Ask HN: Why is Facebook not having a harder time hiring?
With all repeated issues the company is suffering with their product strategy, software quality, privacy issues, executive retention, etc., why are people still eager to join the company?
49 comments
A lot of the issues are perceived to be overblown - and in more cases than HN would like to admit, they indeed are overblown.
Quite a few double standards are being applied to Facebook by the media-industrial complex and the uninformed. On the other hand, Facebook has stumbled a lot on their own and deserve a significant portion of the criticism they get. It's a nuanced topic and isn't as simple as "FB bad, pls delete".
Facebook also has an extremely talented employee base and they pay industry-high salaries while also doing cutting edge work.
Smart people want to work with other smart people on interesting large-scale problems.
Quite a few double standards are being applied to Facebook by the media-industrial complex and the uninformed. On the other hand, Facebook has stumbled a lot on their own and deserve a significant portion of the criticism they get. It's a nuanced topic and isn't as simple as "FB bad, pls delete".
Facebook also has an extremely talented employee base and they pay industry-high salaries while also doing cutting edge work.
Smart people want to work with other smart people on interesting large-scale problems.
Destroying a society, addicting people/kids, violating privacy, generating inequality consequences -- interesting large scale problems indeed -- FB is working on CAUSING them. REALLY smart people wouldn't do this.
But then, who cares if you make big money. For allowing this the US deserves everything it gets.
But then, who cares if you make big money. For allowing this the US deserves everything it gets.
This is the kind of rhetoric that people shut out. It doesn't work.
Facebook is many things, and has many effects on society. Not all of them are good and in some cases cause active harm but not all of them are bad and in some cases do active good. I think most people agree with this assessment if they're being intellectually honest.
And from there, we can try to identify what aspects are extremely problematic and potential solutions to curb the downside risks.
But the point of your rhetoric seems to be because you want to drive a specific agenda or viewpoint. Everything you said could equally apply to Television, Hollywood, or even Radio and those same arguments were made during the advent of those media too. It's just not interesting rhetoric to engage with.
Facebook is many things, and has many effects on society. Not all of them are good and in some cases cause active harm but not all of them are bad and in some cases do active good. I think most people agree with this assessment if they're being intellectually honest.
And from there, we can try to identify what aspects are extremely problematic and potential solutions to curb the downside risks.
But the point of your rhetoric seems to be because you want to drive a specific agenda or viewpoint. Everything you said could equally apply to Television, Hollywood, or even Radio and those same arguments were made during the advent of those media too. It's just not interesting rhetoric to engage with.
...and to hell with minor, uninteresting and not cutting-edge issues like impact on society.
Or, alternatively: moderation at global scale with billions of pieces of content per day is an incredibly difficult, challenging, interesting, and impactful problem to work on and requires a lot of new technology.
If you can reduce abusive patterns of misinformation on Facebook by a few percent, that's a huge win for both the company and for the billions of people affected by the service - by extension, society.
This is likely the other side of the argument.
If you can reduce abusive patterns of misinformation on Facebook by a few percent, that's a huge win for both the company and for the billions of people affected by the service - by extension, society.
This is likely the other side of the argument.
Or, even more alternatively, these aren't problems that could, or should be solved with/by technology, as much as Facebook's techbros do not want to believe it.
And besides, this isn't about moderation. It's that it is far from obvious if "social networks" (FB), or "personalized search results" (Google), or whatever it is that Twitter peddles provide any benefit to humanity.
That these are "incredibly difficult, challenging, interesting, and impactful problem to work on and requires a lot of new technology" -- well, good for them. So was developing V-2 rockets. At least that got us into space.
And besides, this isn't about moderation. It's that it is far from obvious if "social networks" (FB), or "personalized search results" (Google), or whatever it is that Twitter peddles provide any benefit to humanity.
That these are "incredibly difficult, challenging, interesting, and impactful problem to work on and requires a lot of new technology" -- well, good for them. So was developing V-2 rockets. At least that got us into space.
> That these are "incredibly difficult, challenging, interesting, and impactful problem to work on and requires a lot of new technology" -- well, good for them. So was developing V-2 rockets. At least that got us into space.
I think entertainment has immense value.
