66 ms·
No. That’s what people like us and all the main stream media hope for. But: most people I know don’t have the slightest clue that Insta and WhatsApp belong to
by shoto_io 5y ago
No. That’s what people like us and all the main stream media hope for.
But: most people I know don’t have the slightest clue that Insta and WhatsApp belong to the FB group.
And even worse: most of them don’t give a shit about the reputation of FB. They just want to send messages and share pictures through those apps.
- wly_cdgr 5y agoSpeak for yourself. I like Facebook and wish them continued success
- jklinger410 5y agoFacebook went down for 6 hours and they are back to using it the next day without a second of hesitation. Maybe WhatsApp was affected by some people who, so I've heard, rely on it heavily. They may have (smartly) switched to a more decentralized platform to handle their critical communications. So did they shed some edge-case users? Sure. Will it matter in the long run? Not at all.
- Hamuko 5y ago>Facebook went down for 6 hours and they are back to using it the next day without a second of hesitation. Why is that relevant at all? If I have a blackout for six hours, I'm gonna go back to using electricity once it's back.
- dleslie 5y agoIndeed. Consider this: Nestle has a terrible reputation. Absolutely, truly awful. Has that meaningfully impacted Nestle's sales? Probably not.
- mogadsheu 5y agoWhile I don’t disagree with the sentiment, the primary alternative social media platform would be TikTok, which is far more questionable in its handling of data than FB Group.
- efields 5y agoThis. 73 yo dad is not quitting Facebook anytime soon. He genuinely uses it to find old friends and coworkers and goof around in the comments.
- donatj 5y agoI mean as a 30 something who knows their evil, that’s what I use it for too. I’ve gone to close my account a bunch of times, but for so many old friends it’s my only link to them, I could not bring myself to do it.
- vmception 5y agoYou can recreate your social graph at any time by telling it your phone number, or email, or friending the same people. Any app is doing that and will find other friends on that app with shared contacts. You can even do it in a future FB account. With that knowledge it is easy for me to delete FB account, even if there are active group chats there.
- donatj 5y agoI mean there’s also 15 years of memories going back to me in college. There’s sentimental attachment there.
- Mockapapella 5y agoThis has been my experience too. All Facebook is to them is a place where they can keep up with friends and family. That's it. The kind of content that mirrors this article's sentiment never breaks through the noise.
- svachalek 5y agoWow there must be less toxic parts of Facebook. All my friends and family post is the "kind of content that mirrors this article's sentiment".
- reeealloc 5y agoThat's surprising, they have no intention of hiding that Insta is a FB app. It says Instagram by Facebook when you open it.
- disgruntledphd2 5y agoWhich is probably one of the dumbest decisions they've ever made.
- emptyparadise 5y agoIt was a very funny "no, no, no, see, this is a Facebook product that's sooooo integrated with our platform and totally isn't something you can spin off easily!!" moment.
- baby 5y agoWell, messaging is going to be interoperable between instagram, messenger, and whatsapp.
- mchanson 5y agoArticle doesn't disagree with your take: "The firm risks joining the ranks of corporate untouchables like big tobacco. If that idea takes hold, Facebook risks losing its young, liberal staff. Even if its ageing customers stick with the social network, Facebook has bigger ambitions that could be foiled if public opinion continues to curdle."
- geodel 5y agoWhere will that young liberal staff go work for? I suspect once too much of good life perks are not available at FB maybe their outlook itself change a bit.
- dogman144 5y agoThey'll go work for the AANG in FAANG. If they're good enough to get into FB, they've good enough for the other 4+. FB transferred from a "change the world" to a "change my finances and make my resume" place several yers ago. Several other companies fill in the latter qualification. Also, and ya I know how this sounds, but if Coinbase keeps it up they and similar companies will and are grabbing some of the same talent.
- geodel 5y agoAh right. All moral quandaries get resolved while working for AANG.
- SamBam 5y agoWell, perhaps just the N, then. But Netflix has always been the odd-duck in FAANG. (And yes, you can point out reasons not to work at Netflix, but it seems like a whole nother level than the rest of FAANG.)
