Here are the internal Facebook posts of employees discussing today’s leaked memo

Photo by Michele Doying / The Verge

The publication of a June 2016 memo describing the consequences of Facebook’s growth-at-all-costs triggered an emotional conversation at the company today. An internal post reacting to the memo found employees angry and heartbroken that their teammates were sharing internal company discussions with the media. Many called on the company to step up its war on leakers and hire employees with more “integrity.”

On Thursday evening, BuzzFeed published a memo from Andrew “Boz” Bosworth, a vice president at Facebook who currently leads its hardware efforts. In the memo, Bosworth says that the company’s core function is to connect people, despite consequences that he repeatedly called “ugly.” “That’s why all the work we do in growth is justified. All the questionable contact importing practices,” he wrote. “All the subtle language that helps people stay searchable by friends. All of the work we do to bring more communication in. The work we will likely have to do in China some day. All of it.”

Bosworth distanced himself from the memo, saying in a Twitter post that he hadn’t agreed with those words even when he wrote them. He was trying to galvanize a discussion around the company’s growth strategy, he said. CEO Mark Zuckerberg told BuzzFeed that he had not agreed with the sentiments in the post at the time, and that growth should not be a means to an end in itself. “We recognize that connecting people isn’t enough by itself. We also need to work to bring people closer together,” Zuckerberg said.

After publishing the memo, Bosworth deleted his original post. “While I won’t go quite as far as to call it a straw man, that post was definitely designed to provoke a response,” Bosworth wrote in a memo obtained by The Verge. “It served effectively as a call for people across the company to get involved in the debate about how we conduct ourselves amid the ever changing mores of the online community. The post was of no particular consequence in and of itself, it was the comments that were impressive. A conversation over the course of years that was alive and well even going into this week.

“That conversation is now gone,” Bosworth continued. “And I won’t be the one to bring it back for fear it will be misunderstood by a broader population that doesn’t have full context on who we are and how we work.”

Facebook and Bosworth declined to comment.

Nearly 3,000 employees had reacted to Bosworth’s memo when The Verge viewed it, responding with a mixture of likes, “sad,” and and “angry” reactions. Many employees rallied to Bosworth’s side, praising him for sharing his feelings about sensitive company matters using blunt language.

Others criticized Bosworth for deleting the post, saying it fueled a narrative about the company that it had something to hide. “Deleting things usually looks bad in retrospect,” one wrote. “Please don’t feed the fire by giving these individuals more fuel (eg, Facebook execs deleting internal communications”). If we are no longer open and transparent, and instead lock-down and delete, then our culture is also destroyed — but by our own hand.”

Dozens of employees criticized the unknown leakers at the company. “Leakers, please resign instead of sabotaging the company,” one wrote in a comment under Bosworth’s post. Wrote another: “How fucking terrible that some irresponsible jerk decided he or she had some god complex that jeopardizes our inner culture and something that makes Facebook great?”

Several employees suggested Facebook attempt to screen employees for a high degree of “integrity” during the hiring process. “Although we all subconsciously look for signal on integrity in interviews, should we consider whether this needs to be formalized in the interview process?” one wrote.

Wrote another: “This is so disappointing, wonder if there is a way to hire for integrity. We are probably focusing on the intelligence part and getting smart people here who lack a moral compass and loyalty.”

Other employees said it would be difficult to detect leakers before they acted.

“I don’t think we’ve seen a huge internally leaked data breach, but I’ve always thought our ‘open but punitive’ stance was particularly vulnerable to suicide bombers,” one employee wrote “We would be foolish to think that we could adequately screen against them in a hiring process at our scale. … We have our representative share of sick people, drug addicts, wife beaters, and suicide bombers. Some of this cannot be mitigated by training. To me, this makes it just a matter of time.”

That employee followed up to say: “OMG, I just ran back to my ‘puter from a half-eaten lunch with food in my mouth. APOLOGIES to our brothers in sisters in the Austin Office for my insensitive choice of metaphors/words. I’m sorry.”

Another theory floated by multiple employees is that Facebook has been targeted by spies or state-level actors hoping to embarrass the company. “Keep in mind that leakers could be intentionally placed bad actors, not just employees making a one-off bad decision,” one wrote. “Thinking adversarially, if I wanted info from Facebook, the easiest path would be to get people hired into low-level employee or contract roles.” Another wrote: “Imagine that some percentage of leakers are spies for governments. A call to morals or problems of performance would be irrelevant in this case, because dissolution is the intent of those actors. If that’s our threat — and maybe it is, given the current political situation? — then is it even possible to build a system that defaults to open, but that is able to resist these bad actors (or do we need to redesign the system?)

