5 ms·

I just can’t believe that decent people are still working for this company and not resigning in protest. Is there any doubt that their reckless drive towards an

I just can’t believe that decent people are still working for this company and not resigning in protest. Is there any doubt that their reckless drive towards anything that increases user engagement has directly resulted in the polarized societies we see everywhere today?

tut-urut-utut 5y ago
It's not only they work for Facebook, but are also pretty proud of it. After all, Facebook is the starting F of FAANG, which is a Holly Grail of every aspiring software developer, a pinnacle of human achievement. It's not Facebook that needs to be fixed, it's humanity.
- mikro2nd 5y ago
  "a Holly Grail of every aspiring software developer" You have to be kidding me. Speaking as a Software Developer, there's no inducement on Earth you could offer me to work for the shitfactory that is Facebook. The company is evil through and through, and that starts at the top.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    Then Facebook needs to be dropped off FAANG. It’s a cultural problem on developers that the term is still used.
  - fakedang 5y ago
    He was referring to FAANG as the Holy Grail of every software engineer, but you're right. It's a Holy Grail of shitfactories.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  FAANG starts with F because it makes a word, not because Facebook is particularly appealing in any respect. What else are you going to call it? NAGAF? GAANF? ANGFA?
  - esyir 5y ago
    Similarly, I've always claimed that Netflix is there largely to avoid an offensive acronym.
  - samatman 5y ago
    My personal favourite is FAAAM: Facebook, Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, Microsoft. Obviously the AAA league can be whatever order you want. Microsoft is more deserving of a slot than Netflix, and Google is just a subsidiary of a company called Alphabet now, however weird and arbitrary that division is in practice.
  - kbelder 5y ago
    And I realize that Facebook is a much larger entity than Twitter, but I think that Twitter has a larger and more destructive cultural influence.
    - gerash 5y ago
      I agree. From my experience, there are fewer fake and anonymous accounts on FB than on Twitter. Also a friend of mine had their home address, phone number and real names leaked to social media without his consent. He was able to take it down from FB properties but Twitter couldn't care less.
  - notacoward 5y ago
    I think F-MAGA or MAGA-F (replacing Netflix with Microsoft) would be pretty appropriate. They have, after all, done much to enable the person associated with that other acronym.
srswtf123 5y ago
It is my belief that their hiring process optimizes for people who get work done and don’t ask questions. That sort of person will never resign in protest —- they don’t see anything wrong and are fundamentally incapable of seeing it.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  > people who get work done and don’t ask questions People who rely on staying in the good graces of their employer to maintain their visa sponsorship status, for instance.
- tqi 5y ago
  What is this belief based on?
  - srswtf123 5y ago
    My personal experience with their hiring process and the comments of others on this site who confirm my suspicions, as well as ex-employees I’ve spoken with.
- tjpnz 5y ago
  That's been my experience with people I've met from Facebook. The conversations are never all that memorable to put it lightly.
sneak 5y ago
I dislike fb as much as anyone, but I am not sold on the current political polarization situation being their fault. They’re a nice scapegoat, but I haven’t seen enough to suggest that they are anywhere near the root cause.
- rytcio 5y ago
  I mean it makes sense. The main stream media found they their viewership increased with explosive, inflammatory, polarizing, world-ending stories, so news reports are nothing but that. Twitter/Facebook learned that too, so they promote outrage culture so that people use their product. I remember back in the late 2000s, Twitter had a hard time keeping people engaged and getting new users. Who cares about what someone ate for lunch or what new latte they ordered? Then the Obama election happened and the Kony2012 meme. They got their dopamine hit and have kept it going.
  - sneak 5y ago
    Not everything that is plausible is true.
    - DSingularity 5y ago
      Do you have an alternative explanation?
      - sneak 5y ago
        Yes, several. They all seem plausible as well, which doesn't tell me anything about any of them being true or not. 1. The US mass media's race to the bottom as previous/traditional revenue models and funding mechanisms fall away 2. Rising economic hardship and income inequality causing greater widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo 3. App-based "free" social media in general where engagement time is prioritized above all else (Facebook didn't invent this) 4. The growing influence of big tech and financialization (SV and Wall Street) and the waning influence of the american worker 5. Demagogues 6. The death throes of the US political parties as they thrash about in a desperate push to try to stay relevant, resorting to simple and effective scapegoating and tribalism I'm sure you can probably toss out a few more plausible ones, too.
IIAOPSW 5y ago
>Is there any doubt that their reckless drive towards anything that increases user engagement has directly resulted in the polarized societies we see everywhere today? Yes. I doubt it. I think traditional media deserves a lot (most?) of the blame. It is easy for us to blame the internet because we are on the internet. As a generation we've practically forgotten that TV and radio exists and as a result massively undervalue its influence. In our head we all know the stereotype of the fox news addicted older person, yet for some reason we assign more blame to whatever the FB algorithm shows on accident than to the things that network shows on purpose.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  I'd be curious to see the current numbers on the "older person" who uses Facebook vs. watches Fox News. My MIL is definitely not a Fox Newser but is on Facebook hours a day.
LudwigNagasena 5y ago
Ah, yeah, politicians, academics and traditional media have nothing to do with the polarized society. It’s all the Facebook’s fault!
fallingknife 5y ago
What if you think that any person should be able to communicate with any other person freely about any subject, and any person should be able to form a group and promote that group to other like minded people? What if you also think that this is completely independent of what upper middle class busybodies think about what is being said?
- bryan_w 5y ago
  In other words, consider the fact that people aren't resigning in protest as a hint that perhaps there's another viewpoint that you haven't explored and this "news" source could just not be covering it. After all we want people to have good media literacy even when you like the source.
renewiltord 5y ago
People were talking about this nonsense polarization during Nixon’s term. Read Nixonland to get an idea. Listen, guys, all of you have an external locus of control. Facebook is doing things to you that you are unable to control. You have a paternalistic view of people. Grandpa is too dumb to evaluate on his own. Facebook made him a Nazi. Gonna be honest with you. It’s the people. Facebook didn’t exist when Nixon was elected. No one made grandpa a Nazi but grandpa and no one is doing things to you but you.
nomel 5y ago
> not resigning in protest What an absolutely incredibly privileged life you must live.
- DSingularity 5y ago
  What makes you think that? I would resign despite the need for the income if I felt like my companies ethics contradicted mine in alarming ways.
  - notacoward 5y ago
    That's still a lot easier for some to say than for others. Until you've actually done it, it's just so much hot air. Quitting a job when you already have wealth saved from other job (or from inheritance etc.) is not the same as quitting a job when you have no savings at all. Quitting a job when you have skills and credentials that make it easy to find another is not the same as quitting a job when you have none of those things. Quitting a job when you're a citizen is not the same as quitting a job when you're dependent on your employer to retain your residency status. These are all forms of privilege. Privilege doesn't mean you're evil or weak; it just means that you might not be able to generalize your own feelings or decision making to others who lack that same privilege. FWIW, I have quit a job for moral reasons, when I was poor and unskilled and not at all sure whether it would end up with me in the street. (Cold-calling people to sell worthless coupons.) I'll bet I could count on one hand the number of HNers more qualified to make a claim about what they would or would not do in the face of such moral qualms. And I still wouldn't generalize my experience to those who had a criminal record, less evidence of future employability, or even a different skin color.

