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

231–240 of 414 posts

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#231

Post by lawnchair_larry »

kjar wrote: post #122
mindgam3 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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!

If you got paid what he is getting paid to keep your mouth shut, I think you would.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#232

Post by sonnyblarney »

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…

This isn't fair.

These people are vested, super rich and probably a little bored.

As long as FB is a 'darling' they can ride that - now when the narrative is darker, it's just a grind for them. They can move on, do nothing, do something fun, and possibly get out before any ugly things happen.

Just as FB was over-hyped on the way up, the negative narrative is also a little too much. There's a lot of grey in the details.

I think Zuck has made some mistakes, but FB is not trying to do evil.

Also: FB may have been a fad, not a trend. It may be kind of slowly dying as other things take it place, and while they continue to make money, some of the underlying metrics might be heading down. Usership certainly is. So it's easy to see people wanting to move on as FB moves into a more 'grind' stage of either limited growth, maturation into a boring corporation, or even downward stagnation.

The koolaid party is definitely over, the money is in the bank, so the impetus to stay is much less.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#233

Post by bitt »

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…

Duckduckgo seem to have a good way to make money without compromising privacy [0].

I'm certainly not an expert on this subject but monetizing based on relevant content is reasonable. You can still make money without gathering a tremendous amount of user data.

[0]https://duck.co/help/company/advertising-and-affiliates

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#234

Post by ficklepickle »

jniedrauer wrote: post #159
ENGNR wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A common feature request for my app: remove FB login! These are users who didn't even use it. But just seeing the Facebook login option there next to email (it was the only OAuth) gave them the creeps. These aren't tech savvy users either, just regular small town businesses I think Facebook has a long, long, long way to go towards brand repair before anyone can 'trust' it in any way

Have you ever looked at what exactly those facebook login buttons load? I don't feel safe browsing sites with facebook integration anymore unless I'm running uMatrix or am in a container.

Ugh it is actually outrageous. On client sites, I use an icon and an anchor tag with noopener/noreferrer.

One client really wanted Facebook login so I had to make a Facebook account. That was a dark day.

On a somewhat related note, that business is no longer operating. I still host their site for free, partly out of smugness as they took none of my advice.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#235

Post by dralley »

praneshp wrote: post #169
Pharmakon wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Some of the most venal, greedy, and ruthless people in history made their money then turned to philanthropy to improve their image. I would argue that it was downright predictable, and so would Alfred Nobel. In fact using charity to either improve your public image (as in Gates and many others) is probably only matched by people like Jimmy Saville using charity to give themselves license to continue committing c…

Right, the then world's richest started a charitable trust purely so he could improve his public image.

I'm sure the competitive drive to dominate (in generosity) plays a role. Look at the rivalry between Rockefeller and Carnegie for example. Once they grew old and their companies either bought out (Carnegie) or broken up by the feds (Rockefeller) they basically switched to seeing who could get their names put on the most public buildings by building libraries, universities, etc.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#236

Post by [deleted] »

eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #191
passn wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Zuckerberg's vision of Facebook as a good thing for the world was a lie" - That is such a broad generalization. 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. There are hundreds of millions of others like me who keep in contact with their family because of Facebook (and th…

And yours is a broad generalization, too, about the impact Facebook has on society. You cheer all the good and mention none of the negative consequences of this model. Google also makes much about the internet less frustrating and easier for novices, but I also understand what is being given up in that compromise. I'm not even saying the "open" experience is not often without frustration. It absolutely is. Part of Fa…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#237

Post by 3xblah »

passn wrote: post #143
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…

"Zuckerberg's vision of Facebook as a good thing for the world was a lie" - That is such a broad generalization. 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. There are hundreds of millions of others like me who keep in contact with their family because of Facebook (and th…

This sounds to me like a description of the internet, not Facebook.

I also think it is possible to enable others to make such cost-saving use of the internet without also doing the objectionable things Zuckerberg has done.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#238

Post by gabbygab »

annadane wrote: post #18
hashberry wrote: post #16

Interesting spin from the NYTimes ("Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox"[0]): "The departures follow two years of scandals for Facebook around data privacy and disinformation. The issues have buffeted the Silicon Valley company, causing internal turmoil and a redirection in strategy." [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/technology/facebook-chris...

This is what pisses me off. I'm more than willing to criticize Facebook when they deserve it but IMO the media blitzkrieg has said more about the media than Facebook. Not that FB hasn't done scummy things but my faith in the whole attack angle has been reduced

It's about the media and political actors getting control over the lucrative and politically important social media platforms.

It's not just facebook. Google, Twitter and Reddit have also faced tremendous media pressure. Facebook gets most of the attention because they are by far the largest social media player.

For all the talk about how powerful tech companies are, traditional media is proving they are no slouches. Of course traditional media has far greater political backing so you could say they have an unfair advantage.

All we can do is have ourselves some popcorn and watch the entertainment. One thing that perplexes me is why the social media companies don't band together and help each other from these politically motivated attacks. There is strength in numbers and they'd be able to fend off these attacks better if they acted together. Maybe the tech environment is just too competitive for that?

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#239

Post by jryle70 »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #222
passn wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Zuckerberg's vision of Facebook as a good thing for the world was a lie" - That is such a broad generalization. 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. There are hundreds of millions of others like me who keep in contact with their family because of Facebook (and th…

Facebook is certainly not doing it out of the goodness of their heart. What they want to do is essentially exploit the fact that data is so expensive in so many countries, in order to make Facebook equal 'the internet' there. I understand somewhat why it's working, but still find it kind of depressing that it's being actively cheered on.

"not doing it out of the goodness of their heart" is such an irritating cliche that makes me cringe.

FB was founded in 2004 as a crappy for-profit startup. How many for-profit businesses born out of the goodness of the owner's heart? Yet you seem to make it sound like it's FB's fault.

> I understand somewhat why it's working, but still find it kind of depressing that it's being actively cheered on.

Social network has enormous benefit because we human being are social animal. Simple as that. I'm surprised that you only "understand somewhat why it's working". Just because there are bad sides of it doesn't make it a mistake. In fact I firmly believe the benefits it brings to the society should be cheered on.

Condemn FB for their shady tactics, but don't forget the positive effect. Get out of your bubble. Put yourself in regular people's shoes.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#240

Post by ficklepickle »

praneshp wrote: post #169
Pharmakon wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Some of the most venal, greedy, and ruthless people in history made their money then turned to philanthropy to improve their image. I would argue that it was downright predictable, and so would Alfred Nobel. In fact using charity to either improve your public image (as in Gates and many others) is probably only matched by people like Jimmy Saville using charity to give themselves license to continue committing c…

Right, the then world's richest started a charitable trust purely so he could improve his public image.

What else is he going to do? At that level of wealth, the marginal returns on greed have diminished to almost zero.

So one must find another way to feed ones ego. What is left apart from fulfilling the god complex and saving the world?

Edit: has->have

Post reply on HN