7 ms·

I am an x-Facebook employee. In the early days I used to be proud wearing Facebook swag. Later it bacame more and more an issue. People started making comments

by sagivo 6y ago

I am an x-Facebook employee. In the early days I used to be proud wearing Facebook swag. Later it bacame more and more an issue. People started making comments on feature X or policy Y they didn't like. I eventually didn't wear any swag in public, this is when I've realized I need to leave the company. Facebook is still a great place to work but the brand is so damaged that it's hard to see how they gain consumer trust again. As a consumer company it means any new product (libra, unified family of apps etc..) will fail because of that.

kuu 6y ago
> the brand is so damaged By its own merits...
- thiscatis 6y ago
  I hate it when people hide behind the brand. The reputation of people working there still is damaged, screw the brand.
  - greysteil 6y ago
    People are more than the company they work for. Be careful not to be reductionist by judging them too much on it.
    - messick 6y ago
      I’m 100% absolutely judging anyone still taking a paycheck from FB in this day and age. It speaks volumes about their character.
    - TomSwirly 6y ago
      So the people aren't responsible. But "Facebook", being a corporation and not a human, has no moral or ethical basis at all and exists entirely to make money. So by this calculus, all guilt, blame and responsibility is just waved away. They're only following orders, all the way to the top, where management are simply rationally trying to maximize revenue for stockholders, who also have no liability. Using the Greysteil Graywashing System™, any crime may be committed and no one is ever held responsible!
      - jader201 6y ago
        Your response is hyperbole. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Just because not everyone should be held accountable for a large company’s decisions, doesn’t mean that no one should be. Maybe someone sees it as an opportunity to learn from the talent around them, or enjoys the small piece that they’re working on. But not everyone in a company that is less than favorable with a given population should be judged equally.
    - sincerely 6y ago
      Ah, the 21st century version of "I was just following orders"
      - esoterica 6y ago
        The 21st century version of Godwin’s law is still Godwin’s law, it seems.
        cutitout 6y ago
        Godwin's law just says that as the length of a discussion increases, the probability of a nazi comparison approaches 1. It says nothing about that even being a problem, much less losing the argument. Even better: as the length of a discussion increases, the probability of any comparison, any string of words, any combination of letters, "approaches 1". Something you can say about anything you might as well say about nothing. People heard the meme a lot, so they think it has weight without actually having thought about it. Encouraging people to reveal this about themselves, with pride no less, is the singular useful property GL has.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > The reputation of people working there still is damaged Most people need a job in order to continue to eat and to buy shoes for their children. They can't just quit. I don't judge anyone for working the job they can get.
    - johannes1234321 6y ago
      That is probably true for the Janitor. It's less true for the (non-entry level) engineer there. They not only have other choices, but also are implementing the policies.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > They not only have other choices This is the problem with tech interviewing - it's so incredibly fickle that even someone with a senior job at a prestigious place doing practical work may not be able to pass an abstract problem-solving whiteboard interview somewhere else.
        eropple 6y ago
        That senior developer at a "prestigious place" can find a job that'll pay the bills, though, without working at A Name You've Heard Of. They have other choices; they just might not be choices that are as cool. (Darn?)
        johannes1234321 6y ago
        If they consider Facebook cool, they don't seem to have an ethics issue with Facebook in the first place ... (And yeah, some of the Tech they do is cool and there are only few places with such demand for technical solutions for that large scale of operation, but there's cool tech elsewhere as well)
        rglullis 6y ago
        Exactly. It's funny how you can "/s/Facebook/RedTube" and the principle still works.
- ignoramous 6y ago
  Facebook's is in an unenviable position: They tried to commoditize user-data to go after Google which back-fired. They tried long and hard to not be sole arbitrators for content moderation and were squarely blamed for it. They do take a stance to de-platform the most powerful person in the World but are now in the cross-hairs of every conservative as well. The left-wing obviously would like them regulated to oblivion... They have always been between a rock and a hard place post IPO. Kind of gives perspective to how long Google (with Android, YouTube, Groups, GMail, GSuite, GCP) has managed to go relatively untarnished (as a brand) but Facebook couldn't.
  - eloisius 6y ago
    It’s kind of like being hated by everyone on all sides might mean you’re an asshole or something.
    - tmoravec 6y ago
      Facebook still has something like two billion of mostly happy users.
      - Mountain_Skies 6y ago
        Being locked-in isn't the same thing as being happy.
  - toyg 6y ago
