Non trouvé

Amazon and Meta reduce diversity programs

~ Michael 💎 🏅 · 2025-01-13T09:47:46.216452Z

•Amazon $AMZN: Das Unternehmen stoppt einige seiner Programme für Diversität und Inklusion, berichtet Bloomberg. •Meta $META: Mark Zuckerbergs Unternehmen beendet laut Axios sofort mehrere wichtige Initiativen im Bereich Diversity, Equity und Inclusion (DEI). Grafik: Grok 2 by 𝕏

Timur@Timur94

1Sem.

It's about time to stop all this madness

•

101

•

Privatier@c05

1Sem.

@Timur94 Get your bathrobe ready for the house search

•

7

•

C.B.@Finanzgeograph

1Sem.

@Timur94 It's true that giving everyone as equal a chance as possible, not discriminating against and marginalizing anyone, not letting people post every insult, hate message and made-up nonsense on the internet is pure madness. It's about time that sincere and true people like Trump, Höcke, Putin and Musk spread their true image of humanity. That will really improve people's lives.

•

19

•

Ricola@Roccola601

1Sem.

@Timur94 Has it affected your life that much? 🙄

•

4

•

Daxdaniel@Daxdaniel

1Sem.

@Finanzgeograph The DEI programs are not about the content that can be shared on platforms but, for example, about recruitment processes in which in future no one will be given an advantage based on their gender or sexual orientation in order to compensate for a supposed disadvantage elsewhere.
As a shareholder of Meta and Amazon, I welcome the fact that in future more attention will be paid to performance and professional fit than to quotas and how pigmented people's skin is and what they have between their legs.

•

6

•

Malte@Malte123

1Sem.

@Daxdaniel Exactly.
I think the idea of fighting racism by paying more attention to origin, gender and skin color, e.g. through quotas, is absolutely brilliant.
It's like fighting fire with fire🤣

•

4

•

Finanzaristokrat@Finanzaristokrat

5J

@Malte123 🤦‍♂️

••

Finanzaristokrat@Finanzaristokrat

5J

@Timur94 Are you so affected and restricted by it?

•

1

•

Singulus@Singulus

5J

@Finanzgeograph Thank you, I agree with you 100%! We will perhaps wish we had done something for our democracy in good time 🤕.

•

2

•

Lorena@Lorena

1Sem.

Sad.
You can see the direction that is being taken.

•

25

•

Oleg@ScorpionfromBW

1Sem.

@Lorena Why? What doesn't suit you? Biologically speaking, there are only women and men. Everything else is a stupid ideology demanded by a minority of less than 0.1%

•

13

•

finanzperpetuum@finanzperpetuum

1Sem.

@ScorpionfromBW Is that the only thing you can think of?

"Diversity in business refers to the variety of people working in an organization and encompasses a wide range of differences in gender, age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, education, experience, skills and background."

"Inclusion in the world of work means that everyone has access to interesting jobs, can contribute equally and is promoted. To achieve this, it is not only important to promote diversity in the company, but also to treat colleagues with disabilities correctly in the workplace."

•

10

•

Giuse@Coyote980

1Sem.

@finanzperpetuum wrong, I don't think anyone has anything against that ? But would you as a boss hire a tree, a stop sign or a canary bird ? This shit has to stop .... who am I ?
Human and done ....and color origin ethnicity doesn't matter ....man / woman too of course

•

8

•

Staatsmann@Staatsmann

1Sem.

@Coyote980 However, diversity programs only have a subsidiary connection with the topic of gender. Instead, they are particularly concerned with the integration of marginalized groups into the labour market.

e.g. single parents, people with a migration background, former members of the armed forces, career changers, asylum seekers, the disabled, etc.

Amazon, for example, has special programs to finance school-leaving qualifications and the corresponding education for people without a school education at the company's expense.
Or to catch up on training.

Apple is committed to offering single parents flexible working hours so that they can earn their own money instead of being dependent on the state.

Even Microsoft offers language courses for employees whose first language is not English in order to improve their chances in society and in the company.

Not to mention many other measures.
We always talk about integrating everyone into the labor market and forget about structural disadvantages. But if companies take matters into their own hands without waiting for laws, quotas or pressure from governments, is it wrong?

