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

371–380 of 609 posts

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#371

Post by brentm »

latte wrote: post #165

Why is Facebook singled out vs. all social media? I feel worse after half an hour spent reading Twitter, Reddit or even Hacker News than after half an hour spent on Facebook or Instagram. The amount of hate I see on the first three platforms is much higher.

They are an easy target. FB scandal stories garner a lot of public interest and so there is a financial incentive for news orgs to dedicate staff to the FB beat. Not enough people care about Reddit, HN, etc. Even Twitter comparatively. They also don't have the same level of influence.

There are obviously issues that FB amplifies but the heart of the problem in my opinion is people. People like information that confirms what they already believe, other people are greedy and like to take advantage people for personal gain. It was easy when FB just had to worry about removing porn and gore. Now the line is much grayer. Half of the people think some piece of content must be removed ASAP and the other half call removing that exact same content censorship.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#372

Post by brentm »

yawaworht1978 wrote: post #362

I don't remember nor didn't use myspace, but how did that come to and end? We're there early tell tales like this one? The collapse for Facebook would probably be very fast once a trigger point is reached, they're kind of all or nothing, they need large data amounts to have any quality to serve ads, if they have less advertisers and data, they won't be able to charge the same prides, it's would be a cascade or spiral…

No, people just moved on for a better product (FB, etc).

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#373

Post by ethbr0 »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #368
RandallBrown wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#374

Post by b3morales »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #310
b3morales wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all the tobacco companies did was shift their business into providing alternatives to cigarettes. But they're still made from nicotine. Isn't this okay? Asking genuinely -- I haven't followed this one way or the other. But my understanding was that the health problems were mostly caused by the smoke. Does nicotine itself cause problems when delivered via gum or vape or whatever? Certainly the current ingestion meth…

If vaping was pure nicotine its health effects would be limited (i.e. much less dangerous than tobacco smoke). Unfortunately most vape devices deliver a witches brew of nasty chemicals (besides nicotine) added for flavor and increased addiction potential just like cigarettes did. Many of said chemicals have less well-studied health effects than those in tobacco.

Good point, thanks.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#375

Post by pcf »

joshstrange wrote: post #336
yanderekko wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The loudest critics of social media are the old vanguards of news who are upset that the new kid on the block took their ad money. Also activists who are clearly engaging in motivated reasoning in arguing that Facebook needs to do more to censor conservative opinions.

> conservative opinions That's an interesting way to say "misinformation".

Everything in society is between "progressive" and "conservative" values. To say that "conservative opinions" are simply "misinformation", is very misinformed in itself.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#376

Post by dgs_sgd »

I have > 5 friends (young, mostly liberal) who work at Facebook as engineers and I've yet to see them leave or even make mention of the company's negative reputation. I don't think they would consider leaving while their comp remains so competitive. I think it would take a public disaster so damaging that the stock tanks and doesn't recover for months/years for them to consider leaving.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#378

Post by Ozzie_osman »

baby wrote: post #331
Ozzie_osman wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument being made isn't that people will stop using Facebook. It's that Facebook won't be able to hire the talent it needs. That's a longer, but more damaging feedback loop, assuming you believe it (the counter argument is they will be able to pay people enough to hire them anyway).

I don't believe it a single bit. They are hiring a bunch of engineers right after school, and a lot of engineers still believe that FB is a good product because they're using it on the daily.

Very anecdotally, but I've found that fresh grads are more likely to avoid FB because of the reputational issues vs more senior engineers (who might have families to support or might cynically believe that all big cos have questionable anyway and FB isn't special in that regard)

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#379

Post by wolverine876 »

> The most damaging claim this week gained the least attention. Ms Haugen alleges that Facebook has concealed a decline in its young American users. She revealed internal projections that a drop in teenagers’ engagement could lead to an overall decline in American users of 45% within the next two years. Investors have long faced a lack of open disclosure. Misleading advertisers would undermine the source of nearly all the firm’s sales, and potentially break the law. (The firm denies it.)

The Economist doesn't think damaging society and individuals, including spreading and legitimizing massive misinformation, is especially significant, but misleading advertisers - now that's serious.

Post reply on HN