Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Real Reason Palmer Luckey Was Fired From Facebook (zdnet.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the connect-the-dots dept.

ZDNet's Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols argues that the founder of Oculus, Palmer Luckey, wasn't fired because of his political views, as a recently-published Wall Street Journal article suggests, but because the virtual-reality company lost a $500 million intellectual property theft case to game maker ZeniMax. An anonymous reader shares the report: According to The Wall Street Journal, Palmer Luckey, the founder of Oculus, a virtual reality company, was fired by Facebook because "he donated $10,000 to an anti-Hillary Clinton group" during the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign. But the article fails to mention a simple little fact: On Feb. 1, 2017, Oculus lost an intellectual property (IP) theft case against game maker ZeniMax, to the tune of $500 million. So, if one of your employees just cost your company a cool half-billion bucks for doing wrong what would you do? Well, Facebook isn't saying, even now, but on March 30, 2017, it let Luckey go.

Yes, Luckey also lied about his political moves, which went well beyond donating to an anti-Hillary billboard campaign. But let's look at the record. Everyone knew he'd lied by Feb. 22, 2016. Was he fired then? No. Was he fired after being found guilty of stealing ZeniMax's trade secrets? Yes. Officially, Facebook stated: "All details associated with specific personnel matters are kept strictly confidential. This is our policy for all employees, no matter their seniority. But we can say unequivocally that Palmer's departure was not due to his political views." Let me spell it out for you: He made some political waves. Nothing happened. He cost Facebook $500 million. He was fired. Can anyone here seriously not draw the lines between the dots?

142 comments

  1. TRASH Article by bongey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    John Carmack still works for Facebook, who was a party in the ZeniMax case. Palmer Luckey wasn't even a party in the case. Utter bullshit story trying to deflect.

    1. Re: TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG. Guys. There was a liberal in Silicon Valley. Of course Facebook had to fire him... because they donâ(TM)t have any other liberals that work there.

      That makes so much more sense... that somebody was being abused for being a *liberal* in Silicon Valley, vs something intangible like Luckey indeed being part of a stupid IP theft move and lying about it to FB.

      And to the dumb fuck above... do you think in any part of this that Luckey might have played a different role than Carmack with it? Or, do we need to be a stupid fuck and try to convince ourselves that liberals are being maligned and HUNTED DOWN in SV?

      The stupid is so palpable.

    2. Re:TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're apparently a moron. Palmer was the CEO of the company when it infringed, FB then bought that company and inherited that fight. Yes, he was a party.

    3. Re:TRASH Article by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, as any freshman business major can tell you, sunk costs should be ignored. You don't fire people because they lost money in the past, you fire them because you think they are going to lose money in the future.

      My experience is that the most common reason people are fired is incompetence. The 2nd most common is being on the losing end of internal office politics. As you move up the hierarchy from janitor to CEO the first reason diminishes and the 2nd increases.

    4. Re: TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Palmer Luckey should be in jail.

    5. Re: TRASH Article by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      The cognitive dissonance enters the situation here: Nobody wants to believe that the company Carmack worked for knowingly skuttled the modern VR gaming movement by selling to Facebook, who they knew ahead of time would just gobble up all the patents and then one way or another bury them forever.

    6. Re:TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      John Carmack actually googled how to wipe a drive after receiving an email that they were being sued.

    7. Re:TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      NO!! ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!!

    8. Re:TRASH Article by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My experience is that the most common reason people are fired is incompetence.

      Costing the company half a billion dollars might be seen as incompetence in some circles.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re: TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so what did they actually want to do? Compete? Sell to someone else?

    10. Re:TRASH Article by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 2

      John Carmack still works for Facebook, who was a party in the ZeniMax case.

      This argument also doesn't work, because Carmack has very obvious ongoing value while Luckey had already made his major contribution.

    11. Re:TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The founder of a startup that you bought for $3 billion based on innovation loses an patent case for $500m is not a case of sunk cost. Patent cases are about innovation. This guy lost his job because FB finally figured out they fell for his bs claims.

      Its more a case of fraud.

    12. Re:TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America was already great, Trump certainly didn't add anything great by scattering our allies and rubbing asses with dictators and criminals. Personally I don't care what happens to Carmack, Palmer, Zuck, or Trump.

      Fuck them all. None of them was about to innovate anything significant for VR/AR. Just capitalize off the hype and sell it off.

    13. Re:TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Repeating catchphrases is a substitute for thinking.

    14. Re:TRASH Article by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Carmack is an important software developer who knows how the system works. Luckey isn't. He's an entrepreneur, not an engineer.

