4 ms·

for facebook optics is not a thing. they know they have a stranglehold on people addicted to their products, and advertisers who pay through the nose to sell t

for facebook optics is not a thing. they know they have a stranglehold on people addicted to their products, and advertisers who pay through the nose to sell things to those addicts. Honestly, why bother with optics? No one's going to like the company ever again except their employees, but no business or politician or organization is going to not take facebook's call.

FartyMcFarter 7y ago
Why bother with optics? Well, for one thing, presumably they still need to recruit people once in a while (including people with lots and lots of options).
- malloreon 7y ago
  Anyone who will work for facebook now doesn't care about optics.
- m0zg 7y ago
  They solve this problem with large wads of cash and FB stock. A couple of my friends there make close to a million dollars a year each in total comp just being middle managers. FB has no problem whatsoever with recruiting or retention of top talent.
- newscracker 7y ago
  IMO, the kind of people who work for and who would join Facebook are the ones who're self-selected to not care about morals or the ill effects of their work on billions of people. So optics doesn't come into the equation for Facebook to recruit people. Those who do care about optics would never even dream of working at Facebook.
  - Kiro 7y ago
    You're exaggerating. What are those ill effects exactly?
    - FartyMcFarter 7y ago
      Consult the N apologies Zuckerberg has issued on things like privacy for some examples.
m0zg 7y ago
^ this HN reader has it right. And we'll see the extent of that truth tomorrow when FB announces their earnings. Most of the problems in the world can be solved with robust revenue growth. It's only when you're on the decline that "optics" begin to matter, and FB is most certainly not in decline, at least outside the HN bubble.
- munk-a 7y ago
  I disagree strongly with this, if FB manages to continue pissing off politicians they'll get the full unjust wrath of the US government turned on them for petty reasons. Just a little while ago Zuckerberg got schooled on why he should've been paying a lot more money to lobbyists.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    But that's not the "optics" you're likely to see. Those kinds of things only come to light much later, and FB has historically shown itself to be very amenable to such backroom deals: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-scandal-trump-election-obama-2012/ https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-...
- faxi 7y ago
  It depends on how the ongoing Cambridge Analytica scandal goes. Gawker closed up despite it's billion-dollar Unicorn status because of a $140M verdict. A multi-billion dollar suit like the Cambridge Analytica could be devastating.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    You're missing one simple fact: people in the House, Senate, and Oval Office (irrespective of administration) need FB to get elected nowadays. They also need docile/agreeable Zuck. FB isn't going anywhere.
Kiro 7y ago
Normal people outside the tech bubble still like Facebook. Even inside it there are people who do (I like Facebook).

FartyMcFarter 7y ago

Why bother with optics? Well, for one thing, presumably they still need to recruit people once in a while (including people with lots and lots of options).

malloreon 7y ago
Anyone who will work for facebook now doesn't care about optics.
m0zg 7y ago
They solve this problem with large wads of cash and FB stock. A couple of my friends there make close to a million dollars a year each in total comp just being middle managers. FB has no problem whatsoever with recruiting or retention of top talent.
newscracker 7y ago
IMO, the kind of people who work for and who would join Facebook are the ones who're self-selected to not care about morals or the ill effects of their work on billions of people. So optics doesn't come into the equation for Facebook to recruit people. Those who do care about optics would never even dream of working at Facebook.
- Kiro 7y ago
  You're exaggerating. What are those ill effects exactly?
  - FartyMcFarter 7y ago
    Consult the N apologies Zuckerberg has issued on things like privacy for some examples.

m0zg 7y ago

^ this HN reader has it right. And we'll see the extent of that truth tomorrow when FB announces their earnings. Most of the problems in the world can be solved with robust revenue growth. It's only when you're on the decline that "optics" begin to matter, and FB is most certainly not in decline, at least outside the HN bubble.

munk-a 7y ago
I disagree strongly with this, if FB manages to continue pissing off politicians they'll get the full unjust wrath of the US government turned on them for petty reasons. Just a little while ago Zuckerberg got schooled on why he should've been paying a lot more money to lobbyists.
- m0zg 7y ago
  But that's not the "optics" you're likely to see. Those kinds of things only come to light much later, and FB has historically shown itself to be very amenable to such backroom deals: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-scandal-trump-election-obama-2012/ https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-...
faxi 7y ago
It depends on how the ongoing Cambridge Analytica scandal goes. Gawker closed up despite it's billion-dollar Unicorn status because of a $140M verdict. A multi-billion dollar suit like the Cambridge Analytica could be devastating.
- m0zg 7y ago
  You're missing one simple fact: people in the House, Senate, and Oval Office (irrespective of administration) need FB to get elected nowadays. They also need docile/agreeable Zuck. FB isn't going anywhere.

Kiro 7y ago

Normal people outside the tech bubble still like Facebook. Even inside it there are people who do (I like Facebook).