5 ms·

>>>There's no bombshell revelation in this leak Oh boy is that an understatement. Of course Zuck's strategy if the government attempts to break up Facebook for

>>>There's no bombshell revelation in this leak Oh boy is that an understatement. Of course Zuck's strategy if the government attempts to break up Facebook for antitrust or whatever else they can spin together is to fight it legally. Of course his preference is going to be for a presidential candidate who hasn't made an overt commitment to force that break up. There's really no there, there.

rollingdeep 7y ago
When you are FB or Google or Amazon or you know... Microsoft... there are issues with how the government could ever effectively regulate such an industry with outsized funds (much larger than the fixed regulatory budgets) and power (influencing people and elections). The legal process was never designed to work effectively or efficiently at such a level. The legal process becomes such a war of attrition that you can weather any investigation as Microsoft did.
- nradov 7y ago
  Microsoft was forced to pay a large fine and significantly change their business practices. The goal was never to destroy Microsoft, and even if the government could have somehow done so that wouldn't have benefited consumers.
  - rollingdeep 7y ago
    The outcome was a settlement as a slap on the wrist for a company that size and that arrogant (did you watch Gates’ testimony?). Really no significant business practices were forced to change either.
  - TheRealDunkirk 7y ago
    Feh. It was a proverbial slap on the wrist. But you're absolutely right: it wasn't about destruction. At the start of the trial, Microsoft "only" gave about $10K to political campaigns. By the end, they were giving $1M to BOTH parties each year. This was the real problem. The government extorted them for political cover. And it's not like they were picking on them; they just forced them to start paying into the system in proportion to their success, like everyone else is expected to at that level.
roland00 7y ago
The bigger thing is a mismatch between the employees of facebook and the management. These weekly meetings happen all the time, what is different is now the employees are recording them and releasing them to the press. This means at least one employee no longer thinks the interest of upper management and the workers align and she or he spent forethought in order to record the conversation and then spent time afterwards figuring out a way to contact the press. This is a there there, even if the actual conversation transcript is banal and what you would expect from Zuck.
- dmurray 7y ago
  The big news is that one of Facebook's 40,000 employees is disgruntled, idealistic or just likes to feel important?
  - whenchamenia 7y ago
    You spelled ethical wrong.
  - roland00 7y ago
    This is big news when the Facebook employees we are referring to starting salary is 120k a year and the median employee is 240k a year. [Note many people who work for facebook are some form of contract employees and thus do not make this, but it was also not a contract employee who recorded this conversation for they do not get to sit down with Mark in these weekly meetings.] Even if you are not happy with everything about Facebook that income level often prevents this type of behavior for the incentives of company and worker align generally. And it is a big deal for this was a new thing, not a thing that never happens, but also not a thing that happens often that it becomes the new normal.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- cjhopman 7y ago
  > This means at least one employee no longer thinks the interest of upper management and the workers align ... That's strange. I interpreted it to mean that there was a worker that thought that the media was greatly misrepresenting facebook and facebook management's position and they released these extensive transcripts to show just how banal the reality was.
Iv 7y ago
Yeah, when I first saw the headlines yesterday, I plunged, happy to have more fodder against a guy as consider really nefarious to the whole internet ecosystem. But the actual quotes are underwhelming. "Warren wants to break our company. Well, we will go to the courts if she tries." is not exactly a shocking reaction. You don't exactly expect him to agree with Warren's position there.
- dijit 7y ago
  I agree completely. If you ignore the subttext that Facebook appears somewhat responsible for sniping elections/referendums with targeted (mis)information campaigns entirely; then this really shouldn’t shock anyone. But I guess the issue is that the subtext is there.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  The idea that Zuckerberg would have ever said anything in a company all hands meetings, that would be shocking if publicly revealed, would suggest a poor lack of planning. Though I suppose he likely speaks rather candidly at these weekly all hands, he has probably always considered this a possibility. That's why he had no issue taking ownership of it, when it leaked. It isn't that damning to say you'll go to bat for the company you founded, if necessary.

rollingdeep 7y ago

When you are FB or Google or Amazon or you know... Microsoft... there are issues with how the government could ever effectively regulate such an industry with outsized funds (much larger than the fixed regulatory budgets) and power (influencing people and elections). The legal process was never designed to work effectively or efficiently at such a level. The legal process becomes such a war of attrition that you can weather any investigation as Microsoft did.

nradov 7y ago
Microsoft was forced to pay a large fine and significantly change their business practices. The goal was never to destroy Microsoft, and even if the government could have somehow done so that wouldn't have benefited consumers.
- rollingdeep 7y ago
  The outcome was a settlement as a slap on the wrist for a company that size and that arrogant (did you watch Gates’ testimony?). Really no significant business practices were forced to change either.
- TheRealDunkirk 7y ago
  Feh. It was a proverbial slap on the wrist. But you're absolutely right: it wasn't about destruction. At the start of the trial, Microsoft "only" gave about $10K to political campaigns. By the end, they were giving $1M to BOTH parties each year. This was the real problem. The government extorted them for political cover. And it's not like they were picking on them; they just forced them to start paying into the system in proportion to their success, like everyone else is expected to at that level.

roland00 7y ago

The bigger thing is a mismatch between the employees of facebook and the management. These weekly meetings happen all the time, what is different is now the employees are recording them and releasing them to the press. This means at least one employee no longer thinks the interest of upper management and the workers align and she or he spent forethought in order to record the conversation and then spent time afterwards figuring out a way to contact the press. This is a there there, even if the actual conversation transcript is banal and what you would expect from Zuck.

dmurray 7y ago
The big news is that one of Facebook's 40,000 employees is disgruntled, idealistic or just likes to feel important?
- whenchamenia 7y ago
  You spelled ethical wrong.
- roland00 7y ago
  This is big news when the Facebook employees we are referring to starting salary is 120k a year and the median employee is 240k a year. [Note many people who work for facebook are some form of contract employees and thus do not make this, but it was also not a contract employee who recorded this conversation for they do not get to sit down with Mark in these weekly meetings.] Even if you are not happy with everything about Facebook that income level often prevents this type of behavior for the incentives of company and worker align generally. And it is a big deal for this was a new thing, not a thing that never happens, but also not a thing that happens often that it becomes the new normal.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cjhopman 7y ago
> This means at least one employee no longer thinks the interest of upper management and the workers align ... That's strange. I interpreted it to mean that there was a worker that thought that the media was greatly misrepresenting facebook and facebook management's position and they released these extensive transcripts to show just how banal the reality was.

Iv 7y ago

Yeah, when I first saw the headlines yesterday, I plunged, happy to have more fodder against a guy as consider really nefarious to the whole internet ecosystem. But the actual quotes are underwhelming. "Warren wants to break our company. Well, we will go to the courts if she tries." is not exactly a shocking reaction. You don't exactly expect him to agree with Warren's position there.

dijit 7y ago
I agree completely. If you ignore the subttext that Facebook appears somewhat responsible for sniping elections/referendums with targeted (mis)information campaigns entirely; then this really shouldn’t shock anyone. But I guess the issue is that the subtext is there.
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
The idea that Zuckerberg would have ever said anything in a company all hands meetings, that would be shocking if publicly revealed, would suggest a poor lack of planning. Though I suppose he likely speaks rather candidly at these weekly all hands, he has probably always considered this a possibility. That's why he had no issue taking ownership of it, when it leaked. It isn't that damning to say you'll go to bat for the company you founded, if necessary.