> Dissent Erupts at Facebook Over Hands-Off Stance on Political Ads
From the article:
> More than 250 employees have signed the message
Facebook has >35,000 employees. 250 signees is <0.7% of employees. Hardly seems like an "eruption" of dissent.
The article does acknowledge this:
> While the number of signatures on the letter was a fraction of Facebook’s 35,000-plus work force...
So why use such a misleading title? "A tiny fraction of company employees does not like company policies" is a statement you can make about every sizable company.
A newly-public EEOC ruling resulting from investigative journalism around explicitly discriminatory hiring practices facilitated (and profited from) by one of the more morally-bankrupt technology companies of our time is announced, and your gripe is the journalists aren’t giving Facebook enough credit?
A lot of discrimination happened while Facebook hadn’t fixed the problem. Discrimination which Facebook profited from. Facebook decided to enter the job, credit and real estate ad markets, but didn’t care enough to think through the details.
Recent history has been Facebook et al being brazenly lawless, making money from it, and then getting away with a slap on the wrist. The government starting to show teeth is news, and stating their confirmed finding is a fair headline.
This is a bit nit-picky, but I find it distracting when an article leads with a statement that strikes me as grossly inaccurate.
Because if the rest of the article hinges on the accuracy of that opening statement, I'm likely to regret having spent time reading the article.
Clarification: The reason I'm skeptical of that particular opening statement is AFAIK U.S. corporations can have assets, liabilities, etc. that are very different than simply the sum of their employees. For example, I would gladly accept the parts of Apple that aren't employees: its bank accounts, patent portfolio, etc.
HN title: Amazon deletes job listings for analysts to track ‘labor organizing threats’
My thoughts after reading the title: "Oh good, I always thought Amazon was scummy and lacked integrity, but credit where credit is due, they did good here.
.
The actual article's title and body: Amazon deletes their own job listings for union-busters, as a PR response due to public outcry.
> The suit and the trial introduced a number of colorful phrases that were said to have been uttered to or about Ms. Pao. Most were heavily disputed by the defense, but they nevertheless served to define Kleiner as having refused to evolve since it was formed in the early 1970s.
The second sentence is a statement about the phrases that Ms. Paro alleges were uttered by employees of Kleiner Perkins. It is not a statement about Kleiner Perkins.
Headline: This isn't a company town and nobody is going into debt to the company.
I know it violates the guidelines but I suggest you actually read the article and reply to that, rather than just making things up in your head and replying to the fantasy.
>> "because capitalism at it's core is a system built on exploitation and power imbalances and races to the bottom."
- races to the bottom - companies will do a lot to save cents per product, even sabotage quality. that's what i see in the appliance market - where everything is a piece of shit reliability wise. Same in the clothing market(shitty chemicals), ikea furniture, low quality of many software products, many electronic components(micro controllers), etc.
Exploitation and power imbalances - Besides state protection - that's relatively hard to get, for many jobs, employers have most of the power and they behave accordingly. suicides in Apple factories(again it would matter to Apple almost at all if employees had reasonable conditions) or the story from Israel is one among many.
Title: "I significantly underestimated the power of Jeff Bezos"
The article never discusses Bezos directly. He has a reputation of being a micro-manager, but was Bezos even involved in what the article details? The whole story seems clunky from that point forward because the title makes no sense.
Article title is "Amazon expands layoffs from 10,000 to 18,000 jobs as stock price keeps falling". That's not the same as "blaming the stock price". The subhead is "CEO blames 'uncertain economy' and Amazon's rapid hiring", which is more reasonable.
It would be odd to blame the layoffs on stock price, since the stock price doesn't affect operations. A CEO might say it anyway, to deflect blame from themselves, but that's not what the article says. Blaming the economy as a whole, however, is at least not actively wrong.
> Dissent Erupts at Facebook Over Hands-Off Stance on Political Ads
From the article:
> More than 250 employees have signed the message
Facebook has >35,000 employees. 250 signees is <0.7% of employees. Hardly seems like an "eruption" of dissent.
The article does acknowledge this:
> While the number of signatures on the letter was a fraction of Facebook’s 35,000-plus work force...
So why use such a misleading title? "A tiny fraction of company employees does not like company policies" is a statement you can make about every sizable company.
reply