    > Kind of gives perspective to how long Google [...] has managed to go relatively untarnished I reckon that's because Google largely works on pull models: you ask for something and G gives it to you. Its services superficially appear like databases just sitting there, even if we know that's not the case. FB and Twitter, on the other hand, largely work on push models: you log on and the app will give you stuff to look at, as well as notifying you incessantly. It easier to perceive the app's own agency and priorities. In this sense, it explains why Google tends to get heat over Youtube: because it's closer to a push model, both with homepage and suggestions. Also, Google services are largely useful to get stuff done, in a way FB and Twitter are not. That gives G a big pass.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
einpoklum 6y ago
> Facebook is still a great place to work but the brand is so damaged that it's hard to see how they gain consumer trust "trust" is not meaningful where the whole purpose of Facebook is to profile people in order to influence (=manipulate) them through advertising and promoted content, and sell their data to third parties for other kinds of (mis)use. That is what Facebook is about, in terms of its commercial model; it's not as though they're claiming something else and ask you to "trust" them. (and of course, there's the small matter of letting the US government eavesdrop on all communications.)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
TomSwirly 6y ago
The passive voice conceals many secrets. "the brand is so damaged" as if it just happened for no reason But in fact, Facebook destroyed its own brand. Libra is a perfect example of it. After years of malfeasance, Facebook is going to print its own money! Why wouldn't we trust you?
baumandm 6y ago
Not to discount your experience, but IMHO this is a pretty niche opinion. Most of my friends and family seem to be either oblivious to any issues with Facebook, or at most be concerned about X or Y but unwilling to part with their network. I tried to dig up some stats, and the best I could find was a survey by The Verge[1] from Dec 2019: According to the survey, 71% of people had a favorable opinion of Facebook, and 75% think Facebook has a positive or neutral impact on society. However, Facebook scored relatively worse than most other brands surveyed (except Twitter), so you may be onto something. It's also possible that it's worsened in the past year. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/21144680/verge-tech-survey-2020-trust-privacy-security-facebook-amazon-google-apple https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/21144680/verge-tech-survey...
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  If 10% of people think Facebook is the root of all that's evil, you are likely to have some awkward conversations regardless of what 70% of people think. It doesn't take a majority of people to make things awkward/ ugly, just a vocal minority. Also, I suspect developers and knowledge workers are more likely to dislike Facebook. It doesn't matter what the cashier at Safeway thinks. If your friends and acquaintances hate Facebook, it's going to feel a lot worse. And if you are a developer or designer, it's likely you have a fair number of friends who are developers.
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
    This. It's not the 90% of oblivious people who are the problem. It's not even the 10% of "woke" digital people who are the problem. We probably need to talk about issues more in this country. It's the <1% of those "woke" digital people who will gun you down at the local grocery store because you work at Facebook who are the problem. In the end, it's always the extremists that represent the threat, and therefore oblige the appropriate security posture.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      > It's the <1% of those "woke" digital people who will gun you down Eh... no, I wasn't talking about anyone "gunning you down", the linked article is. I was just talking awkward conversations and getting the side-eye for working for the country's #1 douche. I mean... yeah the 1% issue is likely bigger now, but this will blow over. Your buddies who think you sold your soul to the devil for a couple bucks will be around for years.
dr-detroit 6y ago
The massive cope working for the CIA's weaponized sex app (according to ABC News) is real.
drusepth 6y ago
>As a consumer company it means any new product (libra, unified family of apps etc..) will fail because of that. I've seen multiple, separate parties see the commercials for Portal and be mildly interested in the product until it's revealed that it's by Facebook, and then they laugh and completely dismiss it a la "not a chance in hell I'm trusting Facebook to X". I'd be curious to see how well they're selling (or not).
- subsubzero 6y ago
  I was messaged by a Libra(now called Diem?) teams recruiter, went to the site[1] and thought in the back of my head, isn't this the facebook crypto-currency? I looked through it and saw no mention of facebook or zuckerberg or even any facebook execs. I knew David Marcus is/was a facebook exec, but even he is listed as head of Novi[2]. That right there tells you how damaged that brand(facebook) is when their crytocurrency project doesn't list the company or the CEO(zuckerberg). Needless to say I said thanks, no thanks to that recruiter. [1] - https://www.diem.com/en-us/ https://www.diem.com/en-us/ [2] - https://www.diem.com/en-us/association/#board_of_directors https://www.diem.com/en-us/association/#board_of_directors
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    also makes me really question the "a facebook" app thing they put prominently into the whatsapp startup screen. I've heard it was literally just Zuckerberg's ego being damaged because it became so popular compared to the blue app but it seems like a bad move
    - 0xBeefFed 6y ago
      My understanding is they added this for legal reasons. Users were not aware Instagram and WhatsApp were owned by Facebook and legislators had issue with that.

by sagivo 6y ago

kuu 6y ago

> the brand is so damaged By its own merits...

thiscatis 6y ago
I hate it when people hide behind the brand. The reputation of people working there still is damaged, screw the brand.
- greysteil 6y ago
  People are more than the company they work for. Be careful not to be reductionist by judging them too much on it.
  - messick 6y ago
    I’m 100% absolutely judging anyone still taking a paycheck from FB in this day and age. It speaks volumes about their character.
  - TomSwirly 6y ago
    So the people aren't responsible. But "Facebook", being a corporation and not a human, has no moral or ethical basis at all and exists entirely to make money. So by this calculus, all guilt, blame and responsibility is just waved away. They're only following orders, all the way to the top, where management are simply rationally trying to maximize revenue for stockholders, who also have no liability. Using the Greysteil Graywashing System™, any crime may be committed and no one is ever held responsible!
    - jader201 6y ago
      Your response is hyperbole. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Just because not everyone should be held accountable for a large company’s decisions, doesn’t mean that no one should be. Maybe someone sees it as an opportunity to learn from the talent around them, or enjoys the small piece that they’re working on. But not everyone in a company that is less than favorable with a given population should be judged equally.
  - sincerely 6y ago
    Ah, the 21st century version of "I was just following orders"
    - esoterica 6y ago
      The 21st century version of Godwin’s law is still Godwin’s law, it seems.
      - cutitout 6y ago
        Godwin's law just says that as the length of a discussion increases, the probability of a nazi comparison approaches 1. It says nothing about that even being a problem, much less losing the argument. Even better: as the length of a discussion increases, the probability of any comparison, any string of words, any combination of letters, "approaches 1". Something you can say about anything you might as well say about nothing. People heard the meme a lot, so they think it has weight without actually having thought about it. Encouraging people to reveal this about themselves, with pride no less, is the singular useful property GL has.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > The reputation of people working there still is damaged Most people need a job in order to continue to eat and to buy shoes for their children. They can't just quit. I don't judge anyone for working the job they can get.
  - johannes1234321 6y ago
    That is probably true for the Janitor. It's less true for the (non-entry level) engineer there. They not only have other choices, but also are implementing the policies.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > They not only have other choices This is the problem with tech interviewing - it's so incredibly fickle that even someone with a senior job at a prestigious place doing practical work may not be able to pass an abstract problem-solving whiteboard interview somewhere else.
      - eropple 6y ago
        That senior developer at a "prestigious place" can find a job that'll pay the bills, though, without working at A Name You've Heard Of. They have other choices; they just might not be choices that are as cool. (Darn?)
        johannes1234321 6y ago
        If they consider Facebook cool, they don't seem to have an ethics issue with Facebook in the first place ... (And yeah, some of the Tech they do is cool and there are only few places with such demand for technical solutions for that large scale of operation, but there's cool tech elsewhere as well)
        rglullis 6y ago
        Exactly. It's funny how you can "/s/Facebook/RedTube" and the principle still works.
ignoramous 6y ago
Facebook's is in an unenviable position: They tried to commoditize user-data to go after Google which back-fired. They tried long and hard to not be sole arbitrators for content moderation and were squarely blamed for it. They do take a stance to de-platform the most powerful person in the World but are now in the cross-hairs of every conservative as well. The left-wing obviously would like them regulated to oblivion... They have always been between a rock and a hard place post IPO. Kind of gives perspective to how long Google (with Android, YouTube, Groups, GMail, GSuite, GCP) has managed to go relatively untarnished (as a brand) but Facebook couldn't.
- eloisius 6y ago
  It’s kind of like being hated by everyone on all sides might mean you’re an asshole or something.
  - tmoravec 6y ago
    Facebook still has something like two billion of mostly happy users.
    - Mountain_Skies 6y ago
      Being locked-in isn't the same thing as being happy.
- toyg 6y ago
  > Kind of gives perspective to how long Google [...] has managed to go relatively untarnished I reckon that's because Google largely works on pull models: you ask for something and G gives it to you. Its services superficially appear like databases just sitting there, even if we know that's not the case. FB and Twitter, on the other hand, largely work on push models: you log on and the app will give you stuff to look at, as well as notifying you incessantly. It easier to perceive the app's own agency and priorities. In this sense, it explains why Google tends to get heat over Youtube: because it's closer to a push model, both with homepage and suggestions. Also, Google services are largely useful to get stuff done, in a way FB and Twitter are not. That gives G a big pass.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