      Additionally Facebook has pro-Trump people on its board, including Peter Thiel, who gave far more to the Trump campaign than Luckey, so the argument that Facebook fired anyone for supporting Trump is plain ludicrous on the face of it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    15. Re:TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You don't fire people because they lost money in the past, you fire them because you think they are going to lose money in the future.

      "Oculus is liable for $300 million in the verdict ($50 million for trademark infringement, $50 million for copyright infringement, and $200 million for breaking the NDA), while Luckey owes $50 million and former Oculus CEO Brendan Iribe owes $150 million (both for false designation). Oculus CTO John Carmack, who previously worked for ZeniMax and was accused of stealing code and destroying evidence, is not personally liable for any damages. ZeniMax had sought damages of $6 billion in the case." --Oculus Exec Liable for 500 million in ZeniMax VR Trial. I don't think I'd be inclined to trust a person to not lose more money after that. Carmack, meanwhile, has a long history of being a huge driver in making a company money and was not found personally liable. Seriously, though, how often do you hear of Execs of any large-ish companies being held *personally* liable?

      My experience is that the most common reason people are fired is incompetence. The 2nd most common is being on the losing end of internal office politics. As you move up the hierarchy from janitor to CEO the first reason diminishes and the 2nd increases.

      Presumably the trial exposed how incompetent this Luckey was in actual VR stuff (or at least management of it). Besides, they purchased Oculus for Carmack, not Luckey. Internal office politics I'd tend to argue probably fell more on getting rid of "dead weight" from a purchase made, not external political affiliation. Anything and everything was probably much more of a useful excuse than "we fire all the executives because we already have our own management", as that's the sort of thing to cause executives of companies to be very hesitant of being bought up by Facebook. Having to pay some trivial duty to whatever political party, charity, whatever to keep your high level Facebook executive job and cut off that excuse? Yea, that I imagine happening more in the future as ass covering, not as actual need or effectiveness.

    16. Re:TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the risk of ruining the joke by explaining it, "orange man bad" is a *parody* of hateful liberal duckspeak, not an actual catchphrase used unironically.

    17. Re:TRASH Article by Wescotte · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the court case decision Carmack wasn't head liable for any wrongdoing.

      The jury trial completed on February 2, 2017, with the jury finding that Luckey had violated the NDA he had with ZeniMax, and awarding $500 million to ZeniMax.[15][16] However, the jury found that Oculus, Facebook, Luckey, Iribe, and Carmack did not misappropriate or steal trade secrets,[15][16][17] though ZeniMax continued to publicly assert otherwise

    18. Re: TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orange bad man

    19. Re:TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Palmer Luckey sounds like someone you'd buy a lemon of a used car from.

      John Carmack is John Motherfucking Carmack. His name has actual value, regardless of being involved with the Oculus Clusterfuck.

    20. Re:TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckey's contribution was attracting Carmack away from id Software. That was in the past, and Luckey's future value was zero.

    21. Re:TRASH Article by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      Yeah and contrary to Palmer Luckey, Carmack didn't cost Facebook $500 million in patent infringment costs.

    22. Re: TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exchanging the society we have, where we are not notably rounded up into concentration camps, for whatever the fuck some Marxist tool thinks he is agitating for... isn't a smart move.

      On the other hand, it's actually you useful idiots who'll be first against the wall.

    23. Re:TRASH Article by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, as any freshman business major can tell you, sunk costs should be ignored. You don't fire people because they lost money in the past, you fire them because you think they are going to lose money in the future.

      As anyone who's older than freshmen will tell you that never happens in practice. Businesses do not operate in some sort of platonic drive for profit free from emotion. They're made of people and people get really pissed off if you loose a cool half billion.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    24. Re: TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orange Batman

    25. Re: TRASH Article by e3m4n · · Score: 1

      Its hard to say if $500M is a lot of money or not to the likes of FB. Their net worth fluxuates a lot more than that on a daily basis. It sure sounds like a lot of money to me, but ive never had anything even close to a million dollars. My gut says it wasnt about the money. Perhaps the lawsuit, but not the $500M itself.

      Here is a guy that caused a rift because he was an outlier for his political position. Then the lawsuit concluded and was found guilty of infringing. My first question as a FB exec is,
        - Did we actually buy anything? Or did we find ourself paying top dollar for whst we thought was talent; only to turn out to be a poser that stole the tech and slapped their name on it? -

      That would be my first question. Afterall they did pay $3 billion for Oculus. What so they have to show for $3.5B? ($3B plus the $500M lawsuit) If there is no actual *talent* here, why bother keeping him on? Especially one who does make waves among the staff. So his political actions most likely was a few nails, but not the coffin itself.

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/a...

    26. Re:TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bloggers and authors wearing rose colored glasses quite often spill their version of the truth into the matter. The whole truth is this;

      Luckey's political views were not well liked among his peers. He screwed up. It wasn't very hard to make a decision at that point now was it?

