While I dislike Nick Clegg for all of the reasons you have laid out, he’s arguably an appropriate hire for this role, regardless of one’s opinions of his politics.

Facebook is facing potentially a lot of serious legislative recriminations following the Cambridge Analytica scandal etc. Hiring someone as familiar with European politics as Nick Clegg strikes me as a relatively sensible move, given his experiences as a British MP, Deputy Prime Minister in the UK, political party leader and former Member of the European Parliament, at least if you think impartially about the future challenges facing the company. A hire like this is as much for his Rolodex as anything else I suspect.

It’s arguably a little unfair to consider his political popularity as a measure of his ability, the political situation the Lib Dems found themselves in following the 2010 election was pretty complex.

On one level you could say that popularity amongst voters is the only metric that matters for a politician, but I agree there are other ways of evaluating a politician.

I’d argue that Nick Clegg is a poor politician because he was outmanoeuvred by David Cameron (the PM to Clegg’s Deputy PM). The best example is the AV vote on introducing proportional representation, where Clegg was setup with a poor alternative that would be hard to sell, and the campaign was savaged by the Tories and their media allies from the start. And there are many other such examples.

I don't think they are capable of attracting better talent at this point. Come to think of it, I'm surprised they ever were able to attract any serious talent at all.

I still remember a highly respected veteran industry executive talking to my entrepreneurship class in 2010 about how he couldn't bring himself to work for Zuck despite a strong offer on the table, and the joke he made about missing out on millions in stock options. This person today continues to lead entire businesses at one of the leading companies.

I’m not saying I’m a serious talent, but I’d sell my soul for the right price. Assume many others would do too.

I certainly wouldn't. And I assume many others wouldn't either.

There's plenty of jobs that offer just fine livings in relatively neutral ground areas. I guess they certainly have their workforce, so there's plenty of people who either don't care, or don't think it's wrong.

I met a youtube engineer who thought privacy was dead anyways, so what was the point?

Weird frame of mind for me.

Exactly, I wouldn't even calling working for fb selling my soul.

That sounds terribly sad.

It's easy to have principles when they're not being put to the test.

Heck it's probably a lower number than most people think too. Every always says 1 million or 10 million or something super ridiculous, but ~$500K/yr is life changing for most people and when you're looking at that over say ten years... you would be crazy to not sell out.

But you can make that ~500k/yr at a half dozen (at least!) other companies without compromising yourself and selling out. I think FB has a reputation as paying at or above the market max. It's not like the other FANGs or unicorns are slouches in the comp department.

They are not paying most of their engineers close to 500k/yr.

$500k a year in Palo Alto is not a lot of money. I don't think you could even buy a standard family house earning that much there.

Not true at all. Source, earned less than that much, bought a house in MV in the last 1.5 years.

>>you would be crazy to not sell out

Its not exactly sell out. What exactly are you doing writing code at other companies any way? Writing code for Mahatma Gandhi?

If it's not a sell out, how can it be "selling ones soul for the right price"?

Just because he's politically unpopular doesn't mean he won't be valuable to them.

Clegg's resume makes it clear he's on the influencer inside team.

FB is a natural home for him. (Not a compliment, by the way.)

I don't think the point made was that he is unpopular. I think the point is he is incapable of making good decisions.

With some things like the failed alternate vote referendum I have read people blame Labour more than the Lib Dems. However, he clearly lacks charisma and skills in hindsight.

I don't think anyone at Facebook will force Nick Clegg to do or say anything but I'll be shocked if he has any serious decision-making power within Facebook. I'm trying to avoid saying he is a rubber stamp but it is difficult to say he is much more when even ex CSO Alex Stamos clearly had restrictions (if you read between the lines).

You're assuming that Clegg has expressed his true aims in public. Given his record of spectacular outright lies - such as the famous u-turn on tuition fees, or the way that he denied being a Young Conservative at Cambridge, in spite of the evidence - it's possible his affable victim-of-circumstance brand is just a cover for someone who is essentially manipulative and dishonest.

Given the successful spoiler/enabler role of the LibDems in UK politics, there's a good chance he doesn't think of his record as one of failure on any level.

Interesting, he has already deleted all of his tweets, including the anti-Brexit ones - not quite the action of the absolutely committed anti-Brexit campaigner he claimed to be.

(To say "FB wouldn't let him keep them" misses the point. Someone who was genuinely committed to stopping Brexit would never accept a job which might conflict with keeping them.)

> it's possible his affable victim-of-circumstance brand is just a cover for someone who is essentially manipulative and dishonest

In that case, he has a long and productive career ahead at Facebook or perhaps at a company like British Petroleum.