Facebook Issues New Rules On Internal Employee Communication (cnbc.com) 124
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday outlined to employees a new set of principles to guide debates and conversations within Workplace, the company's internal social network. Zuckerberg outlined the changes to address "a lot of very tense conversations happening out in the world," according to company spokesman Joe Osborne. The new principles follow a set of similar changes at Google, which is increasing the moderation of its internal message boards, CNBC reported earlier this week.
"We deeply value expression and open discussion. What we've heard from our employees is that they want the option to join debates on social and political issues rather than see them unexpectedly in their work feed," Osborne said in a statement. "We're updating our employee policies and work tools to ensure our culture remains respectful and inclusive." Under the new set of principles, Zuckerberg said, Facebook will ensure all employees feel supported at work, especially the company's Black community, by strengthening the company's harassment policy with more protections for underrepresented employees. The company will also be more specific about which parts of Workplace can be used to discuss social and political issues. This change will be so that employees do not have to confront social issues during their day-to-day work. Facebook's new principles also ask that employees communicate with professionalism and continue to debate about the company's work but do so in a respectful manner.
"We deeply value expression and open discussion. What we've heard from our employees is that they want the option to join debates on social and political issues rather than see them unexpectedly in their work feed," Osborne said in a statement. "We're updating our employee policies and work tools to ensure our culture remains respectful and inclusive." Under the new set of principles, Zuckerberg said, Facebook will ensure all employees feel supported at work, especially the company's Black community, by strengthening the company's harassment policy with more protections for underrepresented employees. The company will also be more specific about which parts of Workplace can be used to discuss social and political issues. This change will be so that employees do not have to confront social issues during their day-to-day work. Facebook's new principles also ask that employees communicate with professionalism and continue to debate about the company's work but do so in a respectful manner.
No Politics at Work, Only Work (Score:1, Flamebait)
Goodyear dropped the ball hard on this, claiming their policy on politics was "zero tolerance" and then turning out and tolerating BLM and LGBT garb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Freedom of expression isn't a right if you have to check it at your employer's door.
Re:No Politics at Work, Only Work (Score:4, Informative)
Your rights stop at the end of my nose, or at the entrance door to your place of employment.
Employers have every right to control speech in the workplace, especially speech that is disruptive to work.
Freedom (Score:3)
You are free to express yourself on your own dime. You are being paid to work.
If you hired a plumber and he pulled up in front of your house in a big work van with a huge TRUMP2020 banner on the side of it, you have every right to boot him off of your property. Same rule applies to all employees. What they do on their own time should be their own business, though, unfortunately, that distinction is being eroded away.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
One of my coworkers is a MAGA type. We have political discussions in which we disagree strongly. Then we work together, and quite well, too. If you crybabies can't manage that, perhaps you need to work on your thin fucking skin.
Stop masturbatory debates and get to work!!! (Score:2)
One of my coworkers is a MAGA type. We have political discussions in which we disagree strongly. Then we work together, and quite well, too. If you crybabies can't manage that, perhaps you need to work on your thin fucking skin.
MAGA or crunchy liberal, I don't give a rat's ass. I don't want my release jeopardized by your stupid masturbatory political debates. Unless you're literally employed by a political campaign, you're not getting paid to debate politics. Stop wasting time. I'd get just as upset if 2 coworkers were wasting the time debating about last night's game.
Professionals work at work and debate politics on their own free time. As long as you behave professionally at work, I don't really care much about your po
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing a hiring process, where certain discrimination is required by the process itself, with a firing process where discrimination based on who you are and not based on what you did - is illegal.
I.e. You are free to hang out a shingle saying "I only hire fascists". Just don't get all pissy when you end up gassed or "purged". [wikipedia.org]
Cause once you hire them... you can't fire them for simply being fascist scum - unless they actively keep doing the things that fascist scum keep doing.
Like spreading hate an
Re: (Score:2)
That is not entirely fair. I am paid to design electronic circuits, but recently, I have been researching the social aspects of working from home. Is this politics? It is certainly not party politics, but it is not engineering either. I am getting plenty of management support at work about the task of creating the new normal. I have to bang out the old cliche: "We are all in this together."
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of expression isn't a right if you have to check it at your employer's door.
Even if you work for the government, you don't have unlimited expression rights in the workplace. And in the private sector, you have zilch [findlaw.com].
"Employees in the public sector – who work for governmental entities – have First Amendment rights in the workplace, subject to certain restrictions. The case law that has developed over time regarding First Amendment rights in the workplace has come from the public sector, as the government is directly affecting employees in public sector cases. Private citizens do not enjoy the same protections."
Re: (Score:3)
No. It makes him a reasonable person.
