{"id":61776,"date":"2018-03-30T06:38:38","date_gmt":"2018-03-30T06:38:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/?p=61776"},"modified":"2018-03-30T06:38:38","modified_gmt":"2018-03-30T06:38:38","slug":"internal-facebook-posts-employees-discussing-todays-leaked-memo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/technology\/internal-facebook-posts-employees-discussing-todays-leaked-memo.html","title":{"rendered":"Here are the internal Facebook posts of employees discussing today\u2019s leaked memo"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here are the internal Facebook posts of employees discussing today\u2019s leaked memo<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n

The publication of a June 2016 memo describing the consequences of Facebook\u2019s growth-at-all-costs triggered an emotional conversation at the company today. An internal post reacting to the memo found employees angry and heartbroken that their teammates were sharing internal company discussions with the media. Many called on the company to step up its war on leakers and hire employees with more \u201cintegrity.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

On Thursday evening, BuzzFeed published a memo from Andrew \u201cBoz\u201d Bosworth, a vice president at Facebook who currently leads its hardware efforts. In the memo, Bosworth says that the company\u2019s core function is to connect people, despite consequences that he repeatedly called \u201cugly.\u201d \u201cThat\u2019s why all the work we do in growth is justified. All the questionable contact importing practices,\u201d he wrote. \u201cAll the subtle language that helps people stay searchable by friends. All of the work we do to bring more communication in. The work we will likely have to do in China some day. All of it.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Bosworth distanced himself from the memo, saying in a Twitter post that he hadn\u2019t agreed with those words even when he wrote them. He was trying to galvanize a discussion around the company\u2019s growth strategy, he said. CEO Mark Zuckerberg told BuzzFeed that he had not agreed with the sentiments in the post at the time, and that growth should not be a means to an end in itself. \u201cWe recognize that connecting people isn\u2019t enough by itself. We also need to work to bring people closer together,\u201d Zuckerberg said.<\/span><\/p>\n

After publishing the memo, Bosworth deleted his original post. \u201cWhile I won\u2019t go quite as far as to call it a straw man, that post was definitely designed to provoke a response,\u201d Bosworth wrote in a memo obtained by The Verge. \u201cIt served effectively as a call for people across the company to get involved in the debate about how we conduct ourselves amid the ever changing mores of the online community. The post was of no particular consequence in and of itself, it was the comments that were impressive. A conversation over the course of years that was alive and well even going into this week.<\/span><\/p>\n

That conversation is now gone,\u201d Bosworth continued. \u201cAnd I won\u2019t be the one to bring it back for fear it will be misunderstood by a broader population that doesn\u2019t have full context on who we are and how we work.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Facebook and Bosworth declined to comment.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nearly 3,000 employees had reacted to Bosworth\u2019s memo when The Verge viewed it, responding with a mixture of likes, \u201csad,\u201d and and \u201cangry\u201d reactions. Many employees rallied to Bosworth\u2019s side, praising him for sharing his feelings about sensitive company matters using blunt language.<\/span><\/p>\n

Others criticized Bosworth for deleting the post, saying it fueled a narrative about the company that it had something to hide. \u201cDeleting things usually looks bad in retrospect,\u201d one wrote. \u201cPlease don\u2019t feed the fire by giving these individuals more fuel (eg, Facebook execs deleting internal communications\u201d). If we are no longer open and transparent, and instead lock-down and delete, then our culture is also destroyed \u2014 but by our own hand.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Dozens of employees criticized the unknown leakers at the company. \u201cLeakers, please resign instead of sabotaging the company,\u201d one wrote in a comment under Bosworth\u2019s post. Wrote another: \u201cHow fucking terrible that some irresponsible jerk decided he or she had some god complex that jeopardizes our inner culture and something that makes Facebook great?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Several employees suggested Facebook attempt to screen employees for a high degree of \u201cintegrity\u201d during the hiring process. \u201cAlthough we all subconsciously look for signal on integrity in interviews, should we consider whether this needs to be formalized in the interview process?\u201d one wrote.<\/span><\/p>\n

Wrote another: \u201cThis is so disappointing, wonder if there is a way to hire for integrity. We are probably focusing on the intelligence part and getting smart people here who lack a moral compass and loyalty.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Other employees said it would be difficult to detect leakers before they acted.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t think we\u2019ve seen a huge internally leaked data breach, but I\u2019ve always thought our \u2018open but punitive\u2019 stance was particularly vulnerable to suicide bombers,\u201d one employee wrote \u201cWe would be foolish to think that we could adequately screen against them in a hiring process at our scale. \u2026 We have our representative share of sick people, drug addicts, wife beaters, and suicide bombers. Some of this cannot be mitigated by training. To me, this makes it just a matter of time.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

That employee followed up to say: \u201cOMG, I just ran back to my \u2018puter from a half-eaten lunch with food in my mouth. APOLOGIES to our brothers in sisters in the Austin Office for my insensitive choice of metaphors\/words. I\u2019m sorry.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Several employees shared concerns that the leaks had removed some of Facebook\u2019s luster. The company is routinely cited as among the best places to work in America.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIf this leak #$%^ continues, we will become like every other company where people are hesitant to discuss broad-reaching, forward-looking ideas and thoughts, that only the very average ideas and thoughts get discussed and executed,\u201d one employee wrote.\u201d Making them average companies.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Another employee responded: \u201cWill become? Seems like we are there.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The leaks also became cause for discussion about the company\u2019s internal sharing tools. Facebook runs on its enterprise product, Facebook for Work. One employee wondered whether the critics of leakers had ignored incentives for sharing created by the product itself. It\u2019s a nuanced thought worth sharing in full:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s interesting to note that this discussion is about leaks pushing us to be more cognizant of our sharing decisions. The result is that we are incentivized toward stricter audience management and awareness of how our past internal posts may look when re-surfaced today. We blame a few ill-intentioned employees for this change.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe non-employee Facebook user base is also experiencing a similar shift: the move toward ephemeral and direct sharing results from realizing that social media posts that were shared broadly and are searchable forever can become a huge liability today.<\/span><\/p>\n

A key difference between the outside discussion and the internal discussion is that the outside blames the Facebook product for nudging people to make those broad sharing decisions years ago, whereas internally the focus is entirely on employees.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Here is Bosworth\u2019s full memo to the company today.<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u2019m feeling a little heartbroken tonight.<\/span><\/p>\n

I had multiple reporters reach out today with different stories containing leaks of internal information.<\/span><\/p>\n

In response to one of the leaks I have chosen to delete a post I made a couple of years ago about our mission to connect people and the ways we grow. While I won\u2019t go quite as far as to call it a straw man, that post was definitely designed to provoke a response. It served effectively as a call for people across the company to get involved in the debate about how we conduct ourselves amid the ever changing mores of the online community. The post was of no particular consequence in and of itself, it was the comments that were impressive. A conversation over the course of years that was alive and well even going into this week.<\/span><\/p>\n

That conversation is now gone. And I won\u2019t be the one to bring it back for fear it will be misunderstood by a broader population that doesn\u2019t have full context on who we are and how we work.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is the very real cost of leaks. We had a sensitive topic that we could engage on openly and explore even bad ideas, even if just to eliminate them. If we have to live in fear that even our bad ideas will be exposed then we won\u2019t explore them or understand them as such, we won\u2019t clearly label them as such, we run a much greater risk of stumbling on them later. Conversations go underground or don\u2019t happen at all. And not only are we worse off for it, so are the people who use our products.<\/span><\/p>\n

Source:-https:\/\/www.theverge.com\/2018\/3\/30\/17179100\/facebook-memo-leaks-boz-andrew-bosworth<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t