It's unfortunate, but I've seen it happen a lot at companies like this, from what I've spoken about privately.
The worst part is those I speak to have very modest views, good intentions, and have put thought into it. But they're terrified of ever speaking up at the workplace for fear of what those that are most radicalized might try in response.
It's difficult to see this article from that perspective given the clear mendacity and sleight of hand at play from Zuckerberg.
It's not like a Facebook feed is the deterministic result of a given user's subscriptions to friends and businesses, as if Facebook were a kind of user-friendly clone of a FOSS mailing list. Facebook engineers the contents of the feed in a way that is typically inscrutable to the user, and often harmful-- driving division and filter bubbles in order to keep up engagement. It's democratic in exactly the same way that Las Vegas would be democratic if you removed every single regulation on the gambling industry there.
So I'm perfectly happy to concede that even in a system designed with dark patterns to eat as much users' attention as possible-- well past the scant value they receive from using that system-- it'd be even worse to censor the POTUS account. But I highly doubt that's the kind of reasoned defense you're talking about. Any Facebook employee uttering that knows the next question coming is why they work for a company that employs so many dark patterns to generate so much anger and misinformation among its userbase.
In some ways this seems endemic to all organizations with >1000 or so people. It's crazy the extent that white nationalist orgs have infiltrated Law Enforcement/US military.
That being said, in many ways companies/organizations are simply biased samples of the cultural milieu, so I'm not sure there is an easy company-level policy for changing this. Given the Banjo/Clearview.ai KKK/alt-right stuff, the fear of radicalized tech employees is definitely a matter of real concern, but it's definitely a hard problem.
I'm agreeing with the parent comment about the chilling effect that radical political groups can have on moderate dissent. White Nationalism's relationship with Law Enforcement/military is pretty well documented, and is very clearly under the umbrella of radical political movements. But if that's causing confusion, I used that as an explicit example of the phenomena the parent comment was describing.
I am curious by what you mean by "well, that's the opposite of the case here." What is in your opinion the opposite of White Nationalism on the radical spectrum?
The worst part is those I speak to have very modest views, good intentions, and have put thought into it. But they're terrified of ever speaking up at the workplace for fear of what those that are most radicalized might try in response.