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

331–340 of 414 posts

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#331

Post by achow »

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…

Yep and keeping in touch with the flow of actual fake stories. These places FB is the internet and that has bad consequences for sure.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#332

Post by justanotherjoe »

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…

When discussing the bad impacts of things like these, It's important to remember that we are under no impression that it is bad for everyone. But it is bad for SOME people. And that is enough. Some people will have their life ruined because of exploitative companies. Because their model promote unhealthy behavior that will consume their lives. Everyone knows that this is true. Some people out there are consuming too much time on facebook and having their live ruined as consequence. Just because it's not "everyone", or even a big percentage of the user, doesn't mean that we should be indifferent.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#333

Post by a012 »

creato wrote: post #329
tathougies wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel comparing big tobacco to a service that lets you talk with your friends and keep a timeline of your life is a bit disproportionate.

Most of my friends that still smoke will straight up tell you the only reason they do it is for the social interactions that happen while smoking. I don't think it's that different.

Except smoke kills you

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#334

Post by chrischen »

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…

Actually this was possible already, and most of Facebook's primary features existed before Facebook. Facebook can really be described as the time wasting, addiction-inducing, feature-sets on top of standard social communication features, driven by their main goal of delivering and monetizing ads. Helping you communicate with your friends and family? That's just an ad vector.

Recently my friend group switched over to a non-facebook-owned messaging service, and the hardest part was breaking old habits. The facebook specific features? Messenger actually had fewer features to help us communicate and more features designed to distract us and make us mindlessly consume.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#335

Post by andrei_says_ »

a012 wrote: post #333
creato wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of my friends that still smoke will straight up tell you the only reason they do it is for the social interactions that happen while smoking. I don't think it's that different.

Except smoke kills you

And addiction to Facebook causes depression and robs you of your abilityvto focus. Both measured and proven.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#336

Post by mav3rick »

arendtio wrote: post #218
jedberg wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is such a stupid argument. If 5 people do something that the 6th person doesn't want to ..doesn't mean the onus is on the 5 to stop doing it.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#337

Post by m0zg »

Spooky23 wrote: post #286
resters wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically the fear-mongering about the propaganda campaign you are describing is intended to turn Facebook into an instrument of US government propaganda. Zuckerberg has been resisting that, which is why Facebook is being attacked from all sides at the moment.

The US government has unlimited resources. If they want to use Facebook as a propaganda platform, they would do so, and Facebook would happily accept their cash. The Russian campaign that you’re dismissive of is consistent with the heritage of Russian intelligence services. Lenin’s newspaper was called “Iskra” (spark) in the context of “from a spark a fire will flare up.” The army of trolls is there to foment dissent…

It's disingenuous to suggest that Facebook's current problems aren't at least in part due to their being more impartial in 2016 election cycle than they were in 2012 (when they let the Obama campaign download their entire social graph, and were praised for it).

If Zuck is trying to do distance the company from this shit and make it _more_ impartial, he's making the right choice for the long run. From what I've seen of him in congressional testimonies, he knows this is a problem, and he deliberately chooses not to pick a side as the company's CEO, even though he's under severe pressure to do so.

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#338

Post by civility »

msie wrote: post #317
civility wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. [...] The alternative (cel phone calls and sms) I use email to keep in contact with my family. CC everyone, then reply all. No Facebook required.

Facebook messaging has less support issues than email plus ...emojis.

Support issues with email? Everyone I know can handle email just fine.

I consider the lack of emojis a bonus. Old school smileys are just fine by me. :-)

(Actually, emojis work just fine with gmail, but I won't be embracing them any time soon)

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#339

Post by civility »

joe_the_user wrote: post #271
civility wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. [...] The alternative (cel phone calls and sms) I use email to keep in contact with my family. CC everyone, then reply all. No Facebook required.

Well, as I far as I can tell, a significant portion of negative qualities attributed to Facebook also can be, have been, attributed to email. It seems like the situation of Facebook-anger today involves some people looking at particular interface of details that allegedly make Facebook in particular "more addictive" than email (or whatever unspecified social activity) but with this group with this narrow critique bei…

> Well, as I far as I can tell, a significant portion of negative qualities attributed to Facebook also can be, have been, attributed to email.

I disagree, for me this isn't about being addictive. Email doesn't quietly let websites I visit add themselves to my apps list and periodically reset/redefine my permissions so everyone can see my (and my friend's/family's) personal information.

If Facebook was just addictive I would still use it (I ditched it over 10 years ago).

Re: Facebook Loses Top Executives, Including Chris Cox

#340

Post by saintPirelli »

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…

The fact that Facebook as _a_ benefit, doesn't make Facebook _a good thing_ as a whole. Of course it's nice to stay in contact with your friends around the world for free, when just some 20 years ago this - if available to you at all - would have cost you loads of money.

Without defaulting to listing what bad Facebook does: Do those benefits really justify all the negative impacts? I hardly think so.

Post reply on HN