nav search
Data Centre Software Security DevOps Business Personal Tech Science Emergent Tech Bootnotes
BOFH
Lectures

back to article
The antisocial network: 'Facebook has a black people problem,' claims staffer in exit salvo

Jack of Shadows Silver badge

A multinational megacorp that's expected to match USA demographics, not world demographics, isn't exactly inclusive, are they? That's what I get from all the articles I've ever read on the topic. Try harder.

Teiwaz Silver badge

Facebook could use more friends, he said. As a serial apologist, Facebook has managed to alienate not just black people, but teens, and politicians in the US and abroad.

Facebook also managed to alienate me (on account of it being annoying and creepy), yet my demographic was dis-included from that list.

I'm sorry, but If the platform is broken and doesn't work for you and the owners have no inclination to fix it, why continue to use it?

Facebook is not a Public Service or utility - the mentality that it is, and the willingness of the population to use as if it were has empowered its virus like growth. If it only targets the primary organs feeding it, then that's just it being efficient.

And that goes as well for people willing to use LinkedIn like a default business directory or merely harass people by playing top trumps to massage their own egos by acquiring as many contact cards as possible and spamming complete strangers to invite them - and that goes triple for Recruitment consultants spamming for invites seemingly merely to pad their advertising reach to impress business customers, leaving the hapless applicant with a plethora of seemingly useless idle recruitment drones clotting up their contact list.

steviebuk Silver badge

I said something similar in the past but got loads of down votes. If you don't like Facebook, don't use it, after all it's free so you can't really grumble.

But you put it WAY better than I ever could :) so that's probably why.

LDS Silver badge
Facepalm

"If you don't like Facebook, don't use it"

The very issue is Facebook uses me anyway - building shadow profiles even if I don't use it - and I need to make efforts to block its tentacles.

And it still uses those data as a feedback to increases its profits - if discrimination does that, it will discriminate - it's a business built on exploiting people since its inception, I believed that people working for it had understood it...

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

Facebook, yeah?

...Nah!

AustinTX

"it’s pretty disappointing to see you share our private messages"

Watch out for guys like this. Who say things to you in private, that they wouldn't say in public. Because they know what they said in private was wrong. But they wanted to say it to you. They just thought you were under a gag order and couldn't rat them out. They like to play with people and they like to twist the knife.

bombastic bob Silver badge
Stop

Re: "it’s pretty disappointing to see you share our private messages"

well, then, if you see it on 'teh intarwebs', assume it's in the clear. That goes double for FB and other 'social media' because "they" are watching EVERYTHING.

(oh but I missed the IRL face-face conversation being posted - well that tells ya something about FB execs doesn't it?)

That's probably the safe way to go. But you also have to be careful what you call 'hate speech'. For example, in Hawaii the industrial farms are called 'Plantations'. Using the word 'plantation' (particularly in THAT context) has NOTHING to do with slavery. So it's not hate speech to use the word 'plantation', unless someone cherry picks every word you use and decides it is, then reports you, because it makes that person feel better or something.

And THAT kind of nit-picky political correctness is PROBABLY at the root of the controversy. You betcha!

veti Silver badge

Re: "it’s pretty disappointing to see you share our private messages"

So you'd be happy for any private message of yours to be published, then?

I'm going to have to press you for a yes-or-no answer. No "unless" or "except" clauses, because those are really a coded way of reserving the right to be asked permission.

Mycho Silver badge

Re: "it’s pretty disappointing to see you share our private messages"

By that logic all the world becomes a safe space and you can never teach medical science again.

A pathologist ex of mine used to publicly discuss dissecting the penis and testicles just to trigger people. It's appropriate in certain private situations but you probably shouldn't discuss it on a bus during the school run is all I'm saying.

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

Re: "it’s pretty disappointing to see you share our private messages"

really? i think its a fare assumption that anything you communicate in private with someone isn't intended to be shared. there's nothing machivellian or menacing about that.

or perhaps you'd be fine about ur mrs/hubby/significant-other sharing all your pillow talk conversations with others? oh that's private, you say? well isnt that a pickle.

