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

Designing the Facebook Company Brand

facebook.design

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 238 posts

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#151

Post by filoleg »

x220 wrote: post #132
filoleg wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They accepted ad contracts from both sides, while the leadership directly supported DNC. The pendulum was definitely on the DNC side when it came to support from tech companies. Just because they were giving some support to the Republican party, doesn't disprove my assertion at all.

What is your assertion?

My assertion is that "tech companies can choose the winners of the election" is an extremely over-exaggerated statement that holds no basis in reality. Some of the most powerful people in tech industry openly sided with and assisted DNC, and yet they lost the election. Yes, they sold ads to both sides, but the level of support (direct and indirect) that DNC received from big tech was incomparable to that of the Republican party.

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#152

Post by filoleg »

vkou wrote: post #60
dmix wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-trust laws are there for economic reasons, ie, monopolies preventing competition leaving society worse-off as a whole than can be gained from efficiencies of a single organization. It also typically requires proof of anti-competitive behaviour, beyond just being the biggest in the market. A lot of companies dominate their markets but don't engage in overt anti-competitive behaviour. I don't think they've ever be…

Yours is a very US-centric viewpoint. The US sees anti-trust as necessary when consumers are negatively impacted. The EU sees anti-trust as necessary when producers are negatively impacted. The latter is, of course, always colored by politics. I will also note that the nature of the social network market, with its network effects, means that a large enough system with a closed API is, under those constraints, by defi…

>The US sees anti-trust as necessary when consumers are negatively impacted. The EU sees anti-trust as necessary when producers are negatively impacted.

This statement is interesting, considering what it implies about the purpose of existence of producers for each respective side. With this stance, US is more like "producers exist to satisfy needs of customers", while EU is "producers exist just to compete with each other".

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#155

Post by williamvds »

voldacar wrote: post #150

> The brand comes to life in the context of people, cultures, communities and relationships. What does this even mean? What kind of human could even write such a sentence?

Most marketing material like this makes my head start spinning after only a minute or so. I can only imagine what extended periods of _thinking_ in marketing/PR-speak can do to someone

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#156

Post by bduerst »

zaphod4prez wrote: post #108
dmix wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-trust laws are there for economic reasons, ie, monopolies preventing competition leaving society worse-off as a whole than can be gained from efficiencies of a single organization. It also typically requires proof of anti-competitive behaviour, beyond just being the biggest in the market. A lot of companies dominate their markets but don't engage in overt anti-competitive behaviour. I don't think they've ever be…

Your last sentence does not seem right to me, and it also seems to be phrased in a disingenuous way. "punishing companies for not serving some greater democratic service" is a very weird way to describe a legitimate worry about consolidation of private power (which, by the way, has a very long history). Of course, healthy competition & pricing is a core issue here (duh). But power, in all its forms, is also a key iss…

Hey, Thomas Jefferson also said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

Like many of Jefferson's quotes, this one and yours are both out of context, with yours being in reference to a wealthy elite dodging taxes illegally. That context is a bit different than wanting the government breaking up a social media company because you disagree with it's methods of managing free speech.

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#157

Post by sweetheart »

papln wrote: post #134
oflannabhra wrote: post #107

I know it is easy to be cynical on these types of "announcements", but I am having a really, really hard time understanding how curved strokes (or any branding decision) can result in empathy or "open space for peoples stories". Empathy is a human characteristic. To think that a word mark can have (or even create ) it is patently ridiculous. In fact, I'd say it cheapens the meaning of the word to the point where true…

What's sad is that either (a) the brouhaha is a either a lie ot justify an overpaid designer's pay, or (b) it's not a lie, and Facebook is openly bragging about covertly manipulating its users via branding.

This is how all branding works. It is, from what I can tell, the very point of branding. Certainly not limited to Facebook alone.

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#158

Post by Yuval_Halevi »

dang wrote: post #74
[deleted] wrote: post #14

[deleted]

Could you please not unsubstantive comments here? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You're right.

The comment was just mean and didn't give any value to the readers.

I apologize, my bad.

Is there anything i can do now to delete it?

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#159

Post by vkou »

filoleg wrote: post #152
vkou wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yours is a very US-centric viewpoint. The US sees anti-trust as necessary when consumers are negatively impacted. The EU sees anti-trust as necessary when producers are negatively impacted. The latter is, of course, always colored by politics. I will also note that the nature of the social network market, with its network effects, means that a large enough system with a closed API is, under those constraints, by defi…

>The US sees anti-trust as necessary when consumers are negatively impacted. The EU sees anti-trust as necessary when producers are negatively impacted. This statement is interesting, considering what it implies about the purpose of existence of producers for each respective side. With this stance, US is more like "producers exist to satisfy needs of customers", while EU is "producers exist just to compete with each…

The EU, roughly, sees producers as a vehicle that exists to create jobs, and thus create prosperity for their employees.

Once basic life needs are met, optimizing for customers tends to only good for someone who is living off their savings/welfare/etc. Optimizing for employees is good if you, like the majority of the people on Earth, have to work for a living, or are supported by someone who has to work for a living.

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#160

Post by dcwca »

voldacar wrote: post #150

> The brand comes to life in the context of people, cultures, communities and relationships. What does this even mean? What kind of human could even write such a sentence?

I'm as tired of marketing jargon as the next person, but what isn't clear about this? It's a simple statement, encouraging you to think of the brand and its relationship to people and culture, and all the different groups who use Facebook products.
Post reply on HN