51–60 of 252 posts
"Chief of Advertising Integrity" does anyone take that title seriously? Forget advertising, Facebook and it's CEO himself has no integrity.
Facebook uses “Integrity” as a friendly synonym for abuse / spam / illegal activity. For example, it avoids them actively having to say they have a “fake accounts team” (which would in turn indicate they have a fake accounts problem). Instead it’s part of the “Community Integrity team”.
"Chief of Advertising Integrity" does anyone take that title seriously? Forget advertising, Facebook and it's CEO himself has no integrity.
That resonated for me because I've seen that happen in software, that classic pattern where cowboy coders ship garbage to QA. The lowest bug rates I've seen are where everybody cares about quality.
With Facebook, I expect that "Chief of Advertising Integrity" is sort of light a lightning rod. The job is not to solve the problem, it's to take the hits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question, what did Mark Zuckerberg do that makes you think he has “no integrity”?
I'll use the gawker article[0] about what he thinks of his users: [0] https://gawker.com/5636765/facebook-ceo-admits-to-calling-us...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook uses “Integrity” as a friendly synonym for abuse / spam / illegal activity. For example, it avoids them actively having to say they have a “fake accounts team” (which would in turn indicate they have a fake accounts problem). Instead it’s part of the “Community Integrity team”.
Pulled straight out of the Moral Mazes playbook, chapter on “dexterity with symbols.”
At this point, its research is nearly 40 years out of date. Is it still worth reading? And are there more up-to-date versions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook uses “Integrity” as a friendly synonym for abuse / spam / illegal activity. For example, it avoids them actively having to say they have a “fake accounts team” (which would in turn indicate they have a fake accounts problem). Instead it’s part of the “Community Integrity team”.
Pulled straight out of the Moral Mazes playbook, chapter on “dexterity with symbols.”
"Advertising" for example could mean the benign "show me a picture of some product" or it could mean "identify who I am, how I behave, where I work, how much I make, who I know, and maintain and share a dossier on all of it"
In the extreme, Facebook's choices appear to be: (a) act in the best interest of society and get f#cked by competitors; or (b) remain a dominant force in the market, but as a side effect, f#ck everybody. All options for Facebook appear to be a mix of those two horrible choices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it's a form of doublespeak?
I think doublespeak is when the two meanings are opposite, no? This sounds more like your standard corporate euphemism
"Chief of Advertising Integrity" does anyone take that title seriously? Forget advertising, Facebook and it's CEO himself has no integrity.
Facebook uses “Integrity” as a friendly synonym for abuse / spam / illegal activity. For example, it avoids them actively having to say they have a “fake accounts team” (which would in turn indicate they have a fake accounts problem). Instead it’s part of the “Community Integrity team”.
Teams have absolutely been identified by specific problem areas, so your reasoning doesn’t hold up. For example, “FNRP” stands for Fake, Not Real Person (which distinguishes from celebrity impersonation etc) per https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/21/revealed-facebo...
"Chief of Advertising Integrity" does anyone take that title seriously? Forget advertising, Facebook and it's CEO himself has no integrity.
"Chief of Advertising Integrity" does anyone take that title seriously? Forget advertising, Facebook and it's CEO himself has no integrity.
Facebook uses “Integrity” as a friendly synonym for abuse / spam / illegal activity. For example, it avoids them actively having to say they have a “fake accounts team” (which would in turn indicate they have a fake accounts problem). Instead it’s part of the “Community Integrity team”.