16 ms·
Delay, Deny and Deflect: How Facebook’s Leaders Fought Through Crisis
- draw_down 8y ago> “You threw us under the bus!” she yelled at Mr. Stamos, according to people who were present. People in high places really make me sick sometimes. This guy told the truth about an important matter and she chewed his ass for it. Super professional to take some (well-deserved) shit from the board, and then go proverbially kick your dog in retaliation. What an asshole.
- IBM 8y ago>“We’re not going to traffic in your personal life,” Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, said in an MSNBC interview. “Privacy to us is a human right. It’s a civil liberty.” (Mr. Cook’s criticisms infuriated Mr. Zuckerberg, who later ordered his management team to use only Android phones, since the operating system has far more users than Apple’s.) I can't get enough of the Apple-Facebook beef. Also kind of a "cut off your nose to spite your face" kind of move from a security perspective.
- minimaxir 8y agoFunny quote: > “We’re not going to traffic in your personal life,” Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, said in an MSNBC interview. “Privacy to us is a human right. It’s a civil liberty.” (Mr. Cook’s criticisms infuriated Mr. Zuckerberg, who later ordered his management team to use only Android phones, since the operating system has far more users than Apple’s.)
- spiderPig 8y agoZuck's always been a sore loser.
- samfisher83 8y agoIf Tim cook believed this why is he taking billions from google to be the default search engine? Why not pick a more privacy friendly search engine?
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoBecause you've gotta pick your battles.
- xvector 8y agoBecause no other search engine provides nearly as smooth an experience as Google. Coincidentally, nothing is stopping privacy-conscious users to use, for example, DuckDuckGo. It's right there in the options on both macOS and Safari. Finally, it's pretty absurd to say that Tim Cook/Apple don't believe in privacy. Out of all major consumer software/hardware manufacturers, Apple easily takes the most privacy-conscious stance of them all - which isn't saying much until you see the extent that they've gone to protect user privacy - ranging from the Secure Enclave and the T2 chip to fingerprinting and tracking prevention in Safari 12.
- ric2b 8y ago> Because no other search engine provides nearly as smooth an experience as Google. DDG is actually smoother, it loads faster and is more lightweight on phone browsers.
- ariwilson 8y agoIf he was being honest, Cook would have said: "Privacy to us is a comparative advantage, because we can't make world class web products." You can see the difference between these two statements in action in cases where Apple absolutely needs government approval and market share (China) or a good product (search engine / Google), they immediately ditch this "human right".
- chowchowchow 8y agoThat comparative advantage has also made them the most valuable company in the world so your normative lens may be a bit biased — it seems like one could easily say googles comparative disadvantage is their business model precludes then from offering lucrative high margin privacy-protecting products. The point about maps feels rather non germane as apple does have its own maps product.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- phillipamann 8y agoThis is just corporate posturing. Apple recently banned VPN's that have the potential to block ads including Freedom [1]. [1] https://freedom.to/blog/freedom-has-been-temporarily-removed-from-the-app-store/ https://freedom.to/blog/freedom-has-been-temporarily-removed...
- izacus 8y agoInteresting how this post got downvoted even if it links to a source. Anyone wants to weigh in why?
- snowwrestler 8y agoFreedom is not an ad blocker; Apple has approved other apps that block ads; iOS ships with native support for ad blocking and VPNs. It's a bummer for fans of Freedom that it got blocked, but it's not accurate to extrapolate that into some general Apple opposition to ad blocking.
- skeptic_69 8y agoI rendered my disapproval of Facebook by deleting it. That is the only action they care about.
- gaius 8y agoThey kept your shadow profile and are still tracking you, I guarantee it
- skeptic_69 8y ago:/ yeah.
- a_imho 8y agoConsider obfuscating it?
- dwd 8y agoThe shadow profile is probably just as valuable as a real one when it comes to selling advertising. And that's what matters. Everything else is just a cost of doing business.
