"Advertising integrity chief" sounds like something straight out of Orwell.
Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
101–110 of 252 posts
Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
#102"Chief of Advertising Integrity" does anyone take that title seriously? Forget advertising, Facebook and it's CEO himself has no integrity.
I mean, "Advertising Integrity" and "Facebook" shouldn't appear in the same sentence. Amazon is bad enough with fake reviews and retailers that ship terrible products when advertising them as something better. So it takes a lot to make me think something is worse and meaner to consumers than Amazon. But sure enough, Facebook is it. Their ads are about 60% complete scams, from what I can tell. I get all these ads for…
Well, "advertising" and "integrity" don't belong together anyway. Advertising is an inherently dishonest industry.
Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
#103As a corporation, Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large, but the company is finding it very difficult to do The Right Thing, because it would reduce future revenue growth, shrink long-term profitability, and hurt the company's competitive standing against the many other companies that are trying to eat Facebook's lunch every day. In the extreme, Facebook's choic…
> As a corporation, Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large Sorry, that's a hard disagree from me and I think you couldn't be further off the mark. Facebook's entire raison d'etre from day 1 is to take as much data from as many sources as possible, then use the most powerful computers, programmed by the brightest minds, to use that data to maximise their profit wi…
My point is that Facebook can improve its behavior only by putting its business at risk.
If Zuckerberg, Sandberg, et al could improve Facebook's behavior without putting the business at risk, they would do it in a heartbeat. But it appears they can't.
Their efforts are thus sincere but highly constrained: They will never voluntarily do anything that would put the business -- their life's work -- at risk.
If I may use an imperfect analogy: Facebook is a "polluter of society" that can't afford to stop polluting until all its competitors are forced to stop polluting society too.
Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
#104Well that’s an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one.
Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pulled straight out of the Moral Mazes playbook, chapter on “dexterity with symbols.”
Oh, interesting! I hadn't heard of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Mazes At this point, its research is nearly 40 years out of date. Is it still worth reading? And are there more up-to-date versions?
I’m reading it right now
And I highly recommend it. Many of its insights remain both relevant and thought-provoking.
Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As a corporation, Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large Sorry, that's a hard disagree from me and I think you couldn't be further off the mark. Facebook's entire raison d'etre from day 1 is to take as much data from as many sources as possible, then use the most powerful computers, programmed by the brightest minds, to use that data to maximise their profit wi…
My point is that Facebook can improve its behavior only by putting its business at risk. If Zuckerberg, Sandberg, et al could improve Facebook's behavior without putting the business at risk , they would do it in a heartbeat. But it appears they can't. Their efforts are thus sincere but highly constrained: They will never voluntarily do anything that would put the business -- their life's work -- at risk. If I may us…
I'm finding these two sentences hard to reconcile.
> If Zuckerberg, Sandberg, et al could improve Facebook's behavior without putting the business at risk, they would do it in a heartbeat. But it appears they can't.
> Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large
Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
#107As a corporation, Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large, but the company is finding it very difficult to do The Right Thing, because it would reduce future revenue growth, shrink long-term profitability, and hurt the company's competitive standing against the many other companies that are trying to eat Facebook's lunch every day. In the extreme, Facebook's choic…
I see you're getting some downvotes, but I agree with you. Put another way, though: the problem is not Zuckerberg per se, it's the business model of advertising-supported, general-purpose social networks. If you took everybody out of Facebook and replaced them all with other equally qualified people, they would behave the same, as an organization. The problem is not Who, it's What. You can't "fix" Facebook, because t…
Zuckerberg holds 90% of class b shares which have 10x the voting rights of normal shares and gives him 4 billion votes. There are -2.4 billion class A shares. He has stacked the board with loyalist yes men. It is a dictatorship bent on maximizing profit. The business model and how they operate is defined by Zuckerberg. It seems to me that he should hold the majority of the blame.
Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As a corporation, Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large Sorry, that's a hard disagree from me and I think you couldn't be further off the mark. Facebook's entire raison d'etre from day 1 is to take as much data from as many sources as possible, then use the most powerful computers, programmed by the brightest minds, to use that data to maximise their profit wi…
My point is that Facebook can improve its behavior only by putting its business at risk. If Zuckerberg, Sandberg, et al could improve Facebook's behavior without putting the business at risk , they would do it in a heartbeat. But it appears they can't. Their efforts are thus sincere but highly constrained: They will never voluntarily do anything that would put the business -- their life's work -- at risk. If I may us…
My point is that Oil Companies can improve their behavior only by putting their business at risk.
Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
#109As a corporation, Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large, but the company is finding it very difficult to do The Right Thing, because it would reduce future revenue growth, shrink long-term profitability, and hurt the company's competitive standing against the many other companies that are trying to eat Facebook's lunch every day. In the extreme, Facebook's choic…
> As a corporation, Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large.
No, it's not. Their social network is engineered entirely and unsurprisingly in support of their bottom line. A social network does not need to be a centralized, free-for-all like Facebook is, but Facebook is that way because that is what works best for their ad revenue. The rapid proliferation of disinformation and hate speech is a consequence of this broken system, but the company has always treated those very real problems as a necessary evil, a nuisance to be patched up with the least effort/cost as possible to keep the ball rolling. This does not benefit anybody but them.
Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As a corporation, Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large Sorry, that's a hard disagree from me and I think you couldn't be further off the mark. Facebook's entire raison d'etre from day 1 is to take as much data from as many sources as possible, then use the most powerful computers, programmed by the brightest minds, to use that data to maximise their profit wi…
My point is that Facebook can improve its behavior only by putting its business at risk. If Zuckerberg, Sandberg, et al could improve Facebook's behavior without putting the business at risk , they would do it in a heartbeat. But it appears they can't. Their efforts are thus sincere but highly constrained: They will never voluntarily do anything that would put the business -- their life's work -- at risk. If I may us…
Sounds like a job for regulation to me.
Of course it’s profitable to be a monipoly and doing the “right thing” might be to allow competitors in but one could basically never truly do that while the bottom line is the most important thing.
It’s so strange to me that so many truly believe a profit motive is all that’s needed to have good outcomes. It was never so, only starting in the 80s did companies care about shareholder value over everything else.