What do you do when you have employed both a BLM extremist and the husband of a policeman that was ambushed on the street? A devout Muslim and last year's pork rib BBQ champion? You tell them all to STFU and do what they agreed to do for the money you're paying them.
My employer has a dress policy that clothing cannot have words printed on it. That is the most sensible policy ever. Just flat out nips ALL the virtue signalling in the bud. I have a right to wear my po
Re: (Score:2)
My place of work has lots of really bright people in it. Some of them are also seriously weird, such as blokes wearing dresses, and stuff like that. This has not done any harm, as far as I know. People discuss all sorts of things in between doing their work. This builds a healthy social system. The HR people at work, who are perhaps unusually talented, suggest frequent breaks, to prevent fatigue. I would say that it is part of work. Keeping your nose to the grindstone for all your mandated hours might not b
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The RV repair guy mouthing off after being unemployed for a decade is not the person to listen to concerning workplace communications. Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
By your logic, there should be no distinction made between your personal life and your professional life, then. OK, let's think this through.
- Anything you want to wear in your personal life, you can wear at work.
- Any time schedule you want to keep in your personal life, you can keep at work.
- Any buying decision you want to make in your personal life, you can make at work.
- etc.
And, frightening, the reverse would also be true: anything your employer wants to enforce in the workplace, they can enforce on
Re: (Score:3)
Not disagreeing with you. I just want to make a point very clear.
You never lose that right of expression. You CHOOSE to suppress it as part of an agreement with your employer, in exchange for cash. No one is FORCED to accept those type of agreements in the US.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
A. There are plenty of people who choose not to have jobs, but I'd ask, "Why you expect other people to feed and house you if you're not willing to work to support yourself?"
B. While you might feel that you MUST have a job, you are free to choose from the many, many available.
C. You are free to start you're own company, where YOU get to set the rules.
You're whiny victim mentality makes you look pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
You no more choose to have a job than you choose to be alive in a society that forces you to have a job.
And there it is - the ol' "I didn't ask to be born" argument. Checkmate, parents everywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Just to be clear, "freedom of expression" is not a right, period. The first amendment says:
That has been interpreted to apply, via the 14th amendment, to each of the states and thus all units of gover
Re: (Score:1)
If you want to discuss politics and race in violation of your employer's policy, prepare to seek new employment.
My employer has no such policy because he is not a fascist thug. We are free to have discussions so long as they do not interfere unduly with our work.
If your employer has such policies, your employer is taking advantage of you by requiring you to be a nonperson while carrying out your work duties, and I pity you.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your concession that you do not have a right to such an environment. What my employer does is not relevant to the argument, and not subject to your judgment.
Re: (Score:2)
Many things which you used to have to depend on your employer's beneficence for are now rights.
Cheering on abrogation of rights doesn't make you a hero. It only proves that you're a zero.
Keep on supporting your own abuse, that will surely make a better world.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're entitlements granted by statute. If they're granted by statute, then they can be removed by amending or repealing the statute.
Even if you want to be sloppy and call entitlements rights, "many things are now rights" is super vague, and doesn't include freedom of expression in the workpalce.
Cheering and explainin
Re: (Score:2)
"No, they're entitlements granted by statute. If they're granted by statute, then they can be removed by amending or repealing the statute."
Got news for you, there's no such thing as inherent rights. They are imaginary. Anything the law doesn't protect can and will be taken away from you.
"Keep trashing your professional and workplace reputation."
Both are impeccable. I have never violated an NDA, I have only ever been fired from a failing company which failed to provide training and had no business hiring an
Re: (Score:2)
I've run out of class says the man with no class [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
If you think calling things what they are shows a lack of class, then I suspect you're suffering from a lack of character.
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one that claims that calling you what you are shows a lack of class.
Rules for me but not for thee?
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one that claims that calling you what you are shows a lack of class.
Oh, so you're the AC? Good to know.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, don't be intentionally obtuse. I can't use your boorish behavior to others, even ones that merely disagree with you [slashdot.org], to illustrate the hypocrisy of your 'calling it like it is' [slashdot.org] exception? I suppose now DesCorp is my sockpuppet, or vice versa.
Re: (Score:2)
I recently signed a new employment agreement, after my employer was taken over by a multinational. You are not supposed to use company time or resources for political stuff. But actually, the Managing Director at work seems to be quite happy with me doing a bit of politics on the side, when there is not enough engineering work to do. I am not promoting any political party, so perhaps that makes it OK.
When I say "a bit of politics", I mean things like the future of working from home, and lack of affordable h
Re: (Score:2)
Bearing arms isn't a right if you have to check it at your employer's door.
