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

Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 307 posts

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#201

Post by lwb »

tech-historian wrote: post #64

Serious questions: Are the people that work at Facebook proud to work there? What is morale like inside that place? When someone asks you what you do, and you say "I work for Facebook," what is their typical reaction? Not trying to be snarky. I'm genuinely curious how these perceptions/feelings might have changed over the past few years.

I am. Morale is good, took a minor hiccup recently but has pretty much recovered by now. When I tell everyday folk that I work for Facebook, the reaction is usually, "wow, cool!" and if they're tech minded, they might ask a few questions about the tech stack we use.

Most people at Facebook believe that FB is good for the world, Zuck is a good leader, and that we are working to address dubious ethical decisions made in the past. Sure, FB itself may be a bubble, but HN is even more of a bubble :)

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#202

Post by danans »

s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #142
SoylentOrange wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem (among other things) is hyper-targeting of people who are specifically vulnerable to extreme points of view. One of my friends is an expert in tracking ads on Facebook and has found that white nationalists micro-target people who are susceptible to that ideology [1]. Similarly, they have refused to fact-check (not remove) climate science denialism, because they consider it opinion and thus exempt from the…

We shouldn't give up our freedoms because you think some people can't think for themselves. They can think for themselves, you just don't understand their thoughts & perspective through your bias/bubble. Censoring is wrong, period. Win your arguments on merit, not by silencing the other side.

> Win your arguments on merit, not by silencing the other side.

In the wild world of unmoderated social media, "merit" at scale reduces to "the most salacious information that feeds what the audience wants to believe, regardless of whether it is grounded in evidence". It's just a propaganda rally, ultimately underpinnned by the old ominous maxim "might is right", with the target being a group who is not present in the conversation.

People don't have as innate a desire for intellectual rigor in deconstructing untruths as you or I would like. Even you and I don't always have that rigor, even though we probably both strive for it. If anything, many people want to be lied to if the lie dovetails with their feelings and agendas. Is it wrong to want to be lied to? I don't know - it's hard to judge another person's deep desires.

It's a real problem from the perspective of the social fabric and the shared narratives that hold it together, although the alternative - the government regulating non-violent speech - is arguably even more worrisome.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#203

Post by ingsoc79 »

adamsea wrote: post #186
swebs wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the 2016 election broke the NY Times. They shifted from a mostly neutral, reputable news source to quasi-propaganda fairly quickly.

What exactly is the propaganda part? Can you provide a specific example, so folks have something concrete to agree or disagree with? And, do you mean with their news reporting, as opposed to their editorials?

While the NYT has always had its share of bias claims, since Trump's election it appears that even the facade of balanced reporting is taking a back seat to their editorial agenda.

You have editorialized headlines[1] that incorporate common liberal phrases to invoke outrage. Other "How to Raise an Anti-Racist Kid"

Any story that mentions Trump will have a negative headline, even mundane stories about disaster declarations and normal government business.

The line between editorial and news content has grown increasingly blurry: scrolling through their app you'll need a second look to determine whether a storing is news or opinion - they're mixed together, often without delineation. For example in the app today you'll find an opinion piece calling for slavery reparations sandwiched between an analysis on Trump's reelection campaign and a story about a problem police officer.

As a long-time subscriber (and no fan of Trump), it's both frustrating and worrying to see the "paper of record" of my country begin to parrot leftist talking points in their daily reporting.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/13/health/trump-health-care-...

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#204

Post by cmdshiftf4 »

ForHackernews wrote: post #121
listenallyall wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably could replace "Facebook" with just about any company in that sentence. Having to uphold "company values", live by some boss's petty rules, take HR initiatives seriously, etc, is pretty much universally frustrating.

Nah, most companies just want their employees to do their jobs. It's only these Silicon Valley cults that expect everyone to drink the koolaid about "values" and center your personal identity around your job. If you don't believe this, go get a job at a lumber yard or a warehouse or something. Related reading: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/558867.Disciplined_Minds https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34466958-bu…

>It's only these Silicon Valley cults that expect everyone to drink the koolaid about "values" and center your personal identity around your job.

I can't understand why you're being down ranked for what is objectively the truth.

I've a long career inside and outside tech and this is consistent with my experience. Tech companies are uniquely toxic in the sheer volume of koolaid you're expected to digest to merely maintain your job there.

A tech company not filled to the brim with HR crap would be a breath of fresh air at this point.

Maybe many here simply haven't worked outside of tech?

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#205

Post by phatfish »

satokema_work wrote: post #136
sneak wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The (legitimate) argument is that freedom of speech extends to facebook getting to decide what, and in what order, information is displayed on facebook.com. To dictate a chronological order, or to demand that they publish every single thing that is submitted to them, is a restriction of their freedom of editorial expression on their own website .

The (also legitimate) argument is that freedom of speech should extend to privately-owned de facto commons, and is a concept beyond the enumeration in the American Bill of Rights.

I agree there is a problem with private corporations that control publishing platforms with such a large reach. Twitter and Facebook are really the only ones at the moment with that power (in the "anglosphere" at least).

However, for laws to be created that force them to publish posts that fall under "free speech" their algorithms must be fully open and auditable. Otherwise they still hold the power to sensor, or their algorithms could be covertly gamed by those in the know.

