Live data from Hacker News

Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok

washingtonpost.com

91–100 of 324 posts

Re: Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok

#91
post #25

At what point does: - having Facebook/Meta experience on your resume starts hurting you against others who don't - selling your company to Facebook/Meta or product on it hurts your brand and perceived to be immoral Is Facebook/Meta the Tobacco company of our generation? The harmful effects of smoking were covered up for almost a century, much as the impact of mass remote dopamine manipulation is not as prolific.

> - having Facebook/Meta experience on your resume starts hurting you against others who don't Why would it hurt you? They're at the forefront of technical challenges of scaling an immensely popular product and developing internal tooling. These aren't necessarily applicable everywhere, but they're incredibly valuable. If anything, I think the fact that they're working at a place where a very vocal minority of their…

Forefront of technical challenges? Are you effin' kidding me? That website that can't get its shit together for 15+ years I use it. Constantly and consistently there are tons of bugs in its behavior. Doubling comments, missing pictures, can't create photo albums, then they are created twice, site unavailable, some parts of site not working, feed not loading, videos not playing, back button almost completely broken. I could go on and on and on. Any browser, anytime.

I've never ever experienced any other popular system/service so broken.

I am sure behind it all is complex overengineered cathedral of frameworks, systems and libraries. Some of it may be even cool. But the final result is piece of shit, no matter how I look on it, no matter how many chances I give it.

Compared to quality of say various google apps is... well incomparable. So yeah, having this on resume is underwhelming, even without looking at moral topics.

Re: Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok

#93
Here’s what’s sad about this; TikTok was a product clearly built for “younger” users (Gen Z, younger millennials) the same way Facebook was in the aughts for its youthful cohort (older millennials). Facebook then evolved their product and made massive inroads with older audiences, sending their value and userbase soaring… point.

But in doing so Facebook left younger users underserved they chose TikTok. And now to paper over their product failure they’re crying to the government.

Re: Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok

#95
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sure would think twice about hiring from Facebook. It's like hiring someone from a weapons company that targets teenagers. Edit: I've had a chance to think about it after a cup of coffee and I take back my comment. Everyone deserves a second chance. Everyone gets the same ethical review.

I wouldn't work at a place that doctrineer. Seems like a red flag to me that the company is overly consumed with politics.

Maybe they are consumed with ethics, rather than politics. As this article (and many others) explains, Meta does not act in an ethical manner with their actions towards users, the government, competitors, etc.

Why wouldn't a future employer take that into account?

Re: Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok

#96
(1) Facebook has consistently acted on a partisan basis supporting Republicans and right-wing causes as much as it can. Any normal company would have thrown Sheryl Steinberg under the bus for funding anti-semitic conspiracy theories but that kind of stuff is at the DNA core of Facebook. (2) That doesn't mean TikTok isn't toxic.

Re: Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'yellow peril' aspect of it was certainly disgusting.

What "yellow peril"?

The focus on Asia, specifically China, as a uniquely threatening force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Peril .

Re: Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok

#98
post #22
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What influenced you to believe that?

Paul Graham's submarine essay probably.

Obviously, every HNer religiously reads and memorizes PG’s mediocre essays.

There’s no way you could hold the opinion that PR and influence pervade our society, without having read “Submarine”.

Re: Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok

#99
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was skeptical for precisely that reason, so despite the fact that it isn't a secret (see for example https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/checks-balanc... ) I didn't believe it until I saw the sausage getting made. Obviously I understand why you might not trust some random guy on this, but I've personally seen a billion dollar company where an outright majority of news coverage originated with its PR team…

I'm not saying the concept isn't real, I'm just generally skeptical of prescriptive statements such as GGP. There are plenty of things happening around me that influence me, like kind gestures big or small, the birth of my children, learning about things (that are verifiable), which I can assure you are not staged or driven by someone.

> There are plenty of things happening around me that influence me

You’re being really pedantic with those examples - obviously, they weren’t talking about events like the “birth of a child”…

Re: Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok

#100
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Positive PR, where you pay someone to go around convincing reporters how great you are, is normal business and I'm not sure it could ever be otherwise. Negative campaigns that function solely to tear down your opponents, as the article says (and my experience matches), are relatively uncommon outside of politics.

I disagree, the PC vs Mac is arguably not positive PR towards the PC industry but was very popular back when it aired. Even now Samsung sometimes poke fun at Apple mistakes. I would argue micro aggressive advertising is negative PR just with lipstick on it.

I mean, to some extent, those ads were popular/notorious precisely _because_ they were such an unusual tactic.

Also, that was open advertising, not a covert disinformation campaign; it's a bit different.

Post reply on HN