4 ms·

More like "finding that people are corruptible", it's not like Facebook wanted this or did it on purpose.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> it's not like Facebook wanted this or did it on purpose Facebook (and in this case, its employees) certainly aren’t hurrying to fix a power structure that gives them arbitrary influence.
- Huh1337 4y ago
  They also certainly aren't hurrying to allow corruption. That goes against company interests. One thing is keeping arbitrary decision power for the company, entirely another thing is allowing your managers to wield it in your name and however they want. I bet you Facebook doesn't want any of the latter.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > bet you Facebook doesn't want any of the latter It’s not in Facebook’s shareholders’ interest. That’s all we can say. Concentrated, opaque and arbitrary power centres are predictably corruptible. Creating and nurturing those at multiple levels of an organisation, one whose senior leadership has shown a pathological history of lying moreover, speaks to an unsaid intent, or at the very least, overt tolerance of the pattern of behaviour. It’s also self reinforcing, as the culture increasingly forgets how to build and protect other power structures.
  - toss1 4y ago
    >>That goes against company interests. Nice ideal statement The problem is that there is no "company" that has a will or ability to think or act on it's interests - the "company" is literally a virtual creation. What DOES exist are a collection of people in executive positions. Some of them may take a long view and see that what is good for the company and stakeholders is good for them, and act on those ideas. But, sadly, what usually seems to happen is that the system actively filters into executive positions sociopathic individuals who will happily game the system for whatever advantage they can gain, and they're usually smart enough to not do it in the easier-to-catch direct bribery/kickback schemes. But, if they think they won't get caught, many will do so. >>I bet you Facebook doesn't want any of the latter. Again, there is no "Facebook" who doesn't want the latter. There is Zuckerberg, with primary controlling interest, who wants what he wants, and the board and a bunch of executives. And he can exert some level of control, including the threat to summarily fire them upon his displeasure. That will not prevent any of them bending the organization to their own benefit if they think they can get away with it, and nothing says in advance that they won't try something corrupt if they think they can get away with it (& nothing says they're right or wrong about thinking they can get away with it either).
    - Huh1337 4y ago
      Not even a major/primary/only shareholder can just do whatever they want. There definitely is a strong separation between Zuckerberg and the company. Even if he had 100% the company still would have to act fiscally responsibly for itself. Read the law.
      - toss1 4y ago
        >>Not even a major/primary/only shareholder can just do whatever they want. Of course not. I did not say or imply that they could. I was merely clarifying that there is no abstract "company" with a will of its own, and that the major players, WITHIN the constraints of the law and the other players, can and often do exploit power for their own purposes rather than an abstract ideal. >>There definitely is a strong separation between Zuckerberg and the company. Even if he had 100% the company still would have to act fiscally responsibly for itself. Yes, people can have multiple hats, and there are laws about fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. There are often lawsuits over failures to uphold such responsibilities. >>Read the law. Yes, I do read the law. I do not make the silly assumption, as you apparently do, that just because there is a law, it fully covers all possible wrongdoing and people always follow it. There are nearly unlimited actions that can be legitimately dual-purpose, benefiting the corporation and the individual executive/board member, whoever. and that does not even begin to account for the actions that are only arguably beneficial to the corporation but really extract value for the wrongdoer. I've literally heard an executive state "There's 1000 ways to screw minority shareholders", and watched them do it. There's a practice that screws creditors that is so common there's a name for it - a "cram-down". I could go on endlessly. If you really think that the fact that laws define responsibility of corporate players, and therefore there is no wrongdoing, I'd like to talk to you about an opportunity for some great oceanfront property in Kansas. Sheesh.
  - prvit 4y ago
    > They also certainly aren't hurrying to allow corruption. That goes against company interests. I suspect that corruption might actually help facebook avoid a bunch of negative attention from powerful individuals who’d otherwise struggle to get their account unbanned/verified/whatever.
Balero 4y ago
What is Facebook if not the people leading it? These people are high up in the organisation, and according to OP other people at other levels are also doing this on purpose. Perhaps personifying a huge company isn't the right way to go.
- Huh1337 4y ago
  The codified standards and rules, definitely not an arbitrary decision of a person who got fired over it.
yeasurebut 4y ago
Everyone at Facebook intentionally signed up to get paid from the data invasive ad money fire hose. They very much did it on purpose.
- Huh1337 4y ago
  No, I really don't think there's any rule at Facebook that says you should unban people if they have sex with you.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    Says something about a persons moral fibre if they take a bribe - but dont deliever said thing they were bribed to do. That kind of lack of character does not align with our values.
- jjk166 4y ago
  Pretty big jump from "I have no moral qualms with advertising" to "I am actively seeking to manipulate people into providing sexual favors to my coworkers"
  - yeasurebut 4y ago
    These companies have been in the news for screwing users and the public one way or another for decades now. It’s not 2002 anymore. Propping up the org props up all the unethical schemes. Personal preference to label self as merely looking passed one is gibberish.