•

9

•

Oleg@ScorpionfromBW

1Sem.

@Lorena https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/plus255085432/Sexuelle-Gewalt-Mehrere-Uebergriffe-von-Trans-Frauen-auf-weibliche-Haeftlinge-in-Gefaengnissen.html

I hope you don't want to work in these facilities

I'm only concerned with this transgender garbage. I didn't bring up anything else because I don't feel like discussing it

••

Giuse@Coyote980

1Sem.

@Staatsmann yes I think you misunderstood me....😀 You have to support weak people...but not the "stupid" ones ☝🏽wenn if someone wants to be a tree, he should stand in the park and be quiet...this gendering should/must also stop...

•

1

•

Staatsmann@Staatsmann

1Sem.

@Coyote980 It's more likely that you don't understand what diversity and inclusion programs as a whole stand for, but simply want to make it clear what you think of gendering or other gender identities.

At this point in these programs, this is only an extremely small point that is considered "in passing".
First and foremost, it's about the things mentioned above, which you can usually read about at the companies.

•

6

•

Metis@Metis

1Sem.

@ScorpionfromBW Do you know how many unreported assaults there are by men on women in companies? Sexual violence, verbal violence, physical violence? How often male superiors and bosses take advantage of their position of power over their female subordinates?

Being trans has almost nothing to do with assaults directly. There are assaults by men on women, by women on men and everything in between.
We're talking about less than 0.5% of the population for transsexuals. In contrast to 51% of men. But strangely enough, no one rails against men, even though statistically they are the biggest source of assaults of all kinds.

•

7

•

Lorena@Lorena

1Sem.

@Staatsmann @Metis sometimes I lose hope in comment columns like this, but then you come along and simply cancel out every argument with proper justification, oh I love it ❤️

•

7

•

Lorena@Lorena

1Sem.

@ScorpionfromBW phew kind of funny that the topic of violence against women only comes up when you want to distract from the actual problem and the cause....Spoiler: they are not transgender people 😂

•

5

•

Voir toutes les 5 autres réponses

Mister_ultra@Mister_ultra

1Sem.

Fortunately!
My promotion in the Group failed because a minimum quota of women was promised and this KPI is relevant to bonuses for the entire management.

My promotion would therefore not only be detrimental to the KPI, but also to the bonus payment for the entire management team.
This means that I and all my male colleagues will not be able to progress for the next few years.

All this nonsense should be abolished. So for me, unfortunately, it means looking for a new employer.

•

20

•

Epi@Epi

1Sem.

@Mister_ultra I can agree with you on that.
As long as the shape of the sexual organs determines the filling of positions, companies are harming themselves.

But there is a possible hack of the system: simply refer to yourself as a woman in the documents and reject any doubts or queries as discriminatory. The system doesn't react well to this and the managers can tick their boxes. 😬

•

7

•

Mister_ultra@Mister_ultra

1Sem.

@Epi sad but true 😂

Since you can now change gender several times without any problems, you could theoretically simply switch back to the biological, correct gender after the promotion 😂

•

4

•

Epi@Epi

1Sem.

@Mister_ultra Why only in theory? Just do it! Up or out. 😅

•

3

•

Metis@Metis

1Sem.

@Mister_ultra And how many women do you think didn't get ahead in previous decades because less qualified men were preferred to them?

I don't think quotas are the most intelligent solution for more equality in the workplace, but very often you have to force such opportunities until people realize that a lot of potential is lost because decisions are often not based on qualifications.

•

6

•

Mister_ultra@Mister_ultra

1Sem.

@Metis is quite correct. But I personally am relatively uninterested.

I have no influence on what happened in past decades and centuries.

Because it was wrong back then, the other person has to be punished now?

That neither helps the disadvantaged women back then nor harms the men today.

@Epi But please keep my pronoun "he" and I would like to continue to be addressed as Mr. 😂

•

4

•

Metis@Metis

1Sem.

@Mister_ultra But do you think anything would change in the thinking of the "old bosses" if they weren't forced to take women into account? I'm not saying that the quota is the most intelligent solution.

•

3

•

Mister_ultra@Mister_ultra

1Sem.

