Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 414 posts

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#211

Post by prewett »

DataJunkie wrote: post #71

I used to be a fan of Facebook, but I was never obsessed with it. I even used to work there. I'm over it. It's useful for groups, some of the ads really are useful, it's nice to sometimes keep up with people that are far away, but the news feed has had done way more harm than good for our society, including my own life. After the 2016 Election, Facebook posts lead to so much drama in my family that certain "branches"…

If the only reason you want the company to succeed is because you own stock, that sounds like a good reason to not own the stock. Besides, if other people start feeling the way you do, the stock is not likely to do very well, so if you believe your feeling is representative, you might want to consider it a sell signal.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#212

Post by badfrog »

Zhyl wrote: post #186
mjfl wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're deranged.

It's actually well documented that Facebook enabled and inflamed the Rhingya genocide in Myanmar. Here is an example article but there are many more: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/facebook-role-rohingy...

That article doesn't really say what Facebook's "role" was. The closest thing is this:

> "It was used to convey public messages but we know that the ultranationalist Buddhists have their own Facebooks and are really inciting a lot of violence and a lot of hatred against the Rohingya or other ethnic minorities," she said.

It basically sounds like the bad guys were using Facebook groups to communicate. They could have done the same thing on IRC or anywhere else on the internet.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#213

Post by dang »

mjfl wrote: post #177
madeofpalk wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the developing world where I live Facebook gives me the opportunity to maintain contact with my family who live on the other side of the world, as I walk the streets of São Paulo, for free. Cool. In other developing countries it lead to a massacre.

You're deranged.

Personal attacks will get you banned on HN, regardless of how wrong or provocative another comment was or you feel it was.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#214

Post by fucking_tragedy »

ilovecaching wrote: post #41
hashberry wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some theories: 1. Rebranding Facebook as secure and private 2. If this increases usage, more opportunity to display ads 3. Their data shows they gain more information by monitoring what people publicly share, not say in private 4. Removes all responsibility to work with law enforcement and governments for illegal activity, since it's encrypted

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?

No, because I wasn't born yesterday. There is no limit to human greed or hubris. Facebook is a publicly traded company and is expected to maximize value for its shareholders.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#215

Post by o10449366 »

(Reposting since the parent comment I replied to was deleted)

Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Whatsapp have all been (and continue to be) exploited to spread messages of hate and ignorance. It seems strange to me that Facebook is coming under so much criticism relative to the other platforms when, from my perspective, they've also been the most proactive about trying to address these issues and dedicated significant resources to moderation. That isn't to say that these moves have been successful or productive, but I haven't heard anything from Twitter recently regarding trying to minimize hate speech and ignorance on its platform (and its the worst service for divisiveness, in my opinion). Google only just recently demonetized anti-Semitic and anti-vax material on YouTube and only after significant backlash from its advertisers (not its users who have been calling for a response for years). Why is this?

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#217

Post by vonmoltke »

floatrock wrote: post #75
smrq wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does this shareholder value meme keep getting perpetuated?

Because that's who a CEO reports to and that's how a CEO gets fired. Some CEO's like Elon and Jobs can spin a great story and hold on by sheer force of personality, but pension funds aren't buying FB in bulk to get more green cars on the road.

> Because that's who a CEO reports to and that's how a CEO gets fired.

That has nothing to do with the legal requirements of the company or the CEO. That would be the same as saying I am "legally required" to go to work tomorrow, because I could get fired for not showing up.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#218

Post by arendtio »

jedberg wrote: post #199
yaseer wrote: post #168

Facebook is big tobacco. Intelligent people generating profits that knowingly harms society (even if you do get some joy from a cigarette, that doesn't justify working for a tobacco company). I really hope the smart people at Facebook see the obvious parallel, and choose another career. History will judge you.

Not exactly. Tobacco has no benefits to society except possibly a dopamine hit for the user. Facebook has a lot of positives to go along with its negatives. For me, it's the only way I stay in touch with a lot of my friends from high school. And I know that it's only because of Facebook, because Facebook didn't exist for the first 10 years after I graduated, and most of my friends didn't get on it until about 15 year…

I hope you are aware that the positive effect you describe also has a negative side. Those people who refuse to join Facebook (for good reasons as we were taught) are getting isolated. So who can tell what the net result is?

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#219

Post by vonmoltke »

floatrock wrote: post #202
reaperducer wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

I'd love to read a blog post talking about how to make free consumer web apps without monetizing user data. I really would. That's the crux of the issue here -- is there an alternative to the ad-tech playbook? There's all the Redhat / enterprise open-source examples, but I'm specifically talking about consumer web products . Redhat's product is enterprise infrastructure. There's free as in a trial or limited function…

Absolutely none of what you wrote has anything to do with legal duties.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#220

Post by fucking_tragedy »

thundergolfer wrote: post #57
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'm no fan of Zuckerberg, but he said that quote over a decade ago, and people can change their beliefs and values.

That's a nice ideal, but Zuckerberg hasn't lived up to it.
Post reply on HN