Several employees shared concerns that the leaks had removed some of Facebook’s luster. The company is routinely cited as among the best places to work in America.

“If this leak #$%^ continues, we will become like every other company where people are hesitant to discuss broad-reaching, forward-looking ideas and thoughts, that only the very average ideas and thoughts get discussed and executed,” one employee wrote.” Making them average companies.”

Another employee responded: “Will become? Seems like we are there.”

The leaks also became cause for discussion about the company’s internal sharing tools. Facebook runs on its enterprise product, Facebook for Work. One employee wondered whether the critics of leakers had ignored incentives for sharing created by the product itself. It’s a nuanced thought worth sharing in full:

“It’s interesting to note that this discussion is about leaks pushing us to be more cognizant of our sharing decisions. The result is that we are incentivized toward stricter audience management and awareness of how our past internal posts may look when re-surfaced today. We blame a few ill-intentioned employees for this change.

“The non-employee Facebook user base is also experiencing a similar shift: the move toward ephemeral and direct sharing results from realizing that social media posts that were shared broadly and are searchable forever can become a huge liability today.

A key difference between the outside discussion and the internal discussion is that the outside blames the Facebook product for nudging people to make those broad sharing decisions years ago, whereas internally the focus is entirely on employees.”

Another employee made a similar plea for empathy. “Can we channel our outrage over the mishandling of our information into an empathy for our users’ situation? Can the deletion of a post help us better understand #deletefacebook? How we encourage ourselves to remain open while acknowledging a world that doesn’t always respect the audience and intention fo that information might just be the key to it all. Maybe we should be dogfooding that?”

For his part, Bosworth promised employees he would continue sharing candid thoughts about Facebook, but said he would likely post less. “When posting comes with the risk that I’ll have to blow up my schedule and defend myself to the national press,” he wrote, “you can imagine it is an inhibitor.”

Here is Bosworth’s full memo to the company today.

I’m feeling a little heartbroken tonight.

I had multiple reporters reach out today with different stories containing leaks of internal information.

In response to one of the leaks I have chosen to delete a post I made a couple of years ago about our mission to connect people and the ways we grow. While I won’t go quite as far as to call it a straw man, that post was definitely designed to provoke a response. It served effectively as a call for people across the company to get involved in the debate about how we conduct ourselves amid the ever changing mores of the online community. The post was of no particular consequence in and of itself, it was the comments that were impressive. A conversation over the course of years that was alive and well even going into this week.

That conversation is now gone. And I won’t be the one to bring it back for fear it will be misunderstood by a broader population that doesn’t have full context on who we are and how we work.

This is the very real cost of leaks. We had a sensitive topic that we could engage on openly and explore even bad ideas, even if just to eliminate them. If we have to live in fear that even our bad ideas will be exposed then we won’t explore them or understand them as such, we won’t clearly label them as such, we run a much greater risk of stumbling on them later. Conversations go underground or don’t happen at all. And not only are we worse off for it, so are the people who use our products.

Casey Newton can be reached at, or message him on Twitter @CaseyNewton for his Signal. Sign up for The Interface, The Verge’s daily newsletter about social media and democracy, at this link.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal

What happened 8
Facebook reacts 8
The world reacts 12
The apology tour 6
Zuckerberg testifies 14
What you can do 5


So a company that has shown little respect for the privacy of its users — that, in fact, mines that very information to make billions of dollars — is upset that some of its own private deliberations have become public?

Oh, that’s rich. Irony, thy name is Facebook.

If we are to believe brokenhearted Boz, the whole message was designed to spur discussion about Facebook’s growth at any cost strategy. So, how did those deliberations turn out? There’s no evidence Facebook modified its growth strategy, or took any real moves to protect data, or took any real responsibility for fake news on its site, until after there was a big uproar. Is there any indication that Boz’s thought piece — if that’s really what it was — produced anything more than an academic debate, after which Facebook just kept doing what it was doing.

My favorite part is that these idiots are crying that there are employees among them that don’t have a "moral compass" or that they need more "loyalty to the company" – a company that would fire them in a heartbeat if it were financially beneficial to do so.

Facebook doesn’t give a shit about anyone, employee or not – all they care about are the dollars you bring into the house, lol.

How dense do you have to be to think otherwise?

