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

Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 609 posts

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#191

Post by xemdetia »

cbtacy wrote: post #147
quotemstr wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is already a double-digit premium Facebook must pay for talent That's an odd way of putting it. Do Google and Netflix and other big tech companies face the same "headwinds"? Their compensation is comparable. Facebook pays a premium because it's drawing from the top of the talent pool and is facing competition from other companies trying to acquire people with the same level of exceptional skill. The idea that…

This may be true for entry level jobs, but for senior level jobs the "stain on the resume" issue is very real. A friend was a recruiter for FB until a few months back and has repeatedly stated that over the last 18 months she had an increasingly large percentage of targeted senior candidates refuse to even take her calls.

I would also suggest as someone on the other end is that they have been very aggressive trying to get people during the pandemic. The recruiter name changes every few months but you get multiple calls and so on, moreso than others I've been engaged with.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#192

Post by thecupisblue »

SamBam wrote: post #132
jdhn wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there is already a double-digit premium Facebook must pay for talent Really? Are they forced to pay more because people are actively avoiding the company, or because they have to pay more for top talent due to competitors?

I was also interested to know what "double-digit premium" actually means in this context. I feel like the order of magnitude are confusing to me. Like, they pay people $10-$99 more, or they pay people 10x-99x more? Neither seems a plausible interpretation of the statement. Edit: Ok, ok, percentage!

As far as I've heard, it's 2-4x the average salary on some positions. The ethical problems and reputation it faces in community increased their churn while reducing the available pool of candidates.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#193

Post by goatlover »

notjustanymike wrote: post #122
efields wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. 73 yo dad is not quitting Facebook anytime soon. He genuinely uses it to find old friends and coworkers and goof around in the comments.

As Harley Davidson has learned, you can't lean on an aging population long-term, as they tend to stop aging.

Sure, but the internet is global, and a majority of the world doesn't live in Europe or the US. Large populations are still coming online.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#194

Post by [deleted] »

fairity wrote: post #100
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #26

The biggest component missing from Silicon Valley's discussion of Facebook is its pathological lying. They lied to the FTC [1]. They lied to WhatsApp and the EU [2]. They created an Oversight Board and then lied to it [3]. (These just off the top of my head.) The culture is perceived to be dishonest from the top down. That is why they get bludgeoned more than Twitter, or even Tik Tok. That is what its surrogates miss…

> The culture is perceived to be dishonest from the top down. That is why they get bludgeoned more than Twitter, or even Tik Tok. Are you sure? My guess is 95%+ of Facebook critics don't know about any of the three instances you linked. In which case, it's unlikely to explain why Facebook is being targeted. Perhaps a better explanation is that Facebook is an order of magnitude larger than Twitter.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#195

Post by jwond »

djur wrote: post #163
whitepaint wrote: post #21

I don't really know much about US politics, but could this recent attack on Facebook be a political move and a power grab? Attack FB so they block certain groups / certain topics and promote what the regulators want? I listened to the whistle-blower's testimony and I didn't hear any reasonable solutions (in my opinion at least; I am a software developer myself). Also, it seems there might be some regulations imposed.…

A lot of people in this thread are casting political attacks on Facebook as a Democratic thing, so I'll just point out that conservative Republican Senator Josh Hawley has been attacking Facebook for years, including proposals to strip them of Section 230 protection and to allow people to sue them in federal court for "harmful content". https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-demands-answers-faceboo... https://s3.docume…

The difference from what I see is that Republicans are attacking Facebook for censoring too much, while Democrats are attacking Facebook for censoring too little.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#196

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

quotemstr wrote: post #164
cbtacy wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may be true for entry level jobs, but for senior level jobs the "stain on the resume" issue is very real. A friend was a recruiter for FB until a few months back and has repeatedly stated that over the last 18 months she had an increasingly large percentage of targeted senior candidates refuse to even take her calls.

Lots of recruiters are having trouble. You haven't demonstrated that anti-FB sentiment makes it harder for ex-FB people to get hired.

And generally, sourcers at Big tech are contract employees until they get enough talent through the door to go full time. So it may be that this person was unable to do this, and is putting some of the blame on FB's reputation (but it could also be true, I have no inside information).

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#197

Post by AzzieElbab »

mkr-hn wrote: post #112
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most of them don’t give a shit about the reputation of FB This is close to a straw man argument. Nobody claims users will abandon Facebook. The article posits, instead, strengthening headwinds. Headwinds in hiring (there is already a double-digit premium Facebook must pay for talent). From recurring whistleblowing, and its impact on morale and productivity. Headwinds in projects and partnerships, like Libre/Diem be…

It's been so long since a company reached Facebook's heights and fell that a whole generation doesn't know what it looks like. AOL was the Facebook of its time: a joke to system admins, a default ban on small game servers and IRC channels. Meanwhile, most people had no idea anyone had a problem with AOL. Like with Facebook, there were people reporting on its follies like Observers.net[0], but it mostly went unremarke…

but that is exactly why fb is getting targeted by media and politicians so much. It is more popular with older people who also happen to be active voters and news consumers.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#198

Post by Loughla »

hunterb123 wrote: post #177
djur wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people in this thread are casting political attacks on Facebook as a Democratic thing, so I'll just point out that conservative Republican Senator Josh Hawley has been attacking Facebook for years, including proposals to strip them of Section 230 protection and to allow people to sue them in federal court for "harmful content". https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-demands-answers-faceboo... https://s3.docume…

Your very first link is Hawley sending a letter because Facebook censored a Hunter Ukraine story. Republicans are pissed because of the censorship (the big ones being lab leak and Hunter Biden's laptop, but there are smaller things all the time, 15 days bans for sharing a story the narrative doesn't agree with). There's a good argument to make if FB wants to act like the arbiter of truth, the "truth" they choose shou…

You're painting with too broad of a brush here, I think. In general, saying 'all' about anything tends to make that statement false at some point.

It's easy to knock down a straw-man, I guess is my point.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#199

Post by mbg721 »

jwond wrote: post #195
djur wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people in this thread are casting political attacks on Facebook as a Democratic thing, so I'll just point out that conservative Republican Senator Josh Hawley has been attacking Facebook for years, including proposals to strip them of Section 230 protection and to allow people to sue them in federal court for "harmful content". https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-demands-answers-faceboo... https://s3.docume…

The difference from what I see is that Republicans are attacking Facebook for censoring too much, while Democrats are attacking Facebook for censoring too little.

Only because of the nature of the censored content; Republicans aren't inherently as anti-censorship as the libertarian wing would like to hope they are. Social media are the fourth-and-a-half estate, and they're flexing their muscles for the other party.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#200

Post by hunterb123 »

Loughla wrote: post #198
hunterb123 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your very first link is Hawley sending a letter because Facebook censored a Hunter Ukraine story. Republicans are pissed because of the censorship (the big ones being lab leak and Hunter Biden's laptop, but there are smaller things all the time, 15 days bans for sharing a story the narrative doesn't agree with). There's a good argument to make if FB wants to act like the arbiter of truth, the "truth" they choose shou…

You're painting with too broad of a brush here, I think. In general, saying 'all' about anything tends to make that statement false at some point. It's easy to knock down a straw-man, I guess is my point.

My point is it's clearly a party issue to censor conservatives in the D party. The only issue R's have with FB is the censorship itself.

Does that clear things up or do you have any questions?

Post reply on HN