4 ms·

There seem to be at least one post every day on Hacker News that’s negative about Facebook. Does anyone here know why?

by vjeux 8y ago

matte_black 8y ago
Short sellers.
intopieces 8y ago
It’s because every day, someone submits a negative post and every day, people upvote them.
waterphone 8y ago
Because Facebook is a horrible company and an increasing amount of information about just how bad they really are is coming to light lately.
hpbd 8y ago
I'm starting to suspect the media is extorting Facebook. "Give us better rates at ads, or we'll be badmouthing you for months".
- chronid 8y ago
  It would be interesting to know how much money the NYT spends on Facebook ads, and how many visits (and as such profit) they receive from there. I doubt they report that in their quarterly calls with shareholders though.
StevePerkins 8y ago
Well first and foremost, there has always been primal hostility on HN and similar boards toward advertising, and anything with privacy concerns. Secondly, HN tends toward the far progressive end of the cultural spectrum (with libertarian streaks). And in the shocked and confused search for explanations, as to how a boorish game show host could win a Presidential election, Facebook has emerged as a prominent scapegoat. Lastly, but not least, HN's demographics seem to skew young, while FB's demographics are clearly trending older. The more that trend continues, the more FB will be seen representing a tribal "other".
- codyb 8y ago
  Hmm, I'm not sure they're just a scapegoat. I think there's very serious concerns to a society which seems to consume most of it's media as curated by AI and their online friends as opposed to say, a newspaper editor. Especially when it seems like, half the time, people don't even read the articles and just get outraged by the headline which they assume to be true. And the whole, people being in bubbles with their own viewpoint cannot be a positive.
  - chronid 8y ago
    > I think there's very serious concerns to a society which seems to consume most of it's media as curated by AI and their online friends as opposed to say, a newspaper editor. Be careful - AIs may be wrong and manipulated and with authors with agendas, and newspaper editors can be wrong and manipulated and have agendas. There are countless example of newspapers being wrong and creating a narrative in the past (ex: look at "manufacturing consent" book) to either support the government or cover their (or the government) mistakes, or just plainly hide facts. And with media concentration, this is just going to get worse and worse :) Or look at what the reaction by the NYT (or WaPo, or media in general) was to the massive social media presence and access of the Obama campaign [1] compared to what their reaction were after Trump won and they needed a scapegoat to somewhat make sense of it even after some voices called (on TV) for a moment of reflection about the dangers of them "being cheerleaders" [2]. Always remember "engagement" is a metric very important for newspapers too - their business model is selling ads, exactly like facebook does! [1] https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975564499297226752 https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975564499297226752 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY3nRgEZTm8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY3nRgEZTm8
    - codyb 8y ago
      Yes. I know newspapers sell ads. And I'm familiar with the fact that journalists may have biases and special interests. I never said anyone should put their full faith in newspapers. But they're certainly better edited than the Facebook feed.
pfarnsworth 8y ago
It used to be Uber last year, but now it's Facebook. The journalists have a new target now. They won't stop until Zuckerberg kisses their ring and acknowledges their power. In 2019 it will be someone else, maybe Jeff Bezos but with a more emboldened approach.
iamnothere 8y ago
Likely, competitors, hostile investors, and/or NGOs are funding negative coverage through PR firms, just like Facebook itself recently did. (It happens more than you'd think.) There's also a pile-on effect once a topic gets enough traction, and multiple outlets start publishing hit pieces in the hopes of gaining a few extra eyeballs. Finally, government investigations into companies tend to create negative buzz, and since that's been happening with FB, that's probably generating some additional interest. See also: Tesla.

There seem to be at least one post every day on Hacker News that’s negative about Facebook. Does anyone here know why?

by vjeux 8y ago

There seem to be at least one post every day on Hacker News that’s negative about Facebook. Does anyone here know why?

matte_black 8y ago

Short sellers.

intopieces 8y ago

It’s because every day, someone submits a negative post and every day, people upvote them.

waterphone 8y ago

Because Facebook is a horrible company and an increasing amount of information about just how bad they really are is coming to light lately.

hpbd 8y ago

I'm starting to suspect the media is extorting Facebook. "Give us better rates at ads, or we'll be badmouthing you for months".

chronid 8y ago
It would be interesting to know how much money the NYT spends on Facebook ads, and how many visits (and as such profit) they receive from there. I doubt they report that in their quarterly calls with shareholders though.

StevePerkins 8y ago

Well first and foremost, there has always been primal hostility on HN and similar boards toward advertising, and anything with privacy concerns. Secondly, HN tends toward the far progressive end of the cultural spectrum (with libertarian streaks). And in the shocked and confused search for explanations, as to how a boorish game show host could win a Presidential election, Facebook has emerged as a prominent scapegoat. Lastly, but not least, HN's demographics seem to skew young, while FB's demographics are clearly trending older. The more that trend continues, the more FB will be seen representing a tribal "other".

codyb 8y ago
Hmm, I'm not sure they're just a scapegoat. I think there's very serious concerns to a society which seems to consume most of it's media as curated by AI and their online friends as opposed to say, a newspaper editor. Especially when it seems like, half the time, people don't even read the articles and just get outraged by the headline which they assume to be true. And the whole, people being in bubbles with their own viewpoint cannot be a positive.
- chronid 8y ago
  > I think there's very serious concerns to a society which seems to consume most of it's media as curated by AI and their online friends as opposed to say, a newspaper editor. Be careful - AIs may be wrong and manipulated and with authors with agendas, and newspaper editors can be wrong and manipulated and have agendas. There are countless example of newspapers being wrong and creating a narrative in the past (ex: look at "manufacturing consent" book) to either support the government or cover their (or the government) mistakes, or just plainly hide facts. And with media concentration, this is just going to get worse and worse :) Or look at what the reaction by the NYT (or WaPo, or media in general) was to the massive social media presence and access of the Obama campaign [1] compared to what their reaction were after Trump won and they needed a scapegoat to somewhat make sense of it even after some voices called (on TV) for a moment of reflection about the dangers of them "being cheerleaders" [2]. Always remember "engagement" is a metric very important for newspapers too - their business model is selling ads, exactly like facebook does! [1] https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975564499297226752 https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975564499297226752 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY3nRgEZTm8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY3nRgEZTm8
  - codyb 8y ago
    Yes. I know newspapers sell ads. And I'm familiar with the fact that journalists may have biases and special interests. I never said anyone should put their full faith in newspapers. But they're certainly better edited than the Facebook feed.

pfarnsworth 8y ago

It used to be Uber last year, but now it's Facebook. The journalists have a new target now. They won't stop until Zuckerberg kisses their ring and acknowledges their power. In 2019 it will be someone else, maybe Jeff Bezos but with a more emboldened approach.

iamnothere 8y ago

Likely, competitors, hostile investors, and/or NGOs are funding negative coverage through PR firms, just like Facebook itself recently did. (It happens more than you'd think.) There's also a pile-on effect once a topic gets enough traction, and multiple outlets start publishing hit pieces in the hopes of gaining a few extra eyeballs. Finally, government investigations into companies tend to create negative buzz, and since that's been happening with FB, that's probably generating some additional interest. See also: Tesla.