11 ms·

Facebook is going to become a hollowed out shell of itself if they do not change. They’ll get hollowed out by litigation, legislation, investors, or all of the

Facebook is going to become a hollowed out shell of itself if they do not change. They’ll get hollowed out by litigation, legislation, investors, or all of the above. They need new leadership. The tactics that got them here will not carry them further. There are tons of examples of the positive impact of new leadership, on companies like Apple, Microsoft, Uber, Disney, Ford, etc. And there are certainly plenty of examples of very successful companies who thought they were not touchable, but received tremendous financial harm from the rest of society. There is a time for a company to fight, and there is a time to make peace. Facebook is geared up to fight, basically, everyone. No company can win against everyone. They need a leader who can let go of what they wanted Facebook to be, and see clearly what it is. Only then can a path to the future be plotted. Yes I know Zuckerberg cannot be ousted by typical corporate maneuvering. Unfortunately I think that probably just increases the chance he will take it down with him.

nradov 5y ago
What litigation or legislation would hollow out Facebook? I would like to see stronger legislation around consumer data privacy, but that would only marginally reduce Facebook advertising revenue.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
  https://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-overpaid-ftc-fine-as-quid-pro-quo-to-protect-zuckerberg-from-liability-shareholders-claim-11632278039 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-overpaid-ftc-fine... Any action that gets Zuckerberg into a deposition or courtroom, i.e., under oath, is potential trouble for Facebook. Testimony before Congress is not the same.
  - otterley 5y ago
    Lest we forget the Microsoft antitrust trial of the late 1990s, it’s not a foregone conclusion that deposing a powerful CEO leads to their downfall. “I don’t remember” is a frequent answer that deponents give that is both frustrating and incontrovertible.
    - snowwrestler 5y ago
      Gates was deposed in summer 1998 and did a famously horrible job. He stepped down as CEO in January 2000. Microsoft struggled for relevance beyond Windows/Office for the next decade or so. I think there are a lot of parallels.
      - otterley 5y ago
        > Microsoft struggled for relevance beyond Windows/Office for the next decade or so On the contrary - XBox was a huge success!
lokar 5y ago
By the Matt Levine definition of securities fraud, they seem to be I trouble: - say one thing in public - know in private the thing is false - have that result in a lower stock price -> securities fraud
- manquer 5y ago
  Not necessarily a straightforward connection, as none of the items being discussed have a direct revenue impact only indirect impact to brand value etc. Knowing it is unhealthy for teenagers does not have direct negative impact on advertising revenues per se . It is perhaps feasible to argue that keeping this information under wraps without a legal requirement to disclose is the optimum management fiduciary thing to do to maximize shareholder value by avoiding bad press. Of course there will be lawsuits around this as other things, but it is not all that clear
  - lokar 5y ago
    It does not need to impact revenue, just share price.
    - manquer 5y ago
      Yes, but that is inverse here after all. Only If they disclose this report the share price is going to go down. Without a leak we would have never needed or gotten to know this report, so logically keeping it hidden/buried was the best course of action with regards to shareholder value ? A valid suit maybe about their poor security/ control processes for their Workplace tools that lead this leak. Shareholders could perhaps sue saying they should not fund such research/ buried it well etc, not sure a court/judge would look nicely on a such a suit.
yibg 5y ago
You know, I would like to believe this is the case. That some combination of litagation, legislation etc will bring down FB. But outside of the HN bubble I'm unfortunately doubtful it'll actually happen. My friends and family outside of tech has no issues with what FB is doing. Wallstreet also seems to have no issues with what FB is doing. It really just seems to be the techies on HN that are yelling and screaming.
- Kiro 5y ago
  If no-one outside HN has a problem with FB, who are we to tell them they are wrong? Maybe we are wrong.
  - bob229 5y ago
    Yeah and maybe the earth is flat too. Facebook and their ilk are destroying humanity. Not that I really care, we are a cancer anyway.
- freetinker 5y ago
  This has been my experience as well. They look at me as if I’m wearing a tinfoil hat.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  I don’t think it will kill Facebook. I do think there is a big risk that FB becomes a zombie company, with a leadership more concerned with fighting their critics, the government, and competitors than innovating for customers. Arguably they already had an innovation problem, which is why they bought Instagram and WhatsApp. Microsoft lost a least a decade to this sort of thing. They did not really come out of their funk until they got wholly new leadership in Nadella, and let go of who they thought they were in the 90s.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
Does anyone track the premium Facebook has to pay to get people to close their eyes and work for them? Subjectively, it feels like it’s growing, but that’s from sampling a limited friend group.
- endtime 5y ago
  As a SWE at a different FAANG, my understanding is I'd probably get a 20-30% comp increase if I went to FB, though I'm also told people work longer hours there. To answer your question more directly, http://levels.fyi http://levels.fyi tracks it.
