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

381–390 of 444 posts

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

#381

Post by brigandish »

noir_lord wrote: post #361
visarga wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you really want money out of politics then you replace all of them with sortition (assemblies of the people). They are representative, being drawn at random, for the whole population and they are not elected, so they don't need to campaign. Similar to politicians, they need to be supported by experts and advisors in the specific topic they are working on. I'd rather trust a group of random people deliberating than…

My approach is different, two houses (assemblies) one elected and one via sortition. Elected can propose and pass but sortition house can block. Basically the commons/lords setup but with the lord's replaced with random people. That way the politicians answer directly to the people (or a random sample) of them.

I have been thinking exactly the same. I now have to wonder if you work at Facebook and have "read my mind" via my likes… ;-)

I been musing on whether there should be some small barriers to joining, as there is in jury service - perhaps the elected get to oppose a certain number of candidates, or they must pass a civics/governance test first so at least they've some technical knowledge going in. I can see that being twisted into something bad though.

Much as I dislike the Lords Spiritual in the current system, I wonder if the sortition should embrace it and be a "tulip farm" of certain interest groups e.g. 20 each for religion, business, justice, commoners etc, as then there's a definite base of understanding in important areas.

However it would be arranged it'd be hard for it to be worse than having the Lords full of lords though.

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

#382

Post by JohnFen »

village-idiot wrote: post #238
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…

There’s also the reputation impact as well. When all of the bad things at Uber eventually became public, Uber engineers started reporting difficulty in getting new jobs. Apparently hiring managers assumed, perhaps correctly, that anyone who stuck it out at a toxic place that long was possibly the source of toxicity themselves.

If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

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

#383

Post by JohnFen »

clairity wrote: post #51
jfasi wrote: post #38

I just spent three months hiring in NYC, and now that I think about it, I haven't seen a single person mention they were considering counteroffers from Facebook. For context, Facebook and Google are the two largest tech companies with a significant NYC presence. It's telling that a substantial portion of our candidates admitted to considering competing offers from Google, but literally no one was considering Facebook…

> "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

I disagree. I think that on the whole, they're both about the same. But in terms of integrity, honesty, and ethics, Google has a (small) lead on Facebook.

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

#384

Post by JohnFen »

walls wrote: post #94
clairity wrote: post #51

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 has your data and uses it for themselves. Facebook has your data and gives it (or leaks it) to anyone with money.

Google and Facebook are exactly the same on this score. They both collect as much data about you as they can get their grubby paws on, they both use that data for themselves, and they both allow others to leverage that data in exchange for cash.

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

#385

Post by JohnFen »

dylan604 wrote: post #99
bhtru wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have time, can you elaborate why you believe Google is a larger threat to personal liberty and privacy?

I too was curious of this balance weighting. FB slurps in all of the data that users voluntarily post. Google just learns things through inference about users whereas FB is getting data posted directly by the user. Seems to me that FB is able to be way more invasive.

> FB slurps in all of the data that users voluntarily post.

As well as all the data they can get, whether or not you even have a Facebook account. Real-world credit/debit card usage data, for instance.

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

#386

Post by Glyptodon »

wnmurphy wrote: post #264
Glyptodon wrote: post #147

My career is and has always been defined by a refusal to work for companies I'm not ethically comfortable with. Hopefully it becomes more of a norm.

This is a luxury and a privilege many people can't afford, and I am right there with you in exercising it consciously.

I agree, but there are many people who are in positions to exercise this kind of discretion who refuse or who only do so after they've extracted tainted benefits.

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

#387

Post by JohnFen »

_bxg1 wrote: post #231
clairity wrote: post #51

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 collects more data, but they're much less free-wheeling with how they share it around. Pick your poison I guess.

I pick neither.

This whole debate about who is worse, Google or Facebook, is a bit ridiculous. They're both unacceptably awful, and practically speaking I don't think it matters which is more awful than the other.

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

#388

Post by JohnFen »

sizzle wrote: post #311
jfasi wrote: post #38

I just spent three months hiring in NYC, and now that I think about it, I haven't seen a single person mention they were considering counteroffers from Facebook. For context, Facebook and Google are the two largest tech companies with a significant NYC presence. It's telling that a substantial portion of our candidates admitted to considering competing offers from Google, but literally no one was considering Facebook…

In my experience, Facebook used to be a cool thing to be on when you were documenting college party shenanigans and sharing pictures with friends, before it reached mass adoption to the point that your parents/grandparents were trying to add you as a friend. This was a time when organizing/sharing pictures with friends digitally was not a straightforward process. I've come to terms with a simple fact of life that aft…

> a simple fact of life that after graduating, it gets harder to make friends as you get older

This is not really a simple fact of life, in my opinion. It only gets harder because people make less of an effort. If you put as much time and energy into being social later in life as you do in college, then it isn't any harder to make new friends.

The main difference is that in school, you're automatically surrounded by a lot of varied people. Out of school, that's not automatic -- you have to intentionally put yourself in such situation. Often this is done by joining and participating in clubs and organization that cover things you're interested in (dancing, crafting, whatever).

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

#389

Post by JohnFen »

bradlys wrote: post #282
swivelmaster wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you offering a competitive salary?

I mean... does any startup when compared to FAANG? Salaries are basically the same but the total compensation is, obviously, wildly different since expected value for startup stock is horrible.

> I mean... does any startup when compared to FAANG?

Yes, in my experience. Unless, as you mentioned, you count stock options or similar (which I don't).

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

#390

Post by JohnFen »

krageon wrote: post #346
jfasi wrote: post #38

I just spent three months hiring in NYC, and now that I think about it, I haven't seen a single person mention they were considering counteroffers from Facebook. For context, Facebook and Google are the two largest tech companies with a significant NYC presence. It's telling that a substantial portion of our candidates admitted to considering competing offers from Google, but literally no one was considering Facebook…

> one of the things candidates respond to most is the story we tell about our company's past, present, and future I hear this storyline fairly often (though exclusively from corporate recruiters) and I have a super hard time understanding why this would matter. Can someone who actually listens to this kind of (IMO) propaganda weigh in and help me understand why it matters to them?

It matters to the same degree (and for the same reasons) as any other marketing pitch matters.
Post reply on HN