Ten years ago, in April, Brendan Eich, who had JavaScript and co-founded Mozilla, left Mozilla. X: Previous author Andrew Beck wrote. The article was published in First Things, a conservative Christian magazine in the United States.
"Eich has taken some private action based on his Christian beliefs," Beck said. This became the reason why he was 'kicked out' of Mozilla, which he had founded. ”
In fact, Eich's departure from Mozilla was a simple reason for his donation in support of California's Bill 8 "banning gay marriages", which was then proposed by California, and then this "private action" was also considered by the public to be a violation of LGBTQ+ rights, which also directly caused Eich's departure.
This discussion around corporate responsibility and inclusivity made another splash in April, a decade later.
Recalling the eventful years of the past, the founder spoke up
This article for Eich's "reversal" of the case has attracted the attention of many people, but at that time, the discussion about human rights and respect, the struggle between conservatives and radicals, after a decade of fermentation, has turned into what the person and his circle of friends should do in the current sharp Internet discussion environment.
"Protect your friends. "This is, of course, a responsibility that many people consider incumbent upon us. Among these "many" is John Carmack, one of the founders of Oculus.
He retweeted the article and said, "I regret not doing more to protect Palmer Luckey. We're in different geographies, and I'm not in politics, but when I realized that the 'witch hunt' against Luckey was going on, I should have been more explicit and open about opposing it. “
It also makes people wonder why Palmer Lachey left Facebook (it didn't change its name back then) and what the so-called "witch hunt" against Lachey actually meant.
To put it simply, Palmer Lachey was reported in 2016 to donate to a political organization called "Nimble America," which supported Trump's campaign through internet advertising and social media.
At the time, Palmer's actions sparked controversy because Nimble America was once considered a far-right group, and the far-right views that promoted traditional values, nationalism, and restrictions on immigration were at odds with the liberal and progressive tendencies that prevailed within tech companies.
In 2017, some time after the incident, Palmer voluntarily left Facebook.
Now, 7 years later, the matter has been brought up again, and the person concerned, Palmer Lachey, has also joined the "discussion".
Clever internal pressure from famous enterprises, Palmer left the scene because of "Sichuan"?
Palmer first retweeted the support that Carmack had provided him internally and thanked him.
He then retweeted a tweet by Andrew "Boz" Bosworth (Meta CTO, who heads Reality Labs) saying he didn't know Palmer's political stance, but defended Palmer during Meta's internal witch hunt.
Palmer's rhetoric was more intense, saying "Boz defended me, and the real (expletive) was a joke." ”
"Now I have to go down, [Boz] is a great story, but you can't be trusted," he said. ”
"You retweeted the post that I donate to white supremacists, and you retweeted it that said, 'Anyone who supports Trump because they don't like Hillary Clinton is bad.'" Now I'm openly telling everybody that my departure has nothing to do with politics, which is very contradictory to our internal communication, like pointing to the sky and saying it's green. “
"It's also confusing that you tell people that I'm not under any pressure and that I'm free to express my political views and electoral intentions, which is also ridiculous. Can I make my original statement? That statement was categorically rejected because of the negative remarks made about Hillary Clinton. Or is even that statement still a work output (Palmer is non-compete)?"
"Maybe you're lying, maybe you're just ignorant and willing to endorse someone else's lie. But if you're not even there, don't try to play the apolitical hero here. ”
Boz also responded: "I'm not saying I don't have a political position, I mean while it's not clear what your political position is, I believe we have different positions. This statement was also considered a lie and a contradiction by many of Palmer's supporters.
Palmer, on the other hand, said: "If there's any evidence for anything about a topic that I was fired on a topic that had nothing to do with politics, then you can put it out and let everyone judge for themselves." As the CTO of a billion-dollar company like Meta, you still have this right. Say, just one word is enough. His remarks implied that his departure was still political.
This is also evidenced by Carmack's post, saying: "I did not attend the meeting and cannot confirm that the internal top management fired Palmer for political reasons, but I do believe that this is a response to internal staff putting pressure on the top." But I don't think Zuckerberg has a strong personal opinion on that. “
Here, Carmack introduces the presence of a third party, some employees in Facebook who oppose Palmer's position. On Timeline X, 87870 also discovers a long memory from a former employee.
One of the employees mentioned that at the 2016 town hall meeting, Facebook executives were asked about the fact that it was impossible to feel safe working in a company with someone as politically leaning as Palmer.
He also said he was accused of being worse than a "rapist" for voting for Johnson over Hillary/Trump, and was even "more sensitive" in private conversations from top officials.
Obviously, the key to the discussion between the two sides, or the three parties, is that in order to deal with Palmer's donation, Facebook held an internal meeting, and this meeting did not have Boz or Carmack, indicating that it was a very high-level and private meeting. Judging by the content, Zuckerberg was also present. The disagreement between the two sides is whether there are any anti-liberal tendencies within the conference and Facbook to interfere with Palmer's political freedom. In other words, was Palmer "kicked out" of Facbook because of his support for Trump or his revealing right-wing leanings?
The wall has ears to know the whole picture, and the world's famous enterprises need to be "free"
When everything is a mystery, Amanda Watson, a former Oculus employee who developed Air Link, posted:
"At the end of the day, it's all because of that small, closed-door meeting with no accreditation, and no one in the room had much incentive to come out and make an accurate statement. ”
“...... Except for me, because it just so happened that I was working late, and it happened that the walls in the office were not so soundproof. ”
She didn't elaborate on what she heard by the "less soundproof" wall, but only expressed her admiration for Carmack's uprightness. At the same time, she added: "If anyone in the room feels that they have the ability to tamper with the story and create a good image of themselves to the public, it is a big mistake." Self-reflection is a good thing, and I'm likely to outlive all of you here. “
This passage is a very high-level statement, full of self-preservation and allusion. Obviously, we can see from Watson's statement that the content of the closed-door meeting is likely to be contrary to the conclusion given at the time, that is, it is contrary to Facebook's conclusion that "it denied sweeping Palmer out of the house for political reasons", which led to Carmack's assertions, and thus some people tried to tamper with the content and beautify themselves.
At the same time, she is also clever in not giving details, she retains the memory of the truth, emphasizing that she will continue to pay attention to this matter in the future and the possibility of "reviewing" it at any time.
The battle came to an end in Watson's slightly threatening "testimony." What seems to be Palmer and Carmack's seven-year belated rebellion against the political ilfreedom of Facebook's internal mobility at that time is actually a long-standing struggle between left and right, progressive and conservative, homeland and freedom in American society.
It is true that since it is possible to vote, it should be allowed to happen, rather than having to ask ordinary employees to talk privately.
But at the same time, as a cutting-edge technology developer with an influential senior person, influence and ability to move the world forward, there is nothing wrong with paying attention to your own behavior.
But this is always a "struggle at the bottom", and Zuckerberg, who is really at the helm of Meta, as Carmack said, does not have a strong personal opinion on this.