It’s probably worth bearing in mind that in any company that pushes this kind of ‘open’ communication, there’s an unavoidable pressure on most ordinary employees to say the ‘right’ things. A company that has so much of its internal correspondence open and visible to anyone will very quickly descend into 1984 territory. So those ‘dense’ folk bleating about integrity are likely to really be saying ‘I would never leak, boss, you can trust me’. And in all likelihood, the actual leaker is one of those voices. Personally, I find it baffling that so many supposedly intelligent people see an office under the Eye of Sauron as a Good Place to Work.

Eye of Sauron as a Good Place to Work

Well said. It surprises me, too.

I mean, benefits-wise, it definitely is if you’re a programmer.

The pay is insane, you have tons of autonomy, you get to work on lots of cool stuff, the time-off policy is generous, typically there are lots of options for free food and drink, you live in an awesome city, and you share in the profits of a mega-Corp.

You just need to have no moral compass to work there, is all.

Never worked there but I have a friend who does. Better question, why wouldn’t you want to work there?

The dude gets his laundry done for him, there are free, top tier restaurants on site that he can enjoy whenever he wants, the salary/benefit packages are insane, they got rec rooms, his office is nice, etc.

Bit more Brave New World than 1984 I think

They provide those benefits because they tend to require more than 8 hours per day. This is common across the big tech campuses. They provide perks to keep you at your desk. That can be a pro or a con, all depending on the person.,8_KH9,19.htm

I find it baffling that so many supposedly intelligent people see an office under the Eye of Sauron as a Good Place to Work.

Enjoy the perks, do your job, ignore the politics and the moral problems, and above all, shut up ; if you do all these I imagine that the job is pretty enjoyable.

If you don’t care about the moral implications of what you’re doing, lots of things become really fun to do.

You know, I’m not a huge fan of Apple’s premium price strategy, or how they consistently chose form over design but man… Tim Cook is so damn right and I applaud him when he states that "it’s a problem when you are the product".

I about fell off my chair when Kara Swisher asked Tim what he would do in Mark Zuckerberg’s position. His answer: "I wouldn’t be in this situation."

Greatest answer!

But he is…..

explain how Tim Cook is in the same position as Facebook?

You do realize Tim doesn’t seem to have any qualms about user privacy in other countries like China for example. It would be nice if he cared about his user privacy equally. But he’s not alone a lot of American companies seem to throw their highly proclaimed ethics out the window in other countries to make a buck.

I predominantly work overseas, but there are place I refuse to work ( does that affect them much, probably not ) But at least I can sleep peacefully at night.

Nothing you just said shows that Tim is in anything remotely close to the same position as Mark Zuckerberg. And to respond to what I think is your poorly-made point, Apple had no choice but to change their iCloud servers. I suppose they could have said no to the authoritarian Chinese government, but either their products or services (or both) would have been banned from China; who would that have helped? The Chinese consumers? No, they would have less choice and even less privacy than they have currently. So your moral absolutism—while it may help you sleep at night—is nothing more than virtue signaling and is absurd.

Unless your an iCloud user in China and then Tim has no issue in selling you out. One set of morals for the US another for the rest of the world …

I don’t know about you but my morals are not determined by location …

Wait, you mean I didn’t voluntarily sign up for facebook or obligingly hand the company more access to my life blocks of data at a time? … "Burn the monster!"

— Sent from my Android Phone

There’s an enormous difference between a user giving reasonable permission for their data and what FB has been surreptitiously doing with it. Anybody who doesn’t see that is being willfully ignorant.

"After publishing the memo, Bosworth deleted his original post."

Well, consider yourself lucky that you could actually delete the post, as regular Facebook users’ deleted posts would still remain in Facebook databases.

"that, in fact, mines that very information to make billions of dollars"

What did think you they were doing ??? They didn’t spend all that money on data centers to host you selfies for free out of the kindness of their heart, at facebook the user has always the product.

It’s just that many of their user where too stupid to understand that.

Yeah I do wonder how most of these people think they make their money. Facebook as an example sells no product. All their revenue is solely based on advertising, but even the advertising isnt the big money. Its the data they collect. Same with Google. A majority of Googles revenue is not from their hardware products. Its from advertising and data. Wake up call for the importance anonymity and privacy. Sometimes I have to place blame on lots of users.

Just remember its not just facebook. How do you think facebook and other online giants (google, twitter, facebook owned instagram etc) make a majority of their money? Its not just straight advertising. A majority of the money comes from selling the "data mined". Its the value it brings and the price one can sell it for. The data "is" the gold.

I have no sympathy for Facebook, especially the employees asking for integrity, now THAT’S rich.

About those employees, Stanley Wilgram, a social psychologist who studied blind obedience to authority, would surely recognize the phenomenon. (The movie ‘Experimenter" is about him and his experiment.)

View All Comments
Back to top ↑