- goatlover 5y agoThere's been a couple Netflix public outrage instances. Like when they split up their pricing plan for streaming and DVDs, or the backlash over Cuties. But Netflix is still going strong.
- breadzeppelin__ 5y agoTo go a bit further MSM's ad revenue is being hollowed out by Facebook et al. Why would anyone pay to advertise in Economist when they can advertise to "people interested in economics, earning over 150k, last thought about cigarettes three weeks ago" etc. Similarly, if you were an advertising exec at pfizer, would you choose to pay millions of dollars to advertise your meds to a continuously shrinking audience on something like CNN, or would you spend significantly less directly targeting "oldsters who need meds" on FB or Goog's platforms? I'm a huge cynic but it seems like most of the critiques of social media coming from big / old media are just symptoms of having their revenue bled away, not any meaningful calls for change for the better
- v77 5y agoThis has always been pretty clear. But, also effective. Lots of congresspeople and MPs still read the NY Times, Guardian, etc.. Facebook also has no political 'country', being a big company (left wing hate) based in San Francisco with liberal views amongst its workers and ownerss. (right wing hate)
- mbg721 5y agoPrint ads are still classier than online ads. In the Economist, your next-door neighbor isn't "Still eating these six foods that will kill you? Here's one weird trick that Virginia retirees are using to save money."
- UltraViolence 5y agoI agree. I once wanted to advertise on a web site with specific content but they offered to charge me $1000 / month for a banner ad. This got me thinking: if I spent $1000 a month on Facebook / Google I'd probably get ten times the response and uptake / sales than with a banner ad. These companies will eventually hoover up all advertising dollars.
- jdhn 5y ago>it seems like most of the critiques of social media coming from big / old media are just symptoms of having their revenue bled away I feel that so many people blindly hate Facebook that they overlook this point. The loudest critics of social media are the old vanguards of news who are upset that the new kid on the block took their ad money.
- tomhoward 5y agoThat was my reaction too, scoffing as I imagined the headline "Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is nearing a reputational point of no return" after the News of the World scandal in 2011 (or any of countless others). But the sentence that matters is this one: "Facebook risks losing its young, liberal staff". If Facebook can't attract/keep the best staff (especially hackers/devs/engineers), it can't stay at the top. Even Microsoft of 1998 didn't become as toxic to solid tech talent as Facebook risks becoming if they keep this up.
- vxNsr 5y ago> Even Microsoft of 1998 didn't become as toxic to solid tech talent as Facebook risks becoming if they keep this up. Idk, I think being the only big tech employer in Seattle at the time helped keep them afloat. Telecommuting was still nascent at the time and moving is always daunting. Today the environment is very different, Facebook is in the heart of SV, but even more importantly, now everyone is suddenly totally ok with indefinite remote work, so you’re no longer limited by not wanting to move, the only thing holding you back is $$, and at a certain point all the money in the world isn’t gonna make you fe good about what you’re doing.
- HeroOfAges 5y agoI don't think Facebook's "... young, liberal staff" is going anywhere. They have experienced the power that comes with successfully shifting a global organization's culture, mission and product. Unfortunately, there are only so many hours in the day, and doing so hasn't given them enough time to actually do their jobs. The people that are left don't possess the tools to create and build anything of moment because that's not what they're good at and frankly, that's not why they were hired. Facebook losing its young, liberal staff could be the best thing that has happened to the company in a long time, but that's not what's going to happen.
- tomhoward 5y agoI think the use of the word "liberal" may be leaving an opening for misinterpretation. The real worry is that good, talented people leave/refrain from applying, regardless of ideological outlook or label.
- Ozzie_osman 5y agoThe argument being made isn't that people will stop using Facebook. It's that Facebook won't be able to hire the talent it needs. That's a longer, but more damaging feedback loop, assuming you believe it (the counter argument is they will be able to pay people enough to hire them anyway).
- adwww 5y agoYeah I dunno, I'd happily take an existing Facebook US salary if all the good engineers stopped working there.
- pessimizer 5y agoWhether facebook has to pay by raising compensation or by settling for worse engineers, it's still a premium.
- yanderekko 5y agoOn the flipside, if Facebook is losing talent because those talented workers are demanding that the company degrade its products, then having to pay a premium can be partially or wholly offset by the positive revenue impact of avoiding this sort of activist employee.
