> For the past two weeks, the text of the letter has been publicly visible on Facebook Workplace, a software program that the Silicon Valley company uses to communicate internally.
For those who have never used Workplace, this literally just means "someone posted it to Workplace." It's not an abnormal or unique thing. It also wouldn't surprise me if "250 people signed it" means "250 people commented in agreement". I wish the reporting gave more details on who posted the petitions and what it means to "sign the petition". I understand protecting sources, but unless Workplace has added new features, anything posted has to come from someone with a profile.
That said, it's still (arguably, at least) news to cover internal divisions over a policy, but unfortunately the authors don't seem to realize how common it is at Facebook for employees to openly push back on leadership decisions while concurrently working as hard as they can to deliver impact downstream of them (it may sound odd, but it's entirely possible to disagree with a strategy and vocally advocate for your preferred course but also trust that your leadership may be better equipped to set said strategy and work to implement a strategy that is not what you would have chosen).
Personally, I agree with you in this example. As I mentioned elsewhere, given the culture at Facebook and its size, it's hard for me to imagine any major strategic decision that would not generate 250 employees willing to sign their name opposing it, down to things like eliminating single-use plastic.
In my original comment, I was simply conceding that covering internal disagreement about a major policy, in general, is at least arguably news, while still trying to make the rest of my point: that this article is either written in bad faith or wildly unaware of how employees communicate internally at Facebook.
It seemed to me you had insider knowledge of FB and were adding value to the discussion. Fair point that I missed your key point that is based on knowing internal politics/ procedure. I look at the big picture of the U.S. Constitution, and distributed power.
I believe in the Fediverse, and would rather take your employer out in the marketplace, than using the federal government's monopoly on violence. You might want to reconsider your alliances.
Find me a hedge fund that will short FB's stock and invest in Mastodon-based service companies (no ads or tracking), please.
For those who have never used Workplace, this literally just means "someone posted it to Workplace." It's not an abnormal or unique thing. It also wouldn't surprise me if "250 people signed it" means "250 people commented in agreement". I wish the reporting gave more details on who posted the petitions and what it means to "sign the petition". I understand protecting sources, but unless Workplace has added new features, anything posted has to come from someone with a profile.
That said, it's still (arguably, at least) news to cover internal divisions over a policy, but unfortunately the authors don't seem to realize how common it is at Facebook for employees to openly push back on leadership decisions while concurrently working as hard as they can to deliver impact downstream of them (it may sound odd, but it's entirely possible to disagree with a strategy and vocally advocate for your preferred course but also trust that your leadership may be better equipped to set said strategy and work to implement a strategy that is not what you would have chosen).