181–190 of 252 posts
"Chief of Advertising Integrity" does anyone take that title seriously? Forget advertising, Facebook and it's CEO himself has no integrity.
Honest question, what did Mark Zuckerberg do that makes you think he has “no integrity”?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's something said by a 19 year old in an instant message. It doesn't mean anything, especially 17 years later.
it means he was an asshole then. Thus, higher probability he is an asshole today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll use the gawker article[0] about what he thinks of his users: [0] https://gawker.com/5636765/facebook-ceo-admits-to-calling-us...
I am certainly no fan of FB or MZ, but if I am being open-minded and fair, that article doesn’t seem so bad. I’ve said stuff like that sarcastically/ironically that would sound really bad if taken out of context.
"Chief of Advertising Integrity" does anyone take that title seriously? Forget advertising, Facebook and it's CEO himself has no integrity.
what company has integrity? not trying to normalize bad things, but seriously, what profit-driven thing has integrity?
I'm sure you can think of a few other for-profit businesses that do what they say and say what they do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The initial 4 year schedule is largely irrelevant, considering high performers get large refreshers.
And even those who receive just a standard "Meets Expectations" rating receive sufficient refreshers that there isn't that big a cliff after four years either. It may go from something like $500k to $450k. There's a lot of jumping around at the 3-year mark, especially for people who want to cash in their FAANG brand for a similar package somewhere else. But once you get to E5 and higher there is significant financial…
That’s a pretty big drop. It’s less if you have higher ratings or promo of course.
As 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…
Also - you could say the same and yet much much more about Google.
Google represents 10x the threat of FB because we all use it and essentially need it - and it's more broadly deployed.
FB is just FB. Use it or not.
FB can 'have it's cake and eat it'.
There's nothing wrong with using learned user behaviours to place some ads. There are reasonably narrow contexts in which privacy really isn't invaded, there's no harm really.
Where it 'gets bad' is when they follow you across the internet (like Google does ...), or when they use 'nasty algs' for interactivity (I don't think this is as bad as it seems).
Google is reading all your email and knows every search you ever made, I find that far more invasive.
FB has overstepped their bounds but there's no reason the can't go back in.
As far as 'anti trust' - it makes very little difference that FB owns WhatsApp and Insta. Break them up - very little will change.
The 'anti trust' issue is almost entirely with Google and Apple.
Google uses their search to promote their own products over others, rips off content for their search summaries, and uses Chrome and Android as a kind of 'market dumping' to ensure Search success.
Apple's 'App Store Only' rule for content distribution is questionable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are expressing their own opinion, and the comment clearly explains how they draw a parallel between Facebook and tobacco companies. Why do you need a link? Also, while Facebook may not directly kill people, the hate speech that it helps proliferate does have real consequences for real people. One such instance was in the Muslim genocide in Myanmar. Since you appear to like links a lot, here is one for you: https…
Their ad delivery network is a vechicle for cyberbulying and hate speech and these things do kill people. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/business/hana-kimura-terr... It's also interesting how Japan tries to quell cyberbullying, while regular bulying is rampant in this country with kids dropping out of school.
The article you shared also repeats the idea that governments/society should impose stricter rules on how Facebook and other networks manage the content posted on their platforms, but that is where I digress a little. I think Facebook is indeed the problem, and also not part of the solution. Like I mentioned in another reply above, Facebook is a centralized, free-for-all network, one in which the random mob can harass individuals to their death like what seems to have happened in this case. But a social network does not have to be this way; Facebook is what it is because that is what works best for their ad revenue. They cannot address the endemic problems with their platform because those are at odds with their business model and would turn the platform upside down. The platform must remain "open" so that people can "connect" and "share", i.e. the company must do everything it can to keep users on the platform so that it can surveil them and target them with ads with the things it has learned, and hate and disinformation happen to be particularly good at keeping people "engaged". I then think it is naive for us to take these networks for granted and to continue pretending that we can simply delegate "content moderation" to corporations. Society must take control of its online discourse, and any "solution" that falls short of completely destroying the surveillance economy that powers these unethical corporations is insufficient in my opinion.
As 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine yourself as the CEO of a manufacturer that pollutes rivers, and you sincerely want to stop polluting, but if you stop polluting, the company's costs would increase to the point it would no longer be able to compete against all the other companies that continue polluting -- and they're trying to eat your lunch you every day. So, if you stop polluting you would quickly lose relevance, be forced to shut down pla…
> the CEO of a manufacturer that pollutes rivers, and you sincerely want to stop polluting Imagine you started a company that pollutes rivers and you're still the CEO. Imagine people believing you sincerely want to stop polluting.
Running a scam business tends to be low expense. They don't have much to invest in other than advertising, which is why scams dominate low value ad inventory. I don't blame facebook for this. It's just part of running one of history's largest advertising businesses.
I understand that many of us here aren't fond of social media, but the majority of humans really like it. And they bring with them all of the worst (and best) aspects of social interaction. I don't blame facebook for that, either.
Being angry at social media companies is like being angry at the mirror because you don't like your appearance. Facebook isn't the cause of humanity's problems. It's just the means by which we're observing them.