I love sharing dumb memes and pictures with my friends on Twitter. I like to laugh at cute puppy videos on Instagram. I like seeing vacation photos from my family on Facebook.
I also love watching SpaceX launches, reading about NASA's latest projects, and learning about the latest advances in AI.
I'm certainly in no position to boldly proclaim that rocket launches are absolutely more important than the movies that my friends and I enjoy watching. Fundamentally if the world was _only_ dedicated to building rockets and going to Mars, that'd be quite a boring society in my opinion. Luckily there's more than enough of us to go around to work on different problems that interest us.
We take something like email for granted, but I think that's at least as impactful/important of an invention as rockets - if not more.
I think entertainment has immense value.
I love sharing dumb memes and pictures with my friends on Twitter. I like to laugh at cute puppy videos on Instagram. I like seeing vacation photos from my family on Facebook.
I also love watching SpaceX launches, reading about NASA's latest projects, and learning about the latest advances in AI.
I'm certainly in no position to boldly proclaim that rocket launches are absolutely more important than the movies that my friends and I enjoy watching. Fundamentally if the world was _only_ dedicated to building rockets and going to Mars, that'd be quite a boring society in my opinion. Luckily there's more than enough of us to go around to work on different problems that interest us.
We take something like email for granted, but I think that's at least as impactful/important of an invention as rockets - if not more.
I am pretty sure people somehow managed to share silly jokes with friends long before there were FB or Twitter, and will manage long after they are gone. Some of the best books or music in existence were written before there even were computers, let alone FB.
You also seem to have missed the actual point -- that working on "incredibly difficult, challenging..." problems is rather orthogonal to doing something obviously evil (or good, for that matter). And in case of Facebook, or Twitter we can already see verifiable adverse effects of that work. While I have yet to see anyone manage to point out any positive effects apart from slight convenience for a few people.
You also seem to have missed the actual point -- that working on "incredibly difficult, challenging..." problems is rather orthogonal to doing something obviously evil (or good, for that matter). And in case of Facebook, or Twitter we can already see verifiable adverse effects of that work. While I have yet to see anyone manage to point out any positive effects apart from slight convenience for a few people.
> You also seem to have missed the actual point
I think we disagree on the premise of the conversation.
This is what I'm getting (feel free to correct me):
* You think that it's a foregone conclusion that social media is evil. To you, it's obviously evil and you believe people who are working in the space also think this but actively don't care because they're in it for the money.
* I think that social media is incredibly nuanced and is a vehicle for a lot of fun, good, convenience, and utility but also comes with a lot of unmitigated consequences a lot of which we're just now beginning to understand and reason about.
I can totally see why you'd think what you'd think, but it's the very premise that I'm trying to challenge here.
Do you remember the "TV rots your brain" rhetoric from the 90s? It came from a similar place where people thought that it was a foregone conclusion that "TV is evil". And in many ways it was! But in many ways it also wasn't and became a cultural cornerstone for generations. So if we extend your argument to actors, actresses, and other personalities that made TV possible - are they willful conspirators too?
Media is a tricky subject because it makes us stare at our human reflection and come to terms with it. Again, I don't mean to say this to absolve Facebook or Twitter or X_SOCIAL_MEDIA of their responsibility. They absolutely have their work cut out for them and it won't be an easy path forward. It shouldn't be.
But I'm an optimist at heart and I think progress is being made in the new media world. Maybe not fast enough, but it's being made. The conversations are clearly being had. Society is adapting and figuring out what roles these services play in our lives. No massive technology shift is without it's awkward teenage years.
I think we disagree on the premise of the conversation.
This is what I'm getting (feel free to correct me):
* You think that it's a foregone conclusion that social media is evil. To you, it's obviously evil and you believe people who are working in the space also think this but actively don't care because they're in it for the money.
* I think that social media is incredibly nuanced and is a vehicle for a lot of fun, good, convenience, and utility but also comes with a lot of unmitigated consequences a lot of which we're just now beginning to understand and reason about.
I can totally see why you'd think what you'd think, but it's the very premise that I'm trying to challenge here.
Do you remember the "TV rots your brain" rhetoric from the 90s? It came from a similar place where people thought that it was a foregone conclusion that "TV is evil". And in many ways it was! But in many ways it also wasn't and became a cultural cornerstone for generations. So if we extend your argument to actors, actresses, and other personalities that made TV possible - are they willful conspirators too?
