4 ms·

The firm's who are treating their customers best are the FAANG companies. I know a lot of folks here nitpick the things they do wrong, but why aren't you more c

The firm's who are treating their customers best are the FAANG companies. I know a lot of folks here nitpick the things they do wrong, but why aren't you more concerned about the far greater wrongs of tobacco, oil, pharmaceutical companies? About patent trolls? I know FAANG companies are easy to beat up on, but going after these is just bullying. Go after the actual evil companies.

sk5t 6y ago
Don't you think this comment represents tremendous whataboutism? Don't cure one tractable problem--which may yet develop into a greater, less tractable problem--because there exist other troubles?
- thisiscorrect 6y ago
  The parent comment asks why we can't we prioritize handling the companies which the author perceives are a greater evil. Why can't that prioritization happen without it being "whataboutism"?
  - sk5t 6y ago
    Do you imagine the same governmental bodies and regulators work on all of trade and antitrust, public health (tobacco), and energy and environmental policy? In other words, does it really follow that the problem of oil is being ignored in order to address monopolists?
paxys 6y ago
> The firm's who are treating their customers best What customers? They offer you a good service, sure, but what relationship do you really have with Facebook or Google?
- thisiscorrect 6y ago
  What relationship do I have with Verizon, or Comcast, or Pfizer or Du Pont? It seems to be one where they sell call metadata logs and consistently under deliver on contracts (Verizon, Comcast, other telcos), dump chemicals, push doctors to prescribe medicines unnecessarily, etc. etc.
  - paxys 6y ago
    You pay them money, they sell you a product/provide you a service.
    - silexia 6y ago
      I think you are breezing over an enormously important point... Facebook and Google provide their services completely FREE of charge. They provide a massive value for free.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  Even when I was a real customer of Google they treated me like shit.
- ativzzz 6y ago
  Our relationship with FB and Google is that we exchange our data for a free digital service. That data is then sold to advertisers
AlexandrB 6y ago
I mean maybe Apple and Netflix do. When was the last time Google provided meaningful customer support without the customer getting some attention on Twitter/HN? Amazon is getting mega-lazy with their shipping practices; damaged goods are pretty normal. Meanwhile Facebook keeps shoving services you don't want in your face (Reels), pushing algorithmic feeds to the detriment of the user's mental health, and collecting information on you whether you consent or not. Oh yeah, and the recent move to make Facebook logins mandatory for Oculus (which no customer seemed to be happy with). FAANG companies mostly treat us like trash. We've just come to accept poor service, UX dark patterns, and all-pervasive tracking as the norm. I've had much, much better customer service experiences from smaller, more focused companies. Edit: I feel like I breezed over Google. They've also killed multiple popular services (Reader), tried to force G+ on everyone (again with UX dark patterns and no consent), and degraded their main product (search) to the point that some keywords return only one or two organic results "above the fold".
- theptip 6y ago
  It’s a really popular meme around here to bash Google for killing products, and Google’s behavior here annoys me a lot. However I’m skeptical whether many consumers care; Google’s favorability ratings are very high: https://www.cnet.com/news/googles-approval-ratings-best-apple-facebook-twitter/ https://www.cnet.com/news/googles-approval-ratings-best-appl... This is just the top result from Google, I’ve seen others similar. I’m in favor of strengthening antitrust (and that applies to a bunch of other industries too, not just tech), but you really have to be careful not to destroy more value than you preserve with this sort of thing.
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    excuse me, what's the point of "favorability ratings" when there is no competition to compare them to ?
    - vkou 6y ago
      There are popular and well-known competitors to Google for search, maps, free email hosting, web browsers, laptop OSes, phone OSes, blog hosting software, collaborative productivity software, and, if you are on the seller side, paying for ad space. Outside the US, particularly in China, there are large video hosting services, and within the US, Twitch, Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram serve as not-quite-apples-to-apples equivalents for video hosting.
cgh 6y ago
This isn’t about your definition of “evil”. It’s an antitrust report, which deals specifically with monopolistic behaviour.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cblconfederate 6y ago
> firm's who are treating their customers best are the FAANG companies Haha nice. E.g. google treats their customers (advertisers) best while dumping tons of garbage on billions of users. And AFAIK they dont even have customer support. Way to miss the fiorest here. > Go after the actual evil companies. Big tech is no less evil that tobacco/big oil . The honeymoon days of the 2000s are over and done.
- dantheman 6y ago
  Really? Really? What harm are they actually causing?
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    Do I really need to enumerate?
    - pb7 6y ago
      Yes. Also, please share what benefit tobacco companies provide to society.
      - AlexandrB 6y ago
        The same benefit that all of the FAANG companies provide: "value to shareholders". I thought this was the ultimate capitalist notion of "benefit"?
      - cblconfederate 6y ago
        There are tons of articles written on the benefits and evils caused by these companies. To claim that they have no drawbacks because they have been a net benefit overall is preposterous. Tobacco may be a net detriment, but they do provide jobs, and profits of course, everyone loves profits and stocks going up! You 'll notice from the comments here that views on big tech have changed a lot and they are no longer placed in a pedestal as they used to be. Some commenters seem surprised by this, probably because they live in the SV bubble.
maedla 6y ago
Facebook was used as a tool to incite genocide in Myanmar.
- dantheman 6y ago
  My understanding is it was the military and police that committed genocide. The people who are normally responsible for massive violence.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    While true, and while it may be the case that the propaganda which led to the genocide would’ve used a different route had Facebook not been available, they did allow themselves to be a tool of a state engaged in genocide despite the T&C giving them the means to prevent such use.
- pb7 6y ago
  Genocide has existed long before Facebook.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    Facebook is not water, it is a thing both made by and employing people, people which many other people hold to a higher standard than Facebook has lived up to. It wanted to move fast and break things. It did. People don’t like that it did.
    - pb7 6y ago
      Facebook is a tool. It can be used for good (the majority of the use) or it can used for evil (some of the use). You can attribute the same good-evil distribution to virtually everything.
      - ben_w 6y ago
        Yes, it is a tool. “Evil flourishes when good men do nothing”. They are giving every appearance of doing as little as they can get away with, while pretending to do more. Should the rest of us let them do as little as possible? Perhaps the outward appearance is different from the internal reality, but I cannot judge except by appearance.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bleepblorp 6y ago
Facebook is far more dangerous to society than any patent troll. Facebook is in the business of selling the ability to coerce people into doing things that are against their best interests. It's very dangerously good at it. Facebook has also turned a blind eye to its platform being used to organize politically-motivated violence. It needs to be heavily regulated or shut down completely. . . That said, I don't expect Washington to break up the tech giants. Meaningful anti-trust enforcement has not happened in decades and would go against very long standing, but unspoken, precedents against Washington harming large piles of money. Any action taken by the government would likely be for show (in no small part to pander to conservative fears over platform bias, and possibly to extract superficial concessions from the tech sector on this front), and would be very unlikely to survive the post-Trump Supreme Court intact.
- dantheman 6y ago
  Please cite some sources for your claims - because to the best of my knowledge facebooks is basically no different than any other media company. I mean the new york times actively advocated for the Iraq -- should they exist, maybe be shut down?
  - bleepblorp 6y ago
    Given that you're involved in a discussion regarding Facebook's connections to the Rohingya genocide elsewhere in this thread, it's hard not to conclude that your demand for sources connecting Facebook to politically-motivated violence is disingenuous. It's a matter of opinion whether Facebook is responsible in any way for that genocide, but it's a matter of record that Facebook did very little to prevent its platform from being used to organize it. As for 'sources' for the outcome I expect from any anti-trust enforcement, it's really not appropriate to demand an a cited essay/publishable work reviewing the past fifty years of antitrust law and practice combined with a detailed analysis of the GOP platform and the established views of Trump's USSC justices. That kind of analysis takes a lot of time and isn't usually done for free.
    - dantheman 6y ago

sk5t 6y ago

Don't you think this comment represents tremendous whataboutism? Don't cure one tractable problem--which may yet develop into a greater, less tractable problem--because there exist other troubles?

thisiscorrect 6y ago
The parent comment asks why we can't we prioritize handling the companies which the author perceives are a greater evil. Why can't that prioritization happen without it being "whataboutism"?
- sk5t 6y ago
  Do you imagine the same governmental bodies and regulators work on all of trade and antitrust, public health (tobacco), and energy and environmental policy? In other words, does it really follow that the problem of oil is being ignored in order to address monopolists?

paxys 6y ago

> The firm's who are treating their customers best What customers? They offer you a good service, sure, but what relationship do you really have with Facebook or Google?

thisiscorrect 6y ago
What relationship do I have with Verizon, or Comcast, or Pfizer or Du Pont? It seems to be one where they sell call metadata logs and consistently under deliver on contracts (Verizon, Comcast, other telcos), dump chemicals, push doctors to prescribe medicines unnecessarily, etc. etc.
- paxys 6y ago
  You pay them money, they sell you a product/provide you a service.
  - silexia 6y ago
    I think you are breezing over an enormously important point... Facebook and Google provide their services completely FREE of charge. They provide a massive value for free.
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
Even when I was a real customer of Google they treated me like shit.
ativzzz 6y ago
Our relationship with FB and Google is that we exchange our data for a free digital service. That data is then sold to advertisers

AlexandrB 6y ago

I mean maybe Apple and Netflix do. When was the last time Google provided meaningful customer support without the customer getting some attention on Twitter/HN? Amazon is getting mega-lazy with their shipping practices; damaged goods are pretty normal. Meanwhile Facebook keeps shoving services you don't want in your face (Reels), pushing algorithmic feeds to the detriment of the user's mental health, and collecting information on you whether you consent or not. Oh yeah, and the recent move to make Facebook logins mandatory for Oculus (which no customer seemed to be happy with). FAANG companies mostly treat us like trash. We've just come to accept poor service, UX dark patterns, and all-pervasive tracking as the norm. I've had much, much better customer service experiences from smaller, more focused companies. Edit: I feel like I breezed over Google. They've also killed multiple popular services (Reader), tried to force G+ on everyone (again with UX dark patterns and no consent), and degraded their main product (search) to the point that some keywords return only one or two organic results "above the fold".

theptip 6y ago
It’s a really popular meme around here to bash Google for killing products, and Google’s behavior here annoys me a lot. However I’m skeptical whether many consumers care; Google’s favorability ratings are very high: https://www.cnet.com/news/googles-approval-ratings-best-apple-facebook-twitter/ https://www.cnet.com/news/googles-approval-ratings-best-appl... This is just the top result from Google, I’ve seen others similar. I’m in favor of strengthening antitrust (and that applies to a bunch of other industries too, not just tech), but you really have to be careful not to destroy more value than you preserve with this sort of thing.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  excuse me, what's the point of "favorability ratings" when there is no competition to compare them to ?
  - vkou 6y ago
    There are popular and well-known competitors to Google for search, maps, free email hosting, web browsers, laptop OSes, phone OSes, blog hosting software, collaborative productivity software, and, if you are on the seller side, paying for ad space. Outside the US, particularly in China, there are large video hosting services, and within the US, Twitch, Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram serve as not-quite-apples-to-apples equivalents for video hosting.

cgh 6y ago

This isn’t about your definition of “evil”. It’s an antitrust report, which deals specifically with monopolistic behaviour.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

cblconfederate 6y ago

> firm's who are treating their customers best are the FAANG companies Haha nice. E.g. google treats their customers (advertisers) best while dumping tons of garbage on billions of users. And AFAIK they dont even have customer support. Way to miss the fiorest here. > Go after the actual evil companies. Big tech is no less evil that tobacco/big oil . The honeymoon days of the 2000s are over and done.

dantheman 6y ago
Really? Really? What harm are they actually causing?
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  Do I really need to enumerate?
  - pb7 6y ago
    Yes. Also, please share what benefit tobacco companies provide to society.
    - AlexandrB 6y ago
      The same benefit that all of the FAANG companies provide: "value to shareholders". I thought this was the ultimate capitalist notion of "benefit"?
    - cblconfederate 6y ago
      There are tons of articles written on the benefits and evils caused by these companies. To claim that they have no drawbacks because they have been a net benefit overall is preposterous. Tobacco may be a net detriment, but they do provide jobs, and profits of course, everyone loves profits and stocks going up! You 'll notice from the comments here that views on big tech have changed a lot and they are no longer placed in a pedestal as they used to be. Some commenters seem surprised by this, probably because they live in the SV bubble.

maedla 6y ago

Facebook was used as a tool to incite genocide in Myanmar.

dantheman 6y ago
My understanding is it was the military and police that committed genocide. The people who are normally responsible for massive violence.
- ben_w 6y ago
  While true, and while it may be the case that the propaganda which led to the genocide would’ve used a different route had Facebook not been available, they did allow themselves to be a tool of a state engaged in genocide despite the T&C giving them the means to prevent such use.
pb7 6y ago
Genocide has existed long before Facebook.
- ben_w 6y ago
  Facebook is not water, it is a thing both made by and employing people, people which many other people hold to a higher standard than Facebook has lived up to. It wanted to move fast and break things. It did. People don’t like that it did.
  - pb7 6y ago
    Facebook is a tool. It can be used for good (the majority of the use) or it can used for evil (some of the use). You can attribute the same good-evil distribution to virtually everything.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      Yes, it is a tool. “Evil flourishes when good men do nothing”. They are giving every appearance of doing as little as they can get away with, while pretending to do more. Should the rest of us let them do as little as possible? Perhaps the outward appearance is different from the internal reality, but I cannot judge except by appearance.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bleepblorp 6y ago

Facebook is far more dangerous to society than any patent troll. Facebook is in the business of selling the ability to coerce people into doing things that are against their best interests. It's very dangerously good at it. Facebook has also turned a blind eye to its platform being used to organize politically-motivated violence. It needs to be heavily regulated or shut down completely. . . That said, I don't expect Washington to break up the tech giants. Meaningful anti-trust enforcement has not happened in decades and would go against very long standing, but unspoken, precedents against Washington harming large piles of money. Any action taken by the government would likely be for show (in no small part to pander to conservative fears over platform bias, and possibly to extract superficial concessions from the tech sector on this front), and would be very unlikely to survive the post-Trump Supreme Court intact.

dantheman 6y ago
Please cite some sources for your claims - because to the best of my knowledge facebooks is basically no different than any other media company. I mean the new york times actively advocated for the Iraq -- should they exist, maybe be shut down?
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  Given that you're involved in a discussion regarding Facebook's connections to the Rohingya genocide elsewhere in this thread, it's hard not to conclude that your demand for sources connecting Facebook to politically-motivated violence is disingenuous. It's a matter of opinion whether Facebook is responsible in any way for that genocide, but it's a matter of record that Facebook did very little to prevent its platform from being used to organize it. As for 'sources' for the outcome I expect from any anti-trust enforcement, it's really not appropriate to demand an a cited essay/publishable work reviewing the past fifty years of antitrust law and practice combined with a detailed analysis of the GOP platform and the established views of Trump's USSC justices. That kind of analysis takes a lot of time and isn't usually done for free.
  - dantheman 6y ago