let's go to the source shall we?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/t...ical-bias.html
Dozens at Facebook Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture
By
Kate Conger and
Sheera Frenkel
Aug. 28, 2018
SAN FRANCISCO — The post went up quietly on Facebook’s internal message board last week. Titled “We Have a Problem With Political Diversity,” it quickly took off inside the social network.
“We are a political monoculture that’s intolerant of different views,” Brian Amerige, a senior Facebook engineer, wrote in the post, which was obtained by The New York Times. “We claim to welcome all perspectives, but are quick to attack — often in mobs — anyone who presents a view that appears to be in opposition to left-leaning ideology.”
Since the post went up, more than 100 Facebook employees have joined Mr. Amerige to form an online group called FB’ers for Political Diversity, according to two people who viewed the group’s page and who were not authorized to speak publicly. The aim of the initiative, according to Mr. Amerige’s memo, is to create a space for ideological diversity within the company.
The new group has upset other Facebook employees, who said its online posts were offensive to minorities. One engineer, who declined to be identified for fear of retaliation, said several people had lodged complaints with their managers about FB’ers for Political Diversity and were told that it had not broken any company rules.
Another employee said the group appeared to be constructive and inclusive of different political viewpoints. Mr. Amerige did not respond to requests for comment.
The activity is a rare sign of organized dissent within Facebook over the company’s largely liberal workplace culture. While the new group is just a sliver of Facebook’s work force of more than 25,000, the company’s workers have in the past appeared less inclined than their peers at other tech companies to challenge leadership, and most have been loyalists to its chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg.
But over the past two years, Facebook has undergone a series of crises, including the
spread of misinformation by Russians on its platform and the mishandling of users’ data. Facebook has also been accused of stifling conservative speech by President Trump and Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, among others. This month, the social network
barred the far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, a move that critics seized on as further evidence that the company harbors an anti-conservative bias.
Within Facebook, several employees said, people have argued over the decisions to ban certain accounts while allowing others. At staff meetings, they said, some workers have repeatedly asked for more guidance on what content the company disallows, and why. Others have said Facebook, out of fear of being seen as biased, has let too many right-wing groups flourish on the site.
The dispute over employees’ political ideology arose a week before Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, is scheduled to testify at a Senate hearing about social media manipulation in elections. A team helping Ms. Sandberg get ready for the hearing next Wednesday has warned her that some Republican lawmakers may raise questions about Facebook and biases, according to two people involved in the preparations
On Tuesday, Mr. Trump again
brought up the issue of bias by tech companies with tweets attacking Google. In remarks later in the day, he widened his focus to include Twitter and Facebook.
Those companies “better be careful because you can’t do that to people,” Mr. Trump said. “I think that Google, and Twitter and Facebook, they are really treading on very, very troubled territory and they have to be careful. It is not fair to large portions of the population.”
‘We Have a Problem With Political Diversity’
“We Have a Problem with Political Diversity”
THE PROBLEM
We are a political monoculture that’s intolerant of different views.We claim to welcome all perspectives, but are quick to attack—often in mobs—anyone who presents a view that appears to be in opposition to left-leaning ideology. We throw labels that end in *obe and *ist at each other, attacking each other’s character rather than their ideas.
We do this so consistently that employees are afraid to say anything when t
hey disagree with what’s around them politically. HR has told me that this is not a rare concern, and I’ve personally gotten over a hundred messages to that effect. Your colleagues are afraid because they know that they — not their ideas — will be attacked. They know that all the talk of “openness to different perspectives” does not apply to causes of “social justice,” immigration, “diversity”, and “equality.” On this issues, you can either keep quiet or sacrifice your reputation and career.
These are not fears without cause. Because we tear down posters welcoming Trump
supporters. We regularly propose removing Thiel from our board because he supported Trump. We’re quick to suggest firing people who turn out to be misunderstood, and even quicker to conclude our colleagues are bigots. We have made “All Lives Matter” a fireable offense. We put Palmer Luckey through a witch hunt because he paid for anti-Hillary ads. We write each other ad-hoc feedback in the PSC tool for having “offensive” ideas. We ask HR to investigate those who dare to criticize Islam’s human rights record for creating a “non inclusive environment.” And they called me a transphobe when I called out our corporate art for being politically radical
.
WHY THIS MATTERS
This is not okay. Not just for our internal culture, but for our own viability
as a company. While the problem isn’t unique to us, we are entrusted by a great part of the world to be impartial and transparent carriers of people’s stories, ideas, and commentary. Congress doesn’t think we can do this. The President doesn’t think we can do this. And like them or not, we deserve that criticism. We are blind to and dismissive of what people beyond our walls (let alone even within our walls) think about complex issues that matter. I’ve been here for nearly 6.5 years and this has gotten exponentially worse in the last 2.
FB’ers for Political Diversity
I don’t know how to fix this problem on my own. What I do know is that these issues c
an’t be fixed if we continue to be isolated and silent. So that’s what this group is for: (
a) to be a space where you can talk about these issues without fear of the mob, and in the process (b) to talk about how we can fix this.
If you’re interested in helping make Facebook a company that’s more toler
ant and active-minded about different political and ideological perspectives, jo
in FB’ers for Political Diversity.
There’s only going to be one core rule in the group, and it’s that if you attack a person’s character, rather than their ideas, you will be banned.
Let’s see where this goes.
A senior Facebook engineer wrote an internal message about what he described as the company’s “monoculture.”
Facebook has long been viewed as a predominantly liberal company. Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg have donated to Democratic politicians, for example, and have supported issues such as immigration reform.
The social network has sometimes struggled to integrate conservatives into its leadership. Palmer Luckey, the founder of Oculus, the maker of virtual reality goggles that Facebook acquired, was
pressured to leave the company last year, months after news spread that he had secretly donated to an organization dedicated to spreading anti-Hillary Clinton internet memes. And Peter Thiel, an
outspoken supporter of Mr. Trump, has faced calls for his resignation from Facebook’s board.
Mr. Zuckerberg publicly defended Mr. Thiel last year, saying that
he valued Mr. Thiel and that it was important to maintain diversity on the board. In an appearance before Congress this year, Mr. Zuckerberg responded to a question about anticonservative bias by saying he wanted Facebook to “be a platform for all ideas.”
In May, Facebook announced that former Senator Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, would lead an
inquiry into allegations of anticonservative bias on the social network. New employees also go through training that describes how to have respectful conversations about politics and diversity.
Other Silicon Valley companies, including Google, have also experienced a
wave of employee activism over diversity. If tech companies are willing to adjust their workplaces to make underrepresented groups more welcome, some employees argue, they should extend the same regard to those who do not fit the liberal-leaning Silicon Valley mold.
Mr. Amerige, who started working at Facebook in 2012, said on his personal website that he followed philosophical principles laid out by the philosopher and writer Ayn Rand. He posted the 527-word memo about political diversity at Facebook on Aug. 20.
On issues like diversity and immigration, he wrote, “you can either keep quiet or sacrifice your reputation and career.”
Mr. Amerige proposed that Facebook employees debate their political ideas in the new group — one of tens of thousands of internal groups that cover a range of topics — adding that this debate would better equip the company to host a variety of viewpoints on its platform.
“We are entrusted by a great part of the world to be impartial and transparent carriers of people’s stories, ideas and commentary,” Mr. Amerige wrote. “Congress doesn’t think we can do this. The president doesn’t think we can do this. And like them or not, we deserve that criticism.”
Follow Kate Conger and Sheera Frenkel on Twitter: @kateconger and @sheeraf.
