Why Did Facebook Fire Palmer Luckey? It Had Something to Do With Trump

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-did-facebook-fire-a-top-executive-hint-it-had-something-to-do-with-trump-1541965245

by kyleblarson • 8 years ago

88 87 8 years ago

phren0logy• 8 years ago

I can’t read the whole article due to the pay wall, but it was my impression that his firing had less to do with the fact that he supported Trump than the ways he went about showing his support. For example, donating money to organizations that were pretty clearly dedicated to trolling and antagonizing using misinformation.

Waterluvian3• 8 years ago

Was it his money or Facebook corporate funds?

Any time I read stuff like this I imagine a mirror world where I'm employed in a hyper conservative tech industry, judged and scrutinized and maybe fired for donating time and money to progressive causes.

pen2l2• 8 years ago

Not the same thing.

Lucey was funding memes that brought out the worst in people, memes with blatant racist/sexist undertones.

And a lot of executives jobs now have some clause about personal character outside of work, as they very well should. Being a racist/sexist outside of work should be costly and it is.

JamisonM3• 8 years ago

But in this case you would also have to be imagining the world where you were donating to progressive causes that were also committed to disinformation campaigns and dishonest behaviour.

Unethical behaviour is unethical, even if it at its core a politically motivated act.

gisely• 8 years ago

In this mirror world that you imagine do you also imagine that these progressive causes you are donating time and money to are using your help to spread misinformation? Or do truth and lies get transposed in the mirror as well?

pgrote• 8 years ago

If you follow the techmeme link you can read it.

stochastic_monk• 8 years ago

According to this [0], it looks like disinformation campaigns, which is exactly what Facebook needs to not be doing. I’m not surprised he was fired for it.

[0] https://www.thedailybeast.com/palmer-luckey-the-facebook-nea...

claydavisss2• 8 years ago

why does Facebook have an obligation to define "disinformation"? This is thought policing and nothing more. If he had supported liberal platforms he would be celebrated

max_• 8 years ago

For the full article, see https://outline.com/asW8ja

claydavisss2• 8 years ago

so basically for holding views that weren't those of Sheryl Sandberg

randyrand• 8 years ago

I find it hard to believe anyone would have batted an eye if it was for Clinton.

People at facebook are very anti-Trump.

abootstrapper• 8 years ago

Which is ironic since Facebook got Trump elected.

eugeniub2• 8 years ago

You're right, it was about the donation to the Nimble America organization, not about his political beliefs. And this is according to the very WSJ article we're discussing. But the submitter changed the HN title to make it seem that it was over his political views.

danso7• 8 years ago

That was my assumption too, but the WSJ article claims that even after Luckey was found to have lied about it, they still did not accuse him of violating any internal policies.

Cyclone_2• 8 years ago

Curious what the legality of this sort of thing would be, can you really fire someone for political preference?

lwansbrough• 8 years ago

Canadian but I believe it comes down to whether or not your state has “at will” employment or not - which is basically: it’s my company so I can fire you for whatever I want. I don’t believe California is an at-will employement state.

Cyclone_2• 8 years ago

I think technically all states are "at will", some just have a few more protections than others do.

cperciva3• 8 years ago

“at will” employment [...] it’s my company so I can fire you for whatever I want

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that "at will" employment allows an employer to fire a worker for no reason (just like an employee can decide to quit without providing a reason) but not for any reason. In particular, you can't fire someone for being black, for being pregnant, for refusing to do something illegal, etc.

This is why there is common advice of "don't tell people why you're firing them" -- as soon as you give an explanation, there's a risk that your words could be twisted into implying that you fired them for a bad (i.e., illegal) reason rather than simply for no reason.

dmh2000• 8 years ago

officially it is at-will, but there are so many exceptions that it almost isn't.

paulcole2• 8 years ago

American but I believe California is an at-will employment state.

https://www.rocketlawyer.com/article/what-states-are-at-will...

cronix2• 8 years ago

As was I. Apparently it's not protected nationally, but it IS in California where FB is HQ'd.

