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

Facebook has struggled to hire talent since the Cambridge Analytica scandal

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 444 posts

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

#301

Post by [deleted] »

Despegar wrote: post #297
elliekelly wrote: post #294

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.

[deleted]

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

#302

Post by mathattack »

taurath wrote: post #206
Balgair wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also an issue with the 'evaporative' effect. If no one who works there is seen as 'ethical', then you'd expect the people that do work there to be unethical/dubious. So, trying to get a promotion is then more cut-throat, the lunch crew has a few more 'jerks', the HR is a bit more biting, etc. Your hackels get raised and you are more suspicious of the motivations (however begnin) of others. Better to just not…

Sheryl hired the swiftboat campaigners to stop Congress. Finding out about that made me assume that over time most of their employees would trend in the opposite direction of optimistic.

Wow! Source?

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

#303

Post by intertextuality »

bradlys wrote: post #283
cdcooksey wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like your computer should consider remote workers. I live in Denver and have told Facebook recruiters that I’m specifically not interested in working at Facebook, but I would consider a remote position at a startup. I’m sure as hell not relocating to the Bay Area is all.

If we wanted remote workers then we'd hire people in Romania. Like the last place I worked at did.

Remote working in the same or similar timezones is nice, and no, not everyone needs to work in the same office.

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

#304

Post by pertymcpert »

Panini_Jones wrote: post #271
zippzom wrote: post #268

Personal anecdote: I had a job offer from Facebook and a couple other big tech companies. The Facebook offer was substantially better fiscally than the other ones and it was clear to me that they were having trouble hiring. Their initial equity grant has no cliff and the signing bonus was massive for somebody two years out of school: $75,000 cash in first paycheck. However I ultimately turned it down because of ethic…

> Their initial equity grant has no cliff and the signing bonus was massive for somebody two years out of school: $75,000 cash in first paycheck. * Google got rid of the cliff too. * The $75K sign-on bonus is nothing new. These are not signals that we're having trouble hiring now. > However I ultimately turned it down because of ethical concerns about working there combined with a sense that people would not approve…

They said it was also ethical concerns, so not just about impressing other people. If you don’t have ethical doubts, you do you, but some companies have beyond awesome ethical standards.

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

#305

Post by pertymcpert »

freedomben wrote: post #235

I've known several people that would no longer work for Facebook, but the Cambridge Analytica isn't the biggest concern. It's the fact that they are censoring people, even within private groups. I have a friend that jokingly said (in a private group) that men are vile pigs. We knew she was joking - it was good natured. Yet, Facebook issued her a warning and removed her post and threatened her with a ban. First they c…

How did FB find out about her post?

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

#306

Post by why_only_15 »

arcticbull wrote: post #275
nathanlied wrote: post #192

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…

What does free airtime mean in this context? People used that term a lot about the coverage of Trump during the 2016 election, but forbidding news outlets to cover a candidate is obviously absurd.

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

#307

Post by hinkley »

shemnon42 wrote: post #265
hinkley wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google never figured out how to make serious bank outside of the marketing department. The fact that they kept the wheels on as long as they did, I gotta give them some respect for that. But they were always destined to end up being amoral at best and a cesspool at worst. If you are starting a company and think you want to be proud of it for the rest of your life, sell a real product, not your users.

If by "marketing department" you mean "advertising business" you would be correct. But I am skeptical you meant that.

Yeah I mean the advertising business. I was feeling a little salty.

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

#308

Post by AnthonyMouse »

andrewfong wrote: post #289
arcticbull wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

OK, what if people with money want to spend that money on political speech _without_ coordinating with the candidate? That's the Citizens United problem. There's no quid pro quo bribery, but if the NRA spends a bazillion dollars attacking your opponent but not you, it'd be hard to say there's no influence on your decision making process. At the same time, it's really tricky to ban. Is something like Michael Moore's F…

> Is something like Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 a form of political advertising?

Not only that, is CNN or Fox News coverage of a sitting politician who is running for reelection a form of political advertising? How they choose to report stories -- and which stories they choose to report -- can certainly affect how the voters view the candidates.

Probably the best solution is to just have a signature requirement where if you get that many signatures, the government gives your campaign an amount of money equal to the average amount of private money raised by successful candidates running for the same level of office in the previous election.

Then the average privately-funded campaign will have twice that much (if they get the signatures too), but a factor of two isn't huge here. It's more of a threshold situation where once you reach a saturation point it's diminishing returns. Get the candidate to that point with public money and the value of trading legislation for private money would be much diminished.

Of course, you still have the problem that too many people vote for who cable news tells them to.

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

#309

Post by School-Cotton »

arcticbull wrote: post #275
nathanlied wrote: post #192

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…

This is reasonably similar, AFAIK, to how it works in France (and I assume many other developed countries).

Campaigns do spend their own money but it is capped at some low value to even the playing field, and they also receive public funding. TV stations are required to give equal time to all candidates (in the 2007 election there were 12 candidates, only 3 of which had any realistic chance of winning, but major TV stations spent equal time interviewing all of them).

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

#310

Post by Despegar »

natal59 wrote: post #298
Despegar wrote: post #279

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

Whats the app you used to get so much history

FactSet
Post reply on HN