Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Employees In An Uproar Over Executive's Leaked Memo (nytimes.com)
According to The New York Times, "Facebook employees were in an uproar on Friday over a leaked 2016 memo from a top executive defending the social network's growth at any cost -- even if it caused deaths from a terrorist attack that was organized on the platform." From the report: In the memo, Andrew Bosworth, a Facebook vice president, wrote, "Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools. And still we connect people. The ugly truth is that we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connect more people more often is *de facto* good." Mr. Bosworth and Facebook's chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, have since disavowed the memo, which was published on Thursday by BuzzFeed News.
But the fallout at the Silicon Valley company has been wide. According to two Facebook employees, workers have been calling on internal message boards for a hunt to find those who leak to the media (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source). Some have questioned whether Facebook has been transparent enough with its users and with journalists, said the employees, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation. Many are also concerned over what might leak next and are deleting old comments or messages that might come across as controversial or newsworthy, they said. In the aftermath, some Facebook executives have taken to Twitter for a public charm offensive, sending pithy phrases and emoticons to reporters who cover the company. Adam Mosseri, Facebook's head of news, in recent days wrote unprompted to a BuzzFeed editor and to its chief executive reminiscing and telling a story about his mother. He also wrote to a reporter from the Verge tech site about the songs played at his wedding reception.
But the fallout at the Silicon Valley company has been wide. According to two Facebook employees, workers have been calling on internal message boards for a hunt to find those who leak to the media (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source). Some have questioned whether Facebook has been transparent enough with its users and with journalists, said the employees, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation. Many are also concerned over what might leak next and are deleting old comments or messages that might come across as controversial or newsworthy, they said. In the aftermath, some Facebook executives have taken to Twitter for a public charm offensive, sending pithy phrases and emoticons to reporters who cover the company. Adam Mosseri, Facebook's head of news, in recent days wrote unprompted to a BuzzFeed editor and to its chief executive reminiscing and telling a story about his mother. He also wrote to a reporter from the Verge tech site about the songs played at his wedding reception.
This is an executive who has a bottom line, and isn't afraid to tell it like it is.
Whether or not they REMAIN an executive remains to be seen.
[End Of Line]
According to two Facebook employees, workers have been calling on internal message boards for a hunt to find those who leak to the media
So.. they want everyone to share data with Facebook, but don't want Facebook to share its data with everyone else.
I suppose it makes sense. After all, you don't get rich by writing a lot of checks. And so in an information economy you don't get rich by allowing symmetry in data access and control.
For once I feel a little bad for Facebook
Get over it, dude. They'd sell you and your loved ones down a river in a heartbeat. If they could find a legal way to deprive you of oxygen for profit, they'd do it.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Facebook employees in an uproar? What business did they think they were in?
Zuck may sugar coat what they are doing as "connecting people" but its basically an image/comment sharing site. Not some grandiose save the world mission.
Get real.
Grow up, snowflakes.
I share your criticism of Facebook employees, but at what point do they cry about being special and unique, warranting a "snowflake" insult? Your pejorative loses meaning when you don't even attempt to use it in context.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
What's really rather ironic, is that they aren't just on fire but they are on fire because they poured the gasoline all over themselves and then proceeded to actually light the match.
A company that has taken the admitted stance of connection at all cost, which has exploited its phone apps to mine for contacts, and which almost singlehandedly invented and then exploited the culture of over sharing so much that privacy isn't even a consideration for a whole generation is now hoist by their own revelations. And they have the nerve to complain that the problem isn't in the memo, but that the memo was leaked. That is truly rich. They are so far gone they don't even see the problem any more. They talk about "suicide bomber" employees who are just getting a job to destroy the company, spies, and state actors they don't see that the problem isn't with the act of revelation. I actually hope that some state actors are involved, because if they are I want to thank that country.
Here is a tidbit for Facebook, and every other social networking executive and employee in the world. Learn it, because it's important. The problem is never in the revelation. If you are afraid of how other people will react if an action is revealed, then you need to ask yourself if that fear of revelation isn't a part of your own psyche (call it a conscience if you like) making a last ditch effort at telling you that maybe what you're doing is wrong. If you are that far gone that all you have left to keep you in check is the fear of how normal people will react to what you're doing or saying, then you desperately need to listen to that fear until you can get back whatever humanity you can. Because it's not a matter of if, but when it will come to light.
