"I can easily suggest that any political feature on Facebook and just as similarly say it has the the approval of "coming from" Facebook."
If you're referring to ads, then no. Those are not 'political features' because they have nothing to do with Facebook and everyone knows that, just as they know ads you see on TV have nothing to do with the network. Now if CBS execs were having public lunch every day with Donald Trump and appearing at his rallies, well, then that's going to be viewed as something else entirely.
"or to have a position on LGBT Rights? (I do)"
Facebook is not telling you to have a position on LGBT rights and nobody seeing ads on Facebook believes those ads are representative of Facebooks views.
"Do you see how easy it is to flip your conceit right on its head with such an absolutist demand?"
There's nothing either conceited or absolutist about my 'demand', in fact, it's fairly standard across most major corporations.
If you're an exec and you start appearing at Trump rallies, and it might upset/offend your customers, you're going to get fired for cause right away. And rightly so. Nobody cares that much who you make donations to, or are friends with, or have dinner with. But public endorsements are that: public endorsements, and if you represent the company, then you have to check your behaviour.
The exec at Facebook must be thick to think that a national appearance in front of millions during one of the biggest political nuclear wars of our generation was going to be 'ok'.
> If you're an exec and you start appearing at Trump rallies, and it might upset/offend your customers, you're going to get fired for cause right away.
Well apparently Facebook disagrees with you, and they are perfectly happy to have execs do politically controversial things.
It is Facebook's right to be as political as they want, and apparently their choice is to allow their employees to do exactly any of these things.
I'd also like to point out that in the state of California, firing employees because of out of work political activities is literally illegal.
So you should be very careful about suggesting that companies engage in what may be illegal discrimination in the state of California. (Perhaps the rules are a bit different for execs, but still, be careful with your line of thinking)
Of course Facebook can allow it's staff to do this, nobody is doubting that.
But Facebook is justifying post ad hoc here, Sandberg said it was obviously a mistake. He would have been told 'no' if he were to have asked. Which is probably why he didn't.
See my comment above about 'California's laws'.
You're misunderstanding the roles of executives if you think they are going to appear in highly controversial political ads and then get some kind of legal protection, frankly, the same would apply for employees. Legal protection doesn't matter anyhow - if you're going to bring harm to the company, why would the company employ you? This is not about 'voting' or 'donations' it's about 'public support / appearances' etc.. Executives are normally not this out of touch.
Go ahead and appear in an aggressive NRA TV ad imploring that 'all teachers should be armed' and see how long you last at your job. You'll be out right away, one way or another, even as an employee.
So again, nobody cares about voting, or donations, or even canvasing or merely attending rallies or whatever, but public participation i.e. TV sports, or major social media presence on some controversial issue is out of bounds, and if it brings harm to your company then you need to chose between being on that team, or your political activities.
If you're an exec and you start appearing at Trump rallies, and it might upset/offend your customers, you're going to get fired for cause right away.
Except in California, where Facebook operates you would be taken to court quick fast and in a headspinning hurry for firing someone for appearing at a Trump rally. So for the context of this discussion, FB and how their executives seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths here, you seem to be effectively asking Facebook to break the law.
When an executives public appearances cause damage to the company they will be fired.
First - those laws are to protect individuals from attending political rallies.
As I said - merely attending a rally is not a big deal. But an an executive appearing at a rally, on stage, making political claims? That's a different world of participation.
Second - those regs are to protect employees from regular political participation. Not public agitation, moreover, executives are in a completely different category.
Executives generally are not completely stupid, and are not completely out of touch, and so they generally do not do public things which are going to get them in trouble. Now CEO's may take a risk an do something for attention one way or another, like Elon Musk, but political rallies and speeches are altogether another territory.
How many current CEO's and Executives do you see giving speeches at political rallies? Basically none. Why is this you might wonder?
Second - those regs are to protect employees from regular political participation. Not public agitation, moreover, executives are in a completely different category.
California state law seems to disagree.
CHAPTER 5. Political Affiliations [1101 - 1106]1101.
No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:[...](b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.
I mean that seems pretty cut and dry to me, Kaplan's actions seem pretty objectively covered here. It doesn't make exception for executives, it doesn't specify who is or isn't covered (except for section 1106 which has very specific applications of chapter 1102 governing public emplyoees), it doesn't say what the merit of their political activity needs to be, it doesn't say anything about 'public agitation', nor does any portion of Chapter 5 s But IANAL.
I'd be more than willing to read any case law you have that should refute this.
But an an executive appearing at a rally, on stage, making political claims?
Perhaps I missed something: what claims did Mr. Kaplan make at the confirmation hearing or about the hearing that you claim are political? I'd like to read a source of any statements he's made that you refer to here.
The coverage I've read indicates (and if you have something that suggests he made actual statements about Kavanaugh's confirmation, the committee process, or the allegations against him I would implore you to share it, if you'd be so kind) that he was seen in attendance at the hearings. Anything else is speculation, conjecture and supposition and makes for a poor argument for why Kaplan should not be allowed to attend the confirmation of a personal friend to the Supreme Court.
Are you suggesting that his attendance at these hearings constitutes a political 'claim'?
If you're referring to ads, then no. Those are not 'political features' because they have nothing to do with Facebook and everyone knows that, just as they know ads you see on TV have nothing to do with the network. Now if CBS execs were having public lunch every day with Donald Trump and appearing at his rallies, well, then that's going to be viewed as something else entirely.
"or to have a position on LGBT Rights? (I do)"
Facebook is not telling you to have a position on LGBT rights and nobody seeing ads on Facebook believes those ads are representative of Facebooks views.
"Do you see how easy it is to flip your conceit right on its head with such an absolutist demand?"
There's nothing either conceited or absolutist about my 'demand', in fact, it's fairly standard across most major corporations.
If you're an exec and you start appearing at Trump rallies, and it might upset/offend your customers, you're going to get fired for cause right away. And rightly so. Nobody cares that much who you make donations to, or are friends with, or have dinner with. But public endorsements are that: public endorsements, and if you represent the company, then you have to check your behaviour.
The exec at Facebook must be thick to think that a national appearance in front of millions during one of the biggest political nuclear wars of our generation was going to be 'ok'.