3 ms·

Sounds like they are getting tripped up in a lie. In one of the linked articles on techcrunch FB legal says; " we made a number of changes to protect our execut

by flokie 8y ago

Sounds like they are getting tripped up in a lie. In one of the linked articles on techcrunch FB legal says; " we made a number of changes to protect our executives’ communications. These included limiting the retention period for Mark’s messages" Retention policies are quite common in lots of companies. If I had to guess his posts were treated in the same way, but given it's FB of course there's an unnecessary lie weaved in, because well it's FB

rhizome 8y ago
It doesn't matter, they're gone. He doesn't care if you don't believe why and how you think you've BUSTED! him. He's a zillionaire, it's not going to happen.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
underwater 8y ago
As a point of clarity: Messages are a different product and system to posts. Facebook have previously revealed that they have a deletion process for his messages. Given that a lot of internal communication happens through Facebook messenger instead of email this is not that shocking. It's entirely possible that they also intended to delete his internal (company-wide) posts, and ended up deleting them all in error. Posts from 2011 don't really serve any purpose other than to be a goldmine for disgruntled employees who want to cherry pick something controversial. Public posts don't have the same problem because they are written with heavy PR oversight, and deletion is pointless because they will have been scraped and stored anyway.
- nbabitskiy 8y ago
  Posts from the past serve the purpose of integrity. When you delete the old posts because employees, disgruntled for some reason, keep finding gold there, you compromise your integrity, and anyone treats your words as if they're going to be taken back tomorrow. That's exactly what we observe now.
  - underwater 8y ago
    Context matters. Facebook from 2009 is a different company to 2019. When Google was 10x the size of Facebook and preparing to launch Google+ the battle cry of "Carthage must be destroyed" was empowering against something that seemed like an existential threat to the company. Take it out of that time and place and its aggressive and creepy. How many companies would make historical all-company emails accessible and searchable by future staff? Doing so means that companies now need to treat absolutely every internal email as potentially public and run it through an PR filter. That's a huge cost for a company that wants to move fast.
    - nbabitskiy 8y ago
      There's no need to goodfaithsplain Zuck. Nobody cares. As a Russian proverb goes, "we're not gonna christen babies with him". You fuck up, you own it. Owning mistakes gives a hope, that you will learn from them. >> How many companies would make historical all-company emails accessible and searchable by future staff? I don't know. Most of them? It's not really that hard...

by flokie 8y ago

rhizome 8y ago

It doesn't matter, they're gone. He doesn't care if you don't believe why and how you think you've BUSTED! him. He's a zillionaire, it's not going to happen.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

underwater 8y ago

As a point of clarity: Messages are a different product and system to posts. Facebook have previously revealed that they have a deletion process for his messages. Given that a lot of internal communication happens through Facebook messenger instead of email this is not that shocking. It's entirely possible that they also intended to delete his internal (company-wide) posts, and ended up deleting them all in error. Posts from 2011 don't really serve any purpose other than to be a goldmine for disgruntled employees who want to cherry pick something controversial. Public posts don't have the same problem because they are written with heavy PR oversight, and deletion is pointless because they will have been scraped and stored anyway.

nbabitskiy 8y ago
Posts from the past serve the purpose of integrity. When you delete the old posts because employees, disgruntled for some reason, keep finding gold there, you compromise your integrity, and anyone treats your words as if they're going to be taken back tomorrow. That's exactly what we observe now.
- underwater 8y ago
  Context matters. Facebook from 2009 is a different company to 2019. When Google was 10x the size of Facebook and preparing to launch Google+ the battle cry of "Carthage must be destroyed" was empowering against something that seemed like an existential threat to the company. Take it out of that time and place and its aggressive and creepy. How many companies would make historical all-company emails accessible and searchable by future staff? Doing so means that companies now need to treat absolutely every internal email as potentially public and run it through an PR filter. That's a huge cost for a company that wants to move fast.
  - nbabitskiy 8y ago
    There's no need to goodfaithsplain Zuck. Nobody cares. As a Russian proverb goes, "we're not gonna christen babies with him". You fuck up, you own it. Owning mistakes gives a hope, that you will learn from them. >> How many companies would make historical all-company emails accessible and searchable by future staff? I don't know. Most of them? It's not really that hard...