6 ms·

While this is a trend across the board since the pandemic, for Facebook it is particularly troublesome because it's deeper rooted than at other companies. On an

by jd115 5y ago

While this is a trend across the board since the pandemic, for Facebook it is particularly troublesome because it's deeper rooted than at other companies. On an almost daily basis it is becoming more and more public knowledge that Facebook is in more legal trouble than it can handle and that the company no longer has much good standing in society (which, for a "social" media company, is a bit of a problem). Young people are not stupid, no one wants to work at a company with no future, even if it still pays well. The root of all these problems is, of course, the toxicity of Zuck.

tenpies 5y ago
> Facebook is in more legal trouble than it can handle and that the company no longer has much good standing in society (which, for a "social" media company, is a bit of a problem). Is it? I've always liked the perspective that Facebook's product, to governments, beyond mass surveillance, is societal stability (or lack there of). If there's one company that could almost single-handedly cause an actual insurrection in the United States, it's Facebook. That sort of power doesn't have to be stated explicitly and the mainstream Liberal media spent 4 years stating it quite openly. Nancy Pelosi is a well known Facebook investor. Any major issue from the government can just result in a "bug" that accidentally amplifies the opposition and just like that, the cause of the issue is voted out.
- azangru 5y ago
  > If there's one company that could almost single-handedly cause an actual insurrection in the United States, it's Facebook Why not Twitter?
  - travoc 5y ago
    Facebook is (was?) used by the masses. Twitter is mostly the same group of influential people talking to each other. Source: https://mashable.com/article/twitter-pew-study-echo-chambers https://mashable.com/article/twitter-pew-study-echo-chambers
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    Twitter doesn't seem to have the market penetration. It's public by default permission also creates a different dynamic
btown 5y ago
I imagine many FB employees also envisioned themselves working their way to levels of seniority where they could nudge policy and practices towards the better (however they might define that). After all, one might have said, there’s no other place where an individual’s career in tech can have greater impact on so many people’s lives. Now, seeing how even senior people on dedicated integrity teams had little ability to steer the ship, and being constantly reminded of this by friends outside FB even if it had previously been whispered internally, must be sobering for many of these folks.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  What sort of ship steering do you think these employees wanted? More moderation and censorship? Or less? Or just different? Or is it more around reducing engagement based goals that drive addiction to social media? Or is it around targeting children?
  - btown 5y ago
    I suppose part of the problem is that even the employees likely don't know what sort of ship-steering they want, and hoped to gradually get enough context to eventually be able to see an optimal path forward. But unless conversations are happening constantly, that day will always be years in the future. And Facebook's internal framing that "those conversations should always play second fiddle to engagement" has effectively quashed any hopes of productive context-aware consensus. The question on everyone's mind, of course, is: did leadership intentionally prevent these conversations and from-research-to-practice pipelines from occurring, or was their ineffectiveness simply an unintended side effect of the laser focus on engagement? Based on the anecdotes shared with media of how much of the balance was driven by public-relations considerations, one imagines that the perception skews towards the former. And that's not a good place to be from a retention perspective.
freewilly1040 5y ago
They’ve certainly faced an onslaught from the press, which has decided they are Philip Morris 2.0. It’s very unclear if that is going to translate into actual legal trouble. If I was at FB I’d be more concerned with how young people are rejecting it.
- erect_hacker3 5y ago
  I think FB should market to children more aggressively, don’t you?
- pm90 5y ago
  Facebook presents an existential threat to the business of most traditional news media and they have a platform that actively promotes misinformation. The Press is doing their job: finding out what goes on inside Facebook and reporting on it. As someone not really involved either way, the responses of Facebook to legitimate questions has been entirely unsatisfactory and justifies the negative coverage they’ve received.
  - cbozeman 5y ago
    > Facebook presents an existential threat to the business of most traditional news media and they have a platform that actively promotes misinformation. That's mainstream media's job... that's why they're pissed. Anyone remember Mika Bres-whatever saying on national television, "They're telling people what to think! That-that's our job!" I do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quU_Tbv96Wk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quU_Tbv96Wk
    - throwawaysea 5y ago
      I had never seen this clip before, thanks for sharing. Is there more context or a longer clip? I think I heard the woman say “that is your job” at the end but it wasn’t clear who that was directed at.
      - fallingknife 5y ago
missinfo 5y ago
I don't think the root problem is any one person, given that Twitter is even more destructive to society. It's the users, it's the incentives of the platforms, it's bad actors. There's low trust, a breakdown of institutions, a raging culture war. It's complicated.
- chefkoch 5y ago
  How so? Twitter has perhabs less than 10% of users as Facebook.
  - cbozeman 5y ago
    Twitter has out-sized influence.
    - missinfo 5y ago
      Right, it's where the mob is and where the journalists and politicians are. They use and watch Twitter very closely and it informs what actions they take. Companies too.
- jd115 5y ago
  When a company (like Facebook) or a nation state (like Russia) is deeply dysfunctional and it has for a very long time been ruled by only one person, it is in fact fairly reasonable to conclude that the root problem is, at present, that one specific person.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by jd115 5y ago

