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

391–400 of 609 posts

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#391

Post by winternett »

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.

People will eventually abandon FB and WA if you ask me, the accelerant to that is their friends leaving and no longer logging in over time, and also the authentication eco-system slowly disconnecting from the platform.

Like Friendster, ClubHouse, and MySpace, there is a life cycle for every app. All the redisign and rebranding can't cure a good idea that has festered into a bad idea.

Facebook's tenure has been long indeed, but it's best time has likely passed.

Many people also don't realize the tactics that platforms use to try to uphold the illusion that they are still active, including paying influencers to post, and in even creating totally fake accounts. I won't say any names, but this is why most sites no longer publish their active user numbers like they did when they were growing, because many were caught as well back then in overstating their active user numbers.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#392

Post by Karrot_Kream »

quotemstr wrote: post #95
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…

> 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…

I definitely don't judge an ex-FB applicant for our company for being from FB because there's many reasons someone would want to work there, so I understand, and I'm not willing to play this game of ethics of judging others based on their company names (because I think the world is a very complicated place).

That said, I wouldn't want to work at FB unless I had a significant pay bump, and I'm used to other FAANG offers so make of that what you will. I do think FB will start trying harder to hire. Moreover, how many young engineers do you really think want to work at a company that is constantly under threat of litigation? If I were on an H1B, then threat of litigation is very real threat of my visa being invalidated. People who think FB looks bad on a resume are letting their personal beliefs cloud their view of the world, but conversely people who believe that a company under constant threat of litigation will not have retention issues are equally clouded by their personal beliefs.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#393

Post by vdqtp3 »

RandallBrown wrote: post #345
wayoutthere wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But ditching my FB account entirely means I'd lose access to dozens of people I wouldn't have a great way of contacting otherwise. That used to be a fear of mine, but after deleting my account I’ve found it to be a core feature. It forces me to be intentional with my relationships; if I want to stay in touch with someone I have to make the effort. Otherwise, the relationship is likely more parasocial than actively…

Being able to passively keep in touch with many of the thousands of people I've met in my life is incredibly valuable to me. It feels incredibly sad to just let those relationships die because you're focusing your energies on the people that are currently around you.

Those passive relationships are why I left Facebook. I had hundreds of friends, from people I had met once or twice to family and close friends of decades - but few of them put any effort into the relationships, instead relying on Facebook to prompt them to wish well on major events or update them on news.

Those relationships you don't want to let go of? They're largely worthless.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#394

Post by themacguffinman »

throwaway4good wrote: post #284

Five years after Zuckerberg was jogging around Beijing, he went hoverboard surfing carrying the American flag. As long the competition is Chinese TikTok or Russian Telegram then Facebook (and its associated businesses) will be allowed, even subsidized to grow in their dominance. Yes. There may be regulation that constraints Facebook but you can be sure that its competition will be hit harder. This is the calculation…

I agree with your geopolitical assessment but I doubt you can consistently rely on US legislature to protect the country's long term interests. I'd be pleasantly surprised if it does but it hasn't demonstrated much ability or interest in countering China's industrial influence.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#395

Post by zaphar »

ethbr0 wrote: post #230
mkr-hn wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'd hesitate to generalize AOL's fall into Facebook's future. AOL's core proposition was being better than the Internet (more curated, coherent, and faster). When the web and internet exploded in size and scale, AOL's value evaporated. The dumb mergers and other mistakes were window dressing on this landscape transformation. And for years (decades? still?) afterwards, people used AOL Instant Messager (AIM), because i…

I actually think in a way one of Facebooks core proposition is being the internet for most people which is not that far off from AOL. The similarity here is that no one knows what is going to render FB obsolete right now. Just like no one knew what was going to do the same for AOL. AOL lost in part I believe because they were not really able to transition from Dialup "internet" Provider to Content Aggregator when broadband became a thing. The value add just wasn't there.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#396

Post by dogman144 »

deltree7 wrote: post #369
dogman144 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very much missed the point with a motivated reading of the intent behind what I'm saying. Nicely done! My comment wasn't directed at 0.1% pile. It's directed at mid-tier, good-not-great CS programs that FB is both targeting in ways that other FAANGs don't, and also have put on heavy marketing programs at. Signal or noise, hard to say, but they wouldn't be doing it if the need didn't exist . What matters more is the s…

once again, you are over-estimating the powerful SJW Unioin. A lot of talented libertarian, conservative people can't work at facebook because it's too woke. May be a Sheryl Sandberg will make way for Peter Thiels...and it's a fantastic thing for FB. At this point too many FBers have to walk on eggshells. A clean cut of SJWs will make FB a better and more powerful company

My comment has literally nothing to do with commenting on the power of SJWs.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#397

Post by mint2 »

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.

Contrived by who?

Are you saying the middle manager was bribed to leak docs or is some plant by “The Shadow Powers”?

Are you saying we shouldn’t care about a company targeting children with products it knows increase suicidal thoughts in substantial numbers of children?

Who is the establishment. Spell it out for me.

How did they orchestrate the Facebook leak? Spell it out.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#398

Post by amatecha »

ethbr0 wrote: post #373
dr_dshiv wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you keep in touch with them on Facebook? What makes your post reach them, if most don’t check often? I want Facebook for this purpose but it feels like it’s really not a blog. At all.

As someone old enough to remember and have used Livejournal, the Facebook experience is very different.

LJ was awesome! I feel like Mastodon is kiiiinda similar modern-day equivalent (despite the Twitter-mimicry). Huh, now that I say that "out loud", that's interesting - I had never thought of it until now. It seems to really capture that "share your world but also bring in others and socialize as narrowly or broadly as you want", along with sharing media and so on.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#399

Post by aaroninsf »

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.

Setting aside whether this is hyperbole or not, not that I disagree with the claim generally,

one very real impact of their malfeasance is their reputation among their prospective and existing workforce.

It is not an exaggeration to say that I have never—not in 25 years in the industry—known or known of or read accounts of people who variously quit over their amorality, have turned down offers (including at VERY high levels) over it, or confronted recruiters with challenges around it (historically resulting in cessation of recruiting efforts; hottake: they will not be able to do that any longer, because it will winnow their pool too aggressively).

I myself harbor acute emnity to them and have been ignoring a persistent recruiter for many months over this; and am regularly down-voted here for saying what I'm going to say again:

If you work for them, quit.

If you do business with them, don't.

There should be consequences for this level of amorality. If you think it's the status quo, you're simply factually wrong; there is no shortage of other companies, working in related domains, who do not feel that damage to the health and wellbeing of either their clients or the society in which they operate is a natural, inevitable, and excusable cost of doing business.

They are not the root cause of, but are massive enabler of, forces which pose an existential threat to our democracy.

Their reputation is merely coming into alignment with a truth they have invested hundreds of millions of dollars suppressing.

Post reply on HN