tut-urut-utut 5y ago

It's not only they work for Facebook, but are also pretty proud of it. After all, Facebook is the starting F of FAANG, which is a Holly Grail of every aspiring software developer, a pinnacle of human achievement. It's not Facebook that needs to be fixed, it's humanity.

mikro2nd 5y ago
"a Holly Grail of every aspiring software developer" You have to be kidding me. Speaking as a Software Developer, there's no inducement on Earth you could offer me to work for the shitfactory that is Facebook. The company is evil through and through, and that starts at the top.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  Then Facebook needs to be dropped off FAANG. It’s a cultural problem on developers that the term is still used.
- fakedang 5y ago
  He was referring to FAANG as the Holy Grail of every software engineer, but you're right. It's a Holy Grail of shitfactories.
mywittyname 5y ago
FAANG starts with F because it makes a word, not because Facebook is particularly appealing in any respect. What else are you going to call it? NAGAF? GAANF? ANGFA?
- esyir 5y ago
  Similarly, I've always claimed that Netflix is there largely to avoid an offensive acronym.
- samatman 5y ago
  My personal favourite is FAAAM: Facebook, Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, Microsoft. Obviously the AAA league can be whatever order you want. Microsoft is more deserving of a slot than Netflix, and Google is just a subsidiary of a company called Alphabet now, however weird and arbitrary that division is in practice.
- kbelder 5y ago
  And I realize that Facebook is a much larger entity than Twitter, but I think that Twitter has a larger and more destructive cultural influence.
  - gerash 5y ago
    I agree. From my experience, there are fewer fake and anonymous accounts on FB than on Twitter. Also a friend of mine had their home address, phone number and real names leaked to social media without his consent. He was able to take it down from FB properties but Twitter couldn't care less.
- notacoward 5y ago
  I think F-MAGA or MAGA-F (replacing Netflix with Microsoft) would be pretty appropriate. They have, after all, done much to enable the person associated with that other acronym.

srswtf123 5y ago

It is my belief that their hiring process optimizes for people who get work done and don’t ask questions. That sort of person will never resign in protest —- they don’t see anything wrong and are fundamentally incapable of seeing it.