      I am sure there are other things as well that contributed to it. Some are more conspiratorial I am sure and that is a sliver of truth as well.

      We all act like we don't work in environments where certain people get away with bloody murder because they are ass kissers or assimilate into the team as an NPC. We are also not oblivious to the fact that if you are the fucker throwing rocks in the pond and making too many ripples, you'll get shit canned for half of what a suck ass will. It is human nature and that is just the way it is. Life isn't fair and never will be because it is impossible.

      This is the problem with the left/right paradigm in general. Two sides of the truth. Neither party has the capacity to see nothing but their own parallels even though they are not parallels at all.

    27. Re:TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Can anyone here seriously not draw the lines between the dots?
      > apparently a moron

      answer2both: trumpites;-P

    28. Re:TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no, poor little redpiller is having his bubble popped!

    29. Re:TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But its ok that he stole secrets and just didn't get convicted :^)

    30. Re:TRASH Article by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 1

      This is not "Score:2, Insightful." This is "Score:-1, Troll."

      --
      Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
      Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    31. Re:TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the risk of ruining the joke by explaining it, "orange man bad" is a *parody* of hateful liberal duckspeak, not an actual catchphrase used unironically.

      No, it's a strawman, and it is used without a hint of irony or self-awareness. Look at how it was used here, in response to a post where Trump wasn't even mentioned.

    32. Re: TRASH Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      awwww murder fantasies, how cute

    33. Re:TRASH Article by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Court verdicts aren't final until all the appeals are exhausted, people should remember that. Facebook would be foolish to pay ZeniMax the $500million without exhausting their appeals.

      Typically a large verdict like this is virtually wiped out in appeal. The $2Billion Apple/Samsung verdict ended up around $100 million.

  2. "Let me spell it out for you" by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The author of the article seems very intent on the readers taking his speculation as truth. I wonder why he cares so much.

    1. Re: "Let me spell it out for you" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he is not fooling anyone. That suit amount is just not that large and nobody would be fool enough to steal IP over it. NEXT!

  3. Palmer Luckey is a proven thief. by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    On Feb. 1, 2017, Oculus lost an intellectual property (IP) theft case against game maker ZeniMax, to the tune of $500 million.

    So a civil court (not a criminal court) found him guilty of theft.

    How can your boss, your company (the group of people you work with), or your Company (Facebook Inc) ever trust you not to steal from them?

    He's lucky not to be leaving in handcuffs.

    --
    Fire and Meat. Yummy.
    1. Re:Palmer Luckey is a proven thief. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like, predatory business practices that Zenimax used, where whatever an employee makes while employed, is their properties, is what should be illegal.
      They were never interested in VR, they just wanted a quick buck.

    2. Re:Palmer Luckey is a proven thief. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      The civil court found him liable for hiring John Carmack, who in turn brought IP with him. Which is probably true, as ZeniMax paid a bundle to buy id software a few years prior and as John Carmack's inventions no doubt were hugely valuable.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  4. Doubtful by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Execs lose billions of dollars and there are no repercussions. For example: Microsoft bought github for $7.5 billion. Eventually that will be marked down as a "writedown" for $7 billion, because Github isn't worth nearly what Microsoft paid for it. Essentially the executives wasted $7.5 billion. So, losing a $500 million court case is nothing. GE just did a writedown of $23 billion. There are no ramifications for the executives, but the stockholders get the shaft.

    1. Re:Doubtful by fatwilbur · · Score: 4, Informative

      While I agree with your point, your first example of MS and github is wrong. You provided a textbook example of what is defined as goodwill in accounting. It's not an seldom used concept either; nearly every time you buy an entire company, unless it's performing very poorly, it's universally expected you're going to have to pay more than it is actually worth (based on sum of assets, income, etc.). While this may look like a "write down" in the sense it is a non-cash loss, the goodwill remains as an asset on the balance sheet. This is very different than "wasting" money (at least from an accounting sense) or a write-down where you're acknowledging the company has less valuable assets.

    2. Re:Doubtful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While this may look like a "write down" in the sense it is a non-cash loss, the goodwill remains as an asset on the balance sheet.

      This has always bothered me. Why does the act of overpaying for an asset result in the creation of an asset in the form of "goodwill"? Can the "goodwill" be sold to a new buyer without the other assets? If the answer is no, then why is this considered an asset? In my opinion, any amount of overpayment must be considered as an excess cost. This is not to say that it's not sometimes worth it in the long run to pay a premium to buy a good business. For example, the business might have access to knowledge or personnel that can acquired nowhere else or maybe it amounts to buying out the competition before they can become a serious threat. However, to say that overpayment is an asset is nonsense in my opinion and as an investor I always discount goodwill to zero whenever I'm examining a balance sheet.

