Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook's Little Red Book

map.cv

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 300 posts

Re: Facebook's Little Red Book

#91

Post by cdchn »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #60
bbqfog wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

OP didn’t make a statement about the facts on the ground, but the culture and myths of the time. (If you think the villainy myths we tell ourselves today are more grounded in truth, they’re not. We’re always in a narrative. And there is nothing wrong with collective narratives.)

Narrative is the correct word for what this is. This is what Facebook leadership wanted to persuade the Facebook rank-and-file that _this_ is what they're about. This is purposeful internal propaganda.

Re: Facebook's Little Red Book

#93

Post by ch71r22 »

paulddraper wrote: post #31
theideaofcoffee wrote: post #28

[flagged]

Explain?

The "Little Red Book" is the name of Mao Zedong's propaganda book. It's an example of indoctrination.

Marshall McLuhan introduced the idea that the "medium is the message," which is heavily alluded to in this book with images of the printing press, etc. The idea is that changes in how information is shared play a bigger role than the actual content of the messages being exchanged. Chris Cox, the Chief Product Officer, used to regularly talk about McLuhan.

McLuhan also envisioned trends in the change of information media culminating in a "global village," which Facebook echoes here in its mission of "making the world more open and connected." McLuhan expected that this would divide us more than it would unite us.

So I think what the person you're replying to was saying Facebook's appropriation of Mao Zedong and Marshall McLuhan is... weird. Facebook is directly drawing from dictators' propaganda and a philosopher who predicted what Facebook would bring about, and didn't think it was a good thing.

Re: Facebook's Little Red Book

#95

Post by almog »

Towaway69 wrote: post #32

page 27 > Zuckerbergs's Law: The amount each person shares doubles each year. I initially thought wealth, ideas and love was meant but no ... it's just data.

For a moment I read that "the amount of each person's shares doubles each year"

Re: Facebook's Little Red Book

#96

Post by mparnisari »

exe34 wrote: post #82
mparnisari wrote: post #80

Okay, so Facebook started as a way to interconnect people. But it's a business, so it has to make money to survive. So they added ads. And now my feed is 99% ads, 1% updates from my friends. Sooooo mission accomplished, right? Right?

you get updates from your friends? the only reason I have Facebook is to see pictures of cats, but it insists on showing me hamas propaganda ai-slop.

Yes. I get updates from my local community

Re: Facebook's Little Red Book

#97

Post by KerrAvon »

jmyeet wrote: post #88

How far we've come in a little over a decade. If you're working for Big Tech now, you're basically working for a defense contractor. Amazon, Microsoft, Google or Meta are really no different to Boeing, Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman. Meta was culpable in the Rohingya genocide [1], builds AI for the military [2], silences content about Palestine (with deep ties to the Netanyahu government) [3] and Zuckerberg is c…

re: 4 -- Facebook and reactionary politics have been hand in hand from the beginning of general public access to Facebook -- the world would be in a much better place without it.

Re: Facebook's Little Red Book

#99

Post by 1970-01-01 »

mparnisari wrote: post #80

Okay, so Facebook started as a way to interconnect people. But it's a business, so it has to make money to survive. So they added ads. And now my feed is 99% ads, 1% updates from my friends. Sooooo mission accomplished, right? Right?

Facebook was started as a way for college boys to gleam full names, pictures, and other personal information of college girls. When it was just this, it was actually wonderful and mostly innocent kids having fun. But Zuck was greedy, and eventually it evolved into yet another of the online behemoths that can only thrive by selling as much of your private data as it can get away with. As such, it is no longer special, and therefore it is ripe for disruption.
Post reply on HN