[unityByFreedom]

Thing is, by banning a certain viewpoint on an open platform, you are promoting another viewpoint.

Those who want to be vocal about this right now are largely opposed to the court's decision. So this does not appear to be a neutral decision.

[stjohnswarts]

No this is the most neutral position they could possibly take. I'm not sure where you're getting your logic from. I go to work to work, not argue politics. I suspect you and I are on the same side of this argument given this is a tech forum, but I don't to hear it at work. I want to hear it at a protest, over a beer, etc. I go to work to program no to project my politics, and I expect others to do the same. I don't want to discuss or hear about your politics, religion, sexual preferences, kids, or anything else at work and I promise you I won't subject you to mine.

[unityByFreedom]

Neutral would be doing nothing and letting people work out their frustrations without an intermediary deciding for them. But that's not Facebook's culture, internal or external.

In a different world, managers could still have discussions with employees about hitting their work targets without needing to tell them what to talk about with other employees.

You don't need to participate in these discussions or read them. I'd say it's fine to relegate such discussion to certain channels within the company. But banning it altogether is taking a position.

Not to mention the fact that Facebook influences politics every day. Blocking employees from having a discussion about that, which is very work-related, is authoritarian.

Zuck is still running the Thiel playbook here.

[CodeBeater]

Think about it from Meta's HR perspective. If someone reads something in their internal platform that causes them substantial mental anguish, then it's Meta's problem.

Whereas if they listen to that same opinion by overhearing two co-workers talk, then it's not their problem anymore.

This isn't Meta taking a stance on the actual abortion issue, it's just them being pragmatic.