tenpies 5y ago

> Facebook is in more legal trouble than it can handle and that the company no longer has much good standing in society (which, for a "social" media company, is a bit of a problem). Is it? I've always liked the perspective that Facebook's product, to governments, beyond mass surveillance, is societal stability (or lack there of). If there's one company that could almost single-handedly cause an actual insurrection in the United States, it's Facebook. That sort of power doesn't have to be stated explicitly and the mainstream Liberal media spent 4 years stating it quite openly. Nancy Pelosi is a well known Facebook investor. Any major issue from the government can just result in a "bug" that accidentally amplifies the opposition and just like that, the cause of the issue is voted out.

azangru 5y ago
> If there's one company that could almost single-handedly cause an actual insurrection in the United States, it's Facebook Why not Twitter?
- travoc 5y ago
  Facebook is (was?) used by the masses. Twitter is mostly the same group of influential people talking to each other. Source: https://mashable.com/article/twitter-pew-study-echo-chambers https://mashable.com/article/twitter-pew-study-echo-chambers
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  Twitter doesn't seem to have the market penetration. It's public by default permission also creates a different dynamic

btown 5y ago

I imagine many FB employees also envisioned themselves working their way to levels of seniority where they could nudge policy and practices towards the better (however they might define that). After all, one might have said, there’s no other place where an individual’s career in tech can have greater impact on so many people’s lives. Now, seeing how even senior people on dedicated integrity teams had little ability to steer the ship, and being constantly reminded of this by friends outside FB even if it had previously been whispered internally, must be sobering for many of these folks.

throwawaysea 5y ago
What sort of ship steering do you think these employees wanted? More moderation and censorship? Or less? Or just different? Or is it more around reducing engagement based goals that drive addiction to social media? Or is it around targeting children?
- btown 5y ago
  I suppose part of the problem is that even the employees likely don't know what sort of ship-steering they want, and hoped to gradually get enough context to eventually be able to see an optimal path forward. But unless conversations are happening constantly, that day will always be years in the future. And Facebook's internal framing that "those conversations should always play second fiddle to engagement" has effectively quashed any hopes of productive context-aware consensus. The question on everyone's mind, of course, is: did leadership intentionally prevent these conversations and from-research-to-practice pipelines from occurring, or was their ineffectiveness simply an unintended side effect of the laser focus on engagement? Based on the anecdotes shared with media of how much of the balance was driven by public-relations considerations, one imagines that the perception skews towards the former. And that's not a good place to be from a retention perspective.

freewilly1040 5y ago

They’ve certainly faced an onslaught from the press, which has decided they are Philip Morris 2.0. It’s very unclear if that is going to translate into actual legal trouble. If I was at FB I’d be more concerned with how young people are rejecting it.

erect_hacker3 5y ago
I think FB should market to children more aggressively, don’t you?
pm90 5y ago
Facebook presents an existential threat to the business of most traditional news media and they have a platform that actively promotes misinformation. The Press is doing their job: finding out what goes on inside Facebook and reporting on it. As someone not really involved either way, the responses of Facebook to legitimate questions has been entirely unsatisfactory and justifies the negative coverage they’ve received.
- cbozeman 5y ago
  > Facebook presents an existential threat to the business of most traditional news media and they have a platform that actively promotes misinformation. That's mainstream media's job... that's why they're pissed. Anyone remember Mika Bres-whatever saying on national television, "They're telling people what to think! That-that's our job!" I do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quU_Tbv96Wk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quU_Tbv96Wk
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    I had never seen this clip before, thanks for sharing. Is there more context or a longer clip? I think I heard the woman say “that is your job” at the end but it wasn’t clear who that was directed at.
    - fallingknife 5y ago

missinfo 5y ago

I don't think the root problem is any one person, given that Twitter is even more destructive to society. It's the users, it's the incentives of the platforms, it's bad actors. There's low trust, a breakdown of institutions, a raging culture war. It's complicated.

chefkoch 5y ago
How so? Twitter has perhabs less than 10% of users as Facebook.
- cbozeman 5y ago
  Twitter has out-sized influence.
  - missinfo 5y ago
    Right, it's where the mob is and where the journalists and politicians are. They use and watch Twitter very closely and it informs what actions they take. Companies too.
jd115 5y ago
When a company (like Facebook) or a nation state (like Russia) is deeply dysfunctional and it has for a very long time been ruled by only one person, it is in fact fairly reasonable to conclude that the root problem is, at present, that one specific person.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]