    3. Re:Doubtful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't overpaying or a loss, it's an accounting term to account for the the difference between the book value of assets minus liabilities versus the price paid for a company. The important thing to note is that the value of a company which is a going concern is generally NOT determined by assets minus liabilities, but by the discounted value of future cashflows. The book value of an asset is generally the lesser of the amount which you could get if you sold it and the purchase price less depreciation; however the value of the company can be much greater than the sum of asset values because of its ability to generate cash from the combination of the assets and the company's staff, know-how, operations etc...

    4. Re:Doubtful by Whibla · · Score: 2

      Can the "goodwill" be sold to a new buyer without the other assets?... as an investor I always discount goodwill to zero whenever I'm examining a balance sheet.

      Yes, it can be 'sold': Think franchises, brand and name licensing deals, and so on, that encourage future sales, by a different company, based on past perception of the original company. The increase in revenue (between two identical products, only one of which has widespread name recognition) is derived, literally, from the goodwill of the customers.

      It is probably fair to say that much goodwill is overvalued on corporate balance sheets, but it, again probably, shouldn't be discounted entirely. The value calculation is very much going to depend on the corporation in question and, specifically, it's current management team and processes, and it's plans for the future. Determining this is generally thought of as part of due diligence, but clearly in your case you 'simplify' the process by zeroing this part out. In a sense this is the 'safe' option but you should be aware that in doing so, while you're limiting your risk, you are (in some cases grossly) undervaluing the companies you examine hence basically missing out on profitable investment opportunities.

    5. Re:Doubtful by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Goodwill is also wasting money. If you have a lot of goodwill on your books you are shafting your investors. And no, normally companies don't buy companies at more than they are worth. That is dumb. This is a new phenomenon caused by too much cheap capital. And you can see why this is dumb: look at GE. They are likely to go bankrupt due to their buying habits.

    6. Re:Doubtful by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      It should bother you. It is just an accounting trick. The reality is that it is a loss. People who buy into the concept of "goodwill" are idiots.

    7. Re:Doubtful by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      That was criminal fraud. They didn't go to jail for losing money.

    8. Re:Doubtful by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Github will never generate $7.5 billion in cashflow for Microsoft. Ever.

    9. Re:Doubtful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that the book value of assets minus liabilities and the fair value of a going concern are two separate values.

    10. Re:Doubtful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're conflating two things here because I don't think you really understand a lot about accounting and finance, and how the fair value of a company is calculated versus how the book value of assets is recorded. If you want to know more you could find some basic accounting and finance courses online which will explain the concepts to you.

      1) Goodwill - As I have stated above goodwill is just the difference between the book value of net assets and the amount actually paid for a company. It is perfectly possible for the fair value of a company to far exceed the book value of assets. Get your head around this and everything else will make sense.

      2) Overpaying for an acquisition - We probably agree that this is a) depressingly common in the corporate world, and b) the accounting for overpayments on buying companies is going to be found under the term "goodwill" in the balance sheet. However this does not mean that all goodwill is an overpayment.

  5. No Shit by mentil · · Score: 1

    Anyone paying a modicum of attention to the case figured that out long ago. That said, on appeal the judgement against Luckey/Iribe was eliminated, leaving a $250M judgement against Oculus.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  6. WSJ is a trash rag now, it's 100% politik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The editorials on the WSJ tell you everything you need to know, it's a spin vehicle since Murdoch bought it.

  7. Utter nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Can anyone here seriously not draw the lines between the dots?"

    Apparently the author of the article can't.

  8. Uh huh. Sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    There were other people involved in that case that still work for Facebook.

    They fired him because the political views were a huge embarrassment for their pro left management and you have NO IDEA how much of a career killer it is to come out as pro-right in Silicon Valley. They will literally want to hang you by the neck from a tree till dead.

  9. But... victimhood! by guygo · · Score: 0

    But the facts are no good for Luckey's ability to make himself out to be a victim. Yet another poor little rich kid. Wah.

  10. I hope he was fired over his political views by ASCIIxTended · · Score: 2

    I hope he was fired over his political views and then proceeds to sue the crap out of FB because of it.

    --
    I do not belong to the church of the lowercase 'i'
    1. Re:I hope he was fired over his political views by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SORRY TRUMPTARD, it didn't actually happen that way and you're a fucking moron, KEEP WISHING BITCH! FEDERAL PRISON COMING.

    2. Re:I hope he was fired over his political views by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to Cnet the WSJ reported "Amid corporate displeasure with Luckey's donation, he was pressured by executives to publicly voice support for libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, according to the Journal. Luckey later hired an employment lawyer who argued that Facebook illegally punished an employee for political activity and negotiated a payout for Luckey of at least $100 million, the newspaper reported."

