5 ms·

Facebook’s Response to the New York Times

60 points by imartin2k 8y ago

IOT_Apprentice 8y ago
And the attacks on George Soros?
- rspeer 8y ago
  That's the part about "Definers" at the end of the article. They make sure not to say his name. Their claim is -- and this is ridiculous -- their PR team thought people needed to know that a campaign criticizing Facebook was funded in part by "a well-known critic of Facebook" and it's entirely coincidental that this well-known critic is the bogeyman of the right. (Who would have guessed that Facebook critics criticize Facebook?) Of course, as a response to their PR organization supposedly doing nothing wrong, just presenting people with vitally important tautologies, they have fired them. It's remarkable how much of this response just mildly confirms the New York Times article. (We reject the claim that Facebook execs all use Android just because Zuck hates Tim Cook! They use Android because they need an operating system on their mobile phones, and because Zuck hates Tim Cook.)
- drak0n1c 8y ago
  While pointing out funding from George Soros is an overused trick reliant on ad hominem, I do not see how it is any more outrageous or racist than the even more common trope of vilifying projects because they are linked to the Koch brothers. I'm part Jewish myself and I don't think criticism of Sheldon Adelson or George Soros for their political activity is necessarily anti-Semitic.
  - pteredactyl 8y ago
    Agreed. To criticize Soros or someone who's Jewish is somehow automatically anti-semitic. I don't get it. It's frightening.
    - snowwrestler 8y ago
      That's not the issue. The issue is that actual, proud anti-Semites have created and pushed horrible conspiracy theories and gross content about George Soros for years, and any PR company worth their salt should know that. Knowing that sort of thing, navigating a message through the broader cultural context, is job #1 for a PR firm. It is why PR exists as an industry. So, Definers either consciously played into those attacks on Soros, or are incompetent.
      - pteredactyl 8y ago
        ...
SirLJ 8y ago
this is a complete "Zuck you"...
jimnotgym 8y ago
This response is a disaster of PR. Facebook are the trolls, the cyber-bullies, the fake news. It is time that they learned to respond like grown ups. This is supposed to be a world leading company, and they write press stuff like a school yard bully would. I see a fad about to hit it's inevitable decline.
GreeniFi 8y ago
I don’t think I’m the only one that finds it a bit weird what a hash FB have made of this issue. For a long time it was an era-defining company. It’s employees and even Zuckerberg seemed intent on making the world a better place. But the machine metastasized into something other than a tool to share baby pictures with distant relatives. I think we’ve all (re)learned for the first time that virality seems to favour the bad guys. Tap our worse nature and score eyeballs(1). In a sense this wasn’t FB’s fault, it’s a feature of human nature which FB inadvertently facilitated. As such, I don’t see why FB just didn’t try and own this. They had a lot of goodwill, even as the platform changed over the years. Why didn’t they just come clean: we have a serious issue, and we’re going to close down aspects of the platform until we can deal with it. I obviously know none of the protagonists of this tale, but I’d love some insight into their personalities and how these drove their decisions. (1) I say (re)learned as this as been the profit basis of British tabloids for 30 years and more. Edit: for formatting and clarification of one point.
- tivert 8y ago
  > I don’t see why FB just didn’t try and own this. They had a lot of goodwill, even as the platform changed over the years. Why didn’t they just come clean: we have a serious issue, and we’re going to close down aspects of the platform until we can deal with it. Probably because, at their core, they're a shady company. The idea of being upfront, honest, and embracing shot term pain to benefit others is alien to their DNA. Facebook's entire business model involves tracking people and tricking them to reveal more about themselves than they realize, then they use that data in ways they're not entirely honest about. Those practices build institutional habits of mind that are hard to break.
- stevenwoo 8y ago
  The movie The Social Network might be half fictionalized, but it portrayed a way someone like Zuckerberg or Sanders could be out of touch with reality by not responding to normal social cues or morals, and then getting used to getting away with things. The platform has so much volume they refuse to actually hire enough people to monitor it, they've adapted to this level of profitability and won't change without being forced to (it's the same issue with Youtube, if it can't be automated, the platform would have to change) - it's like how in the USA and even the UK farmers with significant manual labour requirements won't raise wages, they'll try to get migrant farm workers to do it.
claydavisss 8y ago
Feel sorry for people who work there who have to pretend to support the executive team
- dwd 8y ago
  Yes, I can only imagine the shitstorm that went down yesterday. They should have called it the Mark and Sheryl rebuttle as this piece was really only about them. Digging a deeper hole, which is what I took from this, would seem to indicate that there are stronger calls for a leadership change than anyone suspects.
chad_strategic 8y ago
I had a facebook page, maybe for 3 or 4 months in 2009. Deleted it. Freedom.
jrnichols 8y ago
what's driving me (and others I know) away from Facebook is that they are actively scanning and deleting content that we have created and stuff we want to see in Secret groups (some are of an adult nature, and Facebook is very obviously against any "adult content") but straight up fake news, memes that are borderline racist and inaccurate and inflammatory, and other absolute clickbait trash remain visible all over the place. I'd delete it too if so many things I keep track of were elsewhere.
throwifndmdj 8y ago
“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.“ They aren’t exactly denying Zuckerberg encouraged his executives to stop using IPhones.

