[EDIT] I don't know why this post has been flagged. It was on the front page for a while, now it's gone. Are there any mods who can comment?
-------
‘The revelations may be “the straw that breaks the camel’s back,” said Rishad Tobaccowala, chief growth officer for the Publicis Groupe, one of the world’s biggest ad companies. “Now we know Facebook will do whatever it takes to make money. They have absolutely no morals.”’
When an ad executive is calling you out for doing whatever it takes to make money... you know you’ve got problems.
I remain convinced that the only thing that will turn Facebook around longterm is a new CEO. No illusions about that happening any time soon due to Zuck’s control of voting shares. The stock will have to tank for at least another 3-6 months before the prospect of a shareholder revolt will finally motivate the board of directors to put an adult in charge.
I’m no fan of Uber, but I have to admit that they have made progress as a company since Kalanick was ousted and Khosrowshashahi took over. The same kind of values-based turnaround is possible at FB. But not with Zuck at the helm.
I don’t have a crystal ball, but if I had money to play the market I would be shorting the heck out of FB right now. So I think you’re in good shape. That said, did you consider working for another company that wasn’t so ethically compromised?
Well, I consider this my golden ticket to raise the money needed to comfortably start a family with my partner. Call me Machiavellian, but this is the goal I’m willing to work in the sewers a few years.
You’re undermining the well-being of your future children by doing so: you generate the start-up costs for your family by creating a world in which a company will psychologically manipulate them from the age they’re starting to form their independent identity onwards. For that matter, it might actually even undermine your relationship with your partner — by constantly exposing them to lifestyle porn and fostering unhappiness.
I hope that ends well for you.
Sometimes, your means goals can undermine your top-priority goal.
If you were really Machiavellian, you’d be a welder with a side project using pilfered IP — realizing that being “in the sewers” is much more productive if you’re not destabilizing the very society you’re going to later depend on.
My dad taught me critical thinking and to think about the motives of different actors around us (people, corporations, media, politicians).
I’ll try to raise my children similarly. I’ll teach them about privacy, like my dad who insisted that each family member should have their own account on the family computer, even when we were small kids with my brother.
The way I see it, if it weren’t for FB, there would be others trying to manipulate them, like other tech companies, advertisers in general, or simply scammers. So the need to raise your children to be conscious about these things is not a recent development, and not strictly due to FB. I know this doesn’t make me “innocent” though.
“The world is already toxic, there’s nothing wrong with me manufacturing poison!”
I get the logic, I just don’t agree — and I think it’s the kind of thinking that underlies “penny wise, pound foolish” or similar sayings. It’s also just outright untrue that anything like Facebook existed over 20 years ago — you’re contributing to something new, or at least a massive escalation in kind likely to bring about qualitative differences, not merely producing “more of the same”.
Also, I think it’s naive to say kids with critical thinking skills are equipped to fend off hundreds of PhDs backed by thousands of programmers implementing their tools, coupled to all of their friends peer pressuring them.
Or adults, or institutions, or....
I don’t want you to think I don’t respect your motivations or view, though — I just think you made some errors in assessing trade offs, in a way that hurts not only you, but everyone else.
I think that’s worth pointing out.
Have a good one, and sincerely, best luck starting a family!
Okay, I kind of get where you're coming from... but if you're good enough to get hired at Facebook, why not get hired at another BigTechCo?
Maybe you'll get a bit less on salary, but that may be offset by stock options that increase in value. As opposed to joining a company when you are already convinced its value is on the way down, or even hoping for that scenario. It's weird, it's like you're betting against your own team.
Sorry, didn’t realize I was replying to you (= OP).
I was referring to this scenario:
>The stock will have to tank for at least another 3-6 months before the prospect of a shareholder revolt will finally motivate the board of directors to put an adult in charge.
If this happens then there’s potential for the stock to bounce back. Of course me joining would have nothing to do with it, but it would be my best-case scenario.
Congrats! I hope your RSUs provide you everything you desire. I hope you never have to be bothered by the actions taken by your betters, as they cement their ability to continue standing on your neck.
When an ad executive is calling you out for doing whatever it takes to make money... you know you’ve got problems.
Oh, I don't think that quite describes this. Someone else is calling out Facebook for lack of morals. Then the press goes to advertisers for comment. Advertiser then say "shocked, shocked, this will hurt them terribly. We, ourselves, are always upstanding and penalize immoral actors terribly." And yeah, from a fairly immoral bunch of folks, who would think that what they say and what they do would be different?
I would be "shocked, shocked" myself.
Plus I'd assume revenue, not stock price, is the thing to watch.
I think of it like watching something really big move:
There’s a lot of whines and groans as stress builds, but inertia holds it in a roughly steady state until — snap! — it’s in motion, and the entire side of a mountain sloughs off.
It’s really bad for FB if large ad agencies are talking about them as two faced, doubting their honesty and wanting to see actions, or just outright grumbling about how they want to move platforms.
Those are the noises that precede a large scale break.