- baby 5y agoI don't believe it a single bit. They are hiring a bunch of engineers right after school, and a lot of engineers still believe that FB is a good product because they're using it on the daily.
- Ozzie_osman 5y agoVery anecdotally, but I've found that fresh grads are more likely to avoid FB because of the reputational issues vs more senior engineers (who might have families to support or might cynically believe that all big cos have questionable anyway and FB isn't special in that regard)
- metalliqaz 5y agoMy question is... why do people like us continue to work there? They know what is going on there more than anyone.
- dresdenfire 5y agoBecause they see that external perception doesn't match what is happening internally. Interesting thing is we have both left and right aligned that FB is bad but if you ask them why they are bad, they would not agree on a single thing. This is why nothing is going to be done and it's all a cycle which will keep repeating itself.
- gkilmain 5y agoI have a 40 something friend who started working there a few years a go. He has a family. He mostly went for stability, good pay, good benefits, predictable long term outlook. Not working insane hours. He loves it. Actually said he feels valued as an engineer.
- sorokod 5y agoMorally he is ok? No issues looking at the mirror?
- CPLNTN 5y agoI work in a country where engineers are paid like factory workers.. if FB offered me a job i would be happy to take it even they sold unapproved drugs. Morally questioning a company with that kind of salary and benefits requires a position of incredible privilege.
- AzzieElbab 5y agocan you make a purely ideological/ethical case for working at google/twitter/amazon/ms/apple over working at fb?
- splistud 5y ago
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> most of them don’t give a shit about the reputation of FB This is close to a straw man argument. Nobody claims users will abandon Facebook. The article posits, instead, strengthening headwinds. Headwinds in hiring (there is already a double-digit premium Facebook must pay for talent). From recurring whistleblowing, and its impact on morale and productivity. Headwinds in projects and partnerships, like Libre/Diem being dead on arrival because Facebook brought it to the table. Senior leadership knowing they will, at least once in their career, be hauled in front of Congress for a nationally-televised grilling because their employer's unpopularity [1] makes it a popular punching bag. Headwinds in M&A. People didn't stop using oil after the Standard Oil break-up. Nor Windows after its antitrust brush or cigarettes after the tobacco master settlement. The power of those companies was simply sharply reduced. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/6/22702798/verge-tech-survey-2021-trust-privacy-security-facebook-amazon-google-apple-pandemic https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/6/22702798/verge-tech-surve...
- quotemstr 5y ago> there is already a double-digit premium Facebook must pay for talent That's an odd way of putting it. Do Google and Netflix and other big tech companies face the same "headwinds"? Their compensation is comparable. Facebook pays a premium because it's drawing from the top of the talent pool and is facing competition from other companies trying to acquire people with the same level of exceptional skill. The idea that FB has to pay extra to convince regular people to work at FB because FB has a bad reputation is HN fantasy. The world doesn't work that way. No, Facebook is not a stain on anyone's resume no matter how fervently a few very online activist types might want it to be. The rest of the industry laughs at the idea. Anyone saying that he won't fire FB alumni just has a bad case of sour grapes and couldn't attract people of that caliber anyway.
- cbtacy 5y agoThis may be true for entry level jobs, but for senior level jobs the "stain on the resume" issue is very real. A friend was a recruiter for FB until a few months back and has repeatedly stated that over the last 18 months she had an increasingly large percentage of targeted senior candidates refuse to even take her calls.
- sebow 5y agoI think you're kind of deluding yourself if you think MSM wants FB to die or lose influence.They're(FB) partly much of the reason MSM hasn't straight-out died after they tried catching up to more what used to be alternative "news sources". What the new whistleblower "leaked" isn't something revealing at all.And the frightening thing is that what she a argues for is even more disturbing: more regulation. This would be fine if FB&friends would be definitely declared to not be public spheres (which on one hand they're technically not because they're private entities, but on the other hand [wrongfully] have the public sphere status in law, when it comes to information). What actually is news about FB is the reported 1.5BN hack, which nobody talks about besides this "old-news". which is mainly either a regurgitated attempt _by_ facebook to somehow resurrect their image through this, or the US gov trying to gain even more pressure on private companies.Nobody talks about the fact that our 'whistleblower' openly donated a lot of money to DNC, and a quick research on her stinks of collusion, either politically or against against facebook itself.