  - DevKoala 5y ago
    Considering stock appreciation/stagnation and vesting schedules I don’t think FB has a significant edge over those two, Google and MS.
    - endtime 5y ago
      Past results are not an indicator of future performance, of course. :) But yes, you're right that heavily RSU-based comp means you have to try to take that into account. That said, I usually just assume it will trade sideways and so my comp is based on a four year moving average of my grant value. If it goes up, great.
- yibg 5y ago
  Anecdotally, FB pays the most of all the typical companies for SWE. Compared to google it's probably a 20 - 30% bump.
epa 5y ago
I cant wait to see if this comment rings true in 20 years, i bet zuck will still be doing his thing.
erklik 5y ago
> Yes I know Zuckerberg cannot be ousted by typical corporate maneuvering Why is that? I am not aware of Facebook's corporate structure so I am curious. - Yes, this is a LMGTFY question, but I find that people can often provide a better answer, that's easier to understand especially when the question is more of a curiosity rather something I wish to find the answer of rapidly.
- exolymph 5y ago
  He controls the voting shares.
- scheme271 5y ago
  To expand on the sibling comment, Facebook has two classes of shares. Class A shares have one vote and are the shares that are traded on stock exchanges. Class B shares get 10 votes each and are held by Zuckerberg and friends. Zuckerberg has enough Class B shares that he really can't be outvoted by other investors.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > Facebook has two classes of shares I had no idea companies could legally create vastly unequal schemes like that. How do people even find out about things like this? Is this information available somewhere? Impossible to make good investment decisions without this sort of knowledge.
    - jsmith99 5y ago
      The London Stock Exchange doesn't allow such dual class share structures for exactly this reason. That's partly why it has become so unpopular with tech companies. They are considering changing the rule but many of London's brokers and institutional investors strongly oppose it.
      - 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
        Tne NYSE used to restrict it. They relaxed the restrictions in the 1980's. Google was the company that started the trend in 2005. (Note they were sued by their shareholders and settled.) The percentage of companies using this type of structure was like 1% in 2005. By 2017 it was 22%. It is probably even higher today. It is used outside of Silicon Valley, too, but those non-tech companies have real products and services that produce revenue. They don't bait people with "free", spy on them and sell ads. If I'm not mistaken there are some index funds that will exclude companies with dual class shares. This is why "tech" companies can pursue outlandish projects that produce no revenue. Shareholders effectively have insufficient rights to question such decisions and hold the founders to account.
AlbertCory 5y ago
The simplest solution is the one FB will never accept, and yet the harm to the public would be virtually zero: Eliminate all news, politics, and other public policy groups and apps. Return to being just a way to connect with friends and family. No one needs to get their news from Facebook. There are plenty of other sites on the Web for that. Same for all these other "engagement" services. Of course, this would cut their market cap to, oh, $100B or so. Boo-hoo.
- doktorhladnjak 5y ago
  What you describe is basically Instagram
  - lambdasquirrel 5y ago
    Which is why FB will never accept it. There's room in FB for one Instagram. Not two of them. Besides, I don't know about everyone else, but a fair chunk of my FB feed was pretty much people getting outraged by (or trying to discredit) fake news, hyperbolic news, or disinformation. Because that's the stuff that goes viral.
  - mtgx 5y ago
    Instagram is for friends and family?
- gumby 5y ago
  > The simplest solution … : Eliminate all news, politics, and other public policy groups and apps. I assume users want this content. I never see news, politics, etc because I’m not interested and FB has learnt I won’t engage in it. I’m not trying to say this makes me good or bad or special. I’m saying that they use feedback each user individually and it seems allot of people want that stuff.
  - sjg007 5y ago
    The FB app and website is a remix of friends, groups, and Craigslist It has actually become a bad user experience.
JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
Taking it down with him seems like the best possible outcome for humanity, no?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rblion 5y ago
> Yes I know Zuckerberg cannot be ousted by typical corporate maneuvering. Unfortunately I think that probably just increases the chance he will take it down with him. Good, it'll complete the trilogy. The Social Network (2010). The Social Dilemma (2020). The Social Collapse (?).
chaostheory 5y ago
Unless moderate, establishment politicians get replaced, this is unlikely to happen. Why? Because Facebook is very useful as an intelligence tool. It was funded by In-Q-Tel after all. Otherwise, there would need to be a lot more public uproar and I'm not seeing that from the general public.
- lambdasquirrel 5y ago
  But they have been getting replaced. On both the left and the right, but especially the right. And if Sanders had somehow been president in 2016, you bet that it would’ve been establishment Dems who’d have been retiring.
  - chaostheory 5y ago
    The far right is fine with Facebook. I have my doubts about progressives taking most of the power base from establishment liberals. Establishment candidates tend to have better and more mainstream media coverage.