Media is a tricky subject because it makes us stare at our human reflection and come to terms with it. Again, I don't mean to say this to absolve Facebook or Twitter or X_SOCIAL_MEDIA of their responsibility. They absolutely have their work cut out for them and it won't be an easy path forward. It shouldn't be.
But I'm an optimist at heart and I think progress is being made in the new media world. Maybe not fast enough, but it's being made. The conversations are clearly being had. Society is adapting and figuring out what roles these services play in our lives. No massive technology shift is without it's awkward teenage years.
Actually, I think that "social media" as a platonic ideal is more useless than evil. Now, the social media that we actually have -- FB, Twitter and alike -- that appears to be quite obviously evil as it promotes wrong incentives (number of "friends", likes, reposts, and a culture of outrage because "engagement". And then, of course, we have FB that has been caught, multiple times, doing clearly evil things while saying 'we're very-very sorry" for the previous thing they were caught doing.
Now we could have an entirely separate conversation on whether this is because they are actively evil (which does not seem outside the realm of possibilities for FB) or because they are just giving the public what it wants.
For people who work there, though, I might blame older ones (including at least one relative) who should know better, but young kids who had just graduated and are offered salaries better than most people will ever see in their lives... nah, they just don't think about it. It's not like elite colleges that feed FAANGs were doing a great job (or any job, really) teaching ethics, so why should kids in that nice, well-paid and well-fed bubble care?
Now we could have an entirely separate conversation on whether this is because they are actively evil (which does not seem outside the realm of possibilities for FB) or because they are just giving the public what it wants.
For people who work there, though, I might blame older ones (including at least one relative) who should know better, but young kids who had just graduated and are offered salaries better than most people will ever see in their lives... nah, they just don't think about it. It's not like elite colleges that feed FAANGs were doing a great job (or any job, really) teaching ethics, so why should kids in that nice, well-paid and well-fed bubble care?
What do you mean by "Facebook's techbros?" Can you elaborate? Are you under the assumption that only men work at Facebook?
You don't have to be male to be a techbro, in a way.
I am also reasonably sure that FB (as well Google and others) are engaged in some pretty public efforts to improve the gender balance in tech. Or at least pay lip service to doing so. Might they be doing so because there actually is a pretty well known gender disbalance in tech.
Of course if you were meaning to say that a lot of negative moves on FB's part come from quite female Sheryl Sandberg, well, yes, but I don't think she's involved with the tech side.
I am also reasonably sure that FB (as well Google and others) are engaged in some pretty public efforts to improve the gender balance in tech. Or at least pay lip service to doing so. Might they be doing so because there actually is a pretty well known gender disbalance in tech.
Of course if you were meaning to say that a lot of negative moves on FB's part come from quite female Sheryl Sandberg, well, yes, but I don't think she's involved with the tech side.
What I'm meaning to say is that despite your desire to move the goalpost of the argument in order not to seem wrong, the term 'techbro' pretty exclusively brings to mind a negative male stereotype for most people.
Your post would have been better phrased using the term "software engineer's", which would have gotten the same point across whilst being gender neutral, neither reinforcing said negative male stereotype nor erasing female engineers in the culpability of said belief that "technology can solve everything."
Your post would have been better phrased using the term "software engineer's", which would have gotten the same point across whilst being gender neutral, neither reinforcing said negative male stereotype nor erasing female engineers in the culpability of said belief that "technology can solve everything."
Yeah, it's very hard, all but impossible, when your primary constraint is maximizing profit while holding tons of market power in an unregulated environment. Poor facebook, they really try their best. It's just so hard.
I think once you start thinking about the scope and scale of the problem, you'll start to realize how difficult it is even without the question of money involved at all (but yes, money does often complicate things).
You have to remember that this is a global service cutting across all cultures, countries, governments, and circumstances.
At some level, it becomes trying to design a system of governance that cuts across all those things in a scalable way. This is a problem where there is very little precedent.
The original sin in my opinion was Facebook charging ahead with a historic rate of growth without building the rails (moderation systems, governance, etc) to support that growth.
However, that ship has long sailed. Facebook is already massive now. It's easy to say with hindsight that the problems were obvious and to be expected. But the pressing question for society now is what do we do about it?
