Live data from Hacker News

Facebook has struggled to hire talent since the Cambridge Analytica scandal

cnbc.com

291–300 of 444 posts

Re: Facebook has struggled to hire talent since the Cambridge Analytica scandal

#291
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "It's telling that a substantial portion of our candidates admitted to considering competing offers from Google, but literally no one was considering Facebook." intersting anecdote. google is a bigger concern for privacy and personal liberty, yet jobseekers are shunning facebook because of the more wide-ranging negative press.

>google is a bigger concern for privacy and personal liberty Big claim. Any proofs? With Facebook, what annoyed me was that they set up internal teams to help with political candidates social media campaigns - no matter who the candidates are. Extremely worrisome if you prefer to have people elected through a democratic process that is based on the discussion. This is not like understanding what people want or how do…

With Facebook, it's easy for an average individual to leave the platform for good: stop using Fb/Insta/Whatsapp and install something like Privacy Badger to avoid tracking on all the other sites that have some form of Fb integration.

Leaving Google, by contrast, is way more difficult, their ecosystem reaches literally every corner of the web and you have to deal with it even if you don't consciously use any Google product, for example if Recaptcha doesn't like you, everyday online tasks like paying public school fees [1] or signing up to an online forum become much harder. Another example is Amp, where the fact that you are reading an article hosted into Google infrastructure is often hidden from you, there are many more examples. Trying to quit Google feels like that episode of Black Mirror where that woman is ostracised by everyone because she doesn't have the same cybernetic implant that everyone else is using. Just because Google hasn't been caught in any scandal comparable to the Cambridge Analytica one, it doesn't mean that it's OK for them to have so much unchecked power.

[1] see my submission history for details

Re: Facebook has struggled to hire talent since the Cambridge Analytica scandal

#292

As a current student, I'm actually surprised by this. Maybe I just hang out with evil people, but I don't get the impression most young programmers care that much about ethics. Or they claim they do, but then the 6 figure salary, cushy benefits and signing bonus wins them over. Perhaps there's other reasons? I do joke with my friend who works at Bloomberg that the "evil" finance view has now flipped completely. Bloom…

Ironically working for a bank is probably often more moral / does more good than Google. Keeping people's money safe is a very real service. People complain about CC interchange fees, but it costs ~1-2% to process cash as well. (Safes, hiring armored trucks to pick it up, etc).

Not all of finance is swapping debt like a commodity til the economy crashes and forclosing on people who had some bad luck.

Allowing people to use their money conveniently and securely is arguably bringing more value to the world than helping run psyops to convince people to buy things they don't actually need. People need checking, savings, and credit card accounts and they need them to be secure and reliable

Re: Facebook has struggled to hire talent since the Cambridge Analytica scandal

#293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With Facebook, what annoyed me was that they set up internal teams to help with political candidates social media campaigns - no matter who the candidates are. (EU citizen here): I would prefer corporations (especially ones with such depth of funds and breadth of influence) be kept entirely outside the electoral process. If that's not feasible, then the second best option is, indeed, that they provide the same serv…

My ideal system is to eliminate all private money from elections. You as a candidate are given a stipend by the FEC at the beginning of the campaign season, the same amount as any other candidate for the same office, and you are free to spend it. You ran out? Tough. See you next election cycle. Nobody is allowed to give you money or anything else of value (including free airtime) -- not individuals, not companies, ju…

Well you'd have to toss out the 1st Amendment to get that idea off the ground.

Re: Facebook has struggled to hire talent since the Cambridge Analytica scandal

#294
post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Banks don't earn much more than their cost of capital anymore. This doesn't sound right. Can you add some citation or detail?

Goldman Sachs's return on equity used to average 20-30% before the crisis. Now a decade after the crisis they're glad to be doing more than 10%. https://i.imgur.com/gtE05WX.png

I’m on mobile so I can’t read the numbers on the excel screenshot you provided but the historic high return on average equity for banks[1] (not including brokerage) was 16.29% in 1999. At last measure it was 11.85%. Dodd-Frank was merely a speed bump. The vast majority of banks have long since recovered from the crisis.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USROE

Re: Facebook has struggled to hire talent since the Cambridge Analytica scandal

#295
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "It's telling that a substantial portion of our candidates admitted to considering competing offers from Google, but literally no one was considering Facebook." intersting anecdote. google is a bigger concern for privacy and personal liberty, yet jobseekers are shunning facebook because of the more wide-ranging negative press.

>google is a bigger concern for privacy and personal liberty Big claim. Any proofs? With Facebook, what annoyed me was that they set up internal teams to help with political candidates social media campaigns - no matter who the candidates are. Extremely worrisome if you prefer to have people elected through a democratic process that is based on the discussion. This is not like understanding what people want or how do…

>>google is a bigger concern for privacy and personal liberty

>Big claim. Any proofs?

Well. How about the following facts?

-- Android market share is about 75 % of all smartphone users. Do non-smartphone users still exist?

-- It's probably safe to say that it's much much easier to avoid using Facebook's services consciously than to avoid using Google's services consciously?

-- Android's hard coded DNS server is a Google DNS server. The vast majority of people don't use a VPN (the only way in Android to change DNS server is through a VPN setup) to get around this. I haven't looked it up, but it's probably safe to assume that all Chromebooks also use Google's DNS by default? My limited networking knowledge tells me that this means that Google knows: who's using what Android/Google device at what time (match IP to Google login to Android device), who's visiting what website at what time, who's using what app at what time (requests to the app's server and to Google's servers for location, payment, auth and other info).

