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?
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.
> 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.
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?