> it's not like Facebook wanted this or did it on purpose Facebook (and in this case, its employees) certainly aren’t hurrying to fix a power structure that gives them arbitrary influence.

Huh1337 4y ago
They also certainly aren't hurrying to allow corruption. That goes against company interests. One thing is keeping arbitrary decision power for the company, entirely another thing is allowing your managers to wield it in your name and however they want. I bet you Facebook doesn't want any of the latter.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > bet you Facebook doesn't want any of the latter It’s not in Facebook’s shareholders’ interest. That’s all we can say. Concentrated, opaque and arbitrary power centres are predictably corruptible. Creating and nurturing those at multiple levels of an organisation, one whose senior leadership has shown a pathological history of lying moreover, speaks to an unsaid intent, or at the very least, overt tolerance of the pattern of behaviour. It’s also self reinforcing, as the culture increasingly forgets how to build and protect other power structures.
- toss1 4y ago
  >>That goes against company interests. Nice ideal statement The problem is that there is no "company" that has a will or ability to think or act on it's interests - the "company" is literally a virtual creation. What DOES exist are a collection of people in executive positions. Some of them may take a long view and see that what is good for the company and stakeholders is good for them, and act on those ideas. But, sadly, what usually seems to happen is that the system actively filters into executive positions sociopathic individuals who will happily game the system for whatever advantage they can gain, and they're usually smart enough to not do it in the easier-to-catch direct bribery/kickback schemes. But, if they think they won't get caught, many will do so. >>I bet you Facebook doesn't want any of the latter. Again, there is no "Facebook" who doesn't want the latter. There is Zuckerberg, with primary controlling interest, who wants what he wants, and the board and a bunch of executives. And he can exert some level of control, including the threat to summarily fire them upon his displeasure. That will not prevent any of them bending the organization to their own benefit if they think they can get away with it, and nothing says in advance that they won't try something corrupt if they think they can get away with it (& nothing says they're right or wrong about thinking they can get away with it either).
  - Huh1337 4y ago
    Not even a major/primary/only shareholder can just do whatever they want. There definitely is a strong separation between Zuckerberg and the company. Even if he had 100% the company still would have to act fiscally responsibly for itself. Read the law.
    - toss1 4y ago
      >>Not even a major/primary/only shareholder can just do whatever they want. Of course not. I did not say or imply that they could. I was merely clarifying that there is no abstract "company" with a will of its own, and that the major players, WITHIN the constraints of the law and the other players, can and often do exploit power for their own purposes rather than an abstract ideal. >>There definitely is a strong separation between Zuckerberg and the company. Even if he had 100% the company still would have to act fiscally responsibly for itself. Yes, people can have multiple hats, and there are laws about fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. There are often lawsuits over failures to uphold such responsibilities. >>Read the law. Yes, I do read the law. I do not make the silly assumption, as you apparently do, that just because there is a law, it fully covers all possible wrongdoing and people always follow it. There are nearly unlimited actions that can be legitimately dual-purpose, benefiting the corporation and the individual executive/board member, whoever. and that does not even begin to account for the actions that are only arguably beneficial to the corporation but really extract value for the wrongdoer. I've literally heard an executive state "There's 1000 ways to screw minority shareholders", and watched them do it. There's a practice that screws creditors that is so common there's a name for it - a "cram-down". I could go on endlessly. If you really think that the fact that laws define responsibility of corporate players, and therefore there is no wrongdoing, I'd like to talk to you about an opportunity for some great oceanfront property in Kansas. Sheesh.
- prvit 4y ago
  > They also certainly aren't hurrying to allow corruption. That goes against company interests. I suspect that corruption might actually help facebook avoid a bunch of negative attention from powerful individuals who’d otherwise struggle to get their account unbanned/verified/whatever.

Balero 4y ago

What is Facebook if not the people leading it? These people are high up in the organisation, and according to OP other people at other levels are also doing this on purpose. Perhaps personifying a huge company isn't the right way to go.

Huh1337 4y ago
The codified standards and rules, definitely not an arbitrary decision of a person who got fired over it.

yeasurebut 4y ago

Everyone at Facebook intentionally signed up to get paid from the data invasive ad money fire hose. They very much did it on purpose.

Huh1337 4y ago
No, I really don't think there's any rule at Facebook that says you should unban people if they have sex with you.
- blitzar 4y ago
  Says something about a persons moral fibre if they take a bribe - but dont deliever said thing they were bribed to do. That kind of lack of character does not align with our values.
jjk166 4y ago
Pretty big jump from "I have no moral qualms with advertising" to "I am actively seeking to manipulate people into providing sexual favors to my coworkers"
- yeasurebut 4y ago
  These companies have been in the news for screwing users and the public one way or another for decades now. It’s not 2002 anymore. Propping up the org props up all the unethical schemes. Personal preference to label self as merely looking passed one is gibberish.