    3. Re:I hope he was fired over his political views by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't he have already sued by now? The shitstain was fired more than a ywar and a half ago.

    4. Re:I hope he was fired over his political views by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you fucking blind? Someone *just* stated that Luckey *did* sue Facebook for $100M and WON! "... Luckey later hired an employment lawyer who argued that Facebook illegally punished an employee for political activity and negotiated a payout for Luckey of at least $100 million, the newspaper reported." Asshole. It's right in the article: https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-reportedly-fired-palmer-luckey-for-political-views/

  11. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting how they have to release this to control the damage.

    1. Re:Interesting by Bobrick · · Score: 1

      What damage? Nobody outside of the far-right fringes gave a shit.

  12. Re: APK Hosts File Engine w/ port filters in host by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fast forward to the reality of now. FB/Oculus is water under the bridge. What is Oculus doing these days?

  13. Timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They wanted to fire him for his political views, but that's a no no. They finally found something that would make the firing look legitimate.

    1. Re: Timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 I've seen mid level managers do that so of course senior executives do it better

  14. I don't know why he was fired by rsilvergun · · Score: 0, Troll

    but it had nothing to do with giving $10k to an anti-Hilary group. The kind of folks who run Facebook couldn't care less which side won. Hilary, like the rest of the "Clinton" Democrats is basically just like a Republican. Same trickle down economics and corporate welfare.

    Now if he donated $10k to a pro-Bernie group and got shit canned I could believe it. But really, the only difference between Trump & Hilary is Roe v Wade.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I don't know why he was fired by Raenex · · Score: 3, Informative

      The kind of folks who run Facebook couldn't care less which side won.

      Oh really?

      "Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg told Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta in June 2015 that she wants Clinton to "win badly" and that she is there to "help" as best she can, a leaked email reveals.

      "Thank you -- means a lot to me that you reached out. And I like that you are praying for Dave. I have to believe in heaven now. And I still want HRC to win badly. I am still here to help as I can. She came over and was magical with my kids," Sandberg sent to Podesta in response to an email of his wishing condolences following the death of her husband.

      In another email contained in the WikiLeaks release, this one from August, Sandberg asks Podesta if he'd be willing to meet with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

      She wrote that Zuckerberg "is particularly interested in meeting people who could help him understand how to move the needle on the specific public policy issues he cares most about. He wants to meet folks who can inform his understanding about effective political operations to advance public policy goals on social oriented objectives (like immigration, education or basic scientific research)."

      Sandberg has donated tens of thousands to Democrats. In 2016 alone, the Facebook executive donated $270,800 alone to Democratic candidates and party committee, that includes $2,700 to Clinton."

    2. Re: I don't know why he was fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only difference between Trump and Bernie is health care policy.

      They literally parrot the same talking points about America First, blue collar bullshit, and other white supremacy dog whistles.

      Fuck off.

    3. Re: I don't know why he was fired by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      blue collar bullshit, and other white supremacy dog whistles

      Folks, I think we found the only white-collar socialist...

    4. Re:I don't know why he was fired by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      What about Peter Thiel? He's on the Facebook board and gave far more money to Trump than Lucky did.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:I don't know why he was fired by Raenex · · Score: 0

      What about Peter Thiel? He's on the Facebook board and gave far more money to Trump than Lucky did.

      Yes, and? Just how much sway do you think a single board member has in the operations of Facebook? It is also non-trivial to fire a board member. And how does that change what I was refuting?

      "The kind of folks who run Facebook couldn't care less which side won."

    6. Re:I don't know why he was fired by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well his presence rather undermines the notion that people get fired for for the political views or that Facebook itself has some kind of corporate level political agenda.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:I don't know why he was fired by crypticedge · · Score: 1, Troll

      Daily caller is not a legitimate news source. They're a propaganda outfit designed to fool the uneducated into a life long outrage using fearmongering and making anyone that isn't part of the daily caller/daily stormer/stormfront circle the "others"

    8. Re: I don't know why he was fired by e3m4n · · Score: 1

      I didnt think he gave a shit about abortion? Both are definitely obsessed with title and position. His more so on public opinion (ie how many people attended inauguration) and hers is about holding a title of first woman president. Neither case puts country above politics.

    9. Re:I don't know why he was fired by Raenex · · Score: 0, Troll

      Daily caller is not a legitimate news source.

      Yes they are. And the article I quoted refers to public record information from Wikileak emails. Since you can't dispute the facts, you smear instead. Disgusting.