Political Affiliation Discrimination occurs when an employee is treated adversely due to differing political membership or political views than his or her employers. Political Affiliation is not traditionally a protected class, but with politics so controversial, political affiliation discrimination is on the rise.
There are only three jurisdictions in the United States that explicitly bans political affiliation and activity discrimination, California, D.C., and New York. New York does not cover political affiliation discrimination, only political activity discrimination. Federal law discrimination law does not cover political affiliation or political activity. However, many states prohibit employers from influencing the votes of their employees. [1]

[1] https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-aff...

adrr• 8 years ago

Political preference isn't a protected class at the federal level. I don't know about the state level.

tinus_hn• 8 years ago

If he was fired for expressing this preference on the platform he works for, is that the same as firing someone for having a political preference?

nkurz• 8 years ago

In California, where Luckey was employed by Facebook, it is generally illegal. I think this article is a reasonable summary of the California specific law:

"Can I fire the Trump supporter who reports to me?"

In California, the answer is clear — the law expressly prohibits employers from forbidding an employee from participating in politics, or controlling or directing an employee’s political activities or affiliations. Employers are also barred from firing or threatening to fire an employee in order to coerce him or her into any particular course of political activity. (California Labor Code Sections 1101 & 1102.)

These provisions encompass and protect more than simply supporting a particular candidate or party. The California Supreme Court has decided the term “political activities” includes all activities that may indicate support for a particular candidate or a political cause. This broad definition of “political activities” protects California employees from discrimination based not only on which candidate the employee supports, but also on support for or involvement in the many social and political movements of today’s political landscape.

Employees may not be fired or otherwise disciplined for participating in a climate march or attending an Ann Coulter speech; nor for going to a “Black Lives Matter” protest or supporting a border wall between the United States and Mexico; nor for countless opinions and activities in between.

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/05/16/can-i-fi...

nabla94• 8 years ago

Executives from Facebook, Twitter Inc. and Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc., have had to answer questions from lawmakers about potential bias in their treatment of conservative viewpoints.

If the lawmakers accept refusing customers based on their sexuality, I don't think they can't object against "No Trump Supporters" into executive positions policy either. Executives represent the company in a way that normal workers don't.

There is obviously line somewhere in the sand, but it's different for different people in different issues.

Conservatives should not try to argue that that that kind of discrimination should not exist. They should argue on principles and map out principles.

linuxhansl2• 8 years ago

Personally I think both practices are equally bad - regardless of anybody's political leanings - and that one does not justify the other.

(I think that's what you're saying anyway, just wanted to add my $0.02)

nabla94• 8 years ago

regardless of anybody's political leanings

Are you sure? Start from the most extreme political positions and walk back from there.

muro• 8 years ago

So yours and your employer's political views now need to be in sync?

Edit: posted to wrong comment, should have been above.

nabla94• 8 years ago

No. That was not what I wrote.

In my opinion differing political opinions should be tolerated as much as possible.

nemothekid2• 8 years ago

The editorialized headline is strange. Luckey is not the first facebook figure to publicly support Trump - Thiel is. WSJ chooses to frame this as "FB is left learning, and they didn't like Luckey", but that doesn't explain why Thiel has been largely immune.

The more likely cause is, Luckey (aka NimbleRichMan) was known to fund facebook groups that spread disinformation, an issue that FB is struggling with majorly right now. It doesn't help your cause when one of your highest profile exec if pouring more fuel in the fire.

If he was really fired for supporting Trump I'd imagine there would be some legal grounds for Palmer to sue on. However, WSJ does a disservice here and I'm looking forward to when Cruz cites this article as evidence for his base that the coastal elite boogeyman is out to get them.

adamnemecek• 8 years ago

but that doesn't explain why Thiel has been largely immune.

He has more clout. Also I think he’s sold all his fb stock.

nemothekid2• 8 years ago

FWIW, he is still on the board. I don't think he has sold his stock.

diazon• 8 years ago

It looks like the same thing Mozilla did to Brendan Eich, fired after being caught donating to a conservative movement, so this is hardly a first.

RickJWagner5• 8 years ago

Absolutely chilling.

Think about Harvey Weinstein-- Hollywood super-mogul, pre-eminent power player, prominent supporter of ONE political party.

Weinstein was a vicious sexual predator for decades. He was able to operate because he used fear and intimidation, especially fear of employment prospects. Do you ever wonder why Hollywood is almost exclusively left-leaning? Why the awards ceremonies have only left-leaning outbursts?

It is easy to imagine the same thing happening in tech. This is not good, not good at all.

pmoriarty• 8 years ago

If Hollywood is so leftist, why are they such capitalists?

Why aren't Hollywood studios worker-owned cooperatives?

Why aren't Hollywood elites advocating for getting rid of private property and giving power to the workers, rather than buying up mansions, yachts, and private jets for themselves?