60 points by imartin2k 8y ago

IOT_Apprentice 8y ago

And the attacks on George Soros?

rspeer 8y ago
That's the part about "Definers" at the end of the article. They make sure not to say his name. Their claim is -- and this is ridiculous -- their PR team thought people needed to know that a campaign criticizing Facebook was funded in part by "a well-known critic of Facebook" and it's entirely coincidental that this well-known critic is the bogeyman of the right. (Who would have guessed that Facebook critics criticize Facebook?) Of course, as a response to their PR organization supposedly doing nothing wrong, just presenting people with vitally important tautologies, they have fired them. It's remarkable how much of this response just mildly confirms the New York Times article. (We reject the claim that Facebook execs all use Android just because Zuck hates Tim Cook! They use Android because they need an operating system on their mobile phones, and because Zuck hates Tim Cook.)
drak0n1c 8y ago
While pointing out funding from George Soros is an overused trick reliant on ad hominem, I do not see how it is any more outrageous or racist than the even more common trope of vilifying projects because they are linked to the Koch brothers. I'm part Jewish myself and I don't think criticism of Sheldon Adelson or George Soros for their political activity is necessarily anti-Semitic.
- pteredactyl 8y ago
  Agreed. To criticize Soros or someone who's Jewish is somehow automatically anti-semitic. I don't get it. It's frightening.
  - snowwrestler 8y ago
    That's not the issue. The issue is that actual, proud anti-Semites have created and pushed horrible conspiracy theories and gross content about George Soros for years, and any PR company worth their salt should know that. Knowing that sort of thing, navigating a message through the broader cultural context, is job #1 for a PR firm. It is why PR exists as an industry. So, Definers either consciously played into those attacks on Soros, or are incompetent.
    - pteredactyl 8y ago
      ...

SirLJ 8y ago

this is a complete "Zuck you"...

jimnotgym 8y ago

This response is a disaster of PR. Facebook are the trolls, the cyber-bullies, the fake news. It is time that they learned to respond like grown ups. This is supposed to be a world leading company, and they write press stuff like a school yard bully would. I see a fad about to hit it's inevitable decline.

GreeniFi 8y ago

I don’t think I’m the only one that finds it a bit weird what a hash FB have made of this issue. For a long time it was an era-defining company. It’s employees and even Zuckerberg seemed intent on making the world a better place. But the machine metastasized into something other than a tool to share baby pictures with distant relatives. I think we’ve all (re)learned for the first time that virality seems to favour the bad guys. Tap our worse nature and score eyeballs(1). In a sense this wasn’t FB’s fault, it’s a feature of human nature which FB inadvertently facilitated. As such, I don’t see why FB just didn’t try and own this. They had a lot of goodwill, even as the platform changed over the years. Why didn’t they just come clean: we have a serious issue, and we’re going to close down aspects of the platform until we can deal with it. I obviously know none of the protagonists of this tale, but I’d love some insight into their personalities and how these drove their decisions. (1) I say (re)learned as this as been the profit basis of British tabloids for 30 years and more. Edit: for formatting and clarification of one point.

tivert 8y ago
> I don’t see why FB just didn’t try and own this. They had a lot of goodwill, even as the platform changed over the years. Why didn’t they just come clean: we have a serious issue, and we’re going to close down aspects of the platform until we can deal with it. Probably because, at their core, they're a shady company. The idea of being upfront, honest, and embracing shot term pain to benefit others is alien to their DNA. Facebook's entire business model involves tracking people and tricking them to reveal more about themselves than they realize, then they use that data in ways they're not entirely honest about. Those practices build institutional habits of mind that are hard to break.
stevenwoo 8y ago
The movie The Social Network might be half fictionalized, but it portrayed a way someone like Zuckerberg or Sanders could be out of touch with reality by not responding to normal social cues or morals, and then getting used to getting away with things. The platform has so much volume they refuse to actually hire enough people to monitor it, they've adapted to this level of profitability and won't change without being forced to (it's the same issue with Youtube, if it can't be automated, the platform would have to change) - it's like how in the USA and even the UK farmers with significant manual labour requirements won't raise wages, they'll try to get migrant farm workers to do it.

claydavisss 8y ago

Feel sorry for people who work there who have to pretend to support the executive team

dwd 8y ago
Yes, I can only imagine the shitstorm that went down yesterday. They should have called it the Mark and Sheryl rebuttle as this piece was really only about them. Digging a deeper hole, which is what I took from this, would seem to indicate that there are stronger calls for a leadership change than anyone suspects.

chad_strategic 8y ago

I had a facebook page, maybe for 3 or 4 months in 2009. Deleted it. Freedom.

jrnichols 8y ago

what's driving me (and others I know) away from Facebook is that they are actively scanning and deleting content that we have created and stuff we want to see in Secret groups (some are of an adult nature, and Facebook is very obviously against any "adult content") but straight up fake news, memes that are borderline racist and inaccurate and inflammatory, and other absolute clickbait trash remain visible all over the place. I'd delete it too if so many things I keep track of were elsewhere.

throwifndmdj 8y ago

“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.“ They aren’t exactly denying Zuckerberg encouraged his executives to stop using IPhones.