Otherwise your speech might not be the same, or as free as mine, but who would know?

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#206

Post by klyrs »

toss1 wrote: post #176
klyrs wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook has a right to free speech. They can moderate and curate content on their site. Their commitment to your free speech is "free as in beer" -- as in, you're giving them content and they don't pay you a dime for it.

Of course they have a right to free speech What they do not have a right to is the claim that they should be treated as neutral carriers (like TelCos) when they in fact constantly exercise editorial control for the placement each item. (If they merely posted a chronological list, they would have a valid claim for free speech and no exercised control)

lol, this thread almost entirely gray. I'd love to hear from the downvoters about what is so intolerable about this very mild, respectful, and on-topic conversation...

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#207

Post by btilly »

rossdavidh wrote: post #173
skewart wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s more, the NY Times has a strong business interest in convincing advertisers not to advertise on Facebook. I’m a bit skeptical of anything they publish these days about Facebook, Google, and other companies that could potentially threaten their access to clicks, just given their financial incentives to weaken these companies as much as possible.

My thoughts exactly, they have a clear conflict of interest when covering this story. Although, to be honest, all of mainstream journalism seems way more biased and blatantly slanted than I recall from 20-30 years ago. Perhaps I am just better at noticing it now?

You are not just better at noticing it. It really is more slanted.

Journalism 20-30 years ago was mostly funded on a subscription model. In this model they work hard to maintain their reputation, so that people will trust them as an accurate source of news.

Journalism today is mostly funded per click. Which means that the most important thing is a headline that grabs people's attention and causes them to click. The incentive is for the most outrageous and attention grabbing headline possible. With no incentive for being accurate - by the time you realize that the article is junk they've been paid and are looking for another sucker.

If you're interested in a book length exposition of how this change in dynamics has changed the news landscape, I recommend https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulato.... The trends that it discusses have played out for another decade since it was written, but played out along the direction that it described.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#208

Post by ethbro »

ardy42 wrote: post #137
listenallyall wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably could replace "Facebook" with just about any company in that sentence. Having to uphold "company values", live by some boss's petty rules, take HR initiatives seriously, etc, is pretty much universally frustrating.

>>> You don’t realize the heavy conscious and mental burden that comes with being a Facebook employee until you quit >> https://twitter.com/sebmck/status/1275363680767537154 > Probably could replace "Facebook" with just about any company in that sentence. Having to uphold "company values", live by some boss's petty rules, take HR initiatives seriously, etc, is pretty much universally frustrating. Eh, I don't think so…

I can attest to the difference. I've worked in consulting and directly for companies, both more and less evil.

There is a palpable difference from company culture to culture.

If you work at a place where (a) you disagree with your company's ethical and moral standards and/or (b) you feel purported standards rarely influence actual decisions, then there are absolutely companies not like that.

Sure, you still have to deal with HR stuff, anti-union posturing, and sharp business practices. But fundamentally, it feels different.

I'd say most companies can be binary classified into "value their values" or "ignore their values".

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#209

Post by greggman3 »

tech-historian wrote: post #64

Serious questions: Are the people that work at Facebook proud to work there? What is morale like inside that place? When someone asks you what you do, and you say "I work for Facebook," what is their typical reaction? Not trying to be snarky. I'm genuinely curious how these perceptions/feelings might have changed over the past few years.

I don't want to excuse anything facebook does that's bad and do take some effort to be less tracked. I have FB blocked in one browser profile and I have all but FB blocked in another and many other things.

That said, my experience using Facebook is mostly positive. I see what my sister is up to, my mom, my aunt, several friends and acquaintances. Facebook messenger is by far my most used communications service.

I have taken step to keep it that way. I get no news of facebook. I've joined almost no groups. I unfollow anyone who gets too political, that has included a couple of close friends who I want to follow but they jsut can't stop posting politics several times week or even day so "unfollow".

I run FB Purity in the browser can block a bunch of stuff but I don't have that option in the FB app and for the most part I don't notice too much crap in my feed.

In other words, AFAIK it's mostly a positive in my life and the life of my friends. If I worked at Facebook I'd certainly be proud of how helped people stay in touch and organize group events.

I'm not excusing anything bad they do. Just suggesting I suspect many people have a mostly positive experience or they'd quit.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#210

Post by kerkeslager »

tzs wrote: post #78
tomp wrote: post #21

Nice. I like that companies are putting their money where their mouth is, and not just doing cheap virtue signalling, like posting a black square on Instagram. I think, and hope, however, that Facebook will come out victorious; (1) freedom of speech is important, (2) it's not up to Facebook to be the arbitrer of what's allowed or not (it's up to the law), (3) advertisers need Facebook more than Facebook needs them, a…

Having the law as the sole arbiter of what is allowed or not would be terrible for free speech. The problem is that we have an overwhelming amount of information being produced, so that people have a hard time evaluating all they are exposed to. Furthermore, we have a lot of people who are just too trusting, or too naive, or too gullible, or perhaps just even stupid. Finally, on top of that we have many information p…

> Having the law as the sole arbiter of what is allowed or not would be terrible for free speech.

Given the first amendment specifically says that the law can't abridge freedom of speech, I'm not sure I understand why you believe this.

Post reply on HN