> In a statement, Meta spokesman Dave Arnold said the conditions that led to the layoffs are “well known and reverberating throughout the industry.”
Sad that you can get away with a statement like that.
Sad that you can get away with a statement like that.
I guess that's what he meant?
People love to avert responsibility and many seem to be loving the idea that Zuck somehow was deceived into over hiring by ruthless middle managers but anyone who worked in that place knew Mark is a control freak and absolutely everything in the place was top down.
Top management is being paid too dollars for being responsible given how easy it is to create a narrative of a runaway middle manager situation, it seems to me that most people don’t understand the meta game in the US
The meta game isn’t work hard and make a lot of money. It’s not even about money - it’s about no responsibility and the power to do anything that comes with it.
The US system has created a world where consequences are for normal people. Elon at the time could molest all of Austin Texas, spend the same coin he spent on the flight attendant and still have more money than 99.9% of Americans.
Almost everything is legal for a fee. All top level lieutenants at FB got Exceeds or Greatly Exceeds for their loyalty, everyone else got fired. And even HN loves to propagate the insane idea that the cause of the fuckup was rooted in Middle Management and by ruthless employees who sat around all day.
Do you have the same reaction whenever an organisation has a scandal and they ‘don’t want to comment on an ongoing investigation’?
> Do you have the same reaction whenever an organisation has a scandal and they ‘don’t want to comment on an ongoing investigation’?
Yeah, kinda
Likewise, when a tech C-suite exec makes vague references to macroeconomic conditions, a reputable journalist would include a sentence like "Although rising interest rates have dampened venture capitalist investment into new startups hurting the growth and creation of billion-dollar valuations, the Big Tech companies including Meta have demonstrated continued growth and record profits quarter after quarter, yet still chose to undertake a policy of layoffs self-referencing each other as justification."
There's more to making an convincing argument than putting two contrasting things side by side and letting the audience assume it proves something.
What mechanism would you say should prevent someone from making a statement like that?