@MetisEs There are enough discussions about this. On the one hand, the arguments that women have no chance without a quota. On the other hand, the arguments that the quota means that every woman (whether qualified or not) is perceived as a quota woman who only got the job thanks to the quota and not her qualifications.

However, when I personally see and experience that promotions are not based on qualifications but on gender (preferably with a migration background), then this is clearly the wrong instrument. Solving past discrimination by discriminating in the other direction cannot be a solution.

•

3

•

Moritz@leveragegrinding

1Sem.

@Mister_ultra @Metis will all be a thing of the past in a few decades if you look at the trends in university degrees by gender and the political orientation of younger adults (in countries where women are not kept like dogs).
It doesn't get any clearer than that. Women will take over, but there are really worse things when I look at the majority of men. Maybe we'll even manage to create an education system that suits both genders, let's see.

•

4

•

Daxdaniel@Daxdaniel

1Sem.

@Mister_ultra I can remember a case at a former employer. At the time, there were 70% male managers and the target was set at 50% in 3 or 5 years.
So it was clear that a natural development would make this impossible at the time, either many "fake management positions" would have to be created or some positions would have to be filled with this reason.
Some female employees who were team leaders, for example, were given a new manager title and more money and continued to do the same thing.
When a management position was filled, it was almost exclusively by women.
Once, on the way to the canteen, I overheard a couple of colleagues talking in front of me: A: "This position has been filled" B: "by whom?" C: "well 100% a woman" D: "yes, or a black man"
That sounds bad, but it shows exactly what kind of resentment such unfair programs lead to.

•

1

•

TaxesAreTheft@TaxesAreTheft

1Sem.

The world is healing

•

10

•

Soprano@Soprano

1Sem.

It's absolutely frightening that even here there are people who take a negative view of abolishing these programs. That's where freedom of opinion ends for me. Anyone who thinks it's good to judge people on the basis of their race and other biological characteristics is welcome to keep this attitude to themselves.

•

8

•

Lorena@Lorena

6J

@Soprano Huh? Are you for or against it now?

••

Malte@Malte123

5J

@Lorena 🤣🤣against.

Your "Huh, are you for or against?" shows in which categories people think.

I think 99% of people would agree that, for example, hiring should only be about skills/performance/experience and NOT about what the person has between their legs or what color their skin is.

But DEI is about exactly that. It is discrimination against certain groups in favor of other groups.

Of course, it is framed differently. It is also said that this discrimination only takes place in the case of equal suitability.
But this is practically unrealistic, because how likely is it that two people have absolutely the same education, experience, character and so on?

•

2

•

Lorena@Lorena

5J

@Malte123 Congratulations, with the passage "I think 99%..." you have described exactly THE core issue of diversity movements, but you have completely misinterpreted it. Ask minority groups, they would also be happy if they were judged purely on ability and not on prejudice. Nobody wants to take anything away from you, Malte. I find it really sad that you actually believe that

•

2

•

Malte@Malte123

5J

@Lorena Lorena, please don't project your fears onto me.
I'm not afraid that someone will take something away from me, so I don't need DEI programs to artificially elevate myself at the expense of others.

Please explain to me specifically (with examples) how DEI is not discrimination?

I'm afraid that you can't do that, but only switch to the personal level. I find that really sad:(

•

1

•

Lorena@Lorena

5J

@Malte123 Because it's about making minorities more visible and giving them opportunities that were denied to them by history (prejudices, stereotypes and ignorance). Quite simply. Sorry, but if you're really labeling this as discrimination against people who are already privileged, I'm at a loss for words. You can research examples yourself if you're interested in the topic. I'm not being paid here to change your mind. 🤷🏻‍♀️

•

2

•

Malte@Malte123

5J

@Lorena By minorities, you must mean women in particular, right?
They have to be promoted with quotas for women, among other things, because they only make up just over 50% of the population and of university graduates?

If you take a look at the comment from @Mister_ultra above, for example, is this fair in your world view?
I also know a few examples in my environment.

The logic behind it might be something like "we have to punish today's men in favor of today's women, because earlier women were discriminated against in favor of earlier men?"

That would at least be a clear statement that you could work with.

Unfortunately, however, only vague standard phrases are ever repeated...

