3 ms·

> And I'm sure they're right. It's important to remember that Facebook can precisely measure the impact of news articles like this. And even without messing wit

> And I'm sure they're right. It's important to remember that Facebook can precisely measure the impact of news articles like this. And even without messing with the newsfeed algorithms, they have way more influence over consumer perception of Facebook than a few news articles do. Are we 100 percent confident that FB is doing this because the math works out and not because the pressure from the board is to 'do something about this'? We're all aware, presumably, of cases where the corporate hierarchy demands action when the data suggests acting at all is harmful. It seems silly to assume FB is the one company immune to those pressures.

spinningslate 6y ago
> We're all aware, presumably, of cases where the corporate hierarchy demands action when the data suggests acting at all is harmful. True in most cases - but probably not FB. According to Investopedia [0], Zuckerberg owns 57.9% of voting shares as of 2020-12-09. Board pressure has a lot less sway when the chairman & CEO holds such a majority. [0]: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/082216/top-9-shareholders-facebook-fb.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/082216/top-9-... -- EDIT: fixed date
- WalterSear 6y ago
  So Zuckerberg pressured people to 'do something about this'.
  - webmaven 6y ago
    > So Zuckerberg pressured people to 'do something about this'. From which logically follows "This is something, therefore we must do it." Yeah, the actual audience for the ad might just be "Facebook executives", and no one else, for all practical purposes. It would be interesting to know whether any metrics (NPS, perhaps?) are even being tracked that the campaign is intended to influence, or if this marks a regression to the "half of my ad budget is wasted, I just don't know which half" days of yore.
  - what2build 6y ago
    That something, to my mind, is “brand privacy invasive tracking as bringing you free/cheap shit.” It worked for the last decade. They’re doubling down, unaware the dotcom 2.0 bubble is not bursting but being left behind. Apple shipping a SOC that can do it all will trickle into Dells thinking, driven by backlash against privacy invasive grifting we can do cloud work at home. Concerns over screen time will lead to decoupling from screens. More IOT and voice controls and other input alternatives like smart sensors. Facebook is not a laptop, or an operating system. It’s AIM. We moved on from AIM but kept computing. The tech industry hasn’t matured. It grifted on last generations addiction to TV. More imaginative applications are yet to come.
wpietri 6y ago
I'm not sure why 100% confidence matters, but yes, many explanations are possible. Even simultaneously. E.g., the initial impetus might be higher-ups pressuring for action. But then somebody runs the numbers on what the potential long-term revenue impact is and sees the number is very large, far larger than the handful of millions they spend on their usual PR disaster cleanup.
- jldugger 6y ago
  But, then, outside observers cannot distinguish which of these scenarios we are in, and we cannot conclude that FB is doing this because 'the numbers say so.'
  - wpietri 6y ago
    We can't ever be sure of anything in this complex and murky world. Especially given we're trying to understand it with 3 pounds of meat. But the clock ticks on.

spinningslate 6y ago

> We're all aware, presumably, of cases where the corporate hierarchy demands action when the data suggests acting at all is harmful. True in most cases - but probably not FB. According to Investopedia [0], Zuckerberg owns 57.9% of voting shares as of 2020-12-09. Board pressure has a lot less sway when the chairman & CEO holds such a majority. [0]: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/082216/top-9-shareholders-facebook-fb.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/082216/top-9-... -- EDIT: fixed date

WalterSear 6y ago
So Zuckerberg pressured people to 'do something about this'.
- webmaven 6y ago
  > So Zuckerberg pressured people to 'do something about this'. From which logically follows "This is something, therefore we must do it." Yeah, the actual audience for the ad might just be "Facebook executives", and no one else, for all practical purposes. It would be interesting to know whether any metrics (NPS, perhaps?) are even being tracked that the campaign is intended to influence, or if this marks a regression to the "half of my ad budget is wasted, I just don't know which half" days of yore.
- what2build 6y ago
  That something, to my mind, is “brand privacy invasive tracking as bringing you free/cheap shit.” It worked for the last decade. They’re doubling down, unaware the dotcom 2.0 bubble is not bursting but being left behind. Apple shipping a SOC that can do it all will trickle into Dells thinking, driven by backlash against privacy invasive grifting we can do cloud work at home. Concerns over screen time will lead to decoupling from screens. More IOT and voice controls and other input alternatives like smart sensors. Facebook is not a laptop, or an operating system. It’s AIM. We moved on from AIM but kept computing. The tech industry hasn’t matured. It grifted on last generations addiction to TV. More imaginative applications are yet to come.

wpietri 6y ago

I'm not sure why 100% confidence matters, but yes, many explanations are possible. Even simultaneously. E.g., the initial impetus might be higher-ups pressuring for action. But then somebody runs the numbers on what the potential long-term revenue impact is and sees the number is very large, far larger than the handful of millions they spend on their usual PR disaster cleanup.

jldugger 6y ago
But, then, outside observers cannot distinguish which of these scenarios we are in, and we cannot conclude that FB is doing this because 'the numbers say so.'
- wpietri 6y ago
  We can't ever be sure of anything in this complex and murky world. Especially given we're trying to understand it with 3 pounds of meat. But the clock ticks on.