Private property and capitalism is alive and well in Hollywood, and both are about as anit-left as you can get.

RickJWagner5• 8 years ago

I agree with you, mostly.

All the items you cite do align more closely with the right side of the American political spectrum, not the left.

Yet the messaging that comes out of Hollywood is overwhelmingly leftist. You can't watch an awards show without seeing several 'spontaneous' outbursts against Republican politicians, in favor of left-leaning policies, etc.

Why is this? Why do these people look like typical Republicans but speak like rabid Democrats?

My theory (as explained above, and bolstered by testimony from Allen, Woods, etc.) is that money, job prospects, and awards are used as incentives to publicly tow the party line (without regard to the person's actual opinions.) We know these tactics were used to great avail in the Weinstein playbook. It's why none of his victims came forward-- they were mostly starlets that wanted to work.

Of course I'm not certain. Does anybody have a better theory for why those people seem to 'live' right-side, but 'shout out' left-side?

danso7• 8 years ago

Do you ever wonder why Hollywood is almost exclusively left-leaning? Why the awards ceremonies have only left-leaning outbursts?

OK I give up, why?

RickJWagner5• 8 years ago

Because job prospects are tied to taking the preferred political actions.

It's been stated by James Woods, Tim Allen, and others. If an actor or actress makes right-leaning political statements, their job prospects are diminished. Tim Allen said Hollywood is now like Germany in the 30s

It's the same methodology Weinstein used-- you want to work, you fall in line.

https://deadline.com/2017/03/tim-allen-says-being-conservati...

eugeniub2• 8 years ago

Mr. Luckey’s fallout with Facebook began in September 2016, when the Daily Beast revealed his $10,000 donation to NimbleAmerica, a pro-Trump group that paid for advertising mocking Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2016 election. At least one billboard paid for by the group featured a picture of Mrs. Clinton and the phrase “Too Big to Jail.”
In one post on a Reddit chain dedicated to supporting Mr. Trump, the author, called “NimbleRichMan,” said he was donating to the group so it could spread unflattering memes about Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Luckey’s donation and the perception he might be leading a pro-Trump online campaign ignited a firestorm.

So, contrary to the title of this HN submission, the firing was not because he supported Trump, but because he was donating to, and possibly running, a political organization dedicated to trolling people online — according to this WSJ article.

Then Mr. Luckey and his lawyer negotiated a payout of at least $100 million

Poor feller.

Kaveren3• 8 years ago

Employers should be able to fire employees for their political beliefs no matter what they are. It's not remotely on the same level as race or gender or anything of the like; political beliefs are chosen and based on ideology. Laws against these firings are a government overstep.

cronix2• 8 years ago

It's not remotely on the same level as race or gender or anything of the like
political beliefs are chosen and based on ideology

Aren't religious beliefs pretty darn similar to political ones, based on that?

wnoise2• 8 years ago

Yes, they are, which is as much as argument that religious beliefs are too protected as it is an argument that political beliefs are not protected enough.

d0gsg0w00f• 8 years ago

Who within the company makes that decision? What if a conservative white manager fires a liberal black employee citing that they were making other employees uncomfortable with their political diatribes?

Kaveren3• 8 years ago

That would be the employer's decision. If you are fired for these sorts of reasons, you should be more than welcome to tell your story to people. Perhaps it will hurt the company's business.

danso7• 8 years ago

Er...then the employee is fired, if the employer is in a state that has no protections for political speech at work. I don’t understand this question. Is it your belief that white managers never fire black employees?

TeMPOraL• 8 years ago

Absolutely not.

The threat of losing a job is one of the most powerful coercion mechanism in modern western society. For vast majority of people, it's not far from threatening a person and their family with bodily harm. If you allow for that, then people won't really be free to choose their political beliefs.

(Firings for politicking at work instead of actually working are another thing, though.)

political beliefs are chosen and based on ideology.

By both sides. Why should it be allowed to fire people based on ideology?

Kaveren3• 8 years ago

It's pretty far from threatening a person and their family with bodily harm. You are not entitled to be employed by any particular employer.

If someone is stuck in a single job and unable to get employed anywhere else, that's an entirely separate societal problem.

"By both sides."

I said as much in my original post.

"Why should it be allowed to fire people based on ideology?"

Because the relationship between employer-employee should always be voluntary and never compelled. If it's known that I want to expel all white (or black, fill in the blank) people from the country, and this is an incompatible view with the company, they should not be forced to continue the relationship. If I want to abolish the Constitution and force everyone to worship me by law, the employer should not be forced to continue this relationship. These are merely examples.

