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

Facebook's PR feels broken

themargins.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 262 posts

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#121

Post by alexpetralia »

ganstyles wrote: post #114
jyrkesh wrote: post #106

> I’m sure, internally, it’s looked at as the “mainstream media trying to get clicks... I interviewed with FB shortly after the Cambridge Analytica stuff came out (but long enough after that it was clear to everyone that FB had screwed up big time). When it was my turn to ask questions in one particular interview, I gave a standard fallback when I have nothing else: "[despite all the blahblah positives], having worke…

I interviewed there this summer because the position/compensation offered was just too good to not consider seriously. Like, top 10% at FB kind of money, which is a lot. During the interview process, I asked many FB employees about their thoughts on FB in the news, the headlines, scandals, etc. All super smart and dedicated people, but anecdotally there was no hint of them thinking they had done anything wrong. They…

I would also imagine that, especially during interviews, they recognize their duty is in part to sell the candidate on the firm. There's an implicit pressure to be positive about your company because there's only downside to saying negative things, even if it's honest. I don't see why an employee would put themselves on the line with a candidate, who they may never work with nor see again, just to express what they think is right.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#122

Post by netsharc »

ganstyles wrote: post #114
jyrkesh wrote: post #106

> I’m sure, internally, it’s looked at as the “mainstream media trying to get clicks... I interviewed with FB shortly after the Cambridge Analytica stuff came out (but long enough after that it was clear to everyone that FB had screwed up big time). When it was my turn to ask questions in one particular interview, I gave a standard fallback when I have nothing else: "[despite all the blahblah positives], having worke…

I interviewed there this summer because the position/compensation offered was just too good to not consider seriously. Like, top 10% at FB kind of money, which is a lot. During the interview process, I asked many FB employees about their thoughts on FB in the news, the headlines, scandals, etc. All super smart and dedicated people, but anecdotally there was no hint of them thinking they had done anything wrong. They…

The people probably had a moral conflict: the good Facebook money but lose "their souls", or go with their conscience, quit and lose that money and work friendships/network. So, so they can sleep at night they've convinced themselves the company they're a part of wasn't the responsible party. So "Hey, those users opted-in, it's their own fault!".

Funny how it means the company is now probably full of either "ignorance is bliss" or morally bankrupt people, because the people with good conscience have left. Not that society at large is much different... what uncomfortable truths are we ignoring?

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#123

Post by mehrdadn »

jyrkesh wrote: post #106

> I’m sure, internally, it’s looked at as the “mainstream media trying to get clicks... I interviewed with FB shortly after the Cambridge Analytica stuff came out (but long enough after that it was clear to everyone that FB had screwed up big time). When it was my turn to ask questions in one particular interview, I gave a standard fallback when I have nothing else: "[despite all the blahblah positives], having worke…

I'm guessing it might be that the people working hard on maintaining user privacy are not the same as the people making the decisions, so the former feels they're treated unfairly.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#124

Post by gjs278 »

jyrkesh wrote: post #106

> I’m sure, internally, it’s looked at as the “mainstream media trying to get clicks... I interviewed with FB shortly after the Cambridge Analytica stuff came out (but long enough after that it was clear to everyone that FB had screwed up big time). When it was my turn to ask questions in one particular interview, I gave a standard fallback when I have nothing else: "[despite all the blahblah positives], having worke…

take back your everyone. I still maintain that facebook did nothing wrong. idiots were tricked into voting for trump because facebook said they were idiots? who cares

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#125

Post by netsharc »

jschwartzi wrote: post #117
LanceH wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think logically the government shouldn't be threatening anyone with a breakup based upon speech. I'm not sure how you get there as a logical conclusion. I would rather risk total garbage in the public forum than establish a ministry of truth.

Facebook is the Ministry of Truth. They even throw things down the Memory Hole.

Oh man, if not exactly the memory hole it's the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard", and they can claim their algorithm that highlights stuff in your newsfeed just decided something wasn't important (but it would've been there if you scrolled long enough or clicked some sub-menu...).