Rameses Niblick the Third Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble? Silver badge

Re: "it’s pretty disappointing to see you share our private messages"

"or perhaps you'd be fine about ur mrs/hubby/significant-other sharing all your pillow talk conversations with others? oh that's private, you say? well isnt that a pickle."

Isn't it then more a case of "know your audience"? I share things with my spouse in private because I trust them to keep my confidence. I trust that our relationship is means more to them than scoring cheap points and idle gossip. In the workplace, I generally try to avoid discussions which are possibly incriminating and may come back to haunt me later. Especially when that conversation is written down and logged! Especially especially when that conversation is with an already annoyed employee.

Mycho Silver badge

Re: Isn't it then more a case of "know your audience"?

Yes, it is.

When someone publicises your private messages they're deliberately taking away your ability to know your audience, since you didn't pick this audience, they did.

Jove Bronze badge

Re: "it’s pretty disappointing to see you share our private messages"

The counter part to that is the publication of a private conversation is a deep betrayal of trust, and the effective termination of a working relationship.

Anyone that that publicises a private communication within an organisation is heading to the exit door from then on.

People that would take such a course of action do not deserve the privilege of working with others and are better suited to sweeping the gutter.

Jove Bronze badge

Re: "it’s pretty disappointing to see you share our private messages"

"Isn't it then more a case of "know your audience"? I share things with my spouse in private because I trust them to keep my confidence. I trust that our relationship is means more to them than scoring cheap points and idle gossip. In the workplace, I generally try to avoid discussions which are possibly incriminating and may come back to haunt me later. Especially when that conversation is written down and logged! Especially especially when that conversation is with an already annoyed employee."

You overlook the case of the counter-party deciding that the relationship has become detrimental to their interests.

If the individual is of a character that does not subscribe to the terms of trust within a relationship, then your efforts will amount to nothing.

P.S. Using your relationship with your partner as an example is probably the worst you could choose; you want to sit-in on divorce proceedings and see how soon all standards are broken.

Walter Bishop Silver badge
Facepalm

Global underepresented influencer strategic partner manager voice

Luckie contends that black people have had trouble discussing issues among themselves, because other people are reporting these discussions as hate speech, even though the conversations often don't violate Facebook terms of service. Accounts are suspended and content is removed, without notice or recourse, he claims.”

Is there any evidence for this, that 'other people' report such content, that Facebook peeks at private employee content, that such content is removed and accounts suspended. The only evidence of leaks produced are made by Mr. Luckie. Mr. Luckie does seem to have been unfortunate in encountering prejudice with employers who refused to see his natural talents. Why do these companies hire on Persons of Colour only to later on drive away such natural talent.

bombastic bob Silver badge
Meh

Re: Global underepresented influencer strategic partner manager voice

"where he focused on underrepresented voices."

I can imagine the likely political views of someone having THAT job description...

"black people have had trouble discussing issues among themselves, because other people are reporting these discussions as hate speech"

That sort of thing seems to happen to CONSERVATIVES a lot, too. Recently, an Iraq war vet had his Twitter account closed on him, with no clear reason as to why [they SAID 'term of use' violations, but I guess JUST BEING A CONSERVATIVE ONLINE is worthy of such treatment, to them]. After appearing on the Tucker Carlson show on Fox News, *AMAZINGLY* Twitter realized their mistake and RE-INSTATED the guy's account!!!

But I say - do NOT ban them. Let them say what they want. And that goes for everyone else, too. Even if it *IS* "hate speech".

/me observes it could ALSO be a form of passive-aggressive harassment, flagging what they say as 'hate speech' in order to SILENCE them.

veti Silver badge

Re: Global underepresented influencer strategic partner manager voice

The difference is, we hear all the time about how conservative white men are victims of discrimination from our shadowy online overlords. I mean, I don't think I've gone a day (online) in the past five years without seeing some version of that story.

But it's news to me that Facebook does the same thing to black people. I should have thought you'd be glad to know that victimisation wasn't reserved solely for your group.

