Meta’s decision to specifically allow users to call LGBTQ+ people “mentally ill” has sparked widespread backlash at the company.
Meta’s decision to specifically allow users to call LGBTQ+ people “mentally ill” has sparked widespread backlash at the company.
Some could afford to leave, but we should encourage people to try and change things where they work. Abandoning or avoiding it isn’t the only way. I read your comment to suggest that they shouldn’t complain or try to get the policy changed back. It seems you were suggesting they should leave, even if they can’t get an equivalent job. Does that sound right?
Most of the technical staff isn’t getting ahead at Meta. Any engineer that stays is saying it’s okay to call LGBTQIA+ mentally ill. There are a few top engineers at the absolute pinnacle of their specialization in R&D I wouldn’t apply that to; they have to decide if their science is more important than common human decency.
For non-technical staff, the question is a lot harder. Recruiters, for example, can have a much easier life at Meta than elsewhere. Operations is another area where you can get way better benefits. Everyone has a price on their morals and we can’t judge someone taking that shot too much.
Here’s a different question: at what point do you think a company has gone too far? Enron? SAC Capital? The Weinstein Company? None of these places said LGBTQIA+ was a mental illness; none of them are places I would work. Meta has already actively enabled genocide (if you don’t believe in Uyghurs or Tibet, Myanmar was very explicit). They have actively built policies to exploit not just adults but children too while baking that into their ethos. Now it’s okay to say my gay peers are suffering from a mental illness. Is there a line too far?