- jcbrand 8y agoThere's no way it can be just as valuable. For one, if you're not using their site, they can't show you ads there.
- dwd 8y agoThey don't need to. They can advertise to other members of your household, friends or any associates who they have linked that profile to. Also you could be targeted on any site in their Advertising Network. In those cases they don't need specifics, just a profile/persona they can target or crosslink your browser fingerprint from like buttons and pixel tracking with a FaceBook user with the same IP address.
- davidw 8y agoI sense that there may be a bipartisan crapping on FB next year; it seems like no one much is very happy with them.
- pweissbrod 8y agoYou underestimate the power of lobbying :) https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=D000033563&year=2018 https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=D00003356...
- kakaorka 8y agoMakes me think about the quote ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!’ Of course they don’t care about anything but profit and growth because it’s what makes them richer.
- sevensor 8y agoPerhaps, but this quote is used so frequently on HN that you should probably just assume it's already been posted to every comment thread.
- hyperdimension 8y agoWhat, you haven't had enough of that quote yet? How about "If it's free, you're not the customer, you're the product?"
- sevensor 8y agoThat one should be in a banner across the top.
- viburnum 8y agoThe leadership of Facebook has more money than they could ever enjoy. They do all this sleazy stuff because they enjoy being sleazy.
- mrguyorama 8y agoYou should really take a look at the price tags of luxury yachts sometime. The cost of extreme luxury expands to completely use up the unending streams of money directed at it
- jseliger 8y agoIs there an actual crisis, outside the media narrative? Has Facebook seen an actual fall in monthly, weekly, or daily active users? To me, this story reads a lot like a media narrative that has very little to do with users's actual lives. And I've been reading variations on "Why Facebook sucks" and "Why Facebook is doomed" for a very long time. It's like the "Why this is the year of Linux on the desktop," but for media companies. Don't get me wrong: I'm barely a Facebook user and agree with much of the criticism. But what I do, anecdotally, is less significant than what users do and want to do. I think the conventional media sources, including the NYT, doesn't want to confront its own role in the 2016 election (the relentless media focus on Clinton's email server was insane). We don't want to acknowledge that most people's epistemological skill is low. Why look at ourselves, when we have this handy scapegoat right... over... there? https://www.iep.utm.edu/girard/#H3 https://www.iep.utm.edu/girard/#H3
- annadane 8y agoSure there is. If they've been proven to have repeated privacy violations and ethics violations on a social space where people post a lot of their information it absolutely affects lives.
- tareqak 8y agoWould you consider a significant drop in Facebook's European user base to be crisis [0]? [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-revenue-and-user-growth-declining-in-europe-2018-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-revenue-and-user-gr... - Facebook's user base is declining in Europe, and that ought to terrify its American bosses
- bepotts 8y agoLosing 2 to 4 million users out of 375 million users is hardly "significant". It's something to look out for of course, but trying to insinuate that Facebook is in trouble in Europe with those numbers is a stretch.
- radicaldreamer 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- panarky 8y agoMs. Sandberg has overseen an aggressive lobbying campaign to combat Facebook’s critics, shift public anger toward rival companies and ward off damaging regulation. Facebook employed a Republican opposition-research firm to discredit activist protesters, in part by linking them to the liberal financier George Soros. It also tapped its business relationships, persuading a Jewish civil rights group to cast some criticism of the company as anti-Semitic.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- koops 8y agoCoordinated, inauthentic behavior?
- skeptic_69 8y agoLOL. indeed.
- shard972 8y agoSeems pretty authentic to me.