commandlinefan 5y ago
> people who get work done and don’t ask questions People who rely on staying in the good graces of their employer to maintain their visa sponsorship status, for instance.
tqi 5y ago
What is this belief based on?
- srswtf123 5y ago
  My personal experience with their hiring process and the comments of others on this site who confirm my suspicions, as well as ex-employees I’ve spoken with.
tjpnz 5y ago
That's been my experience with people I've met from Facebook. The conversations are never all that memorable to put it lightly.

sneak 5y ago

I dislike fb as much as anyone, but I am not sold on the current political polarization situation being their fault. They’re a nice scapegoat, but I haven’t seen enough to suggest that they are anywhere near the root cause.

rytcio 5y ago
I mean it makes sense. The main stream media found they their viewership increased with explosive, inflammatory, polarizing, world-ending stories, so news reports are nothing but that. Twitter/Facebook learned that too, so they promote outrage culture so that people use their product. I remember back in the late 2000s, Twitter had a hard time keeping people engaged and getting new users. Who cares about what someone ate for lunch or what new latte they ordered? Then the Obama election happened and the Kony2012 meme. They got their dopamine hit and have kept it going.
- sneak 5y ago
  Not everything that is plausible is true.
  - DSingularity 5y ago
    Do you have an alternative explanation?
    - sneak 5y ago
      Yes, several. They all seem plausible as well, which doesn't tell me anything about any of them being true or not. 1. The US mass media's race to the bottom as previous/traditional revenue models and funding mechanisms fall away 2. Rising economic hardship and income inequality causing greater widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo 3. App-based "free" social media in general where engagement time is prioritized above all else (Facebook didn't invent this) 4. The growing influence of big tech and financialization (SV and Wall Street) and the waning influence of the american worker 5. Demagogues 6. The death throes of the US political parties as they thrash about in a desperate push to try to stay relevant, resorting to simple and effective scapegoating and tribalism I'm sure you can probably toss out a few more plausible ones, too.

IIAOPSW 5y ago

>Is there any doubt that their reckless drive towards anything that increases user engagement has directly resulted in the polarized societies we see everywhere today? Yes. I doubt it. I think traditional media deserves a lot (most?) of the blame. It is easy for us to blame the internet because we are on the internet. As a generation we've practically forgotten that TV and radio exists and as a result massively undervalue its influence. In our head we all know the stereotype of the fox news addicted older person, yet for some reason we assign more blame to whatever the FB algorithm shows on accident than to the things that network shows on purpose.

throwawayboise 5y ago
I'd be curious to see the current numbers on the "older person" who uses Facebook vs. watches Fox News. My MIL is definitely not a Fox Newser but is on Facebook hours a day.

LudwigNagasena 5y ago

Ah, yeah, politicians, academics and traditional media have nothing to do with the polarized society. It’s all the Facebook’s fault!

fallingknife 5y ago

What if you think that any person should be able to communicate with any other person freely about any subject, and any person should be able to form a group and promote that group to other like minded people? What if you also think that this is completely independent of what upper middle class busybodies think about what is being said?

bryan_w 5y ago
In other words, consider the fact that people aren't resigning in protest as a hint that perhaps there's another viewpoint that you haven't explored and this "news" source could just not be covering it. After all we want people to have good media literacy even when you like the source.

renewiltord 5y ago

People were talking about this nonsense polarization during Nixon’s term. Read Nixonland to get an idea. Listen, guys, all of you have an external locus of control. Facebook is doing things to you that you are unable to control. You have a paternalistic view of people. Grandpa is too dumb to evaluate on his own. Facebook made him a Nazi. Gonna be honest with you. It’s the people. Facebook didn’t exist when Nixon was elected. No one made grandpa a Nazi but grandpa and no one is doing things to you but you.

nomel 5y ago

> not resigning in protest What an absolutely incredibly privileged life you must live.

DSingularity 5y ago
What makes you think that? I would resign despite the need for the income if I felt like my companies ethics contradicted mine in alarming ways.
- notacoward 5y ago
  That's still a lot easier for some to say than for others. Until you've actually done it, it's just so much hot air. Quitting a job when you already have wealth saved from other job (or from inheritance etc.) is not the same as quitting a job when you have no savings at all. Quitting a job when you have skills and credentials that make it easy to find another is not the same as quitting a job when you have none of those things. Quitting a job when you're a citizen is not the same as quitting a job when you're dependent on your employer to retain your residency status. These are all forms of privilege. Privilege doesn't mean you're evil or weak; it just means that you might not be able to generalize your own feelings or decision making to others who lack that same privilege. FWIW, I have quit a job for moral reasons, when I was poor and unskilled and not at all sure whether it would end up with me in the street. (Cold-calling people to sell worthless coupons.) I'll bet I could count on one hand the number of HNers more qualified to make a claim about what they would or would not do in the face of such moral qualms. And I still wouldn't generalize my experience to those who had a criminal record, less evidence of future employability, or even a different skin color.