Facebook Employee Poll
I want to know how rare you need to be in order for FB to possibly consider you a legit whistleblower. Do you meet all of these conditions? - I’ve been or I was at FB for more than two years. - I have been to a decision point meeting with C-suite level executives. - I have or have had direct reports. #facebook
Since when did fb product managers have direct reports? What happened to the flat hierarchy
I did mean “more than two years”. Corrected.
Snap, I know it feels bad to be the 3rd or maybe even the 4th social media company but it's fine. I see you're making progress there.
Thank you!
Funny There are two parts to her "whistleblowing": 1. Leaked documents - who she is doesnt matter there and the media doesn't really need her - they can easily distort and misquote portions to fit their narratives. 2. Her testimony - that's the part where who she is really does matter. There are more than 50k employees in fb (and over 100k if counting contingent workers). Do you value everyone's opinions equally in such a large company? Do you think that it's hard for there to be people that are completely wrong? The point is that she doesnt have a lot of tools to really testify for what she is saying. These are just opinions she has
That’s why I’m running the poll. I’m counting those that won’t be immediately disqualified by FB’s PR ad hominem attack statement. I only hear FB throwing uncertainty in the picture without saying anything concrete. Pure uncertainty and doubt like when MS talked about Linux. Why not just going point by point and be transparent and concrete about it? The problem with FB is that is embedded in a democracy, but doesn’t want to be transparent. It definitely needs regulation because it’s now part of the social infrastructure. At the same time, I agree in that the media likes to cherry-pick facts that only talk about bad effects. IMO, social networks amplify and accelerate, no matter whether things are good ir bad. In the end it’s people using it. FB (and Snap, etc) needs to be held accountable for that, but the case needs to be based on complete information.
But that's the thing - fb did... 99% of the company's communication was directed at her statements and accusations, including releasing the presentations with annotations that explain the company position on each data point and why. What the media does is ignore all of that completely (because it's too long, boring, and they are really clueless about this) and they only share that criticism which is relevant for her pointless testimony to congress as an "expert witness" but not to her accusations. When reading foreign language media, they are sometimes even lazier and they translate her position (product manager) as "senior facebook manager" to make her sound even more credible.
Platinum "Victim Card"