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

381–390 of 609 posts

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#381

Post by MisterBastahrd »

mchanson wrote: post #28
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.

Article doesn't disagree with your take: "The firm risks joining the ranks of corporate untouchables like big tobacco. If that idea takes hold, Facebook risks losing its young, liberal staff. Even if its ageing customers stick with the social network, Facebook has bigger ambitions that could be foiled if public opinion continues to curdle."

They ain't losing their young, liberal staff as long as working there for 10 years means being able to retire at 50. The opportunity is too great and the money is too good.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#383

Post by pawelmurias »

eigengrau5150 wrote: post #293
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

Do you pay better a lot then better then the FAANG companies?

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#384

Post by MisterBastahrd »

deltree7 wrote: post #369
dogman144 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very much missed the point with a motivated reading of the intent behind what I'm saying. Nicely done! My comment wasn't directed at 0.1% pile. It's directed at mid-tier, good-not-great CS programs that FB is both targeting in ways that other FAANGs don't, and also have put on heavy marketing programs at. Signal or noise, hard to say, but they wouldn't be doing it if the need didn't exist . What matters more is the s…

once again, you are over-estimating the powerful SJW Unioin. A lot of talented libertarian, conservative people can't work at facebook because it's too woke. May be a Sheryl Sandberg will make way for Peter Thiels...and it's a fantastic thing for FB. At this point too many FBers have to walk on eggshells. A clean cut of SJWs will make FB a better and more powerful company

No, they can't work at Facebook because they aren't as talented as they think they are. Part of the libertarian / conservative delusion is that the "system" is working against them because of what they believe, and that it can't possibly be because they aren't making the cut due to talent. Profit-oriented, billion dollar companies are not discriminating against talent unless they have serious personality issues.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#385

Post by Karrot_Kream »

gorwell wrote: post #244
breadzeppelin__ wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The internet hollowed out the legacy media's business model, but it's more than that: It also destroyed the ability of the ruling class to control the narrative. Now everything they say and do is endlessly scrutinized by the internet hive mind, which embarrasses them on a daily basis. Nor does it forget `weapons of mass destruction`, `mission accomplished`, `masks don't work`, `wuhan lab leak hypothesis is a racist c…

I agree that there's way too much unnecessary vitrol over FB on these forums, but let's not pretend like FB is some "new, scrappy disruptor" of legacy media institutions engaging in a "coordinated attack". Facebook has just become the _new_ media power and legacy media is trying to reassert itself. I didn't enjoy the stranglehold of legacy media on information flow before and I don't enjoy the strangle of Facebook now. Just because Facebook is better than legacy media (which I'm guessing many will second guess here) doesn't mean it's a _good_ alternative.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#386

Post by joshstrange »

pcf wrote: post #375
joshstrange wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Read the whole comment I replied to. There is no one trying to just censor conservative opinions, they are trying to censor conservative misinformation. I wasn’t painting all conservative opinions as misinformation, I’m was saying the things people want censored is the misinformation, not just opinions.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#387

Post by JohnBooty »

Frondo wrote: post #354
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.

Not trying to nitpick, and not arguing with the sense of sadness you feel -- I sympathize -- but I wouldn't call "passively keeping in touch" with thousands of people "relationships." It's something, but I'm not sure what, it seems like we may not have a good word for "casual strangers," the level of familiarity beneath acquaintance that we know because we met them once and then know only what they post in one social…

    but I wouldn't call "passively keeping in touch" with 
    thousands of people "relationships." It's something, 
    but I'm not sure what, it seems like we may not have a 
    good word for "casual strangers,"
Well, strictly speaking... it's a relationship, just a very casual kind. They are not intrinsically bad.

The healthiness of it can vary widely. It's a very individual thing.

The relevant questions to ask one's self would include: overall, is this bringing me happiness? Are my "casual relationships" on FB causing me anxiety -- either directly, or because of more subtle FOMO, etc? Are they taking time away from other things that would make my life better, such as more meaningful relationships?

There is a happy path there. I genuinely like seeing that so-and-so from high school just had a baby, or whatever. "We sat through so many classes together," I think. "She was always cool to me. Good for her, she seems happy. Cute baby!" I might never really be close to her again, but I do like seeing that she's doing well.

I seem to be in the minority though. Maybe FB is like cocaine. Seems like some people manage to use it occasionally without damaging their bodies or lives. But the vast majority of people are worse off for it.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#388

Post by hunterb123 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #366
hunterb123 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read it again, it doesn't stop them, it puts them on record. Not comparable to silencing speech of citizens. Choose a better whataboutism in your defense of censorship, not just Marco lol.

I'm not defending anything. I'm responding to your statement that Republicans don't want to censor speech. > I haven't seen any calls from any Republicans to censor any speech. They very clearly do! Even setting aside the Rubio bill, you did not respond to either the "you must be patriotic"[1][2] or the "obscenity"[3][4] type of censorship that Republicans love to pursue. [1] https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/pol…

1. The big reveal in that article is "No we're not ready to do that yet". Legally yes it may be a freedom of speech issue because it's at a public university, but who wants political stunts at a game. The audience doesn't, no real debate is happening. Not the same scale as political dissent censorship.

2. Sorry can't view due to paywall, couldn't find an archive

3. You can be arrested in many liberal towns for public indecency. I don't support evangelicals argument against pornography using obscenity but it's not exactly a great comparison against the censorship of political dissent.

4. Same point as above.

Note that the main difference of these events are the severity and scale. It's many national level Democrats coordinating to censor political speech on a private platform by creating a fake "whistleblower" vs some kneeling at a basketball game or porn laws.

I agree that those few Republicans are wrong, but their suggestions aren't the majority in the party and they won't get far. Conversely, the Democrat party as a whole is currently and successfully crafting a censorship campaign.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#389

Post by echlebek »

deltree7 wrote: post #369
dogman144 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very much missed the point with a motivated reading of the intent behind what I'm saying. Nicely done! My comment wasn't directed at 0.1% pile. It's directed at mid-tier, good-not-great CS programs that FB is both targeting in ways that other FAANGs don't, and also have put on heavy marketing programs at. Signal or noise, hard to say, but they wouldn't be doing it if the need didn't exist . What matters more is the s…

once again, you are over-estimating the powerful SJW Unioin. A lot of talented libertarian, conservative people can't work at facebook because it's too woke. May be a Sheryl Sandberg will make way for Peter Thiels...and it's a fantastic thing for FB. At this point too many FBers have to walk on eggshells. A clean cut of SJWs will make FB a better and more powerful company

This is one of the lowest quality comments I've ever read on this web site, do you work for discount-trolling.ru?
Post reply on HN