531–540 of 609 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want to see court-mandated open source and federation. Doubt it'd ever happen though...
What other private property are you in favor of taking from others?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah. Network effect. Arguably nothing on Earth has ever had such a powerful network effect as Facebook. Facebook's network effect was overwhelmed twice, once by instagram and again by whatsapp... shame both those ended up squarely in Facebook's court. Remains to be seen how much dent can TikTok / Twitch / YouTube / Snap / Azar / Telegram can make on to that once-in-a-generation trifecta.
>Facebook's network effect was overwhelmed twice, once by instagram and again by whatsapp This doesn't seem accurate, do you have evidence to back up this claim? Instagram had 30 million users and no revenue upon acquisition. Facebook had over a billion, and billions in revenues.
I can argue that my friends now use all use email, eclipsing facebook, whatsapp and instagram, better buy those stocks in SMTP. ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My question is... why do people like us continue to work there? They know what is going on there more than anyone.
can you make a purely ideological/ethical case for working at google/twitter/amazon/ms/apple over working at fb?
Sure all these companies have their share of evil doings, but FB is probably the one that tends to affect people on a much more personal level (resulting in bullying, depression, anxiety, etc)
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 nicotine is not the harmful thing in cigarettes[1][2] - the "without the smoke" bit is pretty important.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Adverse_effects [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette#Health_effects
Sure the tobacco companies are making money off of selling addictive chemicals to people, which is not a particularly ethical business practice. But "selling addictive chemicals with adverse effects roughly in line with caffeine" is still a big improvement over "selling addictive chemicals that kill people".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah. Network effect. Arguably nothing on Earth has ever had such a powerful network effect as Facebook. Facebook's network effect was overwhelmed twice, once by instagram and again by whatsapp... shame both those ended up squarely in Facebook's court. Remains to be seen how much dent can TikTok / Twitch / YouTube / Snap / Azar / Telegram can make on to that once-in-a-generation trifecta.
>Facebook's network effect was overwhelmed twice, once by instagram and again by whatsapp This doesn't seem accurate, do you have evidence to back up this claim? Instagram had 30 million users and no revenue upon acquisition. Facebook had over a billion, and billions in revenues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually think in a way one of Facebooks core proposition is being the internet for most people which is not that far off from AOL. The similarity here is that no one knows what is going to render FB obsolete right now. Just like no one knew what was going to do the same for AOL. AOL lost in part I believe because they were not really able to transition from Dialup "internet" Provider to Content Aggregator when bro…
It may come to pass that Facebook is a generational phenomenon, like rock-'n'-roll. It'll be the thing for "old people" soon enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like the parent comment is some sort of "reply" to the title. Curiousity might lead some to actually look at the article. It is very short. For those who won't, the tag line is "The problem starts at the top". Perhaps that is a reference to Zuckerberg. The topic is reputation. The article quickly summarises the recent complaints being made against Facebook. Then it cuts to the chase. "The most damaging claim th…
> the company should look hard at its public face. Mark Zuckerberg [...] increasingly looks like a liability In sum, TFA suggests that the business may need a better spokesperson. The business model isn't going to vanish, but it is very dependent on perception.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was also interested to know what "double-digit premium" actually means in this context. I feel like the order of magnitude are confusing to me. Like, they pay people $10-$99 more, or they pay people 10x-99x more? Neither seems a plausible interpretation of the statement. Edit: Ok, ok, percentage!
As far as I've heard, it's 2-4x the average salary on some positions. The ethical problems and reputation it faces in community increased their churn while reducing the available pool of candidates.
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…
I have a couple of friends who are much more politically engaged and insightful than myself. But all I see them post on facebook are low effort gotcha memes. Facebook has a problem in that it seems to frown on "intelligent" content. Long form journalism, in depth analysis, professional content (industry journals, tech blogs etc.), none of this content really exists on facebook. I have friends that read hackernews, we…