undefined | Better HN

0 pointswoodruffw3y ago0 comments

I absolutely agree, and I think this nicely summarizes why political discussion at work is more important than ever: it amounts to real discussions between human beings with emotional and professional ties, not flame wars between angry Tweeters.

I don’t agree with my coworkers on everything. But when they talk about politics I listen, and try my best to engage in a cogent discussion.

Maintaining a culture of political discussion at work is critical to both healthy corporate cultures and healthy civic processes, which might provide a hint as to why Meta is opposed to it (outrage is their business model.)

0 comments

icelancer3y ago

Meta isn't banning discussion of politics in groups of employees. It's banning discussion in open channels.

If you want to listen to employees talk pro-life / pro-choice, join the groups for that and do so. Keeping Roe v. Wade discussion out of the equivalent of Slack #general or All-Hands email list seems more than reasonable.

woodruffwOP3y ago

The article itself concerns online discussion spaces, but what constitutes an “open channel”? Should employees expect to be reprimanded or potentially punished for talking about abortion rights in a company hallway, because an uninvolved coworker might happen to walk by?

The baseline position here (“don’t create political distractions in large channels”) is reasonable on face value. But I have difficultly believing that it’s not pretextual, and that the real goal isn’t to generally chill political discussion between colleagues.

11235813213y ago

At most companies, open physical meetings would not include private conversations inadvertently overheard. I can see how companies employee some people who don’t understand things like that, panic and overreact. I think most companies would have trouble admitting they employ such people in higher level planning meetings.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse