4 ms·

There's an interesting shift that seems to be happening at FaceBook. The logic is basically: If Trump loses the election, we should be out in front of any chan

There's an interesting shift that seems to be happening at FaceBook. The logic is basically: If Trump loses the election, we should be out in front of any changes the new adminstration would consider. If we can do an easy layup, we should take it. Remember, FaceBook is famously numbers-driven. They, probably more than anyone else, believe in the power of numbers and algorithms. They probably even have insight into political groups and grass-roots trends that we don't have. But all the public data we know about is leaning away from Trump, at the moment. So they could aggressively back a loser, and then get punched in the face if, as expected, he loses. (Sure, they'd be better off if he wins - but the numbers must bear that out). Or they could make a couple of tactical adjustments now, and if the political tide turns against them, they could truthfully claim, oh we've been moving in this direction for a while now - glad you noticed! It seems like an increasing number of FaceBook executive decisions are unfavorable to Trump these days. I don't believe that's entirely based on principles or lofty abstractions - I think it's smart positioning, based on the data. The data is pointing away from Trump, and FaceBook is adjusting.

Aperocky 6y ago
The whole premise of your article is that by taking ad money facebook will face either administrative or voluntary backlash, which I don't think will happen. Political ads are airing every day on radios and youtube, and you don't hear it as much. Just like Google getting hate for attempting a search engine in China while Bing has always been there. You can't predict the outrage machine because it is never fair.
- julianeon 6y ago
  I think people have read my comment as though I hate Trump and I'm gloating that FaceBook is turning against him. But I don't think that's a fair reading. I am trying to describe what "is" and not "what ought to be." In this instance I am making a point that I believe is underexamined: if you look at FaceBook through the lens of political positioning, it can be very powerful. If it was the case today that Democrats had been in power for decades and there was some kind of realignment towards Republicans (as happened in the 90's), I think you'd see the reverse of this: FaceBook elevating conservative voices to moderation positions, or advancing a message of pure neutrality. I've worked at Bay Area tech companies. They are usually very attuned to the climate they're in, and maneuvering to be in a better position. The average person can be like bah, who cares? I'd rather live my life, enjoy my freedom. But a tech company has a lot more on the line. And, in my experience, companies like FaceBook have even more to gain, or to lose. Millions of dollars, even hundreds of millions. Possible anti-competitive lawsuits and actions. So, for them, a defeatist attitude of "it's all unfair so why bother" isn't good enough. Some ambitious lawyer or exec will advocate "I can do better than that - here's how" and lead their company in a different direction - and that's true for FaceBook also. I'd also make the observation that FaceBook is trying to get regulatory approval for a cryptocurrency, and that's a delicate thing. For that, being viewed favorably, even by individual politicians, matters. So for all those reasons (and please don't view it as a criticism of FaceBook), I think it makes sense that some of the things issuing out of HQ now are motivated by the political climate we find ourselves in. Remember, FaceBook is a famously future-facing company. They invested in WhatsApp years before social was dominant, seeing the future 10 years in advance. And people believe they're not paying close attention to the next 3 months? It's in their DNA. It's part of how they grew to be such a giant, successful company. And if you examine their actions, fairly but objectively, the evidence is there to see.

Aperocky 6y ago

The whole premise of your article is that by taking ad money facebook will face either administrative or voluntary backlash, which I don't think will happen. Political ads are airing every day on radios and youtube, and you don't hear it as much. Just like Google getting hate for attempting a search engine in China while Bing has always been there. You can't predict the outrage machine because it is never fair.

julianeon 6y ago
I think people have read my comment as though I hate Trump and I'm gloating that FaceBook is turning against him. But I don't think that's a fair reading. I am trying to describe what "is" and not "what ought to be." In this instance I am making a point that I believe is underexamined: if you look at FaceBook through the lens of political positioning, it can be very powerful. If it was the case today that Democrats had been in power for decades and there was some kind of realignment towards Republicans (as happened in the 90's), I think you'd see the reverse of this: FaceBook elevating conservative voices to moderation positions, or advancing a message of pure neutrality. I've worked at Bay Area tech companies. They are usually very attuned to the climate they're in, and maneuvering to be in a better position. The average person can be like bah, who cares? I'd rather live my life, enjoy my freedom. But a tech company has a lot more on the line. And, in my experience, companies like FaceBook have even more to gain, or to lose. Millions of dollars, even hundreds of millions. Possible anti-competitive lawsuits and actions. So, for them, a defeatist attitude of "it's all unfair so why bother" isn't good enough. Some ambitious lawyer or exec will advocate "I can do better than that - here's how" and lead their company in a different direction - and that's true for FaceBook also. I'd also make the observation that FaceBook is trying to get regulatory approval for a cryptocurrency, and that's a delicate thing. For that, being viewed favorably, even by individual politicians, matters. So for all those reasons (and please don't view it as a criticism of FaceBook), I think it makes sense that some of the things issuing out of HQ now are motivated by the political climate we find ourselves in. Remember, FaceBook is a famously future-facing company. They invested in WhatsApp years before social was dominant, seeing the future 10 years in advance. And people believe they're not paying close attention to the next 3 months? It's in their DNA. It's part of how they grew to be such a giant, successful company. And if you examine their actions, fairly but objectively, the evidence is there to see.