We don't know exactly why users flagged this post, but it's possible that they felt the issue was sufficiently discussed at the time (there were heaps of Facebook-related posts about the report then). We've turned off the flags now so the discussion can continue.
Thanks for the possible explanation. I just came across the source article in my news reader today so I assumed it was today's news. Not sure how I missed it last month.
I know there were various threads on HN about the NYT report, but I don't remember any discussion of this particular topic around advertisers. Did I miss this being previously discussed in HN?
Why is this flagged? Advertisers calling out Facebook is a big shift in the industry. Two years ago, agencies talked about their love for Facebook's people-based marketing.
26 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 59.1 ms ] thread-------
‘The revelations may be “the straw that breaks the camel’s back,” said Rishad Tobaccowala, chief growth officer for the Publicis Groupe, one of the world’s biggest ad companies. “Now we know Facebook will do whatever it takes to make money. They have absolutely no morals.”’
When an ad executive is calling you out for doing whatever it takes to make money... you know you’ve got problems.
I remain convinced that the only thing that will turn Facebook around longterm is a new CEO. No illusions about that happening any time soon due to Zuck’s control of voting shares. The stock will have to tank for at least another 3-6 months before the prospect of a shareholder revolt will finally motivate the board of directors to put an adult in charge.
I’m no fan of Uber, but I have to admit that they have made progress as a company since Kalanick was ousted and Khosrowshashahi took over. The same kind of values-based turnaround is possible at FB. But not with Zuck at the helm.
I hope so! I’m starting there next year so the less their stock is worth then the more I can profit on my RSUs assigned on joining.
I hope that ends well for you.
Sometimes, your means goals can undermine your top-priority goal.
If you were really Machiavellian, you’d be a welder with a side project using pilfered IP — realizing that being “in the sewers” is much more productive if you’re not destabilizing the very society you’re going to later depend on.
I’ll try to raise my children similarly. I’ll teach them about privacy, like my dad who insisted that each family member should have their own account on the family computer, even when we were small kids with my brother.
The way I see it, if it weren’t for FB, there would be others trying to manipulate them, like other tech companies, advertisers in general, or simply scammers. So the need to raise your children to be conscious about these things is not a recent development, and not strictly due to FB. I know this doesn’t make me “innocent” though.
I get the logic, I just don’t agree — and I think it’s the kind of thinking that underlies “penny wise, pound foolish” or similar sayings. It’s also just outright untrue that anything like Facebook existed over 20 years ago — you’re contributing to something new, or at least a massive escalation in kind likely to bring about qualitative differences, not merely producing “more of the same”.
Also, I think it’s naive to say kids with critical thinking skills are equipped to fend off hundreds of PhDs backed by thousands of programmers implementing their tools, coupled to all of their friends peer pressuring them.
Or adults, or institutions, or....
I don’t want you to think I don’t respect your motivations or view, though — I just think you made some errors in assessing trade offs, in a way that hurts not only you, but everyone else.
I think that’s worth pointing out.
Have a good one, and sincerely, best luck starting a family!
Maybe you'll get a bit less on salary, but that may be offset by stock options that increase in value. As opposed to joining a company when you are already convinced its value is on the way down, or even hoping for that scenario. It's weird, it's like you're betting against your own team.
After that I’ll be hoping for their stock to shoot up of course. And that’s the scenario OP was outlining.
You already explained this in your parent comment.
"After that I’ll be hoping for their stock to shoot up of course."
Why would it suddenly shoot up after you join? Assuming you're not joining as CEO, of course.
"And that’s the scenario OP was outlining."
What are you referring to? This scenario was not outlined in the original NYT article nor in my root comment.
I was referring to this scenario:
>The stock will have to tank for at least another 3-6 months before the prospect of a shareholder revolt will finally motivate the board of directors to put an adult in charge.
If this happens then there’s potential for the stock to bounce back. Of course me joining would have nothing to do with it, but it would be my best-case scenario.
Oh, I don't think that quite describes this. Someone else is calling out Facebook for lack of morals. Then the press goes to advertisers for comment. Advertiser then say "shocked, shocked, this will hurt them terribly. We, ourselves, are always upstanding and penalize immoral actors terribly." And yeah, from a fairly immoral bunch of folks, who would think that what they say and what they do would be different?
I would be "shocked, shocked" myself.
Plus I'd assume revenue, not stock price, is the thing to watch.
NYT is a competitor to Facebook, so it's kind of tacky. (I didn't flag the post though.)
There’s a lot of whines and groans as stress builds, but inertia holds it in a roughly steady state until — snap! — it’s in motion, and the entire side of a mountain sloughs off.
It’s really bad for FB if large ad agencies are talking about them as two faced, doubting their honesty and wanting to see actions, or just outright grumbling about how they want to move platforms.
Those are the noises that precede a large scale break.
I know there were various threads on HN about the NYT report, but I don't remember any discussion of this particular topic around advertisers. Did I miss this being previously discussed in HN?