141–150 of 609 posts
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…
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!
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!
While tiktok seems to be main app which is ruining children.
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!
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!
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…
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!
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…
Wait, why was AOL a default ban on game servers? Can someone elaborate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
Some admins of private servers blocked its IPs for the same reason IRC mods did. AOL got ordinary people on to the internet, so they were a poorer fit for any existing community on average.
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.