      They're a propaganda outfit

      Then it should be easy for you to demonstrate. But since you're doing nothing but smearing, we know you won't.

      making anyone that isn't part of the daily caller/daily stormer/stormfront circle the "others"

      And here you expose yourself as the propagandist you claim Daily Caller to be, by trying to align them with neo-Nazi sites. Pathetically transparent.

    10. Re: I don't know why he was fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Indeed. Let's stamp out all dissent immediately that does not fit our one-party view of the world. Let us ensure all news outlets that do not conform to the Democrat party standard be associated with extreme Nazi fascism, crushed out of existence, their people imprisoned and their property confiscated.

      Long live the party of Clinton and Podesta!

    11. Re:I don't know why he was fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/08/16/daily-caller-has-white-nationalist-problem

      In the last several years the Daily Caller has evolved. Now it is full of white supremacists/nationalists, anti-semites, etc. Maybe you didn't notice.

    12. Re:I don't know why he was fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that the function of the board is to instruct management on the direction of the company, I would say that he has a lot of sway.

    13. Re:I don't know why he was fired by Raenex · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The SPLC is a far-left smear machine. Maybe you didn't notice.

    14. Re:I don't know why he was fired by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Facebook employees and tech companies in general have moved hard left. You can't wipe away the number 2 position at Facebook's email to Hillary's campaign manager just because once upon a time Thiel was brought on in 2005 and they haven't yet fired him. As I said, it's non-trivial to remove a board member.

      You can't wipe away internal reports of just how intolerantly left Facebook's culture is -- even Zuckerberg admitted Silicon Valley is an "extremely left-leaning place" in testimony before Congress.

    15. Re:I don't know why he was fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet in your "refutation" you don't realize you refuted your own point. Brilliant!

  15. Shhhh stop making sense! by Hentai007 · · Score: 0

    The fat white neckbeards need this man! They need to know their lives suck because they are persecuted - not through any fault of their own!

    1. Re: Shhhh stop making sense! by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Are you body-shaming people? How disgusting of you.

    2. Re: Shhhh stop making sense! by Hentai007 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen a picture of Luckey without cheetos dust on his fingers? Of course he was desperate to make VR a thing, he's a shut in! If it wasn't for virtual reality he wouldn't have any reality.

    3. Re: Shhhh stop making sense! by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Envy is a terrible thing. He's fabulously wealthy and you ..... you're not. No amount of judging people by their appearance is going to change that.

    4. Re: Shhhh stop making sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank goodness not everyone measures their self worth by the size of their bank account.

    5. Re: Shhhh stop making sense! by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      The OP is measuring their self-worth by how someone else looks which is even more tragic.

    6. Re: Shhhh stop making sense! by Hentai007 · · Score: 1

      Neckbeards of the world, unite! You guys should form a support group, would have to be over Skype though since you don't leave the house and all.

    7. Re: Shhhh stop making sense! by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      I'm neither a neckbeard or a shut-in but going by your username and raging hatred of a rich man who has a girlfriend it sounds like you need to leave your basement occasionally.

  16. Fake news... by sentiblue · · Score: 0

    The WSJ was trying to make people falsely think that anti-Clinton comes with consequences. I can assure you that if any company fired me because of my personal views, may it be religion or political, I WILL take them to court and they will truly understand what kind of consequences comes with discrimination.

    1. Re:Fake news... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

      Religion, you have a case. Political? Not so much. Republicans are not a protected group.

    2. Re:Fake news... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      What's it like, being a delusional twat?

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    3. Re:Fake news... by bongey · · Score: 1

      Luckey did take them to court and facebook payed out another 100 million.

    4. Re:Fake news... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      IANAL but many states include political beliefs in their anti-discrimination laws, and I think CA is one.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:Fake news... by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Republicans are not a protected group.

      Oh the irony of a group who has a core political tenant of protecting a corporation's ability to fire people for no reason and lambasts 'snow flakes' for seeking protected-group status complaining that they deserve to be protected.

      You know, not something like your gender, sexual orientation or race... something you're born with. No Republicans believe the only protected class for firing should be your political belief that being trans or a woman shouldn't offer you any protection.

  17. Re:Uh huh. Sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Spot on. This is why the internet is fragmenting. People dumping left wing sites like Google and Facebook for sites like Gab.

  18. "Rinse, Lather & Repeat"... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Read or take a test - Proof my program doesn't do 'portfilters' in hosts https://politics.slashdot.org/... (can't be done/I don't implement it).

    Jackasses around here SURE like to TRY make it look like I say it by IMPERSONATING me (lol - weak)

    * Now, I'm SURE you're some effete little do-nothing TROLL "ne'er-do-well" thinking he's "phunny" - you're not - you only prove to others you're a sick little jackass & nothing more.

