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

Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 252 posts

Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company

#121

Post by TomSwirly »

cs702 wrote: post #56

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,

Like how?

> All options for Facebook appear to be a mix of those two horrible choices.

If they can't avoid destroying society and still be profitable, then they deserve to go bankrupt.

Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company

#122

Post by TomSwirly »

cs702 wrote: post #111
tome wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm finding these two sentences hard to reconcile. > If Zuckerberg, Sandberg, et al could improve Facebook's behavior without putting the business at risk, they would do it in a heartbeat. But it appears they can't. > Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large

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…

Imagine that you invent the idea of polluting rivers, and you set up a company to monopolize polluting rivers, and you tell people for decades that you want to stop polluting rivers, but every year the rivers get polluted by you.

The logical conclusion of your argument is this - Facebook cannot be operated safely and still make a profit and should shut down as soon as possible.

Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company

#123

Post by legutierr »

cs702 wrote: post #111
tome wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm finding these two sentences hard to reconcile. > If Zuckerberg, Sandberg, et al could improve Facebook's behavior without putting the business at risk, they would do it in a heartbeat. But it appears they can't. > Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large

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…

I would choose to use my skills working for a different company in a different industry.

If Zuckerberg really had a problem with what Facebook was doing, but didn’t feel he could ethically risk the company’s growth and financial performance by changing its direction, he could quit and sell all his shares. He might take a financial hit, but he would still be one of the world’s richest people.

Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company

#124

Post by foepys »

cs702 wrote: post #111
tome wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm finding these two sentences hard to reconcile. > If Zuckerberg, Sandberg, et al could improve Facebook's behavior without putting the business at risk, they would do it in a heartbeat. But it appears they can't. > Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large

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…

> What would you do?

Personally, I wouldn't even start or be part of such a company, simple as that. I cannot imagine somebody polluting rivers on purpose just to make money but those people exist regardless. So this question is moot for quite a few people (me including) that could never ever get in this mindset and predict what they would do.

Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company

#125

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

wpietri wrote: post #52
absolutelyrad wrote: post #5

"Chief of Advertising Integrity" does anyone take that title seriously? Forget advertising, Facebook and it's CEO himself has no integrity.

I can't find it now, but I remember a story from somebody in the Lean Manufacturing world about a place that was having safety problems, so they appointed somebody Safety Director. This signaled to everybody that safety was that one guy's problem, not theirs. Accidents went up further and stayed up until they got rid of the Safety Directory position and made everybody responsible for safety. That resonated for me bec…

Sounds like something out of the Silicon Valley TV show.

Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company

#126

Post by arrosenberg »

antiterra wrote: post #89
arrosenberg wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I mean the paper the other user linked where they were turning dials so Zuck could cosplay as The Mule.

If FB had intuitively decided that too many positive posts had a negative effect on users (as contemporary research was suggesting) and amplified negative post visibility, there’d be no controversy. If FB decided intuitively that positive posts were good and they should reduce visibility on negative posts, there’d be no controversy. Since FB A/B tested the effect of both and let academics analyze the data, that someh…

But the question was about integrity, not demonic possession.

Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company

#127

Post by nr2x »

cs702 wrote: post #56

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…

[flagged]

Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company

#128

Post by giobox »

cs702 wrote: post #96
rossdavidh wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you're getting some downvotes, but I agree with you. Put another way, though: the problem is not Zuckerberg per se, it's the business model of advertising-supported, general-purpose social networks. If you took everybody out of Facebook and replaced them all with other equally qualified people, they would behave the same, as an organization. The problem is not Who, it's What. You can't "fix" Facebook, because t…

Exactly, except that we don't have to imagine anything. If Facebook were to disappear today, there already exist many companies with similar business models willing to take its place. Some more willing to cross the line than Facebook.

This is the critical point virtually all criticism of Facebook often fails to address. Sure, you could regulate to death/kill Facebook tomorrow with legislation in country X. All that happens is a clone launches immediately overnight from a country with less onerous regulation, one that anglosphere legal systems will have even less direct control over than the Facebook we have today.

FB, for all its flaws, is at least still based in a democratic nation and operates within a (_relatively speaking_) fair legal system. That the FEC is able to demand (and force implementation of!) regulation already at FB is evidence this works, at least a little. Better the devil you know as they say...

We can't remove the natural human desire to connect to one another on the internet (and associated problems). For me personally, the cat is out of the bag - you can't rewind time and uninvent the underlying communication infrastructure. If people want a social network, the internet will make it for them again and again and host from whatever polity/region allows.

Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company

#129

Post by noahtallen »

cs702 wrote: post #111
tome wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm finding these two sentences hard to reconcile. > If Zuckerberg, Sandberg, et al could improve Facebook's behavior without putting the business at risk, they would do it in a heartbeat. But it appears they can't. > Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large

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…

I think as many companies have started to do today, one can spin green manufacturing as a PR thing, and possibly market your product towards customers who are willing to pay more for greener manufacturing practices. Along the way, hopefully you could invest in green manufacturing improvements to make the tech cheaper at scale.

I don’t think it has to be an a or b situation. I think the best and brightest could solve the problem without decimating their profits. Perhaps I am not that smart, but surely Facebook is. (They have significantly more resources than their competitors, I imagine.)

Is it really true that Facebook would go bankrupt by being more ethical? I’m not so sure. They have a captive user base. A lot of older folks who aren’t great with tech are on Facebook, and they won’t be going anywhere that quickly. With as many users as they have — a seventh of the world’s population - I can’t imagine people will leave in droves that quickly. One of Facebook’s biggest advantages is the network effect of “everyone you know is already here”.

My opinion is that Facebook does in fact have the resources to be more ethical without loosing so much profit that they go out of business.

I think the problem partially is maximizing revenue at the cost of everything else. I’m not sure I buy into the idea that they must maximize revenue. Couldn’t they be more ethical at the cost of some money, and then that new revenue amount still is enough to cover expenses?

Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company

#130

Post by lukeramsden »

etempleton wrote: post #74

I am always a bit surprised that Facebook ended up as reliant on advertising revenue as they are. I feel like they missed opportunities to replace Craigslist as the de facto online classifieds and to offer a payment system like Apple Pay. Perhaps these are only obvious in hindsight. I feel that most of their issues stem from their complete revenue reliance on advertising. It forces them to make decisions about their…

> I feel like they missed opportunities to replace Craigslist as the de facto online classifieds and to offer a payment system like Apple Pay. Perhaps these are only obvious in hindsight

I think they're trying to rectify both of these exactly. I don't know about in the US but here in the UK, Facebook Marketplace is pretty much now the de facto online classifieds site, at least for everybody I know. As for payments, they seem to be struggling more, but that is, I assume, one of the purposes of Diem (formerly Libra).

Post reply on HN