-- A lot of people use Gmail. Google can literally read all Gmail emails. Even those sent into Gmail from outside of Google servers.

-- The vast majority of Android users has enabled "Google location services" in Android. This is a one time "click OK to continue dialog" to permanently enable these location services until disabled manually again in settings (nobody does this). Weather apps, Tinder, Navigation apps, etc almost all require this. This means those people are continually sending https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/10/business/loca...

-- People use Chrome. With automated Google login. Meaning Google knows everything they do online.

-- I'm not even going to go into other popular Google apps, we all know them: Youtube, Google Assistant, etc. With all the accounts nicely automatically linked to one another.

-- All of the above information and probably much more can be used for profiling information about users. I think it's safe to say that Google knows absolutely everything about it's users at this point?

Than the following:

-- Law enforcement (internationally?) can request any "sensor vault" data from any Google user in their country. AKA: they can request to look into all of the details of one's life.

-- The NSA can secretly request access to any of Google's data. Google is not allowed to disclose this access. By law. That's what they can legally do. Snowden has told us what they illegally do: anything they want. The NSA literally knows everything there is to know about everybody. In the world. And Google, by law, has to help them with that. In secret. This obviously has political consequences for the simple fact that "information = power". Those political consequences are not in favor of democracy.

Where I write "Google knows" I mean that Google servers receive that information (a fact). It is debatable whether Google stores that information or not. As for the location data mentioned above, it is a fact that third parties (app makers) do store this location information and sell it (illegally, see NYT link above). It is also debatable whether Google deletes your information when you ask them too.

My personal guess it that absolutely all information is stored, but that this storage of information is not disclosed to the public. I personally also believe that when you request your Google data to be deleted, only "the public facing layer" of your info gets deleted. I don't believe for a second they actually delete your "anonymized" data. In quotes, because such data can very easily be de-anonymized.

I mean, just the fact that there is deliberately no "DNS server address" setting in Android. Ask yourself why? Why would Google make it so much easier to just use the Google DNS server? Why does it offer a free DNS server to begin with? Why does all your location data have to go through Google servers before being consumed by the apps that run on your phone locally? That says it all to me.

Re: Facebook has struggled to hire talent since the Cambridge Analytica scandal

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know where my data actually ends up And how do you know what Google does with it? AFAIK Google has never officially stated in specific detail what data they collect, what they do with it, who can access it, etc. Their Privacy Policy gives them a giant escape hatch to essentially do anything with it - "We provide personal information to our affiliates and other trusted businesses or persons to process it for us, b…

I think you not quoting the rest of that sentence is quite disingenuous >"...For example, we use service providers to help us with customer support" As far as I'm aware there is no evidence that Google shares my personal information, without my explicit consent, with third parties like Cambridge Analytica, which collected tens of millions of individual user profiles.

Sorry, how is it disingenuous? I didn't consider the example relevant to the policy itself, and I provided a link to the source material for anyone to read. Giving a benign example is meant to downplay the fact that Google can do anything they want with your data.

Re: Facebook has struggled to hire talent since the Cambridge Analytica scandal

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Goldman Sachs's return on equity used to average 20-30% before the crisis. Now a decade after the crisis they're glad to be doing more than 10%. https://i.imgur.com/gtE05WX.png

I’m on mobile so I can’t read the numbers on the excel screenshot you provided but the historic high return on average equity for banks[1] (not including brokerage) was 16.29% in 1999. At last measure it was 11.85%. Dodd-Frank was merely a speed bump. The vast majority of banks have long since recovered from the crisis. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USROE

That's not a good chart for banks. Their cost of capital is 8-10%, doing 11 or 12% is pretty shitty compared to the pre-crisis era.

And the smaller community banks have less onerous regulations than the big ones. Banks have to be much more capitalized and have less leverage because of Dodd-Frank. That's why the return on equity is mediocre.

Re: Facebook has struggled to hire talent since the Cambridge Analytica scandal

#298
post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Banks don't earn much more than their cost of capital anymore. This doesn't sound right. Can you add some citation or detail?

Goldman Sachs's return on equity used to average 20-30% before the crisis. Now a decade after the crisis they're glad to be doing more than 10%. https://i.imgur.com/gtE05WX.png

Whats the app you used to get so much history

Re: Facebook has struggled to hire talent since the Cambridge Analytica scandal

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m on mobile so I can’t read the numbers on the excel screenshot you provided but the historic high return on average equity for banks[1] (not including brokerage) was 16.29% in 1999. At last measure it was 11.85%. Dodd-Frank was merely a speed bump. The vast majority of banks have long since recovered from the crisis. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USROE

That's not a good chart for banks. Their cost of capital is 8-10%, doing 11 or 12% is pretty shitty compared to the pre-crisis era. And the smaller community banks have less onerous regulations than the big ones. Banks have to be much more capitalized and have less leverage because of Dodd-Frank. That's why the return on equity is mediocre.

While I'm not personally keen on him, Trump's admin rolled back CCAR to every 4 years, for small book every 6. Expect lower regulatory costs.

Re: Facebook has struggled to hire talent since the Cambridge Analytica scandal

#300
post #204

Honestly I think its more than just that, Facebook is no longer the cool start up building the world's favorite website. They're a multi-national advertising mega corp, and TBH most people just don't want to work there.

But Apple, Google, Microsoft aren't the cool start-ups either and they are mega-corps, yet people still want to work there. So I don't believe that line of reasoning holds up.

At least to me, Microsoft's desirability has gone up considerably over the last decade.
Post reply on HN