Religion isn't a right if you have to check it at your employer's door.
Abortion isn't a right if you have to check it at your employer's door.
Freedom of association isn't a right if you have to check it at your employer's door.
etc.
If you want ANY "right" while you're being paid to work, you need to negotiate that with your employer.
Re: (Score:2)
Abortion isn't a right if you have to check it at your employer's door.
Well look, I'm pro-abortion, but please: Not in the office.
Re:No Politics at Work, Only Work (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. Nearly anything you say and do, can be considered political.
Sneakers, Beans, What Car you drive, how far away you live from work, which foods you like to eat, which foods you don't like to eat, Your leisurely hobbies... Will group you in two groups.
The group that people like you and see you as an upstanding citizen
or
The group that people see you as the devil incarnate out to destroy all that we deem good
For the person who is a Nike wearing, who makes Meat and Bean Chilli with Goya Beans, that Drives a Prius (Looking to upgrade to a Tesla) and lives 30 miles in a rural area, whose hobbies include Wood Working and Jazz Music. Is oddly enough seems to some people a contradiction in values. Because they decide not to fit neatly into a partisan stereotype. Where this are very supposed to be non-political things, that really don't really explain ones political stance. And their political stance, may not fit into either side very well. However we are being forced to choose one side and be all in.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Gee thanks for pointing out that I have a learning disability in writing that I have been struggling with all my life. jackass.
Re: (Score:2)
if you had trouble reading and understanding that post, you should question whether it is you or the poster who has the problems with language skills.
Also pro tip, bragging in a dickish way that you failed to understand something makes you look really smart. You should do it more.
Re: (Score:2)
While the grammar may not be conventional I'm not sure why you found that comment worthy of critique.
Shit, the forum for writers that I frequent has actual book selling authors on it that are far worse than this.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you (1) just quietly find another job, or (2) try to reform your own employer by speaking up, so the entire problem ceases to be one?
Yes.
What you don't do though is start posting on the intranet about how fucking evil your employer is, demanding the head of the manager in charge of that part of the business and telling the press that your company is actively enslaving people.
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from whether you agree that transition was justified, my point is that BLM was probably not controversial whenever Goodyear last reviewed the policy. In a short period of time, Trump weaponized BLM and then (as part
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe Trump decided to include the BLM rioters in the criticism when they started supporting the people who are burning cities? Asking for a friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BLM has a dual-meaning. It is a literal message, with broad appeal, and the name of an activist organization. A lot of people and companies have been automatically voicing support for the literal message, with complete disregard to the organization and its platforms.
Now we're at a point where we have people who "agree with the literal message" in shouting matches with people who "disagree with the organization" and neither seems to recognize that they're not actually considering BLM to be the same thing as
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's because they are the same thing. They're both racist shits intent on preventing racial harmony.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump weaponized BLM
Holy fuck. We're going back four fucking months and you're already trying to rewrite history.
BLM weaponised BLM. Antifa weaponised BLM. The rioting looting cunts that started burning down Minneapolis weaponised BLM.
Don't go fucking blaming someone else for merely recognising this.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. Who in the heck talks about those certain forbidden topics (Money, Religion, Politics) at work ?
I know I sure don't.
So, you're ASKING to be fired for your thoughts? (Score:2)
Maybe someone should talk to your coworkers. I'm certain they'd love to get rid of your fascist ass by noon.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not politics that is the problem; it is people fighting about it.
Re: (Score:1)
So anything but racial justice and equity issues? So no problem if I wear a shirt that says "4% of the population commit 53% of the violent crime"? Or how about "Men are over represented in workplace deaths"?
So, how about YOU give it a rest? We all know that these things are carefully worded to allow the Democrats disinformation campaigns and slanted narratives while excluding the truth.
Re: (Score:1)
I hereby formally suggest a brilliant idea I saw a bit
Pretty sure what "inclusive" means here (Score:1, Troll)
And it really doesn't mean inclusive in any honest sense of the word. In practice, it almost certainly means "If you're white and male and not singing the praises of * insert progressive sector here *, shut your trap if you want to stay employed".
Re: (Score:2)
And it really doesn't mean inclusive in any honest sense of the word. In practice, it almost certainly means "If you're white and male and not singing the praises of * insert progressive sector here *, shut your trap if you want to stay employed".
As opposed to a Republican's / Trumper's idea of inclusive...
The point is not that conservatives are more inclusive than liberals, the point is that Facebook is not inclusive, that they do not welcome a diversity of thought.
OP's point IS that cons are "good" and "victims". (Score:2)
Maybe you should reread the post you quoted?