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

Re: Global underepresented influencer strategic partner manager voice

'But I say - do NOT ban them. Let them say what they want. And that goes for everyone else, too. Even if it *IS* "hate speech".'

no. just no.

Commswonk Silver badge

Re: Global underepresented influencer strategic partner manager voice

To quote the article correctly: strategic partner manager for global influencers, where he focused on underrepresented voices.

To quote the great Dorothy Parker: What fresh hell is this?

Jimmy2Cows

Re: no, just no.

Why not?

The way to challenge hate speach is to let everyone see what these morons are saying and openly condem those views, present different perspectives and actively work against the hate.

Banning hate speach doesn't eliminate it, just moves it underground where it can't be monitored and challenged. Thus creating a focussing effect for those who might buy into whatever is being said. No one to counter the views espoused.

Freedom of speech means, well, exactly that, even if that speech offends some people.

LDS Silver badge

"The way to challenge hate speach is to let everyone see"

It never really worked. Propaganda built on hate could be very effective - as it may aim at the guts and fears of many people. Hating is easy, far easier than loving.

Evidently in democracies there are risks of damaging free speech rights. But even in democracies not everything is permitted, there are rights like life and liberty that are above even free speech - the saying "your rights ends where someone else's begin" apply - so advocating someone or some group should be eliminated or their freedom restricted may clash against their basic rights to life and liberty.

Sometime it's not simply "offending" - it's really terrorizing some people who already suffered the privation of those very rights, and paid with their lives.

Finding the right balance is very difficult - especially now you can reach a global audience far too easily. When most constitutions were written, most haters could aim at a soapbox at most.

Still, before and after, some could get more, and lead to tragic consequences - many didn't see what morons they were, didn't listen to those who warned them, and blindly followed them into the darkest time of mankind.

Wellyboot Silver badge

Re: no, just no.

@Jimmy2Crows >>>Banning hate speach doesn't eliminate it, just moves it underground where it can't be monitored and challenged. Thus creating a focussing effect for those who might buy into whatever is being said. No one to counter the views espoused.<<<

Fully Agree.

If left alone to fester they'll eventually appear in public turning their opinions into actions.

Rob Gr

Re: no, just no.

Still people don't seem to understand the distinction between allowing someone freedom of speech and being compelled to provide them a platform.

Facebook, Twitter et al. have no duty to allow all voices to be heard. People wanting to espouse these views can always look elsewhere to do so.

Rob Gr

Re: no, just no.

And yet violence by right wing individuals and organisations seems to be reaching an apex at exactly the same time as they have been given a platform to voice their opinions. Allowing them a platform amplifies their voices, and they feel empowered to turn voice into action.

Such opinions are much less likely to be expressed privately, as most reasonable people would call them out.

Missing Semicolon Silver badge
Meh

Re: no, just no.

Ah, but, it's Common Carrier rules.

If they are filtering messages according to the content, then the whole "We're not responsible, Guv'ner, 'cos we just show stuff from other poeple" getout no longer applies. They seem to be attempting to do filtering where it makes the popcorn gallery shut up, but "not filter" when anyone attempts to pin any responsibility for the content on them.

bombastic bob Silver badge
Meh

Re: Global underepresented influencer strategic partner manager voice

"I should have thought you'd be glad to know that victimisation wasn't reserved solely for your group."

well, I happen to want EVERYONE to have more freedom. and I don't do the identity politics thing. In fact I think _MOST_ people don't do the identity politics thing. But there's a loud majority who do, and they end up making headlines...

bombastic bob Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: Global underepresented influencer strategic partner manager voice

OK - if you say 'no. just no' to letting EVERYONE say what they want, even if YOU do not like it, then who is to be the arbiter of what is 'hate speech' and what is NOT? And right now, that is Fa[e]cebook.

The only reasonable alternative is to stop being offended at everything, let people say what they want online, and STOP TRYING TO CONTROL EVERYONE.