einpoklum 6y ago

> Facebook is still a great place to work but the brand is so damaged that it's hard to see how they gain consumer trust "trust" is not meaningful where the whole purpose of Facebook is to profile people in order to influence (=manipulate) them through advertising and promoted content, and sell their data to third parties for other kinds of (mis)use. That is what Facebook is about, in terms of its commercial model; it's not as though they're claiming something else and ask you to "trust" them. (and of course, there's the small matter of letting the US government eavesdrop on all communications.)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

TomSwirly 6y ago

The passive voice conceals many secrets. "the brand is so damaged" as if it just happened for no reason But in fact, Facebook destroyed its own brand. Libra is a perfect example of it. After years of malfeasance, Facebook is going to print its own money! Why wouldn't we trust you?

baumandm 6y ago

Not to discount your experience, but IMHO this is a pretty niche opinion. Most of my friends and family seem to be either oblivious to any issues with Facebook, or at most be concerned about X or Y but unwilling to part with their network. I tried to dig up some stats, and the best I could find was a survey by The Verge[1] from Dec 2019: According to the survey, 71% of people had a favorable opinion of Facebook, and 75% think Facebook has a positive or neutral impact on society. However, Facebook scored relatively worse than most other brands surveyed (except Twitter), so you may be onto something. It's also possible that it's worsened in the past year. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/21144680/verge-tech-survey-2020-trust-privacy-security-facebook-amazon-google-apple https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/21144680/verge-tech-survey...

ogre_codes 6y ago
If 10% of people think Facebook is the root of all that's evil, you are likely to have some awkward conversations regardless of what 70% of people think. It doesn't take a majority of people to make things awkward/ ugly, just a vocal minority. Also, I suspect developers and knowledge workers are more likely to dislike Facebook. It doesn't matter what the cashier at Safeway thinks. If your friends and acquaintances hate Facebook, it's going to feel a lot worse. And if you are a developer or designer, it's likely you have a fair number of friends who are developers.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  This. It's not the 90% of oblivious people who are the problem. It's not even the 10% of "woke" digital people who are the problem. We probably need to talk about issues more in this country. It's the <1% of those "woke" digital people who will gun you down at the local grocery store because you work at Facebook who are the problem. In the end, it's always the extremists that represent the threat, and therefore oblige the appropriate security posture.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    > It's the <1% of those "woke" digital people who will gun you down Eh... no, I wasn't talking about anyone "gunning you down", the linked article is. I was just talking awkward conversations and getting the side-eye for working for the country's #1 douche. I mean... yeah the 1% issue is likely bigger now, but this will blow over. Your buddies who think you sold your soul to the devil for a couple bucks will be around for years.

dr-detroit 6y ago

The massive cope working for the CIA's weaponized sex app (according to ABC News) is real.

drusepth 6y ago

>As a consumer company it means any new product (libra, unified family of apps etc..) will fail because of that. I've seen multiple, separate parties see the commercials for Portal and be mildly interested in the product until it's revealed that it's by Facebook, and then they laugh and completely dismiss it a la "not a chance in hell I'm trusting Facebook to X". I'd be curious to see how well they're selling (or not).

subsubzero 6y ago
I was messaged by a Libra(now called Diem?) teams recruiter, went to the site[1] and thought in the back of my head, isn't this the facebook crypto-currency? I looked through it and saw no mention of facebook or zuckerberg or even any facebook execs. I knew David Marcus is/was a facebook exec, but even he is listed as head of Novi[2]. That right there tells you how damaged that brand(facebook) is when their crytocurrency project doesn't list the company or the CEO(zuckerberg). Needless to say I said thanks, no thanks to that recruiter. [1] - https://www.diem.com/en-us/ https://www.diem.com/en-us/ [2] - https://www.diem.com/en-us/association/#board_of_directors https://www.diem.com/en-us/association/#board_of_directors
- Barrin92 6y ago
  also makes me really question the "a facebook" app thing they put prominently into the whatsapp startup screen. I've heard it was literally just Zuckerberg's ego being damaged because it became so popular compared to the blue app but it seems like a bad move
  - 0xBeefFed 6y ago
    My understanding is they added this for legal reasons. Users were not aware Instagram and WhatsApp were owned by Facebook and legislators had issue with that.