In reality if you're firing people for all but the most extreme political beliefs, you'll likely damage your business either directly or indirectly through public perception.

kopo• 8 years ago

Well this is Facebook. How much political content moves through their platform everyday?

Your comment makes sense if it is McDonalds or Nike or Wallmart. Their CEO's aren't being asked everyday by every govt on the planet what they are doing about disagreeable info.

ruskerdax• 8 years ago

Employers who aren't ruled over like slaves should be able to fire or hire employees for any reason, including race, gender, or political belief. Of course, it may benefit the public to know if an employer is hiring or firing based on bigotry, which is a much better "solution" than the resulting unintended consequences of government regulating this kind of discrimination.

cperciva3• 8 years ago

A buried lede:

Mr. Luckey has told people he did vote for Mr. Johnson, but only to avoid having his credibility questioned if he was asked about the issue under oath in unrelated litigation.

Surely you can't compel someone to testify under oath about their constitutionally-protected secret ballot?

cft• 8 years ago

Text without paywall:

https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/TDJNDN_2018111159...

wyclif2• 8 years ago

Why was this story flagged? As far as I can tell, the WSJ is the only news org that covered this story.

AJ007• 8 years ago

Politically and regulatorily it is not a good sign when both sides of the political spectrum are peddling the story that your company is a bad actor.

The irony is significant that while being hated and vilinized by the left, America’s adtech duopoly was assembled and appears to continue to be run by people who would largely identify as the liberal left.

danso7• 8 years ago

Interesting article. I had always assumed that Luckey was forced to resign because of his “NimbleRichMan” charade, a subterfuge so cringey and shady that it was r/the_donald’s own version of the Digg revolt [0], which to me would be grounds for firing because of all the FEC problems it could get him and Facebook into. And then he lied about not being NimbleRichMan [1], which would seem to seal the deal for firing. But the WSJ article says FB’s investigation afterward that Luckey did not violate any internal policies. It still makes more sense to me that they fired Luckey for being a reckless liability. But they had the chance to say so and apparently didn’t.

0. https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/535jkk/about_wh...

1. https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-palmer-luckey-oculus-rift...

ColanR• 8 years ago

This is a legitimate article from a good source about a major tech company. The only obvious reason for flagging is that it makes a conservative guy the victim of a liberal/progressive company. Why was it flagged?

tessi3r• 8 years ago

Ofc this got flagged...

tdurden• 8 years ago

I am curious why this was flagged?

DanBC• 8 years ago

I'm guessing for fucking about with the title or for being tediously political. The article has "Why Did Facebook Fire a Top Executive? Hint: It Had Something to Do With Trump".

wyclif2• 8 years ago

But if you posted the article without editing the title, as per HN guidelines, it's still gonna get flagged.

"Tediously political" is subjective. If the person fired had been a leftist, I doubt this story would have been flagged.

alphabettsy2• 8 years ago

They don’t seem to get into much of the other controversy about him. There’s an argument thhat this publicity also affected Oculus sales and public image.

The title is heavily editorialized which I suspect is a big reason this is flagged.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/business/oculus-palmer-lu... https://variety.com/2016/digital/news/oculus-backlash-palmer... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/how-your-oculus-...

dang• 8 years ago

The submitted title was "Facebook Fired Palmer Luckey Because He Supported Trump". That indeed broke the site guidelines, which ask: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."

Submitters: Changes like that have strong degrading effects on discussion, so please don't do that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

drivingmenuts• 8 years ago

I thought it was because he was financing trolls and when that got out, it was affecting Oculus.

Yetanfou• 8 years ago

Remember the WordPerfect company? Based in Orem, Utah, founded by two Mormons (Bruce Bastian and Alan Ashton).

Imagine the uproar if that company had fired people just because they happened to attend another church. Quite a lot more uproar in fact than that which is now caused by Facebook firing someone because he happens to attend a different political party. It does not take much imagination to realise the uproar would also have been markedly higher if the stakes were turned in that a 'right-wing' company had fired someone because of his 'left-wing' tendencies.

All animals are equal or so it is said, but some are a lot more noisy than the others.

danso7• 8 years ago

It would be outright illegal for them to fire people for attending a different church. Religion is explicitly protected by federal employment law: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

Why Did Facebook Fire Palmer Luckey? It Had Something to Do With Trump

Related Stories