If facebook were really serious about staying relevant, they wouldn't make their shit website suck so fucking much.
I mean, god damn, facebook.com fucking sucks. It never stops asking you to log in, no matter who posts what. It could be Carmack himself making a public post:
WOULD YOU LIKE
TO LOG IN OR
CREATE AN ACCOUNT???
IT'S FREE AND
ALWAYS WILL BE!!!
No, facebook. No I don't. And I don't want to use the fucking mobile app either. I want to read something important, that John Carmack wrote.
And then, if you do log in? It's just a black hole of total fucking nightmares.
I hate it when executives start using war analogies to talk about business.
It has always indicated that I should start looking for a new job because I'm not going to fit with the new culture. It's not just that I'm an anti-war hippie either. Describing your business in terms of war both disrespects the tremendous toll paid by soldiers and civilians, and indicates a "winners and losers" mindset, but that mindset also indicates it's part of your objective to hurt 'the enemy'.
It's a morally broken, inefficient and emotional way to look at business.
A previous job had the “tiger team” who would meet in the “war room”. But to the entire rest of the company they were mediocre middle-managers of a medium-sized IT department and everyone else called it the “comfy room” because it had sofas and a Nintendo.
Also, to anyone with similar delusions, a Bluetooth headset does not make you a gunship pilot...
If there's a concise, non-militaristic name for a team with a specific, urgent, short-term objective holed up in a room together, I'd love to hear about it. "Strike team" and "war room" just work really well.
Another true story, at a different job I was once on the “disaster recovery” team but that implied there might be a disaster so we became the “business continuity team” but that implied there might be an interruption so we were finally renamed “the major events team”.
well tactics has military connotations but also applies outside of the military so short term is the tactical team, and the long term is the strategy team.
The fire brigade. If you call the team that then you will find that where they meet doesn't require a name, since it is just an abstract representation of the burning building.
Really. Doesn't seem that inefficient if you look at how aggressive some of the top companies are when it comes to competition. That last part is the key, it's a competition and there are winners and losers.
Winning might be that you have carved out a niche market but that probably means you are a loser in the mass market, this is not inherently a bad thing in my mind.
This is probably the most exciting thing Mark has said in years. I rather like it because it probably means that Facebook will be making some bold moves soon.
Which bit do you think is bold? That Facebook is paying right wing lobbyists to tie criticism of its past behaviour to George Soros or that it "tapped its business relationships, persuading a Jewish civil rights group to cast some criticism of the company as anti-Semitic,"?
Both of these seem like the kind of horrible dick moves that define Facebook as a company.
If they were truely bold they would look for ways to operate without gathering massive amounts of people's personal data or supporting those only interested in fostering chaos in the West.
If Zuckerberg was a truly bold leader he'd be winning hearts and minds by showing up to Parliaments in Canada and the UK when summoned over his company's past misdeeds ...instead of cowering behind generic press releases saying "we didn't do nufin'".
My bad. I wasn’t thinking about the real world implications of what he said when I wrote the above. I was thinking about the entertainment value of the situation. Sorry.
> War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.
Interesting, Chinese IT companies have long been controlling the media, basically corralling "reporters and self-media operators" into private chat groups administered by their staff, therefore excluding outsiders and naysayers, effectively forestall most negative coverage.
Also they don't have quite as many insider leaks.
Cellphone companies like Huawei and Xiaomi would give these people test units and guidelines about how to write articles. You can hardly see candid reviews, a lot of them just do shit-tier translation of TheVerge and other English sites(not sure authorized or not).
The "self-media" cottage industry that Wechat and Toutiao (by TikTok parent company ByteDance) created, is of 99.99% garbage, but they know what content their users want and like to see, boasts "give me a pic and I can spin it into a hit story", they basically provided a heaven platform for sensationalists and hustlers like this guy.
I'm just gonna say it - people being swayed by Russian Facebook trolls is just another form of political campaigning. If you can't learn to be objective on the internet about what you read don't you think you would be manipulated through alternative media anyway? Remember, there are no such things as stupid questions - only stupid people.
Foreign countries undermining the manipulating democracy is "just another way form of political campaigning". That‘s a really really cynical way of framing the problem.
I'm really curious if there's a deeper reason for why companies are suddenly thrown under the bus by the mainstream media, or if it's just journalists mimicking each other because they lack imagination. First Elon, now Zuck. Who's next?
It is really this. Google was founded by two nice guys and somewhat went the way of large corporations. Facebook was founded by a jerk and just expanded its capacity to be a jerk.
There is a huge appetite for content and editors are constantly chasing the latest fashion in an attempt to gain readership. If you're a journalist it's much easier to get a piece picked up by an editor and published if it's in tune with the zeitgeist because then an editor is more likely to think it will capture peoples' attention.
I've come to the conclusion that the news/attention cycle is partly an emergent phenomenon explained by stuff like this. This means you get pretty big swings from one thing to another as editors chase each other to jump on the latest bandwagon and journalists push stories to every outlet they can find.