Not just for Facebook but for all similar services - of which Facebook isn't the first and it won't be the last. And what software solutions will the industry invent to combat some of this stuff? Who is building it? How much is shared? How much is driven by regulation versus this stuff becoming a competitive moat? etc etc.
It's a very interesting question and I look forward to progress in the area from all levels, including our legislators (whom I have little confidence in, but I'm an optimist at heart).
You have to remember that this is a global service cutting across all cultures, countries, governments, and circumstances.
At some level, it becomes trying to design a system of governance that cuts across all those things in a scalable way. This is a problem where there is very little precedent.
The original sin in my opinion was Facebook charging ahead with a historic rate of growth without building the rails (moderation systems, governance, etc) to support that growth.
However, that ship has long sailed. Facebook is already massive now. It's easy to say with hindsight that the problems were obvious and to be expected. But the pressing question for society now is what do we do about it?
Not just for Facebook but for all similar services - of which Facebook isn't the first and it won't be the last. And what software solutions will the industry invent to combat some of this stuff? Who is building it? How much is shared? How much is driven by regulation versus this stuff becoming a competitive moat? etc etc.
It's a very interesting question and I look forward to progress in the area from all levels, including our legislators (whom I have little confidence in, but I'm an optimist at heart).
Too many words for nothing. There is a simple solution:
Deregulate and cut corporate taxes. If they have access to more private user data and keep more of their money from atrocious behaviour they'll be less atrocious.
Oops, I meant the opposite of that.
Deregulate and cut corporate taxes. If they have access to more private user data and keep more of their money from atrocious behaviour they'll be less atrocious.
Oops, I meant the opposite of that.
> Too many words for nothing.
I'll spare you from my meaningless words from now on. Cheers.
I'll spare you from my meaningless words from now on. Cheers.
Nice way to appear to be even handed while minimizing responsibility:
"Facebook has stumbled a lot on their own" - stumbled as if it has no organizational will that pushed in a certain direction e.g. the growth hacks & engagement efforts that have caused a lot of these problems.
"Facebook has stumbled a lot on their own" - stumbled as if it has no organizational will that pushed in a certain direction e.g. the growth hacks & engagement efforts that have caused a lot of these problems.
> Nice way to appear to be even handed while minimizing responsibility
You're free to nitpick my choice of words and assume bad faith/intentions on my part. Doesn't bother me. We don't know each other.
But to your point, sure let's replace the word "stumbled" with "fucked up" or whatever else you'd prefer. I don't think my larger point really changes all that much.
You're free to nitpick my choice of words and assume bad faith/intentions on my part. Doesn't bother me. We don't know each other.
But to your point, sure let's replace the word "stumbled" with "fucked up" or whatever else you'd prefer. I don't think my larger point really changes all that much.
Really? overblown? They just don't care.
People working for Facebook, taking the money Facebook has because of all of it it is doing but the AI Expert doesn't care?
Thats probably the same people who like the challenge for military drone guidance systems because they like the challenge.
Great.
People working for Facebook, taking the money Facebook has because of all of it it is doing but the AI Expert doesn't care?
Thats probably the same people who like the challenge for military drone guidance systems because they like the challenge.
Great.
I think you've already made up your mind.
I don't have anything to contribute here that I think can be productive for us.
I don't have anything to contribute here that I think can be productive for us.
Yes but i have made up my mind because of a lot of things which happened.
If you are a company which has such a huge user base and so much money, you have much more responsibility than what FB is doing.
All those data scandals? The impact FB has on elections?
And what is the answer? Cheap reactional actions.
If you are a company which has such a huge user base and so much money, you have much more responsibility than what FB is doing.
All those data scandals? The impact FB has on elections?
And what is the answer? Cheap reactional actions.
I know a lot of senior data people (read: high demand tech people) applying there right now. A few things:
1. People who work there are generally happy. Interesting problems to work on, a company where tech is respected, etc.
2. A lot of those issues you list are common in big tech, see Google. The people I know who are looking at Facebook may want to work at a bigger, more stable company.
3. As everyone else mentions, $$$. That said, Finance also pays similar rates but I don't see a lot of people fighting for those roles, so that doesn't fully explain it IMO.
