Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/facebook-tiktok-targeted-victory/
323 comments
In case you think this is some esoteric issue involving kids’ stuff — keep in mind that the founder of TikTok was one of the most balanced voices within China, who argued that the country needed to engage with the West in a healthier manner. Zuckerberg et al and their incessant lobbying for that TikTok ban basically vaporized that guy’s pull within China, which eliminated a super-valuable asset for the West.
So, yeah, Facebook continues to be the single greatest threat to Western society outside of Russia. These are serious issues with serious consequences.
So, yeah, Facebook continues to be the single greatest threat to Western society outside of Russia. These are serious issues with serious consequences.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I think it's probably overstating the impact. We've seen China exert a huge amount of influence in Chinese tech space and really clamp down loosened controls. Maybe this was the excuse Chinese press gave, but I think this would have likely happened anyways given the power and direction Xi is moving China in. See their moves in the tutoring, construction, crypto, and e-commerce spaces too
> Facebook continues to be the single greatest threat to Western society outside of Russia.
this statement is both hyperbolic and naive at the same time.
this statement is both hyperbolic and naive at the same time.
Hyperbolic for sure but I do not think it is naive at all. Facebook has proven many times over they are basically the Mafia of Silicon Valley and nothing they say should be trusted or taken at face value.
That being said there are many other threats to western society and while many or most of those will exploit Facebook as much as they can for influence they will continue to exist should Facebook fall.
That being said there are many other threats to western society and while many or most of those will exploit Facebook as much as they can for influence they will continue to exist should Facebook fall.
The Engineering wage raises during 2010-2014 are a huge part due to Facebook back then entering a biding war for talent, which google had to counter which raised comps for everyone. Also, after 2015 you had more companies hitting the fray (Uber, Airbnb, etc). If it wasn't for Facebook, the compensation industry wise would look something like MSFT's comp (pretty low in general).
So, for one thing, Meta / Facebook has been great at raising the comps for engineering in SV.
So, for one thing, Meta / Facebook has been great at raising the comps for engineering in SV.
You seem to be conflating Western society with engineering wages in SV. They are not the same, and what's good for one can very much be bad for the other!
I guess you were getting at the Mafia analogue in GP. Perhaps that was an unfortunate analogue, but GP's points were valid, not native.
I guess you were getting at the Mafia analogue in GP. Perhaps that was an unfortunate analogue, but GP's points were valid, not native.
I was not commenting on that - more on Facebook's business practices in general.
As for Silicon Valley collusion re: wages in my opinion the agreement that George Lucas / Steve Jobs / Ed Catmull / Others made in the late 90s / early 2000s to screw over tech workers and specifically VFX workers (they were afraid of a VFX union) was worse and flys under the radar way more than it should. VFX workers to this day continue to get screwed by this totally illegal collusion (and there was a large settlement of "unknown amount" at one point).
edit: After looking into the above lawsuit we may actually be talking about the same thing - although it did dramatically screw the VFX industry more than tech. And I refuse to credit Facebook with helping with that - it was the exposure of that collusion that ended it.
That does not mean Google gets a pass and I don't think my original comment implies that at all
As for Silicon Valley collusion re: wages in my opinion the agreement that George Lucas / Steve Jobs / Ed Catmull / Others made in the late 90s / early 2000s to screw over tech workers and specifically VFX workers (they were afraid of a VFX union) was worse and flys under the radar way more than it should. VFX workers to this day continue to get screwed by this totally illegal collusion (and there was a large settlement of "unknown amount" at one point).
edit: After looking into the above lawsuit we may actually be talking about the same thing - although it did dramatically screw the VFX industry more than tech. And I refuse to credit Facebook with helping with that - it was the exposure of that collusion that ended it.
That does not mean Google gets a pass and I don't think my original comment implies that at all
It was a combination of both the lawsuit and Facebook. Had the lawsuit happened without Facebook bidding for top talent, it would've taken decades for compensation to rise to the rate they are now because there was no other company able or willing to attract top talent away from Google, Apple, etc.