- IBM 8y agoA few months ago Bloomberg published a story which I'm 99% sure was directed by Facebook PR, in-line with their strategy being reported on in this story [1][2]. Also can any mods tell me why all my comments are dead? [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/is-apple-really-your-privacy-hero https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/is-apple-... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17719607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17719607
- skeptic_69 8y agoI don't know if THIS article was directed by Facebook related PR but the times reporting says there is other PR basically identical to this. So I think we can decisively label your conjecture as "credible"
- ilovecaching 8y agoTo me the negative press cycle involving Facebook and other advertising companies is more about the hidden war between the new age digital advertisers, and the former rulers of ads: the conventional news outlets. The news outlets will jump on any chance they can get to kill their competitors just like any other company. Without Facebook, they could become the sole source of news again, and reap the lost ad revenue themselves. That's why I don't trust anything I read in the news. If I don't hear it from a friend working at one of the SV companies (which isn't that hard to find, we're a much smaller community than one would imagine) then I consider it to be sensationalized, hyperbolic, and/or downright wrong.
- skeptic_69 8y agohow would hear about this story unless you are personally friends with alex stamos or zuckerberg or sandenberg? I am all for skepticism but blanket rejection of responsible journalism seems like an over-reaction. the reporting of the new york times on facebook has been continuously borne out by events.
- ilovecaching 8y agoYou're asserting that it is responsible journalism. That is not a given in this debate.
- jayess 8y agoI think both can be the case: legacy media is actively attacking online media lately. I've seen a rise is poorly-veiled anti-first amendment articles recently from places such as the New York Times and the New Yorker. So I have no doubt legacy media feels very threatened. But at the same time, Facebook is fucking evil.
- nkassis 8y agoI get that you can be skeptical of the press but to claim that anecdotal or hearsay from friends is more trustworthy is really odd to me. This strikes me as an easy way to fall for false rumors. I'd rather put trust in the fact that there is plenty of people who would benefit from reporting about the inaccuracy of the claims of other journalists. We saw this with the Bloomberg story about purported Chinese attacks on hardware companies.
- ilovecaching 8y agoTo me the negative press cycle involving Facebook and other advertising companies is more about the hidden war between the new age digital advertisers, and the former rulers of ads: the conventional news outlets. The news outlets will jump on any chance they can get to kill their competitors just like any other company. Without Facebook, they could become the sole source of news again, and reap the lost ad revenue themselves. That's why I don't trust anything I read in the news. If I don't hear it from a friend working at one of the SV companies (which isn't that hard to find, we're a much smaller community than one would imagine) then I consider it to be sensationalized, hyperbolic, and/or downright wrong. At the very least, we certainly are never going to hear of the things Facebook is doing right. We aren't going to hear about the economic opportunity or positive connections it has produced. To say that something is completely one sided is a strong sign of bias.
- astrange 8y agoThe purpose of propaganda is to make you feel that the smart choice is to not trust anything you hear.
- fzeroracer 8y agoEvery time I hear someone claim 'I just don't trust the news in general' it makes me weep. Not only have we failed at imparting basic critical thinking for people to make informed decisions as to the validity of various news pieces, it also just confirms that as you mentioned the propagandists are winning. If you claim all news sources are fake news, then the only winner in that race to the bottom are the ones making actual fake content.
- ilovecaching 8y agoTrust != assumed validity. It simply means I do think critically and do my research before trusting non-primary sources of information. And weep all you want, I'd rather people question the news then blindly accept everything they're fed on TV and in the papers. The news cycles have become extremely sensationalized.
- leroy_masochist 8y agoFacebook's recent preoccupation with staying in Washington's good graces, as described in the article, seems misplaced. It almost seems like the long-term personal legacy concerns of Zuck, Sandberg, Bickert, and others (many of whom clearly aspire to elected or appointed office) is taking precedence over FB's actual strategic priorities. If I were running FB, my main worry would be the fact that it's devolved into a platform for baby boomers to yell at each other about politics. An angry Congress, even a really angry one, has a limited ability to kill FB. In fact, I'd posit that a bona fide War With The Man might even be good for employee morale, another Cartago Delenda Est moment. User shrinkage, declining engagement and general loss of relevancy, on the other hand -- that would be the death knell, and it already kind of appears to be happening.