    APK

    P.S.=> HOWEVER - in case you're not some stupid troll jerk? I did NOT post what you replied to here https://politics.slashdot.org/... (hence the 1st link above w/ its test to prove my point) ... apk

  19. So now Zenimax posts articles on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Zenimax is run by an actual banking/investment crook. As bad as EA and Actision are, they look like saints compared to Zenimax.

    Now as I type, Zenimax has warehouses of paid trolls- PR reputation services in media speak- boost their godawful loot box riddled POS Fallout 76. Zenimax is literally spending millions on Youtube influencers to sell the game every Elder Scrolls and Fallout fan never asked for. It is no surprise that the PR firm suggested to Zenimax that they could 'widen' their pro-Zenimax efforts on sites like Slashdot.

    Google McSkillet- the murderer the AAA game publishing industry hopes you never heard of. Kids like him were used as a FRONT by Valve to run their child-targeted gambling Services. When Valve's owner got advanced warning that the US gpovernment were about to crack down, he dropped his young 'influencers' like hot potatoes, and some, like McSkillet, cracked.

    Valve was trying to perfect 'gaming as a service'. Which means microtransactions designed by psychologists to appeal to kids and weak minded adults.

    Zenimax is determined to succeed where Valve failed. All of Bethesda's major 'game' announcements this year were microtransaction riddled trash. Even next year's 'Doom' follows this same model.

    As I said, Valve made wide use of child influencers (peers selling to peers) who were the ON PAPER owners of the advanced gambling services Valve had paid to create. Ring a bell? Like when the mob owned gambling in Las Vegas, but used 'little old ladies' as the apparent owners of the casinos? Like in the Scorsese, De Niro film based on real life.

    Zenimax, run by tribe members with a LOT of experience of bent investments and Hollywood shenenigans, intend to be 'smarter' than Valve.

    The truth of Zenimax and Facebook/oculus/Carmack is that after Bethesda bought iD, they discovered Carmack was a total liability (the same reason iD had failed and had to sell itself to Beth). In any game meeting, Carmack had to be present, and he was toxic. So they wanted him OUT of the building, and thus allowed him to go work at the oculus start-up.

    This worked, and Beth was finally able to get the iD team producing games. Carmack, not being a lawyer, took 'his' code resources to oculus- a fatal mistake. Carmack was in an open situation- not getting how this would later be used by bent Zenimax lawyers to set him up, and use him as the 'fall guy'.

    Oculus stole NOTHING. They simply used the freely supplied services of Carmack without asking questions about any later Zenimax trap. Carmack is not a particularly great coder- his masterpiece was Doom- Quake was really Abrash, and Carmack struggled to do anything industry significant at id after Quake (1). Carmack loathed the idea of id employing coding talent clearly better than he was. So while id inspired much, its ability to produce an industry quality engine became a sad joke. Carmack's obsession with 'megatexture' was the last straw- a wrong headed approach to the concept of better textures in games in every way.

    But Carmack ain't a thief or a devious person. Zenimax exploiting his honest naivety and desire for open coding practises was satanic.

    Zenimax is a literal cancer. The sacked founder of Oculus was a chancer with nothing really to offer the company. The rift and vive made necessary baby steps to making VR finally NOT-BAD, but far from 'good'.

    Sony, with dedicated VR hardware from AMD in its new console next year, will take the lead in acceptable home VR, and the rift and vive will cease to be relevant.

    As for the ongoing fight between the satanic Zenimax, and the satanic Facebook (facebook is far more evil)- well the best outcome (which won't happen) would be if both killed the other. The truth is that Facebook is so rich, and so diverted by its real agenda, it couldn't be bothered to fight the midget that is Zenimax. The money Facebook lost is just change down the side of the sofa.

    But the foul Zenimax needs to talk up its 'victory', as is common with aggresive height challenged males.

    Better you here ask WHY this story is promoted on Slashdot at this time.

    1. Re: So now Zenimax posts articles on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the moderators post pro-left stories here 24/7, duh.

    2. Re: So now Zenimax posts articles on Slashdot by Bobrick · · Score: 0

      You sound like the kind of snowflake that gets offended easily.

    3. Re:So now Zenimax posts articles on Slashdot by sebrk · · Score: 1

      Now that you spent so much time writing this I just want to say it is all garbage. Your loss.

  20. Re:Luckey landed on his feet however by edi_guy · · Score: 1

    Really...kickass? It looks like drones and video camera towers. Oh, wait no, I forgot they have the magic of AI too!! That makes it better. Would love to know how how much they will try to ding Uncle Sam for this junk. Another company, Elbit, sold 46 such towers for $145 million.