I especially love the part where Bosworth tries to claim he didn't even agree with what he was saying as he was saying it. A note to him, that particular reaction isn't what I'm talking about above. Trying to claim you were just trying to spark discussion and were playing devil's advocate doesn't work when you are the vice president and your statements influence the actions and motivations of hundreds of employees.
For a certain subset of jackoffs, "snowflake" is the go-to insult, no matter the context. "This is someone that I dislike and am unable to express why, so this person must be a snowflake" is how their reasoning goes.
You are welcome on my lawn.
100% this.
I feel this way toward all of google, all of fb, all of twitter. and it includes any 'network management' (dpi, really) company, as well.
they all are traitors, of a kind. they sold their souls, mostly looking the other way as to not think too much about it, but the core reason for all of these companies to exist is to steal, swindle, lie, cheat and take whatever they can, in anyway they can. 'networking' is just a backdrop; all those companies are run by sociopaths who would kill for money.
you workers who joined those companies: are you now starting to have a conscience? I guess better late than never, but sheesh, what DID you think your company was all about?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
The employees know, obviously. They're just in an uproar that someone made them look bad.
"What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Mr. Bosworth's memo is a classic example of corporate thinking, and brilliant in its clarity and brevity.
It's a classic because it identifies certain ethical aspects of his company's conduct and then proceeds to declare all and any ethical considerations irrelevant. Ethics is placed in its proper corporate place, i.e. totally absent. The company is not malicious (there's no benefit in that) just completely a-moral.
The one and only thing that matters is what affects the company's continued economic success: growth. Growth which in turn hinges on whether a user's social circle ("friends") are on facebook. It is the clearest and most perceptive and most succinct statement I've yet encountered (from a manager) on how the "network effect" affects companies whose business it is to provide (and sell) connections.
This memo is also valuable from another perspective. Time and time again it's demonstrated that the question: "Am I being cynical?" is not relevant in conjunction with the corporate world. The correct question is: "Am I being cynical enough to accurately reflect reality?".
It also shows why corporate communications had better be phrased with both eyes on ways such communications expose the company or the sender to repercussions. Coming out and saying "We make money from connecting people, so that's what we will do, for good or for ill" is a bit crude. Not to say blunt. Mr. Bosworth might be due for a refresher course in proper corporate communication technique.
A more conventional phrasing of Mr. Bosworth's message is something like this: "We believe in connecting people. That's what we do and what continues to make us so successful. We will continue to serve the world in personal connectivity because we firmly believe that the good we do far outweighs any negative aspects. So for us the case is clear: we must expand our business as much as possible, as per our mission statement and the Good of Mankind."
There. Some people get that intuitively. It's part of them. Just look at Mr. Zuckerberg.
Last but not least it shows why certain things (like personal privacy) can only be achieved insofar as they are enforced by law.
Corporate self-regulation never works when corporations that don't follow self-regulation will simply outgrow and take over the ones that do. On the other hand, corporate self-regulation can work well when there is a high enough probability that the consequences of not following the rules are devastating for the rule-breaker.
Grow up, snowflakes.
I share your criticism of Facebook employees, but at what point do they cry about being special and unique, warranting a "snowflake" insult? Your pejorative loses meaning when you don't even attempt to use it in context.
A snowflake ignorantly assumes that A) their company never does anything morally corrupt and B) the world is a happy place where nothing could possibly go wrong with what their employer is doing.
The believe this SO strongly that they're now demanding a witch hunt to find those who would dare expose "The Ugly" which they refuse to believe exists.
Perhaps you're right. Snowflake is not fair. Stupid Snowflake is more accurate. Perhaps we should let them flounder. Wisdom is never the teacher of the ignorant; they much prefer learning everything the fucking hard way.
Grow up, snowflakes.
I share your criticism of Facebook employees, but at what point do they cry about being special and unique, warranting a "snowflake" insult? Your pejorative loses meaning when you don't even attempt to use it in context.
Well when I read that many Facebook employees seem to think that the company should step up its war on leakers and hire employees with more “integrity” I had to laugh. Apparently the business practices are not the problem; what they want are more colleagues who "don't ask, don't tell".
It is worth pointing out that everyone was perfectly happy with Facebook's extensive data mining business - until it was used to (marginally) aid a politician they didn't like. Then, and only then, did it become a big problem.
That's the real issue. They and everybody else, with a few exceptions, were and probably are fine with the idea of instrusive and inescapable tracking and the exploitation of other people's information for (astonishing) profit. That's the problem with having no sense of values or principles - everything is a conditional cost/benefit instead of a core concept.