[spacexsucks]

Policy affects daily life. A stable daily life leads to a productive worker. Wanting stable work but not doing anything to support the workers life is the biggest most capitalistic thing too. Heartless and inhumane

[nso95]

Arguing about it on Slack isn't going to fix any of it though

[JKCalhoun]

It's venting. It's bonding with coworkers who also feel their world is collapsing.

Hard to focus on work, talk about the preso when, for example, people are storming our Capitol.

[yabatopia]

Venting doesn't work: https://slate.com/technology/2022/03/venting-makes-you-feel-... .

HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30601594 .

[stormcode]

It sure works for me.

[spoils19]

Did you even read the article? It doesn't work.

[Thorrez]

I don't think the venting will be beneficial if it ends up in a debate.

Talking about abortion will be more likely to stir up a debate than talking about the storming of the Capitol.

[drewcoo]

It depends on what "fix" means. It could get people more informed, involved, etc.

Banning political speech is a great step toward convincing employees to unionize, so I applaud Meta for this, though.

[snidane]

The company doesn't have the power to change politics like that, so there is no point in getting the company involved or pick sides. The only neutral solution is to ban political discussions in the workplace, same as it should be in schools. Any other way leads to a psychologically unsafe environment to work at, which definitely doesn't lead to a stable daily life and thus a productive worker.

[genocidicbunny]

A company like Meta absolutely has the power to weigh in on the politics. It wouldn't be pretty and would get a lot of blowback, but they can absolutely affect the politics. They could ban any anti-abortion messaging, they could promote pro-choice viewpoints, they could block proponents of the recent decision. They could change their algorithms to manipulate people's feeds in any which way -- for example, show a pro-lifer only pro-choice topics. They could do the complete opposite of that too. If they wanted to, they could absolutely shut down one side of the debate to the benefit of the other.

[woodruffw]

Meta doesn’t have the power to change politics? Hasn’t the last two years of Section 230 handwringing focused squarely on their outsized influence over political discourse?

[jen20]

Companies absolutely have the power to change this: with their donations. There is a reason that “Citizens United” is such a drag on humanity.

[stormcode]

You're saying Meta doesn't have the power to change politics? Where have you been since 2016.

[drewcoo]

> The company doesn't have the power to change politics like that,

Then tell them to stop lobbying. Period.

[panaceaeaea]

> Wanting stable work but not doing anything to support the workers life is the biggest most capitalistic thing too.

I think that companies can fight the recent decision without allowing employees to get in arguments with one another and be at each others throats over such a polarizing issue.

Not allowing people to proselytize at work would likely make it more stable. It's sort of like in ancient Persia where they didn't allow missionaries: because they cause unnecessary friction