Right now, the same thing is happening thanks to Amazon. They're having a hard time hiring SWE's due to the terrible reputation, so they've increased their compensation sharply to attract talent. Facebook followed suit since they are also finding it difficult due to its horrible public perception right now.
The result is that other major tech players are upping their compensation to continue to compete for top talent. It's wonderful.
Right now, the same thing is happening thanks to Amazon. They're having a hard time hiring SWE's due to the terrible reputation, so they've increased their compensation sharply to attract talent. Facebook followed suit since they are also finding it difficult due to its horrible public perception right now.
The result is that other major tech players are upping their compensation to continue to compete for top talent. It's wonderful.
I’m still blown away how true this is, especially given how overwhelmingly vital VFX is to film & TV revenue now - Star Wars, MCU.
Uh society is more important than SV engineering wages, full stop. You’re looking at a single tree and ignoring the forest of manipulation FB has done to society.
I think the reason people hate on Facebook here is that they do things like spread misinformation and lies about elected officials and current events, damaging democracy. It is annoying that Apple and Google underpaid already-well-paid people, but not a huge issue for society in general.
Why is it hyperbolic and why is it naive?
It was a tool used to influence elections in the United States, I can't think of any other entity that has had a larger negative impact on our society recently (maybe coronavirus?).
It was a tool used to influence elections in the United States, I can't think of any other entity that has had a larger negative impact on our society recently (maybe coronavirus?).
> It was a tool used to influence elections in the United States
Are you talking about fake Russian accounts buying $100k worth of facebook ads in 2016? That constitutes 0.00625% of total spending (1.6 bn) on the 2016 election. Or are you talking about something else?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/facebook-sold-100000-ads-fak...
Are you talking about fake Russian accounts buying $100k worth of facebook ads in 2016? That constitutes 0.00625% of total spending (1.6 bn) on the 2016 election. Or are you talking about something else?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/facebook-sold-100000-ads-fak...
The IRA Russian troll farm had 1000 employees in 2015. They used Facebook as a tool to influence elections in the United States.
This is very well documented https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency
And I don’t know why the sister comment about Facebook being used to commit genocide in Myanmar was flagged and killed. This is also well documented by eg the NYT and the UN. It was also admitted by Facebook itself.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...
This is very well documented https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency
And I don’t know why the sister comment about Facebook being used to commit genocide in Myanmar was flagged and killed. This is also well documented by eg the NYT and the UN. It was also admitted by Facebook itself.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...
It swings in every direction. Not just what they allow in terms of ads but what gets suppressed, promoted, shown/reshown. Visibility and not.
Arguably Facebooks help in spreading misinformation is to a large degree behind the Republican success in 2016. Tipping an unpopular president from too unpopular to win the popular vote to one which could at least win the electoral college.
This ultimately led to gross mismanagement of the pandemic when it was most vital leading to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
In order to have a larger negative effect on society each and every Facebook engineer would have to personally conduct a mass shooting.
Edit: In support of this position consider that the 2016 election was arguably lost entirely based on 78,000 votes in the rust belt. Basically based on 1/20th of 1% of voter turn out.
Some sources put the number of unnecessary covid deaths in 2020 at around 200k deaths.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/lancet-study-40-...
Other sources put the number of software engineers at around 8850
https://www.daxx.com/blog/development-trends/number-software...
The number of unnecessary covid deaths per Facebook software engineer is ergo about 23.
Looking at stats from the FBI from 2000 - 2018 884 were killed in 277 incidents meaning the average shooter only managed to kill about 3 people.
https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-eng...
Nearly every nut bar I know personally who is radicalized was first radicalized on facebook before sometimes moving on to other platforms.
Facebook engineers by the numbers are actually far more effective at killing folks than the average shooter. Your choice of employment isn't moral nor is it morally neutral to just write code. Individuals in high demand who could work nearly anywhere ought to consider working somewhere more ethical.
This ultimately led to gross mismanagement of the pandemic when it was most vital leading to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
In order to have a larger negative effect on society each and every Facebook engineer would have to personally conduct a mass shooting.
Edit: In support of this position consider that the 2016 election was arguably lost entirely based on 78,000 votes in the rust belt. Basically based on 1/20th of 1% of voter turn out.