- BiteCode_dev 5y agoNot to mention facebook leaders don't care, they already made billions by misbehaving without any consequence. Even if the story did end there, it's 100% win for them. This is the lesson of our generation: makes money by delegating the consequences to society. Nothing will happen to you. In fact, in 20 years, you could buy the service of some PR firm, and they will even make you a hero in the eyes of the public eventually.
- morpheuskafka 5y agoI was really surprised when Facebook added their branding to the splash screen of those apps. I thought the whole point was that no one even knew about it. WhatsApp at least is a little different (no in app ads, no infinite scrolling, at least in theory encrypted messages). But Instagram is literally just another incarnation of the exact same business model as FB with slightly different features.
- CursedUrn 5y agoI presume they made a big push to integrate Whatsapp/IG and Facebook (on a technical and branding level) to make it harder for anti-trust to break them up later.
- el_ravager 5y agoIf they can't be broken up—and they're too big to fail—rolling them up into a utility could be an forgone conclusion.
- rickspencer3 5y agoWhile I agree with this in terms of users, I think that their reputation does influence how they are treated by regulators, law makers, and law enforcement. Being considered a bad actor and habitual liar by the government is problematic. I was working at Microsoft during the whole "DOJ says Microsoft is a monopoly" madness, and I can tell you that it had an impact.
- Frost1x 5y agoAgreed. Markets are ruled by majorities not minorities, no matter how right or wrong the majority may be. Let's stop pretending consumers always act in their best interests or even have access to: capacity to analyze (time, priority, interest) and knowledge to make good choices. This is all about the will and momentum of the mob and this isn't enough to sway a critical mass of the mob to exert their influence.
- coldtea 5y ago>And even worse: most of them don’t give a shit about the reputation of FB. They just want to send messages and share pictures through those apps. Yes. But those people will die eventually. And younger people aren't adopting FB or care about it.
- chinathrow 5y ago> But: most people I know have the slightest clue that Insta and WhatsApp belong the FB group Citation needed. My loading screen in WhatsApp clearly states "From FACEBOOK".
- snowwrestler 5y agoYou’re essentially arguing that your group of acquaintances is a bellwether, or at least strongly predictive of national or global outcomes for one of the biggest companies in the world. I don’t know your acquaintances, but in general that seems pretty unlikely to me. The threat to Facebook is not mass consumer hate and abandonment. It’s that no one likes them enough to stand up for them anymore, which empowers the relatively few people who seek advantage against them. A lot of things in politics and policy become possible with relatively small shifts in public sentiment.
- baby 5y agoTrue, and what we're seeing these days is a play to affect public sentiment.
- abcd8017 5y agoCan’t agree more and that is the main problem - user’s apathy for their own privacy.
- dpweb 5y agoFB, Insta, Whatsapp. They couldn't mess up these businesses if they tried.
- hyperbovine 5y agoAnd even worse: most of them don’t give a shit about the reputation of {AOL,MySpace,Friendster}. They just want to send messages and share pictures through those apps.
- nradov 5y agoI am aware that Facebook has done a bunch of bad stuff, and that they own Instagram and WhatsApp. I still don't give a shit. For all it's faults Facebook is still the most convenient way to keep up with friends and family spread around the world, and share my underwater photography. If you engage with Facebook on your own terms and "hide all from" the news / politics / meme pages then it works great. And it's free! And no, I'm not interested in doing extra work to set up Mastodon.
- Omnitaus 5y agoPersonally I prefer to upload my photography to my own website, where I don't have to worry about Facebook setting up a shadow account for every face in my images
- kreeben 5y ago>> And it's free! Free, how? As in freedom/beer/something else? Money, you know, is not the only currency there is.
- svachalek 5y agoThe only people I know who still use Facebook, use it to share political memes, fake news, phishing scams, and rants. If I hid from all that there'd be nothing left.