  21. Facebook contains no tangible value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no reason for its existence.

  22. Re:Uh huh. Sure. by HarrySquatter · · Score: 2

    Carmack isn't a leftist and yet wasn't fired. Oops there go your whole conspiracy.

  23. Re:Luckey landed on his feet however by melted · · Score: 0

    What have you achieved? Oh, I see, you've posted a bullshit message on Slashdot. Yay, you!

  24. LOOK! Look over THERE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical misdirection.

    There's been a long list of right-leaners (some, like james damore, only thought of as right wing because of one act that was un-PC) booted out of big tech. There have been a mountain of right-leaning web sites, blogs, and videos scrubbed by big tech in the months just before this past election. NOTHING equivalent has been happening to the left-leaners.

    So, an anti-Trump blogger writes an article with one possible alternate claim for a reason for one of these incidents (one that is not really even plausible considering Carmack's treatment in THE SAME CASE) and that's supposed to convince everybody to "move along".

    Nope. Doesn't work. A giant stinking pile of evidence is a great substitute for a foil hat in this arena, and with that pile of evidence (and a simple grasp of basic statistics) present, an article aimed at debunking foil hat thinking just has no effect.

  25. So because they have carmak, they fired luckey??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the fuck do you connect those two things in your idiotic and blatantly ignorant and partisan "mind"?

  26. Only "hateful" when you idolise a fucking twat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which trump is. However he's YOUR fucking twat and you don't CARE about anything other than "winning", even at your own expense.

    1. Re: Only "hateful" when you idolise a fucking twat by e3m4n · · Score: 2

      I dont think thats a one side problem. Winning at any cost seems to be an epidemic. HRC is clearly evidence of that, otherwise sheâ(TM)d never make it on a ballot. But she can blackmail a lot of groups into obscene amounts of fundraising and donations, so it makes it ok in the end.

      Its an product of polarization, which the media DID fan the flames of since the 2000 election. Polarization sells views which brings in ad revenue. Theyre the whores and we are the Johns. This isnt Football. When the game is over WE are the ones thst has to clean the fucking stadium. But you seem content to keep rooting for one side and bashing the other. Take a step back. Both sides are doing the exact same shit.

    2. Re:Only "hateful" when you idolise a fucking twat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thank you for providing this handy example of 'hateful liberal duckspeak'.

      Orange man indeed bad.

  27. Serial killers have done more than you'll ever do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't mean that you having done less is a bad thing.

    Fucking idiot.

  28. Says the same media that would draw lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    very quickly if a woman or a gay or minority is fired

  29. But how much did he make them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $500m seemed like the cost of doing business, and Facebook made quite a lot more back, not to mention the IP they retained

  30. Re:Uh huh. Sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pro right? what the fuck does that even mean? Conservative? Trump-tard?

  31. That can't be true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Palmer Luckey were in fact fired for losing $500M, then he could not be used as a(nother) right-wing martyr. So that does not fit with the conspiracy theories of Trump supporters. Therefore, this must be "fake news" that Luckey was fired because of some $500M story.

  32. SIMPLE TEST u FAIL & FACT U IMPERSONATE ME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    0.0.0.0 test1.com:53
    0.0.0.0 test2.com:53
    0.0.0.0 jowie.com
    0.0.0.0 jealous.com
    0.0.0.0 jowie.com
    0.0.0.0 test3.com
    0.0.0.0 borlnd.com
    0.0.0.0 tester.com

    * RUN THAT DATASET THRU MY PROGRAM & WHAT RESULTS COME OUT THAT HAVE A "PORT FILTER" ATTACHED?

    NONE!

    Only borlnd.com, tester.com, test3.com, jealous.com & jowie.com (last 2 are for YOU, lol) REMAIN (no filters on them)

    MY PROGRAM EVEN PREVENTS THAT MISTAKE!

    APK

    P.S.=> THIS PROVES MY PROGRAM'S OUTPUT DOES NOT ALLOW "PORT FILTERING" ENTRIES IN HOSTS as I said!

    ALL DESPITE you IMPERSONATING ME & LYING (for YEARS now) saying hosts do + STALKING ME via UNIDENTIFIABLE ANONYMOUS too (loser weezil).

    It's LONG PROVEN YOU DO THAT c6gunner https://linux.slashdot.org/com...

    + your LIES saying I have a MacOS model (I don't YET) OR that hosts cure Spectre/Meltdown (hosts don't but you LIE impersonating ME saying they do - FILTERS in hosts too!)... apk

  33. Liberals always lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't believe you ZuckCuck.

  34. Re:Uh huh. Sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh! Sarcasm. I get it now!!!

  35. Re:Uh huh. Sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That explains why Gab is 90% bots with very few humans. And you get banned from Gab for debating known nazi propaganda.