nradov 5y ago

What litigation or legislation would hollow out Facebook? I would like to see stronger legislation around consumer data privacy, but that would only marginally reduce Facebook advertising revenue.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-overpaid-ftc-fine-as-quid-pro-quo-to-protect-zuckerberg-from-liability-shareholders-claim-11632278039 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-overpaid-ftc-fine... Any action that gets Zuckerberg into a deposition or courtroom, i.e., under oath, is potential trouble for Facebook. Testimony before Congress is not the same.
- otterley 5y ago
  Lest we forget the Microsoft antitrust trial of the late 1990s, it’s not a foregone conclusion that deposing a powerful CEO leads to their downfall. “I don’t remember” is a frequent answer that deponents give that is both frustrating and incontrovertible.
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
    Gates was deposed in summer 1998 and did a famously horrible job. He stepped down as CEO in January 2000. Microsoft struggled for relevance beyond Windows/Office for the next decade or so. I think there are a lot of parallels.
    - otterley 5y ago
      > Microsoft struggled for relevance beyond Windows/Office for the next decade or so On the contrary - XBox was a huge success!

lokar 5y ago

By the Matt Levine definition of securities fraud, they seem to be I trouble: - say one thing in public - know in private the thing is false - have that result in a lower stock price -> securities fraud

manquer 5y ago
Not necessarily a straightforward connection, as none of the items being discussed have a direct revenue impact only indirect impact to brand value etc. Knowing it is unhealthy for teenagers does not have direct negative impact on advertising revenues per se . It is perhaps feasible to argue that keeping this information under wraps without a legal requirement to disclose is the optimum management fiduciary thing to do to maximize shareholder value by avoiding bad press. Of course there will be lawsuits around this as other things, but it is not all that clear
- lokar 5y ago
  It does not need to impact revenue, just share price.
  - manquer 5y ago
    Yes, but that is inverse here after all. Only If they disclose this report the share price is going to go down. Without a leak we would have never needed or gotten to know this report, so logically keeping it hidden/buried was the best course of action with regards to shareholder value ? A valid suit maybe about their poor security/ control processes for their Workplace tools that lead this leak. Shareholders could perhaps sue saying they should not fund such research/ buried it well etc, not sure a court/judge would look nicely on a such a suit.

yibg 5y ago

You know, I would like to believe this is the case. That some combination of litagation, legislation etc will bring down FB. But outside of the HN bubble I'm unfortunately doubtful it'll actually happen. My friends and family outside of tech has no issues with what FB is doing. Wallstreet also seems to have no issues with what FB is doing. It really just seems to be the techies on HN that are yelling and screaming.

Kiro 5y ago
If no-one outside HN has a problem with FB, who are we to tell them they are wrong? Maybe we are wrong.
- bob229 5y ago
  Yeah and maybe the earth is flat too. Facebook and their ilk are destroying humanity. Not that I really care, we are a cancer anyway.
freetinker 5y ago
This has been my experience as well. They look at me as if I’m wearing a tinfoil hat.
snowwrestler 5y ago
I don’t think it will kill Facebook. I do think there is a big risk that FB becomes a zombie company, with a leadership more concerned with fighting their critics, the government, and competitors than innovating for customers. Arguably they already had an innovation problem, which is why they bought Instagram and WhatsApp. Microsoft lost a least a decade to this sort of thing. They did not really come out of their funk until they got wholly new leadership in Nadella, and let go of who they thought they were in the 90s.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

Does anyone track the premium Facebook has to pay to get people to close their eyes and work for them? Subjectively, it feels like it’s growing, but that’s from sampling a limited friend group.

endtime 5y ago
As a SWE at a different FAANG, my understanding is I'd probably get a 20-30% comp increase if I went to FB, though I'm also told people work longer hours there. To answer your question more directly, http://levels.fyi http://levels.fyi tracks it.
- DevKoala 5y ago
  Considering stock appreciation/stagnation and vesting schedules I don’t think FB has a significant edge over those two, Google and MS.
  - endtime 5y ago
    Past results are not an indicator of future performance, of course. :) But yes, you're right that heavily RSU-based comp means you have to try to take that into account. That said, I usually just assume it will trade sideways and so my comp is based on a four year moving average of my grant value. If it goes up, great.
yibg 5y ago
Anecdotally, FB pays the most of all the typical companies for SWE. Compared to google it's probably a 20 - 30% bump.