- humanrebar 8y ago> ...it's devolved into a platform for baby boomers to yell at each other about politics. I think the draw of a Two Minutes Hate isn't specific to an age group.
- patrickg_zill 8y agoTranslation: THEY LIED
- Stryder 8y agoWhat a shitshow all around. Leadership is dead in today's climate.
- Balgair 8y agoThis Times piece should be taken seriously by FB, it's shareholders, employees, and users. With good sourcing, this paints a very immature picture of the company, from leadership on down to the users. Though the article uses the Russian interference as the launching off point, in my reading, it seems that these attacks on our democracy are essentially waived off. That the most pressing issue for Zuck was not that the families of his senior staff were being fooled (along with the rest of the voting public), but that his company may be ruined. This extremely serious, and continuing, attack on the public seems to not really matter to any of the parties involved, only that they may get 'in trouble' or lose money. Good Lord. Where is the maturity? Where are the adults? Zuck seems like he's still 24 here, bopping about feeding calves and 'listening'. At least write up a report on your summer vacation. The dire situations that the company (and the government) is in seems to be only taken as far as the mirrors these actors look into. What absolute children.
- fossuser 8y agoFrom people that work there they are hiring unlimited headcount to work on integrity teams - the goal of which is to stop the kind of manipulation that happened in the 2016 election. Given the decisions Facebook has made Zuck seems like a really good CEO and when FB makes something their focus they usually pull it off - fixing mobile, instagram moves against snapchat, etc. The impression I get from people that work there is that it's not just talking points.
- Balgair 8y agoThat is fantastic to hear. All media, even the Times, should be looked at critically and has biases. If it is true that they are putting a lot more of their site through scrutiny, that bodes well for the future use of social media in general. It is unfortunate that this job will be largely thankless though. Like in plumbing, you'll only notice the bad jobs, not the good work.
- headsoup 8y agoAre these people in the PR department? Because FB's outward behaviour and actions don't seem to reflect your statements And hiring 'unlimited headcount' is usually a sign of ticking a box and not actually understanding what needs to be done, i.e. "what do you mean it's still a problem, look at all the people we threw at this!"
- stock_toaster 8y agoI have heard apocryphal stories of people not wanting to hire ex-uber employees, because the culture there had such a bad reputation as being ethically bankrupt. I wonder if continued fb employment would make someone similarly less desirable as a hire.
- strict9 8y ago>On a conservative news site called the NTK Network, dozens of articles blasted Google and Apple for unsavory business practices. One story called Mr. Cook hypocritical for chiding Facebook over privacy, noting that Apple also collects reams of data from users. Another played down the impact of the Russians’ use of Facebook. >The rash of news coverage was no accident: NTK is an affiliate of Definers, sharing offices and staff with the public relations firm in Arlington, Va. Many NTK Network stories are written by staff members at Definers or America Rising, the company’s political opposition-research arm, to attack their clients’ enemies. While the NTK Network does not have a large audience of its own, its content is frequently picked up by popular conservative outlets, including Breitbart. Facebook employed content writers posing as journalists, as hired guns against their enemies. A page out of the playbook of the Internet Research Agency.
- lern_too_spel 8y agoThis is not the first time Facebook has used these tactics. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/may/12/facebook-pr-firm-google https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/may/12/facebook-...
- mindgam3 8y agoThis nugget made me want to laugh and cry at the same time: "...if Facebook pulled down the Russians’ fake pages, regular Facebook users might also react with outrage at having been deceived: His own mother-in-law, Mr. Kaplan said, had followed a Facebook page created by Russian trolls." Yeah, great idea, Facebook. Let's protect the users from the outrage of having been deceived by... initiating a much bigger layer of deceit/coverup. That will totally work!