"If you're white and male and not singing the praises of * insert progressive sector here *, shut your trap if you want to stay employed".
OP equates being "progressive" as a prerequisite for keeping your job.
Particularly if you are white an male.
Thus labeling white, non-progressive (i.e. conservative), males - as TRUE victims of any corporate action.
I.e. White male conservatives are the good guys here.
THE oppressed.
Not any of them womz, elgeebeaty-cutey and brownish riffraff.
Who are apparently working close with corporations... nay... DIRECTING them to oppress the poor white conservative bois.
Now TH
Re: (Score:2)
OP equates being "progressive" as a prerequisite for keeping your job.
Yes, which is a criticism of Facebook alone and not statement about the merits of being conservative, liberal, progressive, etc. Let me get back to the post I was actually replying to
As opposed to a Republican's / Trumper's idea of inclusive is to tell those that they call "disgusting people" (their own voters no less are disgusting to them LOL) to shut up and enjoy the slave wages.
The correct comparison is not liberal/conservative, but comparing Facebook to an employer that does not celebrate particular politics of their employees.
Why can't he see? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously he sees the damage that an unfettered communications channel does on his workforce, a small subset of society.
And clearly he believes these new controls will help protect members and curtail interpersonal relationship issues stemming from all of these problems.
So why the hell can't he see that the problems he's having in his little microcosm, those are the same problems he is causing in society at large? Or that the controls he now finds necessary to curtail problems in the microcosm would help to curtail the same problems he is causing in society?
Because clearly folks using facebook are not going to understand that what they are reading is harming them for the sake of lining his pocketbook...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, exactly. Don't use social media [skoll.ca].
Re:Why can't he see? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be nice if that was the case. It isn't. You can totally have rules in place that censor things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No.
He's taking these steps because he feels responsibility to the workforce, the shareholders, etc. to impose these limits.
But in society, he abdicates any responsibility for the dumpster fires that are raging around the world. Hey, as long as those advertising dollars keep rolling in, who cares, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I hate these "free speech" anonymous cowards...
"Free Speech" only means the government cannot limit your speech in public spaces.
It does not extend to businesses or any non-governmental entity. I can't walk into a church on Sunday and stand in the pulpit and denounce the beliefs the parishioners without being asked to leave and eventually hauled out by the cops. Neither can I walk into your home and complain about the furnishings and styles. Nor can I go onto a website owned by a company and say anything at
You are looking at it wrong. (Score:2)
These new controls ARE NOT INTENDED to help protect members and curtail interpersonal relationship issues stemming from all of these problems.
They are there to BAN PEOPLE FROM TALKING ABOUT THEM AT WORK. Probably at home too, i.e. as long as they are employees of the company.
The company will also be more specific about which parts of Workplace can be used to discuss social and political issues.
This change will be so that employees do not have to confront social issues during their day-to-day work.
Only way to ensure "not having to confront social issues during day-to-day work" is to BAN "discussion of social and political issues" from the "Workplace".
Gee... I just love that capitalization. Workplace.
Like Cher. Or more like Artist
underrepresented employees (Score:1)
"underrepresented employees"
That would be "conservatives". There are probably more black folks working there.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, the c-suite/board is conservative. Do you need more representation?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, the c-suite/board is conservative. Do you need more representation?
Wrong.
You just make shit up whenever you think you can, yes? Because you are a dishonest fuck, yes?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow,you think Zuckerberg and Theil are liberal? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know the political leanings of those "black folks". Is that you, Joe Biden?
Same old Facebook problems (Score:2)
"What we've heard from our employees is that they want the option to join debates on social and political issues rather than see them unexpectedly in their work feed,"
Judging by what I see on my own feeds, I'm guessing people are tired of seeing random work day posts by "Terry in accounting" raging about BLM and how "the blacks want extra rights".
So, what, their solution is to setup designated areas and admonish people to keep the flaming hot garbage over there and off the work feeds? Yea, that'll happen.
Re: (Score:3)
they want the option to join debates on social and political issues
The option to join?
"What's the matter comrade? We don't see your name on the Save the Gay Whales for Jesus support board? When can we expect your contribution?" How about just not bringing that crap to work?
Re: (Score:2)
how about letting the people at work decide how they feel about coworkers. It's entirely valid.
If you don't want your coworkers to think you are a douche, don't act like one. And if you hang out with people who decide douchey behavior is not funding Gay Whales, how about you own up to it instead of trying to make them not talk about how you're a douche until 5:01pm
Re: (Score:2)
how about letting the people at work decide how they feel about coworkers.
I don't think I'd like working with people who treat their job like a social club. And I made it to HR first. So all of you are out.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you think, but HR protects the company, no whomever got their first. And firing the majority of the employees is never going to fly.