'Hate speech' is what it is, and may or not actually BE "hate" depending on who the audience is. I think it's time for overly-sensitive people to just "let it go" and stop it with the SILENCING (read: being a CONTROL FREAK).

InNY

Re: Global underepresented influencer strategic partner manager voice

"and I don't do the identity politics thing."

"That sort of thing seems to happen to CONSERVATIVES a lot, too."

The capitalization, and the implied emphasis on political identity, is all yours' Bob...

Enjoy.

Jove Bronze badge

Re: Global underepresented influencer strategic partner manager voice

"Luckie contends that black people have had trouble discussing issues among themselves, because other people are reporting these discussions as hate speech, even though the conversations often don't violate Facebook terms of service. Accounts are suspended and content is removed, without notice or recourse, he claims."

It could also have been another case of an activist trying to organise a faction within the organisation along racial alignments. It does not need to be actively racist against others for it to be considered as such if it is being organised around specific racial groupings.

Unfortunately there is too much of this kind of racism within (certainly UK) organisations, frequently with the explicit backing of HR departments that are lacking in judgement.

Jove Bronze badge

Re: no, just no.

"Why not?

The way to challenge hate speach is to let everyone see what these morons are saying and openly condem those views, present different perspectives and actively work against the hate.

Banning hate speach doesn't eliminate it, just moves it underground where it can't be monitored and challenged. Thus creating a focussing effect for those who might buy into whatever is being said. No one to counter the views espoused.

Freedom of speech means, well, exactly that, even if that speech offends some people."

So that is free-speech (I guess that is what you mean - speach?) without limits?

You are assuming that the audience will always be indifferent to the exhortations of purveyors of "extremist" views. However, what happens when the audience is manipulated? Group think and action is relatively easy to manipulate, you only need to look at the alleged actions of Facebook, or the modern product of many of our Universities and Colleges to see that that is the case.

You may want to look back at some of the developments of the last Century.

LDS Silver badge

"If left alone to fester they'll eventually appear in public"

Yes, but it's better when they appear are just a few tens, and not hundred of thousands... one of the basic rule of propaganda is to find ways to reach as many people as possible in the simplest and most effective way.

Jove Bronze badge

Media Trigger Bait

He is a former Facebook employee, so serve him right, if there was a genuine case of mistreatment.

Probably another case of a disgruntled under-performer playing the race card.

sabroni Silver badge

Nice comment

probably another case of an angry racist trying to encourage discrimination and bigotry.

sabroni Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: Nice comment

To be fair, doing a good job too!

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

Re: Nice comment

And those two comments under "Nice comment", in a nutshell, describe the whole of American politics. two viewpoints bent on never seeing a middle.

Walter Bishop Silver badge
IT Angle

Re: Media Trigger Bait

@Jove "Probably another case of a disgruntled under-performer playing the race card."

I was going to say something like that, but fearing retaliation by the snowflakes resorted to mild satire instead, demonstrating yet again that the snowflakes have no sense of humor.

LDS Silver badge
Devil

"strategic partner manager for global influencers"

I would have been ashamed of having such a job, and would not tell anyone.

It looks to me he was part of the problem called "Facebook" - the very idea you "influence" people. We need a vaccine - and "kill" this kind of viruses before they spread.

"Influencers" are created and used to inculcate a "single mind" - doesn't he understand that systems like Facebook aren't designed at all to be fair and nice?

Commswonk Silver badge

Re: "strategic partner manager for global influencers"

I would have been ashamed of having such a job, and would not tell anyone.

Have an upvote. :)

It looks to me he was part of the problem called "Facebook" - the very idea you "influence" people.

Take Facebook out of the equation completely, and simply think "advertising industry"; see The Hidden Persuaders.

"Influencing" people is, I regret to say, all around us, and any hope of that changing is forlorn. The sad and worrying things are that too many poeple fail to see it for what it is.

LDS Silver badge

""Influencing" people is, I regret to say, all around us"

I agree, they always existed - but now their creating them on an industrial scale, at many different levels - and have a far broader reach then before - while being more subtle.

Thereby they became far more dangerous.

