employees who care to stay and help implement the changes. I am
proud how employees are voicing their opinion inside the company and I hope we
see some changes soon.

~~~
danhak
It's a corporation, not a democracy. Any "voice" employees have is an illusion
when the CEO has his mind made up and controls a majority of voting shares.

~~~
lexs
unless unionisation?

~~~
gentleman11
Political unions?

------
cryptica
Listening to a Facebook employee talk about human rights is like listening to
a butcher talk about animal rights.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to hear their voice over the sound of their
blade hitting the cutting board.

------
thrownaway954
whatever... this guy is a moron in my book. love how he quits a job that my
people would kill for especially in these "uncertain times" and without having
a new one first. i hope he finds one, but i wouldn't doubt him having a hard
time right now given the current climate of covid and political upheaval.
personally i think he should have found a job that suited his political
beliefs while continuing to work at facebook. if there is one thing that life
has taught me is that you never quit your current job until you have a new one
or a new plan. "reaching out to your network" is not a plan, it's desperation.

~~~
chromeunagi
maybe you're the moron in not realizing that people can have values other than
yours. maybe some prioritize their values to their financial security. maybe
this guy is already financially independent. there's more to life than working
a prestigious job -- if you don't have values and the spine to live your life
true to them, what's the point?

~~~
cryptica
He almost certainly is financially independent. He likely made a ton of money
contributing to the problem we have today... And it sounds like he's going
invest that money into a censorship-oriented social media startup.

This guy's experience at Facebook has taught him that free speech is the
problem. His next startup sounds like Facebook's next multi-billion dollar
acquisition.