- danans 5y ago> And even worse: most of them don’t give a shit about the reputation of FB. They just want to send messages and share pictures through those apps. Group messaging and engagement algorithm amplified social media are different things though. Group messaging like WhatsApp, iMessage, and SMS, and photo sharing like Google photos or iPhoto have an inherently limited distribution of a given piece of content. It's not that you can't do nefarious things using these products, it's just harder to scale those. Engagement amplified social media, as found in varying degrees on Facebook, TikTok Instagram, YouTube, etc, have far more potential to move society as a whole - for better or for worse. Therefore it's not unreasonable for people to continue to use something like WhatsApp for limited group conversations while refusing to use Facebook or similar products due to the increased risk of exposure to harmful content. One is free to despise any product Facebook or any company creates just because they are Facebook, but that's a whole different discussion.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- azta6521 5y agoExactly - and FB itself knows that there is no wave of exits following a scandal. They learned that. They can have a conversation with one group and know the other group / the business is not really touched by any of this.
- koonsolo 5y agoWell, there are others of "us" that realize Facebook is a company just like any other company. Switching from Facebook to X or Y doesn't realy make any difference. And if you do think it makes a difference, you are very naive.
- eigengrau5150 5y ago> And even worse: most of them don’t give a shit about the reputation of FB. They don't have to care. They just shouldn't be surprised if I refuse to hire them because I was able to find them on Facebook/Instagram. Likewise, if they worked for Facebook I won't hire them. They're tainted. LOL
- dresdenfire 5y agoWow, you basically doing hate speech for FB engineers on a social site and calling FB bad. Pot calling kettle black?
- eigengrau5150 5y agoThere are no limits to my hypocrisy.
- pawelmurias 5y agoDo you pay better a lot then better then the FAANG companies?
- m463 5y agoI think AOL is doomed too. (AOL seems to be surviving and generating revenue, I suspect generations must disappear to end this)
- lkrubner 5y agoThe increasing deluge of articles on the theme "Instagram is hurting the mental health of teen girls" has the potential to evolve into the kind of widespread moral panic among parents that destroyed MySpace back in 2006-2008.
- tokoaso 5y agoThey dont matter. What matters in a hyper competitive tech world, is whether you can sustain a level of quality in hiring. There are so many other options for smart people who dont want to deal with the drama. FB has definately taken a reputational hit that will effect that quality. Which will effect the solutions they come up with. And given the list of issues they have to deal with, they will stay in the news for all the wrong things for a long time to come.
- lm28469 5y ago> don’t have the slightest clue that Insta and WhatsApp belong to the FB group When you open the apps the only thing written on the screen, besides their name, is "From Facebook", so I doubt that's true. Most don't give a shit though, you're right about that
- ur-whale 5y ago> so I doubt that's true. You're assuming people reading what's on their screen. News at 11: they don't. They just look at the colors and quickly focus on the thing they are used to actually reading (like the thread content).
- snarf21 5y agoExactly, no one is leaving unless something truly better comes along. Oh wait, our failed SEC and FTC let FB buy up the new and better things because they knew they couldn't compete. I'm assuming the next good thing will get sold to one of the mega companies too.
- ravenstine 5y agoIn reality, neither do most people in our group, if you can even call it that. Just like all the other times an exodus from Facebook was declared, a year later it's as if nothing had happened and we come to find out that everyone still uses it to some capacity. Not to fault anyone, but all of this has been said before. Frankly, if these issues mattered to people, they would have left Facebook a long time ago. None of the blown "whistles" so far have tooted a message everyone didn't already know.
- winternett 5y agoPeople will eventually abandon FB and WA if you ask me, the accelerant to that is their friends leaving and no longer logging in over time, and also the authentication eco-system slowly disconnecting from the platform. Like Friendster, ClubHouse, and MySpace, there is a life cycle for every app. All the redisign and rebranding can't cure a good idea that has festered into a bad idea. Facebook's tenure has been long indeed, but it's best time has likely passed. Many people also don't realize the tactics that platforms use to try to uphold the illusion that they are still active, including paying influencers to post, and in even creating totally fake accounts. I won't say any names, but this is why most sites no longer publish their active user numbers like they did when they were growing, because many were caught as well back then in overstating their active user numbers.
