Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#121

Post by reaperducer » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 10:10 PM UTC

floatrock wrote: post #47

ilovecaching wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you ever consider that Zuck has enough money, and that he really believes in making a product to connect people for the greater good and use ads to make it available to everyone?

As a person, maybe if I squint very very very hard. Legally, he has a duty to maximize value for his board and investors. And there hasn't been a business model that provides a free consumer web product without monetizing user data.

Legally, he has a duty to maximize value for his board and investors

You should probably stop using the word "legally" in this context. There have been thousands of companies over the decades that put other things before shareholder value, and somehow managed to not run afoul of the law.

Also, it might help if you provided a citation to this law to bolster your argument.

And there hasn't been a business model that provides a free consumer web product without monetizing user data.

Also false.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#122

Post by kjar » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 10:11 PM UTC

mindgam3 wrote: post #96

ilovecaching wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you are reading between the lines too much. Maybe he really just wants to do something else or spend more time with his family, and if he felt like Facebook was bending things the wrong way he'd say so. His point is more that progress in the right direction requires effort, and that instead of complaining we should take up our banner and work to make the future what we want it to be.

“if he felt like Facebook was bending things the wrong way he'd say so” I wish that were true, but this is a rather naive perspective. Facebook has a well documented history of requiring outgoing employees to sign non-disparagement clauses. For someone as high up as Chief Product Officer you’d better believe that they would have Chris sign something expressly forbidding any overt criticism of the company. Any severan…

A non-disparagement clause is so fucking bonkers. I read these things and would never sign something like that. It’s a blatant corporate attack on your freedom of speech and absolutely insulting as a human. You pay me. You do not control me!

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#123

Post by keepper » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

mindgam3 wrote: post #96

ilovecaching wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you are reading between the lines too much. Maybe he really just wants to do something else or spend more time with his family, and if he felt like Facebook was bending things the wrong way he'd say so. His point is more that progress in the right direction requires effort, and that instead of complaining we should take up our banner and work to make the future what we want it to be.

“if he felt like Facebook was bending things the wrong way he'd say so” I wish that were true, but this is a rather naive perspective. Facebook has a well documented history of requiring outgoing employees to sign non-disparagement clauses. For someone as high up as Chief Product Officer you’d better believe that they would have Chris sign something expressly forbidding any overt criticism of the company. Any severan…

"Facebook has a well documented history of requiring outgoing employees to sign non-disparagement clauses."

You're basically lying here. They don't. Actually, the last few high profile departures were pretty disparaging. Think Brian Acton's comments[1], as well as Palmer lucky[2].

You obviously are overplaying your knowledge of Facebook, and the rapport you hold with Chris Cox. I get it, its in fashion to shit on facebook.

How about a different view? 13 years, wealth, changes in life, believe that he could be doing something different?

[1]https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/26/whatsapp-founder-brian-act... [2]https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/12/oculus-founder-palmer-luckey...

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#124

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

NathanLands wrote: post #99

mindgam3 wrote: post #61

I've known Chris Cox since freshman year of college and he was an informal advisor to my first startup. The NYT article referenced in hashberry's earlier comment includes a key quote: “For over a decade, I’ve been sharing the same message that Mark and I have always believed: Social media’s history is not yet written, and its effects are not neutral,” Mr. Cox said in a note to employees on Thursday. “As its builders…

Even if Mark Zuckerberg ends up being "wrong" by your definition, why does that mean he lied? It's odd to assume negative intent or that you know what is going on inside other people's heads.

We've already had a look inside his head, because he joked with his friends about how naive the people giving their information to him were for trusting, and how they were dumb fucks that he looked forward to fucking in the ear.

Sure, he might have changed since, but there's nothing wrong with rational speculation. Selfishness and greed are real phenomena in human relations so it would be as foolish to ignore such possibilities as to believe them uncritically.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#125

Post by reaperducer » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

rkho wrote: post #60

na85 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's irreconcilable with his actions. Why would a person who believes those things have made the "dumb fucks" quote?

I see that quote being referenced a lot, and given when it was made I'm curious what it says about whether or not we believe that people have the capacity to change.

Do something mildly stupid when you're 20, and if someone finds out about it when you're 40, you lose your job.

That's the upside-down society we live in today.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#126

Post by mindgam3 » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 10:14 PM UTC

dunkelheit wrote: post #108

mindgam3 wrote: post #61

I've known Chris Cox since freshman year of college and he was an informal advisor to my first startup. The NYT article referenced in hashberry's earlier comment includes a key quote: “For over a decade, I’ve been sharing the same message that Mark and I have always believed: Social media’s history is not yet written, and its effects are not neutral,” Mr. Cox said in a note to employees on Thursday. “As its builders…

So, do you read this quote as a very mild-mannered 'fuck you' to the current facebook modus operandi? I obviously know nothing of Chris, but the message doesn't feel that different from the grand but empty proclamations that Zuck spouts in his posts. Also, he has worked there for fourteen years and in the most senior leadership positions, how can he be not complicit?

I 100% view his quote as a mild-mannered 'fuck you' as you suggest. I also do see him as complicit to a certain degree. That said, there has been a very strong reality distortion field involved in being a Facebook executive since the beginning. I personally experienced this while being recruited there in 2007 and it took me years to work through the cognitive dissonance involved in understanding that a dream you deeply believe in is actually more of a nightmare.

From a psychological perspective, when you escape a cult, there is a process known as "exit counseling" which is often required to help former members process their experiences and return to reality. I suspect that former Facebook insiders will undergo a similar process. And I view Chris' quote as an indication that he has begun his own transition.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#127

Post by dboreham » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 10:14 PM UTC

howard941 wrote: post #4

> As part of this, I’m sad to share the news that Chris Cox has decided to leave the company. "this" reads as though Cox's departure is a result of the decision to build out a "privacy-focused social platform".

That's how it is intended to read.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#128

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 10:14 PM UTC

debt wrote: post #86

refurb wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read "best" as "most talented", not "most moral".

Huh? I don't know what that means. Talented in fucking up the public perception of Facebook? Yeah they were good at that for sure.

They could be awful, and might still the best of the people working there in terms of ability to pursue awful goals. Stop getting so hung up on one interpretation of the word.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#129

Post by dunkelheit » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 10:14 PM UTC

stingraycharles wrote: post #113

dunkelheit wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, do you read this quote as a very mild-mannered 'fuck you' to the current facebook modus operandi? I obviously know nothing of Chris, but the message doesn't feel that different from the grand but empty proclamations that Zuck spouts in his posts. Also, he has worked there for fourteen years and in the most senior leadership positions, how can he be not complicit?

He might be complicit, but maybe he was trying to change the direction. Those two things should be treated separately.

This is what I am trying to understand - why do people feel that he was trying to change the direction? If e.g. Zuck would say something like that everybody would just ignore him.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#130

Post by mindgam3 » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 10:16 PM UTC

stingraycharles wrote: post #113

dunkelheit wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, do you read this quote as a very mild-mannered 'fuck you' to the current facebook modus operandi? I obviously know nothing of Chris, but the message doesn't feel that different from the grand but empty proclamations that Zuck spouts in his posts. Also, he has worked there for fourteen years and in the most senior leadership positions, how can he be not complicit?

He might be complicit, but maybe he was trying to change the direction. Those two things should be treated separately.

I agree. It is possible that his ability to effect real change was severely limited if it contradicted Zuck's vision.