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

231–240 of 609 posts

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#231

Post by isoskeles »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56
shoto_io wrote: post #3

No. That’s what people like us and all the main stream media hope for. But: most people I know don’t have the slightest clue that Insta and WhatsApp belong to the FB group. And even worse: most of them don’t give a shit about the reputation of FB. They just want to send messages and share pictures through those apps.

> 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…

> This is close to a straw man argument. Nobody claims users will abandon Facebook.

I find this comment so strange because the comment you're addressing never claimed that anyone else claimed users will abandon Facebook. You are actually creating a strawman argument here while accusing the other comment of it.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#232

Post by unethical_ban »

hunterb123 wrote: post #62
throwaway20875 wrote: post #47

This whole circus is about as contrived as it gets, complete with the "think of the children" gimmick. The timing, the theatrics, the manufactured celebrity of a middle manager at Facebook who is doing the "right" kind of whistleblowing that the establishment likes. Facebook's predatory business model isn't unique or new. This is about raw power to censor.

I mean, it's a stupid plan. A whistleblower to advocate for censorship? Do they think the people are that stupid? I guess like most things they don't need the majority of public on board, just a bit of plausible deniability. If anyone was really concerned about the algorithms, they'd make transparency requirements, not censorship requirements. If anyone was really concerned about the results of teenagers in the study…

The Taliban aren't running disinformation campaigns on Americans via Facebook or Twitter.

Like it or not, people care more about a problem that affects them. That's like saying "if Americans /really/ cared about democracy, they would all be advocating for an invasion of Belarus".

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#233

Post by dcow »

jancsika wrote: post #210
breadzeppelin__ wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To go a bit further MSM's ad revenue is being hollowed out by Facebook et al. Why would anyone pay to advertise in Economist when they can advertise to "people interested in economics, earning over 150k, last thought about cigarettes three weeks ago" etc. Similarly, if you were an advertising exec at pfizer, would you choose to pay millions of dollars to advertise your meds to a continuously shrinking audience on som…

> Why would anyone pay to advertise in Economist when they can advertise to "people interested in economics, earning over 150k, last thought about cigarettes three weeks ago" etc. Isn't the economist subscription-based? Regardless, I'll bite: Isn't an important reason because someone wants to signal to the world that "everyone knows" their company is a sexy, category-defining beast? E.g., there are Coca Cola machines…

Also the quality of integrated ads is far higher. I read integrated ads occasionally. I never read FB or Google ads.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#234

Post by revscat »

rubyist5eva wrote: post #176
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…

> The power of those companies was simply sharply reduced. I'd argue the opposite. We got Exxon out of the Standard Oil breakup and Microsoft is just as scummy, if not even more scummy than ever. AT&T got broken up and several of the Baby Bells just ended up all merging together and now we have Verizon. Antitrust enforcement has had a net-zero effect at best.

You’re not entirely wrong, but one of the effects of the AT&T breakup was to allow customers to hook up non-AT&T approved devices to their lines. This lead to the popularization of things like answering machines and modems.

The latter had a pretty big impact.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#235

Post by unethical_ban »

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.

I think HN needs a thread dedicated to exploring the word "censor". If you think it means "any deletion of content" then I support some forms of censorship.

If you think it means "the prohibition of the possession of thought or the ability to transmit that thought via your own mechanisms", then I am against it.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#236

Post by ethbr0 »

seneca wrote: post #223
AzzieElbab wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep, exactly. The key question is to ask why this stream of concerted effort is pointed at taking down Favebook, and Twitter is left alone.

Because Twitter isn't as wide as Facebook (in number of products), and because its primary features aren't as algorithmically tweaked?

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#237

Post by unethical_ban »

pessimizer wrote: post #155
pixelgeek wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he jumped his own shark a while ago when he left The Intercept [1] and has been writing some articles that sound reasonable but then veer into BS pretty quickly. "And that is Facebook's only real political problem: not that they are too powerful but that they are not using that power to censor enough content from the internet that offends the sensibilities and beliefs of Democratic Party leaders and their lib…

> This is just fringe, nutty stuff. Why? You have room here to explain. > The media is indeed doing what he says they are nut they are doing it because that is what they always do when they have a story they want to be a part of to try to feed off the popularity. Ah, they're doing it because they're doing it. Why didn't he think of this?

I think @pixelgeek means that politicians will always bandwagon a story that has momentum in order to maximize its utility.

It sounds like they are challenging Greenwald's narrative that Democrats are doing this explicitly to silence opponents, but that they have good faith issues with the willful amplification of disinformation on FB.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#238

Post by AlexandrB »

hunterb123 wrote: post #205
mbg721 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I haven't seen any calls from any Republicans to censor any speech. Their base is very adamant about the Bill of Rights. Do you have any examples to back up your statement? Keep in mind we're talking about silencing political dissent, that's pretty fucking major, not a "oh both sides do it, that's life" thing.

Marco Rubio just proposed a bill to stop corporations from being too "woke"[1]. There are also numerous instances of Republican politicians complaining or proposing bills about things like athletes kneeling during the anthem, burning of the flag, or other forms of expressions they deem "un-American". That's not even mentioning the Republican obsession with controlling "obscenity" on TV and other public media.

[1] https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/9/new-rub...

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#239

Post by quickthrowman »

seneca wrote: post #223
AzzieElbab wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep, exactly. The key question is to ask why this stream of concerted effort is pointed at taking down Favebook, and Twitter is left alone.

It’s quite simple really, journalists use Twitter.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#240

Post by enumjorge »

hunterb123 wrote: post #205
mbg721 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I haven't seen any calls from any Republicans to censor any speech. Their base is very adamant about the Bill of Rights. Do you have any examples to back up your statement? Keep in mind we're talking about silencing political dissent, that's pretty fucking major, not a "oh both sides do it, that's life" thing.

> Their base is very adamant about the Bill of Rights.

Bullshit. A lot of their base is adamant about quoting the bill of rights when it serves them and looking the other way when it doesn't. Highly doubt most of them can even list all the amendments of the bill of rights they claim to be so passionate about. There's amendments in there about due process, yet you'll see the right defend cops using excessive force on people they arrest even if it ends in death. That's effectively a death sentence without a trial.

As far as speech, the right's embrace of "free speech" is recent and superficial. It wasn't so long ago that conservative groups in this country were trying to ban portrayals of gay people on mass media, with the same "think of the children" excuse that another comment on this thread was complaining about. That has only receded because they lost that culture war, but I'm sure they would gladly erase LGBT folks from popular culture if they could.

Post reply on HN