1. People who work there are generally happy. Interesting problems to work on, a company where tech is respected, etc.
2. A lot of those issues you list are common in big tech, see Google. The people I know who are looking at Facebook may want to work at a bigger, more stable company.
3. As everyone else mentions, $$$. That said, Finance also pays similar rates but I don't see a lot of people fighting for those roles, so that doesn't fully explain it IMO.
Because money trumps ethics in our society, and Facebook still looks like a good career move.
But there will be a tipping point soon (next 12 months) when FB stock price begins to legit crash after another scandal finally breaks the camel's back. Hasn't happened yet with the FTC fine, but it will come. When their valuation is no longer up and to the right, the hiring situation will change dramatically.
But there will be a tipping point soon (next 12 months) when FB stock price begins to legit crash after another scandal finally breaks the camel's back. Hasn't happened yet with the FTC fine, but it will come. When their valuation is no longer up and to the right, the hiring situation will change dramatically.
Facebook is today's tobacco company. Tobacco companies need to pay 2-5 times to the "normal" rate to get people to work for them.
Why such an extreme comparison?
Does the Television industry hit too close to home to not use as an analogy instead?
Does the Television industry hit too close to home to not use as an analogy instead?
netflix pays more than facebook
Interesting technical work, great peers, good comp. If you are a user, it's good to work on something that you use. If you're in the front-end space in particular, its exciting to work on things that have significantly changed the ecosystem.
(Ex-Facebooker. When the Cambridge Analytica stuff went down I wasn't too thrilled, but above all I left because of lack of work-life balance.)
(Ex-Facebooker. When the Cambridge Analytica stuff went down I wasn't too thrilled, but above all I left because of lack of work-life balance.)
Because people like money
[deleted]
Because of money obviously. If someone is out of a job for a month, especially if they don't have "deep" savings, they'll take the first or highest offer they get.
Also, how do you know they aren't having a harder time hiring?
Also, how do you know they aren't having a harder time hiring?
They pay 250k for someone with 2yoe. And have benefits better than 99 percent of companies (likely more than 99 percent honestly).
Edit:
And, a properly defined career ladder. Competitive stock refreshers and bonuses. Varied projects.
Edit:
And, a properly defined career ladder. Competitive stock refreshers and bonuses. Varied projects.
Interesting problems (not too many places you can do stuff at that kind of scale/impact), very pleasant environment within the company, and yes, money too. And there are a few who come precisely because of those troubles, to make things better instead of standing in a glass house throwing stones.
Why are people taking jobs in governments? In oil companies? In tobacco companies?
Because some support FB's mission of giving people the power to build community and bring the world closer together?
Why majority thinks that everything what FB does is necessarily bad? It's not true at all and plainly evil propaganda.
Why majority thinks that everything what FB does is necessarily bad? It's not true at all and plainly evil propaganda.
Oh, please, you can't be that gullible to believe Zuckerberg's marketing -- a guy who sued 300 people to build his Hawaii mansion.
With people like you no wonder he gets away with all his crap.
With people like you no wonder he gets away with all his crap.
Also lots of people aren't paying attention to that stuff.
Because they get first pick of the good interns and they're still better than a couple of the other big places to work for.
Unfortunately, accountability and respect for privacy seem to be a meme these days
[deleted]
Show me a big company without those kinds of problems.
Because Facebook hires skilled people, not great people.
Because they're not suffering with their product strategy, software quality, privacy issues, or executive retention.
Don't believe what you read in the news.
Don't believe what you read in the news.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I mean really it shouldn't be surprising, they pay really well.
I mean really it shouldn't be surprising, they pay really well.
Pay > Ethics
They will have to live with the consequenses when they are older. I hope it weights heavily on those that compromised their beliefs for a 'cool job'.
They will have to live with the consequenses when they are older. I hope it weights heavily on those that compromised their beliefs for a 'cool job'.
Honestly, for that money, I'd sell out. But I'd also make myself a huge thorn in the side after the first year anytime anything unethical was going on. If I got fired, I would ADD IT TO MY RESUME, that I left a job at FB making 150k because I took an ethical stand against nasty behavior. I'd have a big chunk of green in my pocket, come across as a coding saint to future employers, and they would KNOW that my last salary was 6 figures. It's really kinda awesome!