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#126

Post by weare138 »

mehrdadn wrote: post #123
jyrkesh wrote: post #106

> I’m sure, internally, it’s looked at as the “mainstream media trying to get clicks... I interviewed with FB shortly after the Cambridge Analytica stuff came out (but long enough after that it was clear to everyone that FB had screwed up big time). When it was my turn to ask questions in one particular interview, I gave a standard fallback when I have nothing else: "[despite all the blahblah positives], having worke…

I'm guessing it might be that the people working hard on maintaining user privacy are not the same as the people making the decisions, so the former feels they're treated unfairly.

Based on the op's description, it doesn't seem like this particular FB employee minded those decisions that much. In fact, they sounded pretty enthusiastic about them.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#127

Post by gjs278 »

Marsymars wrote: post #73
manfredo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a significant number of tech workers I know that do genuinely believe that companies should leverage their technology to benefit the candidates that they feel would be better for the country, and do things like ban Trump's social media accounts. This is what Bosworth was addressing: > But he maintained that the company should not change its policies on political advertising, saying that doing so in order to…

Banning Trump's social media accounts wouldn't require bias against him, it would simply require him to stop receiving special exemption from platform rules.

maybe those rules shouldn’t apply to anyone

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#128

Post by vwcx »

rhubarbquid wrote: post #112

I've worked in media, and I can confirm the "packages" that sponsors buy as described are totally normal in media. There's a reason editorial departments are totally separate from ad sales. FTC disclosure of paid content is extremely important and taken very seriously (at least where I worked and by the FTC). IMHO Facebook doesn't have any reputation left to tarnish, but Teen Vogue screwed themselves here, badly.

In my experience, editorial departments of most outlets are no longer separate from ad sales. On paper, maybe, and as a concept/line that too brass can say publicly, but the four major outlets I’ve worked all had edit staffs that end up being influenced heavily by the business side. Sometimes censorship, sometimes decision making and influence.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#129

Post by taurath »

alexpetralia wrote: post #121
ganstyles wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I interviewed there this summer because the position/compensation offered was just too good to not consider seriously. Like, top 10% at FB kind of money, which is a lot. During the interview process, I asked many FB employees about their thoughts on FB in the news, the headlines, scandals, etc. All super smart and dedicated people, but anecdotally there was no hint of them thinking they had done anything wrong. They…

I would also imagine that, especially during interviews, they recognize their duty is in part to sell the candidate on the firm. There's an implicit pressure to be positive about your company because there's only downside to saying negative things, even if it's honest. I don't see why an employee would put themselves on the line with a candidate, who they may never work with nor see again, just to express what they t…

If you're trying to hire "top 10% pay at FB" smart level people, hiding behind poorly constructed rhetorical barriers is more of a negative thing than recognizing a real negative thing. It doesn't have to be anyone's "fault" even, but more of a consequence of the system that was built with good intentions.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#130

Post by remarkEon »

ganstyles wrote: post #114
jyrkesh wrote: post #106

> I’m sure, internally, it’s looked at as the “mainstream media trying to get clicks... I interviewed with FB shortly after the Cambridge Analytica stuff came out (but long enough after that it was clear to everyone that FB had screwed up big time). When it was my turn to ask questions in one particular interview, I gave a standard fallback when I have nothing else: "[despite all the blahblah positives], having worke…

I interviewed there this summer because the position/compensation offered was just too good to not consider seriously. Like, top 10% at FB kind of money, which is a lot. During the interview process, I asked many FB employees about their thoughts on FB in the news, the headlines, scandals, etc. All super smart and dedicated people, but anecdotally there was no hint of them thinking they had done anything wrong. They…

>They explained for example how Cambridge Analytica was totally overblown in the media, specifically because users opted in, and the media was just bashing them. [Emphasis mine]

That is really troubling. Excusing nefarious behavior because "well the user opted in" is a downright horrible way to rationalize bad behavior. Users never read the TOS. They barely understand the privacy settings (though I've heard they've gotten better ... haven't had Facebook in years). I tend to think that, yeah, Cambridge Analytica was probably overblown a bit for a number of reasons, but wow. I know a couple people who have quit Facebook (one recently, one a couple years ago before the election) and a couple who have stayed. I have to say, the ones who've stayed have drifted away from the rest of our friend group. Sad to see.

Post reply on HN