- jancsika 8y ago> Looking into the Russian activity without approval, she said, had left the company exposed legally. Ooh, what an insidious tension. I actually never considered it as a security risk of proprietary systems. Can someone here on HN filter for posts that rankly speculate about how secure FAANG must be based on the high skill level of the security teams there? I know I've read some. I'd like to read back through them with this threat in mind.
- Yizahi 8y agoHow leaders of non-facebook social media companies dealt with facebook crisis (probably): "I hope the public won't remember about us. Please god, make them forget about us."
- netwanderer3 8y agoGreat article! This explains the reason why Google started receiving so much shit since last year. Typically you would see them appearing gradually but for anyone who live on the internet, I'm sure they noticed the sudden sharp increase in Google attacks starting from the end of last year. It is incredible that the NYTimes were able to obtain some very private information that was presented in this article. It must have been leaked through someone at a very high ranking within Facebook executive team.
- richardaway 8y agoThe tide has really turned against Sheryl Sandberg internally. I think some of her entourage are either reading the tea leaves or trying to create them.
- Flimm 8y agoHere is Facebook's response to this article from NYTimes: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/11/new-york-times-update/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/11/new-york-times-update/ Quoting: > Yesterday, The New York Times published an article about the past two years at Facebook. There are a number of inaccuracies in the story, including: > 1. Russia Investigation: The story asserts that we knew about Russian activity as early as the spring of 2016 but were slow to investigate it at every turn. This is not true. As Mark Zuckerberg told Congress, “Leading up to Election Day in November 2016, we detected and dealt with several threats with ties to Russia … [including] a group called APT28 … we also saw some new behavior when APT28-related accounts, under the banner of DC Leaks, created fake personas that were used to seed stolen information to journalists. We shut these accounts down for violating our policies.” After the election, no one ever discouraged Alex Stamos from looking into Russian activity — as he himself acknowledged on Twitter. Indeed as The New York Times says, “Mark and Sheryl [Sandberg] expanded Alex’s work.” Finally, we did not name Russia in our April 2017 white paper — but instead cited a US Government report in a footnote about Russian activity — because we felt that the US Director of National Intelligence was best placed to determine the source. > 2. The Muslim Ban: We did decide that President Trump’s comments on the Muslim ban, while abhorrent to many people, did not break our Community Standards for the same reasons The New York Times and many other organizations covered the news: Donald Trump was a candidate running for office. To suggest that the internal debate around this particular case was different from other important free speech issues on Facebook is wrong. > 3. Commitment to Fighting Fake News: Mark and Sheryl have been deeply involved in the fight against false news and information operations on Facebook — as they have been consistently involved in all our efforts to prevent misuse of our services. > 4. Sex Trafficking Legislation: Sheryl championed this legislation because she believed it was the right thing to do, and that tech companies need to be more open to content regulation where it can prevent real world harm. In fact, the company faced considerable criticism as a result. > 5. Android: Tim Cook has consistently criticized our business model and Mark has been equally clear he disagrees. So there’s been no need to employ anyone else to do this for us. And we’ve long encouraged our employees and executives to use Android because it is the most popular operating system in the world.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
- sheana_ahlqvist 8y agoThe Innovation For All podcast released a super timely episode related to this yesterday. It was on whether tech companies like Facebook and Google are monopolies and if that's really a problem. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/google-facebook-are-monopolies-does-it-matter-feat/id1426194513?i=1000423848439&mt=2 https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/google-facebook-are-mono... The guest went into this topic some more: "While Facebook had publicly declared itself ready for new federal regulations, Ms. Sandberg privately contended that the social network was already adopting the best reforms and policies available. Heavy-handed regulation, she warned, would only disadvantage smaller competitors."
- starchild_3001 8y agoAs Warren Buffet would say Facebook leaders need to start imagining seeing all their words and actions on the front page of WSJ and act accordingly. Nothing stays private. Say and do the right thing, don't play games. This is the biggest corporate f'up I've seen in a while. Someone needs to own it and step down.