231–240 of 252 posts
"Chief of Advertising Integrity" does anyone take that title seriously? Forget advertising, Facebook and it's CEO himself has no integrity.
Facebook uses “Integrity” as a friendly synonym for abuse / spam / illegal activity. For example, it avoids them actively having to say they have a “fake accounts team” (which would in turn indicate they have a fake accounts problem). Instead it’s part of the “Community Integrity team”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aww, c'mon, tell me that QA/security/accessibility/whatever isn't regarded as a meaningless hoop to be jumped through as quickly and with the least effort possible so that you can get real work done. Ain't nobody got time for that rigamarole.
If you're shipping buggy and insecure software, you will soon get a whole lot of free time on your hands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about his “copy, acquire, kill” strategy for startups and how he even pretends it’s even remotely fair for a fledging startup to compete with a multi billion dollar company?
I think it’s easy for him to convince himself of this because he started Facebook from nothing. I’m not saying he’s right, but he can point to that and say “why can’t anyone else do that?” It’s something I’ve witnessed a lot of successful people doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aww, c'mon, tell me that QA/security/accessibility/whatever isn't regarded as a meaningless hoop to be jumped through as quickly and with the least effort possible so that you can get real work done. Ain't nobody got time for that rigamarole.
In games, QA is taken very seriously. I know with games like Cybepunk people think game developers don't care about QA, but I am sure that is a certain circumstance where they chose to ignore problems. On big games you count on QA for feedback.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question, what did Mark Zuckerberg do that makes you think he has “no integrity”?
secretely retracting messages he sent to others from their inboxes, a feature exlcusively made available to him[1], with a straight face telling people that discourse on his website does not have influence on elections, tying his donations to having his name put on a hospital which is petty as hell, I mean pick your poison [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/6/17203114/facebook-mark-zuc...
Isn't that normal? There's a reason so many buildings have a person's name on them. Carnegie Hall, Enoch Pratt Free Library, Guggenheim Museum, The Getty, The DeYoung, Coit Tower, ...
AFAIK Half the buildings on any college campus are named after the donor that paid for it.
You want hospitals, how about the Huntington Hospital, Sutter Hospital, UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital, Helen Diller Medical Center, I'm too lazy to go look up more
Yes, that's just one of your points but if you're reaching that deep to find fault it detracts from your other points as it makes them suspect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are pros and cons of having dedicated teams for work that also has to be accomplished by other teams. For instance, it's not a good idea to skip having a security team using the logic that "other teams will just think its that one teams job." The security team provides expertise and (with cooperative management or other teams) can enact policies that influence the rest of the organization to the benefit of secu…
Aww, c'mon, tell me that QA/security/accessibility/whatever isn't regarded as a meaningless hoop to be jumped through as quickly and with the least effort possible so that you can get real work done. Ain't nobody got time for that rigamarole.
In games, when QA reports into the same person managing the product, things run smoothly and everyone remains aligned towards shipping a good product. When it's a separate org that loans people out and has OKRs that don't connect to individual products, they become horrible trolls who are only out to fuck the product up by submitting so many bug reports that it can never be released. Sim with whole-company legal teams ("never ship anything, we might get sued") and shared security ("never run services or we might get hacked") and ops ("never use servers or they might crash"). Alignment is everything.
"Chief of Advertising Integrity" does anyone take that title seriously? Forget advertising, Facebook and it's CEO himself has no integrity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s easy for him to convince himself of this because he started Facebook from nothing. I’m not saying he’s right, but he can point to that and say “why can’t anyone else do that?” It’s something I’ve witnessed a lot of successful people doing.
He didn’t really start Facebook from nothing though. Peter Theil pumped half a million in it right from the start and it always had VC backing to the tune of hundreds of millions. Having a rich backer fund your startup is far from starting at nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
secretely retracting messages he sent to others from their inboxes, a feature exlcusively made available to him[1], with a straight face telling people that discourse on his website does not have influence on elections, tying his donations to having his name put on a hospital which is petty as hell, I mean pick your poison [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/6/17203114/facebook-mark-zuc...
> tying his donations to having his name put on a hospital Isn't that normal? There's a reason so many buildings have a person's name on them. Carnegie Hall, Enoch Pratt Free Library, Guggenheim Museum, The Getty, The DeYoung, Coit Tower, ... AFAIK Half the buildings on any college campus are named after the donor that paid for it. You want hospitals, how about the Huntington Hospital, Sutter Hospital, UCSF Benioff C…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You’re not the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company.