Add to that all the PR agencies, fake think tanks, spinmasters etc who will write pieces for hire and generally tip the scales (for a price). So if you have a particular angle to promote, you hire one of these companies, they write stories, op ed pieces, publish "research" etc favourable to your angle and give them to friendly journalists who pretty much just put their name on the byline and submit the story.
Sure. Maybe Zuckerberg shouldn't have put the screws to every media outlet on the planet. Is he so arrogant that he thought pissing all of them off in unison wouldn't have any blowback in their editorial decisions?
Oh, by the way, he's created a surveillance apparatus that would have been beyond even the wildest dreams of secret police everywhere 50 years ago. He collects thousands of discrete data points about every man, woman, and child on the planet who uses the Web, regardless of whether or not they use Facebook—or even have an account. He put such lax access security in place around that personal data that anyone who wanted to could get access to it. And he did nothing after detecting a state-sponsored propaganda war being waged against US citizens.
Very well put. There are a few articles detailing his own involvement with Russian players, including oligarchs invested in facebook. And didn't facebook take a lot of money from the and NSA business front back when it was still only for college students?
56 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 117 ms ] threadI know plenty of companies charge members to belong to private Facebook groups.
Great business for the group organizers while it lasts.
I mean, god damn, facebook.com fucking sucks. It never stops asking you to log in, no matter who posts what. It could be Carmack himself making a public post:
No, facebook. No I don't. And I don't want to use the fucking mobile app either. I want to read something important, that John Carmack wrote.And then, if you do log in? It's just a black hole of total fucking nightmares.
Sorry. Nope. Fuck you. GTFO.
It’s just that Sheryl Sandburg has been undermining him and kind of stabbing him in the back.
It has always indicated that I should start looking for a new job because I'm not going to fit with the new culture. It's not just that I'm an anti-war hippie either. Describing your business in terms of war both disrespects the tremendous toll paid by soldiers and civilians, and indicates a "winners and losers" mindset, but that mindset also indicates it's part of your objective to hurt 'the enemy'.
It's a morally broken, inefficient and emotional way to look at business.
A previous job had the “tiger team” who would meet in the “war room”. But to the entire rest of the company they were mediocre middle-managers of a medium-sized IT department and everyone else called it the “comfy room” because it had sofas and a Nintendo.
Also, to anyone with similar delusions, a Bluetooth headset does not make you a gunship pilot...
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5Qz3igEAlYw/maxresdefault.jpg
They were not this. They were Walter Mitty fantasists. That’s what happens when people take the “business is war” mindset too seriously.
How about “the priority one support team” in “meeting room A”?
Examples of "missions":
- Invading Normandy
- Launching a rocket
Examples of non-"missions":
- Deploying a new ad platform to your website
- Writing a photo-sharing app
This battle (ha!) was probably lost decades ago, though.
Winning might be that you have carved out a niche market but that probably means you are a loser in the mass market, this is not inherently a bad thing in my mind.
FB and Google have siphoned much of the media advertising money, so there's no love left.
Both of these seem like the kind of horrible dick moves that define Facebook as a company.
If they were truely bold they would look for ways to operate without gathering massive amounts of people's personal data or supporting those only interested in fostering chaos in the West.
If Zuckerberg was a truly bold leader he'd be winning hearts and minds by showing up to Parliaments in Canada and the UK when summoned over his company's past misdeeds ...instead of cowering behind generic press releases saying "we didn't do nufin'".
> War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.
-- George Orwell
Also they don't have quite as many insider leaks.
Cellphone companies like Huawei and Xiaomi would give these people test units and guidelines about how to write articles. You can hardly see candid reviews, a lot of them just do shit-tier translation of TheVerge and other English sites(not sure authorized or not).
The "self-media" cottage industry that Wechat and Toutiao (by TikTok parent company ByteDance) created, is of 99.99% garbage, but they know what content their users want and like to see, boasts "give me a pic and I can spin it into a hit story", they basically provided a heaven platform for sensationalists and hustlers like this guy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/fake-news-hillary-clin...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_such_thing_as_a_stupid_ques...
Zuck had “I’m CEO b!tch”
One is much more likable than the other.
I've come to the conclusion that the news/attention cycle is partly an emergent phenomenon explained by stuff like this. This means you get pretty big swings from one thing to another as editors chase each other to jump on the latest bandwagon and journalists push stories to every outlet they can find.
Add to that all the PR agencies, fake think tanks, spinmasters etc who will write pieces for hire and generally tip the scales (for a price). So if you have a particular angle to promote, you hire one of these companies, they write stories, op ed pieces, publish "research" etc favourable to your angle and give them to friendly journalists who pretty much just put their name on the byline and submit the story.
Oh, by the way, he's created a surveillance apparatus that would have been beyond even the wildest dreams of secret police everywhere 50 years ago. He collects thousands of discrete data points about every man, woman, and child on the planet who uses the Web, regardless of whether or not they use Facebook—or even have an account. He put such lax access security in place around that personal data that anyone who wanted to could get access to it. And he did nothing after detecting a state-sponsored propaganda war being waged against US citizens.
But sure. It's unfair.
https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/11/01/146204/tim-berners-...