•

1

•

Lorena@Lorena

5J

@Malte123 No, I'm not talking about women. There are also other minorities that are included in diversity groups. I'm talking about the big picture.

•

1

•

Malte@Malte123

5J

@Lorena the "big picture", can you go into more detail?

The above example also falls under DEI, as already asked, do you think that's fair?

And could you give other examples that clarify the meaning of DEI (please don't use standard phrases like (making minorities more visible... etc). There must be practical examples of this, right?

Unfortunately, you never get specific answers to such questions. If it's all so great, it must be practical or even verifiable with figures, right? How else can you be so sure?

•

1

•

Soprano@Soprano

5J

@Lorena "Nobody wants to take anything away from you" what do you say if I can now prove that this is exactly what is happening? In the USA, it is common practice that university admissions are regulated by "affirmative action". This means that Asians are rejected for university admission because the proportion of academics among Asians is already "too high" and therefore there is inequality.

People of Asian origin are a minority in the USA, but on average they have a higher level of education than "white" Americans, which is why they are structurally disadvantaged in the allocation of university places compared to whites.

So when you celebrate diversity, you are not necessarily standing up for the rights of minorities. On the contrary, you even have at least one foot in anti-Semitism, because diversity also means that you have to actively exclude certain minorities if you feel that they supposedly have too much education, wealth or influence.

On paper, what you say may make some sense. However, there is no real diversity program that interprets diversity in the way you are explaining it to us. In practice, it is purely about ensuring that people in an organization look as different as possible, not about creating equal opportunities between people with different backgrounds.

•

2

•

Malte@Malte123

4J

@Soprano That's how it always works. As soon as it gets specific and an objective argument is needed, people withdraw.

I sometimes ask myself whether this doesn't cause cognitive dissonance? How are they suppressed?

I'm not at all surprised that the population went along with National Socialism back then. Today, this would be just as possible in a slightly different form (e.g. other "bad guys") purely in terms of logical/independent thinking and group dynamics/emotions.

••

Voir toutes les 2 autres réponses

Artiskon@Artiskon

1Sem.

It will be exciting to see where the world goes over the next few years.

•

2

•

Martin@Vizz

1Sem.

Funny how these companies take a 180-turn on their stances based on politics.

•

2

•

DerMartin@DerMartin

1Sem.

Schade

•

1

•

devnerd_daddy@devnerd_daddy

1Sem.

I know these programs and somehow they all feel like token junk. So you could almost cheer that the token waste of money is now coming to an end.

Now, you can see these programs however you want, but their withdrawal at this point in time reveals a terrifying obedience to politics. Facebook promotes freedom of speech? Trump wants freedom of speech? Well, apparently only as long as the opinion is acceptable.

•

1

•

Soprano@Soprano

1Sem.

@devnerd_daddy I understand what you mean, but you are welcome to think it through to the end. The fact that Facebook is now changing course shows that it respects the democratic will of the majority. That's actually a reassuring thought.

The real horror is not when Zuckerberg calls the US president and says he has changed his mind. The real horror would be if the US president called Zuckerberg to say he had changed his mind.
Especially with Big Tech, it has often not been so clear in recent years whether the companies are still subordinate to the government or the government to the companies.

•

1

•

Fabian@d4Y

6J

@Soprano If Facebook didn't benefit from this, I don't think they would take this democratic course so quickly and voluntarily 😉

••

devnerd_daddy@devnerd_daddy

6J

@Soprano The problem, however, is that they are not implementing the will of the majority, but the will of an individual. Zuckerberg doesn't care about the voters, he cares about protecting himself from Trump.

••

Soprano@Soprano

6J

@devnerd_daddy But then you are questioning the meaningfulness of representative democracy. He is not an individual but is implementing an election promise that he made to 77 million Americans.

••

Fabian@d4Y

6J

@Soprano We'll talk again after his term of office... He won't keep his Ukraine promise on the third day

••

devnerd_daddy@devnerd_daddy

6J

@Soprano I definitely question a president being given so much power. Representative democracy does not mean that an individual uses the power given to them to fight personal feuds.

The same goes for the case with the SEC. Millions of his constituents have zero interest in it, but he cleans up for his buddy Elon.

Apart from that, representation is borderline poor due to American electoral law. Remember, last time he was president despite being a minority.

••