epa 5y ago

I cant wait to see if this comment rings true in 20 years, i bet zuck will still be doing his thing.

erklik 5y ago

> Yes I know Zuckerberg cannot be ousted by typical corporate maneuvering Why is that? I am not aware of Facebook's corporate structure so I am curious. - Yes, this is a LMGTFY question, but I find that people can often provide a better answer, that's easier to understand especially when the question is more of a curiosity rather something I wish to find the answer of rapidly.

exolymph 5y ago
He controls the voting shares.
scheme271 5y ago
To expand on the sibling comment, Facebook has two classes of shares. Class A shares have one vote and are the shares that are traded on stock exchanges. Class B shares get 10 votes each and are held by Zuckerberg and friends. Zuckerberg has enough Class B shares that he really can't be outvoted by other investors.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > Facebook has two classes of shares I had no idea companies could legally create vastly unequal schemes like that. How do people even find out about things like this? Is this information available somewhere? Impossible to make good investment decisions without this sort of knowledge.
  - jsmith99 5y ago
    The London Stock Exchange doesn't allow such dual class share structures for exactly this reason. That's partly why it has become so unpopular with tech companies. They are considering changing the rule but many of London's brokers and institutional investors strongly oppose it.
    - 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
      Tne NYSE used to restrict it. They relaxed the restrictions in the 1980's. Google was the company that started the trend in 2005. (Note they were sued by their shareholders and settled.) The percentage of companies using this type of structure was like 1% in 2005. By 2017 it was 22%. It is probably even higher today. It is used outside of Silicon Valley, too, but those non-tech companies have real products and services that produce revenue. They don't bait people with "free", spy on them and sell ads. If I'm not mistaken there are some index funds that will exclude companies with dual class shares. This is why "tech" companies can pursue outlandish projects that produce no revenue. Shareholders effectively have insufficient rights to question such decisions and hold the founders to account.

AlbertCory 5y ago

The simplest solution is the one FB will never accept, and yet the harm to the public would be virtually zero: Eliminate all news, politics, and other public policy groups and apps. Return to being just a way to connect with friends and family. No one needs to get their news from Facebook. There are plenty of other sites on the Web for that. Same for all these other "engagement" services. Of course, this would cut their market cap to, oh, $100B or so. Boo-hoo.

doktorhladnjak 5y ago
What you describe is basically Instagram
- lambdasquirrel 5y ago
  Which is why FB will never accept it. There's room in FB for one Instagram. Not two of them. Besides, I don't know about everyone else, but a fair chunk of my FB feed was pretty much people getting outraged by (or trying to discredit) fake news, hyperbolic news, or disinformation. Because that's the stuff that goes viral.
- mtgx 5y ago
  Instagram is for friends and family?
gumby 5y ago
> The simplest solution … : Eliminate all news, politics, and other public policy groups and apps. I assume users want this content. I never see news, politics, etc because I’m not interested and FB has learnt I won’t engage in it. I’m not trying to say this makes me good or bad or special. I’m saying that they use feedback each user individually and it seems allot of people want that stuff.
- sjg007 5y ago
  The FB app and website is a remix of friends, groups, and Craigslist It has actually become a bad user experience.

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago

Taking it down with him seems like the best possible outcome for humanity, no?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rblion 5y ago

> Yes I know Zuckerberg cannot be ousted by typical corporate maneuvering. Unfortunately I think that probably just increases the chance he will take it down with him. Good, it'll complete the trilogy. The Social Network (2010). The Social Dilemma (2020). The Social Collapse (?).

chaostheory 5y ago

Unless moderate, establishment politicians get replaced, this is unlikely to happen. Why? Because Facebook is very useful as an intelligence tool. It was funded by In-Q-Tel after all. Otherwise, there would need to be a lot more public uproar and I'm not seeing that from the general public.

lambdasquirrel 5y ago
But they have been getting replaced. On both the left and the right, but especially the right. And if Sanders had somehow been president in 2016, you bet that it would’ve been establishment Dems who’d have been retiring.
- chaostheory 5y ago
  The far right is fine with Facebook. I have my doubts about progressives taking most of the power base from establishment liberals. Establishment candidates tend to have better and more mainstream media coverage.