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

291–300 of 609 posts

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#291

Post by ferdowsi »

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…

Not sure why you think this. I work for a major organization and we have made sure to pay close attention to the outcomes of behavioral interviews when we evaluate candidates from Facebook, as we do from other organization with major reputational/ethical stains. Colleagues I speak to are increasingly doing this as well.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#292

Post by wayoutthere »

JohnBooty wrote: post #253
ethbr0 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Users would need an order of magnitude superior alternative, and most critically, users would need to move en mass. Yeah. Network effect. Arguably nothing on Earth has ever had such a powerful network effect as Facebook. I dislike FB for all of the usual reasons, plus a few of my own. But I still have an FB account. I don't check it very often, and I've got notifications turned off. But ditching my FB account entirel…

> 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 rewarding, and I’m consciously ok focusing my energies on the people I currently want in my life to the exclusion of those relationships that have slipped into parasocial territory.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#293

Post by eigengrau5150 »

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.

> And even worse: most of them don’t give a shit about the reputation of FB.

They don't have to care. They just shouldn't be surprised if I refuse to hire them because I was able to find them on Facebook/Instagram. Likewise, if they worked for Facebook I won't hire them. They're tainted. LOL

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#294

Post by nzmsv »

breadzeppelin__ wrote: post #29
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.

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…

People interested in economics and earning more than 150k are increasingly not on Facebook much, if at all. The Economist actually has a much more targeted audience. FB caters to the lowest common denominator.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#295

Post by unethical_ban »

hunterb123 wrote: post #242
unethical_ban wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

First off, yes they are. Second, the CCP use "disinformation" as a reason for censoring too. Americans aren't orchestrating this, Democrats are. The Taliban comparison was in relation to the FB Myanmar issue the "whistleblower" brought up. Just as the TikTok comparison was in relation to the girl's study. The point is, the Dems are laser focused on Facebook because they want to silence conservatives, not because of s…

I completely disagree with your assessment. No one is trying to silence people for saying "poor people are worth less than me, taxes are inherently evil, non-whites are probably illegals, and abortion is murder". I'm using the most offensive stereotypes to make the point that no one is even trying to ban those ideas.

The concern is the spread of lies known to be generated by bad actors, and how to handle it. Does "more truth" win against "lies"? Or should we try to limit facebook groups and twitter feeds that say Biden lost the election against all facts and evidence, when we see millions of people believe it just because it feels right to them?

It's not an easy problem, and doesn't seem to have any easy solution.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#296

Post by mmmpop »

enumjorge wrote: post #278
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.

This borders on conspiratorial. What "establishment" are you talking about? You might as well have said boogey man. I'm guessing you mean Democrats, since Republicans have greatly benefited from the distribution of propaganda and misinformation that social media like Facebook enables. These are the same Democrats who barely have a majority in Congress. They're struggling to pass legislation because the moment they lo…

>> I'm guessing you mean Democrats, since Republicans have greatly benefited from the distribution of propaganda and misinformation that social media like Facebook enables.

Right, propaganda is only a thing the Right peddles.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#299

Post by dreamcompiler »

ghostoftiber wrote: post #180
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…

> People didn't stop using oil after the Standard Oil break-up. Nor Windows after its antitrust brush or cigarettes after the tobacco master settlement. The power of those companies was simply sharply reduced. I actually disagree with this. When the company is forcibly broken up there's a chance that it's "power" (what?) is reduced but if we look at Standard Oil, that quicky is shown to be not-what-happened. SO becam…

The same thing happened with AT&T. After the government broke them up into the regional "baby bells" in the 80s they started eating each other until only one (Southwestern Bell) was left standing. At which point it bought the shell of the original AT&T corporation and promptly renamed itself "AT&T." The AT&T you buy cell phone service from today is actually Southwestern Bell.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#300

Post by phone8675309 »

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…

> Headwinds in hiring (there is already a double-digit premium Facebook must pay for talent).

They pay for it on the front end (because they have to compete with other FAANGs) and back end (because there is a point coming soon where Facebook on a resume will be a detriment to a candidate). I will not interview or hire any applicant with Facebook on their resume, and I sincerely doubt that I’m alone in this regard.

fwiw, this applies not only to Facebook. I also extend this policy to anybody who has worked for a military industrial complex death machine, any free to play game maker, and any social media company.

Post reply on HN