[corporatehobo]

The fact that FB has not banned political ads is pretty shocking and absolutely related to this topic.

Twitter managed to do it, but FB continues to allow political parties to spread misinformation via the algorithm, and FB profits from it.

So essentially VP of Integrity, your salary is paid for in part by the spread of misinformation. Until you at least ban political ads your integrity is non-existent.

[Zandikar]

Facebook having a "VP of Integrity" is laughable. They must have workshopped it and discovered "Minister of Truth" was a bit too on the nose.

[srj]

Why is that laughable? If the company wants to be receptive to its critics isn't it reasonable for them to create such a role?

[gisely]

But of course! Every company should have a VP of Integrity, especially Facebook. Creating the impression of trustworthiness while profiting from lies is important at any company. At Facebook it’s the core business.

[dredmorbius]

Fcebook's record to date is such that it has all but no credibility on this account. This gives it virtually no room for effective action.

Partners have walked from billions of dollars in shares, its former concience, Alex Stamos, quit after being repeatedly blocked, stymied, subverted, undermined, or backstabbed. And the very label "VP of Integrity" reads as so perfectly Orwellian and ironic that the position negates itself.

Without an ability to fully rope in Zuck directly it is every bit as toothless as it sounds.

[blaser-waffle]

Being receptive and responsive to critics is a function of marketing. And that's what this is -- marketing.

Further more just because the role exists doesn't mean it matters. My Org has all sorts of diversity and sustainability managers, and their relevance ends the moment business decisions come into play.

[tmalsburg2]

Integrity should be woven into the fabric of a company's culture. It can't possibly be a role. Making it a role looks like window-dressing and effectively an empty gesture.