However, without the data points systems like Facebook (or YouTube) can obtain, and their reach, they couldn't work so well.

For the matter, in Europe Google is trying to use influencers against the new copyright directive - trying to persuade people that YouTube would die. If it will be effective, it will show how powerful this private companies became to drive people consensus.

Mycho Silver badge

Re: ""Influencing" people is, I regret to say, all around us"

Influencing people has been around for ever. Look up a guy named Jesus and what he managed to get people to do.

Not saying that it's necessarily a bad thing, mind you...

LDS Silver badge

Re: ""Influencing" people is, I regret to say, all around us"

There's a difference when you try to influence people earnestly because you feel it's right, and when you are paid to do so, and you don't matter if you have to lie blatantly and exploit people trust as long as the money or other benefits pour in.

Jesus was probably earnest - and what he got was a crucifixion - many of those who "followed" him weren't and aren't - and just exploit people as well, to get power and money.

Moreover, I have nothing against the advertising industry as long as it is transparent. Ads about products can be useful as long as the aren't (too much) deceiving. But influencers are a nasty twist - and the law should mandate them to prominently publish they receive money or other benefits to promote products or services.

Missing Semicolon Silver badge
Devil

Re: ""Influencing" people is, I regret to say, all around us"

Tony Blair was earnest....

Mycho Silver badge

Re: ""Influencing" people is, I regret to say, all around us"

Whoah!

Downvoted 4 times for saying Jesus wasn't a bad person! What's going on here?

Jove Bronze badge

Re: ""Influencing" people is, I regret to say, all around us"

"Influencing people has been around for ever. Look up a guy named Jesus and what he managed to get people to do."

I bet saying "Look up a guy named Muhammad and what he managed to get people to do." will get more down votes though.

Jove Bronze badge

Re: ""Influencing" people is, I regret to say, all around us"

"Tony Blair was earnest....,"

... he now also works for the Vatican - the arch manipulators of long standing that make FB look inept.

Dan 55 Silver badge
Devil

Facebook is a cesspit

Secret Facebook documents said to reveal it was warned about a potentially huge data issue involving Russia back in 2014

You'd think he'd want to at least be there in person to defend himself against this accusation when MPs from nine parliaments tell him to turn up, but...

'Frat boy billionaire' Mark Zuckerberg shamed by international lawmakers for not attending hearing

Give Facebook your data? Madness.

chivo243 Silver badge
Boffin

faecesbook is a cesspool

Let's take a stroll down memory lane here... Wasn't FB originally a way for white, rich over privileged shit heads to rank females at the same mostly white American Uni? Nothing has really changed at FB. Now for a Phil Collins anti-quip

Turn it off and turn it off again!

DavCrav Silver badge

"a strategic partner manager for global influencers, where he focused on underrepresented voices."

1) What kind of brain damage did I suffer where I am imagining a world where 'strategic partner for global influencers' is actually a job?

2) What exactly are underrepresented global influencers? I'm going to guess he means black Americans. Who I guess are vastly overrepresented in the global influencers list. There are about 40m black Americans in the world. So there should be, on Facebook, roughly four times as many Bangladeshi (as in, actually living in Bangladesh) influencers as black American ones. Anything else is, surely, discriminatory. Of course, white Americans are overrepresented even more, don't get me wrong, but the best way to correct this is to reduce the number of American influencers.

Actually, the best way to correct this is to reduce the number of influencers. To zero, preferably.

paulf Silver badge
Facepalm

The irony

FTA: "In the Twitter thread, the irony of a Facebook exec lamenting his loss of privacy did not go unnoticed. ®"

Surely there's a double irony that he posted his note on Facebook, looking at the link in the article: "On Tuesday this week, Mark Luckie posted a copy of the note, distributed internally on November 8, shortly before he left his job."

Surely if you're going to try and trash your former employer by publicising an internal message, you don't do it using the service provided by said former employer?

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

wow, just look at all the triggered closetted racists.

i bet you guys spend your evenings watching BBC cuckold content on pornhub. cry more. please.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing