15 ms·

Most of the folks on this thread are commenting from the perspective of 2020, but Facebook had pretty significantly different reputation in 2014, especially aro

by nrp 6y ago

Most of the folks on this thread are commenting from the perspective of 2020, but Facebook had pretty significantly different reputation in 2014, especially around M&A. They had recently brought in both Instagram and WhatsApp without meddling in either their product stacks or their leadership teams. It's easy to claim now that this was all naive, but at the time it was plausible that these organizations and brands would remain fairly independent and autonomous within the Facebook umbrella.

jacquesm 6y ago
It doesn't really matter though, does it? No matter what the history of Facebook he wasn't in a position to make those promises, period. You can only make promises about what you control.
seba_dos1 6y ago
The fact that it was actually discussed back then, people were asking about it and that Luckey was assuring them that it won't happen (even despite of the fact that he wasn't going to be in charge anymore) clearly shows that Facebook's reputation wasn't as "significantly different" back then than how you paint it.
kevingadd 6y ago
afaik they also betrayed similar promises made to the WhatsApp founders, to their dismay. https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/30/17304792/whatsapp-jan-koum-facebook-data-privacy-encryption https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/30/17304792/whatsapp-jan-kou...
stjohnswarts 6y ago
The people here are very on point and no doubt said the same thing in 2014 if they were privacy minded at the time. Most are under no delusion that "we will not do _______ , either now, or in the future" as empty promises. They were right then and they're right now. Facebook has obviously been in the business of selling its users out from the very beginning and no one who lives in this reality would have accepted such a promise from them as anything other than a nicety.
gambler 6y ago
No. This development was trivially predictable right when Facebook acquired Oculus. Which is why I bought Vive instead. You don't need to be a genius to see stuff like this ahead of time. All you have to do is refuse to be gaslit and be honest about the high-level drivers of corporate decision-making.
- mrguyorama 6y ago
  I also spent an extra $100 to buy a Vive instead of a Rift. I didn't predict this exact action but I didn't trust Facebook to keep their fingers off of it
  - jimmaswell 6y ago
    $100 doesn't sound worth not having to use a facebook account to me. you can just make a bogus one with no info on it.
    - kmonsen 6y ago
      Can you? Don't you need a credit card attached? Still possible but most people will not that far to hide information from facebook.
      - rvnx 6y ago
        Same problem with Fitbit and Nest and Google :(
        sharken 6y ago
        Had settled on getting a Fitbit as my fitness and sleep tracker, but was unaware of the acquisition by Google :/ Given the Oculus/FB fallout here I want to buy somewhere else. And trusting Garmin seems a bit unlikely, sigh.
        katbyte 6y ago
shazow 6y ago
Here's a blog post I wrote in response to the acquisition when it happened in 2014: https://medium.com/@shazow/re-facebook-acquires-oculus-f8589a747d11 https://medium.com/@shazow/re-facebook-acquires-oculus-f8589... I was far from the only one who was saying this at the time. I don't believe Facebook had a significantly different reputation in 2014. I also have a follow-up draft from 2016 that talks about how the things predicted in the blog post have already begun.
kps 6y ago
> Facebook had pretty significantly different reputation in 2014 Dumb fucks.
- ABoldGambit 6y ago
  You'll be downvoted because HN etiquette not because people necessarily disagree with your sentiment
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - est31 6y ago
    I think GP is downvoted because of a misunderstanding. I think GP wanted to highlight the "dumb fucks" quote of Zuckerberg, where he refers to people uploading data to his platform with that term. That quote became public in 2010, almost half a decade before 2014. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg#Quotes https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg#Quotes
  - jameshart 6y ago
    That sentiment is of course not, originally, attributable to kps though. Regarding people who ascribe benign intent to Facebook, it was first expressed by one M Zuckerberg. In 2004. And first reported by Business Insider in 2010.
    - Karunamon 6y ago
      In 2004, yes. 16 years ago. I'd hate to be judged for immature statements I made nearly two decades ago.
      - liability 6y ago
        Whether or not it's fair to judge people for things they said 16 years ago when none of their subsequent actions or statements give any reason to believe they're a different person today isn't germane to the point, which is that Facebook/Zuckerberg's poor reputation are not new.
edgarvaldes 6y ago
Mmm... nah. From the 2014 HN thread[0] >Please login using your Facebook account to continue. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7469242 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7469242
IncRnd 6y ago
Facebook's reputations in 2014 or 2020 don't matter. This is what happens and how the world works.
ehnto 6y ago
I have to disagree, many assumed there would be some kind of hamfisted integration even in 2014. The only surprising thing is how long they held off. I had huge concerns regarding FB's purchase of Oculus at the time and I wasn't the only one. It was the single reason I did not buy an Oculus. It wasn't that I thought they would be brazen either, I just assumed they would be hoovering data up behind the scenes, and trading data between Oculus and FB. If this announcement had occurred in 2014, it would not have been surprising, I think the concerns were clear from the outset to most of the community. The only people who were starry eyed were those who just wanted Oculus funded well and were happy to take the word of the founder.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rmrfstar 6y ago
> Facebook had pretty significantly different reputation in 2014 That's not really true. Hipster antitrust wasn't a thing yet, so people weren't talking about it at your neighborhood Starbucks. But serious people were talking about it. Look at the conflicts of interest disclosures for prominent antitrust scholars... they were busy during that period. Also, the infamous "Zuckerberg destroy mode" email is from 2012.
EpicEng 6y ago
>user: nrp >Founder at Framework, formerly part of the Oculus founding team I don't recall it being much different, but I _do_ recall the outcry from Oculus followers and fans when the buyout occurred. This is exactly what we predicted and the fact that PL was assuring us it wouldn't happen would seem to disagree with what you're saying. It seems you may have just been ignoring it at the time for what may be a very obvious reason.
sukilot 6y ago
Partner Luckey himself had admitted he was wrong. Why are you holding out and embarassing yourself further?
konjin 6y ago
I was posting here and reddit in 2014. No they really had a terrible reputation back then too.
AndyMcConachie 6y ago
No. Facebook already had a history of lying by 2014.

by nrp 6y ago

jacquesm 6y ago

It doesn't really matter though, does it? No matter what the history of Facebook he wasn't in a position to make those promises, period. You can only make promises about what you control.

seba_dos1 6y ago

The fact that it was actually discussed back then, people were asking about it and that Luckey was assuring them that it won't happen (even despite of the fact that he wasn't going to be in charge anymore) clearly shows that Facebook's reputation wasn't as "significantly different" back then than how you paint it.

kevingadd 6y ago

afaik they also betrayed similar promises made to the WhatsApp founders, to their dismay. https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/30/17304792/whatsapp-jan-koum-facebook-data-privacy-encryption https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/30/17304792/whatsapp-jan-kou...

stjohnswarts 6y ago

The people here are very on point and no doubt said the same thing in 2014 if they were privacy minded at the time. Most are under no delusion that "we will not do _______ , either now, or in the future" as empty promises. They were right then and they're right now. Facebook has obviously been in the business of selling its users out from the very beginning and no one who lives in this reality would have accepted such a promise from them as anything other than a nicety.

gambler 6y ago

No. This development was trivially predictable right when Facebook acquired Oculus. Which is why I bought Vive instead. You don't need to be a genius to see stuff like this ahead of time. All you have to do is refuse to be gaslit and be honest about the high-level drivers of corporate decision-making.

mrguyorama 6y ago
I also spent an extra $100 to buy a Vive instead of a Rift. I didn't predict this exact action but I didn't trust Facebook to keep their fingers off of it
- jimmaswell 6y ago
  $100 doesn't sound worth not having to use a facebook account to me. you can just make a bogus one with no info on it.
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    Can you? Don't you need a credit card attached? Still possible but most people will not that far to hide information from facebook.
    - rvnx 6y ago
      Same problem with Fitbit and Nest and Google :(
      - sharken 6y ago
        Had settled on getting a Fitbit as my fitness and sleep tracker, but was unaware of the acquisition by Google :/ Given the Oculus/FB fallout here I want to buy somewhere else. And trusting Garmin seems a bit unlikely, sigh.
        katbyte 6y ago

shazow 6y ago

Here's a blog post I wrote in response to the acquisition when it happened in 2014: https://medium.com/@shazow/re-facebook-acquires-oculus-f8589a747d11 https://medium.com/@shazow/re-facebook-acquires-oculus-f8589... I was far from the only one who was saying this at the time. I don't believe Facebook had a significantly different reputation in 2014. I also have a follow-up draft from 2016 that talks about how the things predicted in the blog post have already begun.

kps 6y ago

> Facebook had pretty significantly different reputation in 2014 Dumb fucks.

ABoldGambit 6y ago
You'll be downvoted because HN etiquette not because people necessarily disagree with your sentiment
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- est31 6y ago
  I think GP is downvoted because of a misunderstanding. I think GP wanted to highlight the "dumb fucks" quote of Zuckerberg, where he refers to people uploading data to his platform with that term. That quote became public in 2010, almost half a decade before 2014. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg#Quotes https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg#Quotes
- jameshart 6y ago
  That sentiment is of course not, originally, attributable to kps though. Regarding people who ascribe benign intent to Facebook, it was first expressed by one M Zuckerberg. In 2004. And first reported by Business Insider in 2010.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    In 2004, yes. 16 years ago. I'd hate to be judged for immature statements I made nearly two decades ago.
    - liability 6y ago
      Whether or not it's fair to judge people for things they said 16 years ago when none of their subsequent actions or statements give any reason to believe they're a different person today isn't germane to the point, which is that Facebook/Zuckerberg's poor reputation are not new.

edgarvaldes 6y ago

Mmm... nah. From the 2014 HN thread[0] >Please login using your Facebook account to continue. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7469242 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7469242

IncRnd 6y ago

Facebook's reputations in 2014 or 2020 don't matter. This is what happens and how the world works.

ehnto 6y ago

I have to disagree, many assumed there would be some kind of hamfisted integration even in 2014. The only surprising thing is how long they held off. I had huge concerns regarding FB's purchase of Oculus at the time and I wasn't the only one. It was the single reason I did not buy an Oculus. It wasn't that I thought they would be brazen either, I just assumed they would be hoovering data up behind the scenes, and trading data between Oculus and FB. If this announcement had occurred in 2014, it would not have been surprising, I think the concerns were clear from the outset to most of the community. The only people who were starry eyed were those who just wanted Oculus funded well and were happy to take the word of the founder.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

rmrfstar 6y ago

> Facebook had pretty significantly different reputation in 2014 That's not really true. Hipster antitrust wasn't a thing yet, so people weren't talking about it at your neighborhood Starbucks. But serious people were talking about it. Look at the conflicts of interest disclosures for prominent antitrust scholars... they were busy during that period. Also, the infamous "Zuckerberg destroy mode" email is from 2012.

EpicEng 6y ago

>user: nrp >Founder at Framework, formerly part of the Oculus founding team I don't recall it being much different, but I _do_ recall the outcry from Oculus followers and fans when the buyout occurred. This is exactly what we predicted and the fact that PL was assuring us it wouldn't happen would seem to disagree with what you're saying. It seems you may have just been ignoring it at the time for what may be a very obvious reason.

sukilot 6y ago

Partner Luckey himself had admitted he was wrong. Why are you holding out and embarassing yourself further?

konjin 6y ago

I was posting here and reddit in 2014. No they really had a terrible reputation back then too.

AndyMcConachie 6y ago

No. Facebook already had a history of lying by 2014.