But yes, spend 8 hours a day with people you despise. That sounds normal and healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
And firing the majority of the employees
What makes you think that the majority of employees are wasting their time socializing? And why do you think that protecting the right of management to hire and fire based on work performance isn't protecting the company? You want to protect your little buddy cliques, the company wants you out.
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one claiming you're being pressured. If a small group does that I'm sorry you're so weak. You also said "You all" are going to get fired. Implied a majority.
And, frankly, why not waste my time socializing? My performance is good enough with it. Why make myself more miserable.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're worried that someone will make you feel awkward by asking you to join a group with which you don't agree?
Re: (Score:2)
Given that managers get explicit diversity targets in their work objectives that directly impact their financial and other success at companies, yes, too fucking right I worry that I'll be unfairly judged if I don't throw my support behind the cause du jour.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that managers get explicit diversity targets in their work objectives that directly impact their financial and other success at companies, yes, too fucking right I worry that I'll be unfairly judged if I don't throw my support behind the cause du jour.
Citation needed.
Which companies do this? Show your work.
Re: (Score:2)
The last two companies I've worked for (both in Financial Services), the international Financial Services company one of my friends works for, the BBC and.. well, go down the FTSE100 and pick out the ones that _don't_ do this, it'll be quicker.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I'm worried about a bunch of white folks excluding me from their group, making me feel awkward and expecting me to quit my job.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I'm worried about a bunch of white folks excluding me from their group, making me feel awkward and expecting me to quit my job.
You shouldn't be. Such a move is textbook actionable employment discrimination.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't socialize with AC.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing people are tired of seeing random work day posts by "Terry in accounting" raging about BLM and how "the blacks want extra rights".
I suspect it's the inverse. Terry in Accounting is fed up of being told he's a racist because his skin is the wrong colour and that he's a misogynist because he has a penis.
Yeah, right. (Score:1)
"...especially the company's Black community,"
Ahem, what about all those other communities?? Hmm???
"This change will be so that employees do not have to confront social issues during their day-to-day work."
And yet social media's work touches on every social issue every moment...I'm sure this will settle everyone at FB down right nicely...
The only reason to suppress communication.. (Score:2)
...is because you're involved in something dodgy AF that this discussion threatens.
Secrecy is the harbor of the corrupt and incompetent.
Re: (Score:2)
...but it does expose those speakers to action... ie give themselves enough rope to hang themselves with.
Inclusion in discussions at work (Score:1)
Add to that, now, that you're talking about something that really matters and you are doubly at risk, regardless of what they say.
Ending with "this is why we can't have nice things", as soon as views come at an unproductive tone or voracity, and we're back at "no sports, religion or politics at dinner".
The line, obvious
Racial Harassment at Facebook (Score:1)
Facebook-ing eats Facebook (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also... (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory Zuck Quote (Score:2)
"They trust me... The dumb fucks"
Re: (Score:2)
Zuckerberg has been sucking up to Trump for years, shithead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
If you equate sharing of opinions with sneering, it's doubtful that you have any opinions worth sharing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Because it is Trump supporters that are yelling at people in restaurants. The only President in modern history that has worked to role back overbearing regulations is the one trying to limit the people's civil rights. Not the one that was spying on their political competition, weaponizing the IRS to attack political opponents, or wiretapping journalist that write articles critical of him.
The only thing to worry about in this race is it resulting in a Harris administration. The one who kept people from le
Re: (Score:1)
What civil rights would those be?
Instituting hate speech/blasphemy laws restricting freedom of speech? Not him.
Unconstitutional lock downs and forced mask wearing? Not him.
Cries to defund police or refuse to prosecute criminals which will result in my safety being compromised (life, liberty, et all)? Not him.
These are mostly democrat platforms. So tell me, what civil rights of mine am I giving away if I vote for him?
Re: (Score:2)
Pardoning someone for violating the constitution? Yep that was him
Re: (Score:3)
Zuckerberg is probably well left on social issues, but I think his overall temperament is probably more towards the center in the great scheme of things. However, he runs a Silicon Valley company that primarily employs Millenials and Zoomers, and their temperament is far to the left of the rest of the country.
This balancing act is probably a lot more difficult than many on the outside of the company believe. I've previously been on the inside, and seen what the climate is like there. There is so much social justice propaganda plastered all over the walls of the Facebook campus, that it often feels like many employees might think they're working for some sort of social movement... rather than a tech company.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think Mr Zuckerberg cares anything for left or right wing politics. Mr Zuckerberg says and does things to suit himself. Lefty sentiment is merely a tool to be exploited.