- CPLNTN 5y ago> All the redisign and rebranding can't cure a good idea that has festered into a bad idea. I think you are speaking from a soft eng perspective. Most people don't actually care about the product features / reputation. It's a social media and that means that the only thing that matter is that other people are on it. No service currently has the critical mass of user to outshine the FB group, and i think this will be the case for a long time.
- aaroninsf 5y agoSetting aside whether this is hyperbole or not, not that I disagree with the claim generally, one very real impact of their malfeasance is their reputation among their prospective and existing workforce. It is not an exaggeration to say that I have never—not in 25 years in the industry—known or known of or read accounts of people who variously quit over their amorality, have turned down offers (including at VERY high levels) over it, or confronted recruiters with challenges around it (historically resulting in cessation of recruiting efforts; hottake: they will not be able to do that any longer, because it will winnow their pool too aggressively). I myself harbor acute emnity to them and have been ignoring a persistent recruiter for many months over this; and am regularly down-voted here for saying what I'm going to say again: If you work for them, quit. If you do business with them, don't. There should be consequences for this level of amorality. If you think it's the status quo, you're simply factually wrong; there is no shortage of other companies, working in related domains, who do not feel that damage to the health and wellbeing of either their clients or the society in which they operate is a natural, inevitable, and excusable cost of doing business. They are not the root cause of, but are massive enabler of, forces which pose an existential threat to our democracy. Their reputation is merely coming into alignment with a truth they have invested hundreds of millions of dollars suppressing.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- wolverine876 5y agoPardon the very general comment, but it seems that for every problem, nowadays people have to say it's hopeless, nobody cares, and nobody will do anything. Someone the other day was mocking to me the idea that collective, voluntary, cooperative action could accomplish anything. Did they ever use the Internet (in fairness, they aren't in IT and may not be aware of FOSS - but Wikipedia?)? Every non-profit? The all-volunteer soldiers of the American Revolution and of today? All the democracies born of the people overthrowing the tyrants? The great reduction of smoking, increase in exercise and healthy diet? All the people that are wearing masks (~everybody, where I am)? The response to natural disasters? Does anyone critically examine these graphite-thin arguments? It's not all or nothing - FB operates in society, and they do things and will do things in response to pressure and to avoid other problems. They aren't canceling all moderation tomorrow, for example. The public can be persuaded. Why do many spend so much advertising on Facebook?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y agoLooks like the parent comment is some sort of "reply" to the title. Curiousity might lead some to actually look at the article. It is very short. For those who won't, the tag line is "The problem starts at the top". Perhaps that is a reference to Zuckerberg. The topic is reputation. The article quickly summarises the recent complaints being made against Facebook. Then it cuts to the chase. "The most damaging claim this week gained the least attention. Ms Haugen alleges that Facebook has concealed a decline in its young American users. She revealed internal projections that a drop in teenagers' engagement could lead to an overall decline in American users of 45% within the next two years." This is where FB could potentially run afoul with the SEC. Its also where FB is continuing to provide material for lawyers representing large instutional investors who want to sue Facebook. The parent comment, typical of others routinely shared on HN, seems to suggest the only thing that matters is what "most people" think. IOW, whatever is discussed on HN should be ignored because people who do not read HN have no opinion on it. (If they do not read HN, then how would they.) Here, the Economist suggests otherwise. What matters to the Economist is not what "most people" think. Instead it focuses on what the people who work at Facebook think. "Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return. Even when it set out plausible responses to Ms Haugen, people no longer wanted to hear. The firm risks joining the ranks of corporate untouchables like big tobacco. If that idea takes hold, Facebook risks losing its young, liberal staff."
- heresie-dabord 5y ago> the company should look hard at its public face. Mark Zuckerberg [...] increasingly looks like a liability In sum, TFA suggests that the business may need a better spokesperson. The business model isn't going to vanish, but it is very dependent on perception.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- that_guy_iain 5y ago> But: most people I know don’t have the slightest clue that Insta and WhatsApp belong to the FB group. They would have found out this week when they all went down. Most people know who owns what. They just don't care that much. We know Nestle is terrible but still buy their products because they taste good.