Some sources put the number of unnecessary covid deaths in 2020 at around 200k deaths.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/lancet-study-40-...
Other sources put the number of software engineers at around 8850
https://www.daxx.com/blog/development-trends/number-software...
The number of unnecessary covid deaths per Facebook software engineer is ergo about 23.
Looking at stats from the FBI from 2000 - 2018 884 were killed in 277 incidents meaning the average shooter only managed to kill about 3 people.
https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-eng...
Nearly every nut bar I know personally who is radicalized was first radicalized on facebook before sometimes moving on to other platforms.
Facebook engineers by the numbers are actually far more effective at killing folks than the average shooter. Your choice of employment isn't moral nor is it morally neutral to just write code. Individuals in high demand who could work nearly anywhere ought to consider working somewhere more ethical.
Nothing in Russia is in any sense a "great threat to Western society".
They have recently threatened to murder all of western society with nuclear weapons should it choose to intercede to prevent the mass murder they are presently perpetrating upon the old folks women and children of one of their neighbors while discussing the possibility of perpetrating further mass murders against its other neighbors.
The only saving grace is that this is probably but not certainly a bluff.
The only saving grace is that this is probably but not certainly a bluff.
I don't think anyone on my TV really believes that nuclear war is a thing that can happen? If they thought it could happen, surely they wouldn't constantly argue for escalating conflict? Surely they don't really want to melt everyone's children? That seems very antisocial?!
Ukraine is not part of "western society". Numerous Western politicians have had off-mic moments in which they admitted that dangling NATO membership was only ever meant to bait Ukraine and Russia into a ruinous proxy war. Which has now occurred.
Ukraine is not part of "western society". Numerous Western politicians have had off-mic moments in which they admitted that dangling NATO membership was only ever meant to bait Ukraine and Russia into a ruinous proxy war. Which has now occurred.
> Numerous Western politicians have had off-mic moments in which they admitted that dangling NATO membership was only ever meant to bait Ukraine and Russia into a ruinous proxy war. Which has now occurred.
Please don't spread conspiracy theories.
Please don't spread conspiracy theories.
Just because Zelensky said it, don't assume it's a "conspiracy theory". [0] Or, for that matter, that theories about conspiracies aren't true. Power-hungry bastards do conspire, regularly.
[0] https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-puti...
[0] https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-puti...
Regardless of what people think about Facebook or Tiktok, this kind of behaviour is anti competitive.
If Facebook did this to Tiktok, you can bet it tried similar tactics against Snapchat.
If Facebook did this to Tiktok, you can bet it tried similar tactics against Snapchat.
LOL. The single greatest threat to Western society is Western society itself. Declining fertility, mass immigration at the border but brutally hard immigration for high skill workers, civil wars over pointless culture war issues, and the destruction of the social norms that once held us together. But go blame Facebook if you want.
Declining fertility is probably one part bad health and one part inequality. It has zero parts to do with too many brown folks coming to live in our nation.
It is a logical absurdity to suppose that folks coming to America are a threat to the integrity of western civilization while those who descended from immigrants are part of it. We are all of us who grew up in the west and who have chosen to come live here a part of western civilization. There is no them we are all us.
It is a logical absurdity to suppose that folks coming to America are a threat to the integrity of western civilization while those who descended from immigrants are part of it. We are all of us who grew up in the west and who have chosen to come live here a part of western civilization. There is no them we are all us.
Facebook is a major contributor to the pointless cultural war obsession and the erosion of pro-social norms though.
So are the telephone and families getting together for the holidays.
Surely you realize how much of a stretch that is. If you wanted to say broadcast television or radio you might have a point but analogizing an algorithmic feed tuned to stoke outrage to families spending time together is just a farcically bad faith approach.
Your telephone company doesn't choose to filter a selection of incoming callers including not only friends but friends of friends of friends in order to expose you to the folks who will keep you on the phone the longest which accidentally turns out to be the folks that play on your existing deep seated anxieties and deficiencies.
> one of the most balanced voices within China
Except TikTok, like Facebook, is not available in China. The 抖音 platform cannot see posts from tiktok.
Except TikTok, like Facebook, is not available in China. The 抖音 platform cannot see posts from tiktok.
They're talking about the founder. You'd know this if your reading comprehension skills were up to par with your knowledge of what country TikTok isn't in. Otherwise, that tidbit is tangential at best, and doesn't provide any evidence to the contrary of the quoted claim.
> Facebook continues to be the single greatest threat to Western society outside of Russia.
No it’s not. The greatest threat to any society is its own ineptitude.
No it’s not. The greatest threat to any society is its own ineptitude.
Doesn't facebook make it a lot easier for inept viewpoints and thoughts to gain traction and impact society more easily? Facebook is the gun, not the trigger man.
For many Chinese, the US has showed its true face in the past couple of years. Unfortunately this digs a lot deeper than Facebook.
Facebook is guilty of poor management; involving themselves in partisan politics in order to get a competitor banned is an incredible stupid risk to take.
Facebook is guilty of poor management; involving themselves in partisan politics in order to get a competitor banned is an incredible stupid risk to take.
The US hasn't changed - it's always been a country of crazy people and smart people and zealots and honest, hard working folks. There's no such thing as our "true face" - American was populated by the radicals and risk-takers from other, older societies. We've always been a nation of slightly insane people.
Absurd, of course there is a "true face." Whether the country has stayed the same or not has nothing to do with it, this is a discussion about how the US is perceived internationally. We have been flooding the rest of the world with its messaging and cultural exports for decades. In many places, China included, people genuinely looked up to the US. That has changed meaningfully across the globe.
Respectfully, Americans don't care at all what other countries think of America.
China had their chance to challenge America in the 21st Century, but they threw it away the moment Xi became too obsessed with his own power and ambitions. The focus on building a Han ethnostate is costing them dearly, both in the eyes of the world and in terms of population growth. Without immigration, China's demographic window is closing rapidly and they will grow old before they grow rich.
China had their chance to challenge America in the 21st Century, but they threw it away the moment Xi became too obsessed with his own power and ambitions. The focus on building a Han ethnostate is costing them dearly, both in the eyes of the world and in terms of population growth. Without immigration, China's demographic window is closing rapidly and they will grow old before they grow rich.
"Facebook continues to be the single greatest threat to Western society outside of Russia"
This is ridiculous hyperbole.
And TikTok, as a Chinese company whereupon they can be compelled to do the bidding of the CCP at any time, in whatever terms, remains problematic.
It doesn't matter what the 'founder' thinks.
This is ridiculous hyperbole.
And TikTok, as a Chinese company whereupon they can be compelled to do the bidding of the CCP at any time, in whatever terms, remains problematic.
It doesn't matter what the 'founder' thinks.
Do you apply this logic to all companies not in the US? Do you worry that the American Honda Motor Company is a sleeper cell for Japanese state interests?
The CCP has very specific influence on companies in China, that has no parrallel elsewhere. Specifically they require companies to hire CCP members that have internal positions with oversight, the CCP will remove leaders as they see fit, require arbitrary censoring as they see fit.
This is obviously much more of a concern for companies in the information domain such as social media or finance, than others such as manufacturing.
Donald Trump for example, could not remove the Google founders by any means.
This is obviously much more of a concern for companies in the information domain such as social media or finance, than others such as manufacturing.
Donald Trump for example, could not remove the Google founders by any means.
oh my. are we equating Japan with China?
Is it bizarre to compare countries with other countries generally, or only when one is on the official enemies list?
There's nothing wrong with comparing countries, but it's ridiculous to compare countries which have systems of de facto central control, vs systems that do not.
Xi (and the CCP) don't interfere directly very often, but he can and will do so as he chooses. He's an Emperor. Nobody has that kind of power in Japan.
Xi (and the CCP) don't interfere directly very often, but he can and will do so as he chooses. He's an Emperor. Nobody has that kind of power in Japan.
Any government can and will control any present company if "national" interests are in question.
Again this is unhelpful rhetorical relativism, because the circumstances of 'national interest' are defined completely differently.
Yes, if someone is pointing Nuclear Weapons at Japan, they will force Yahoo.jp to fork over data on the spot, but otherwise, no.
In China, a random person making a comment about someone in government could be suppressed as a matter of 'national interest'.
It's pointless to make rhetorical analogies. Even if one could argue they are 'different in extent and not in character' (though I would disagree), the 'extent of difference' is sufficient to make them different in character.
A random person walking down the street has little to fear in either country, but that line can be crossed quickly and arbitrarily in authoritarian regimes.
Yes, if someone is pointing Nuclear Weapons at Japan, they will force Yahoo.jp to fork over data on the spot, but otherwise, no.
In China, a random person making a comment about someone in government could be suppressed as a matter of 'national interest'.
It's pointless to make rhetorical analogies. Even if one could argue they are 'different in extent and not in character' (though I would disagree), the 'extent of difference' is sufficient to make them different in character.
A random person walking down the street has little to fear in either country, but that line can be crossed quickly and arbitrarily in authoritarian regimes.
I won't pretend to know all of the details but this comes off as kind of conspiracy-theory.
Why is Zuckerberg the boogieman? He just wants to run his company well and get as many eyeballs on paid advertisements as possible... right? Why is there some notion that he wants to push either a liberal or conservative agenda internationally?
It's near impossible to moderate a billion people posting crap on a social media platform well enough to the point where you keep everybody happy. How does this make him "the single greatest threat to Western society outside of Russia"?
Why is Zuckerberg the boogieman? He just wants to run his company well and get as many eyeballs on paid advertisements as possible... right? Why is there some notion that he wants to push either a liberal or conservative agenda internationally?
It's near impossible to moderate a billion people posting crap on a social media platform well enough to the point where you keep everybody happy. How does this make him "the single greatest threat to Western society outside of Russia"?
> He just wants to run his company well and get as many eyeballs on paid advertisements as possible... right?
Yes, I would definitely agree that this is the case and I think that is a large part of the problem. The Machiavellian ends justifying the means equates to him not caring about the negative impacts that he has on society while trying to attract the most eyeballs possible.
Yes, I would definitely agree that this is the case and I think that is a large part of the problem. The Machiavellian ends justifying the means equates to him not caring about the negative impacts that he has on society while trying to attract the most eyeballs possible.
Aren't those negative impacts on society a matter for government? Basically any company will 'try it on' until it's stopped. And 'stopping' is what governments are about, I used to think. It doesn't seem to happen and it's not surprising that some have written darkly about the marriage of huge corporations with government and its dire consequences.
Yes, I think the government should be responsible for preventing bad actors, but I also don't think Facebook operating without morality is good or acceptable. Government is slow, facebook is using this to their advantage and moving fast and breaking things (society) and I don't think they should be let off the hook because our government hasn't caught up with the blatantly bad stuff that they are up to. If outrage and bad PR can curb some of their negative tendencies, I am all for exposing their actions.
Facebook has consistently disappointed anyone working on any of these issues, from Islamic State recruitment to Myanmar's ethnic violence. Because young people in tech are generally thought to be smart and happy, i. e. Democrats, these failing have been interpreted as growing pains and various lapses in skill or judgement.
The idea has, however, been catching on that Zuckerberg may just be a Greenwald-Democrat, i. e. someone going through a process of alienation in increasingly schizophrenic episodes.
Combine bad faith with the power of Facebook and it's possible to consider that dangerous. The superlative feels strange indeed, but can you think of any other credible alternative, especially outside of (party) politics?
The idea has, however, been catching on that Zuckerberg may just be a Greenwald-Democrat, i. e. someone going through a process of alienation in increasingly schizophrenic episodes.
Combine bad faith with the power of Facebook and it's possible to consider that dangerous. The superlative feels strange indeed, but can you think of any other credible alternative, especially outside of (party) politics?
> smart and happy, i. e. Democrats
> these failing have been interpreted as growing pains and various lapses in skill or judgement.
"[...]have been interpreted[...]" are wikipedia "weasel words" here; this is really what centrist party Democrats feel. They interpret the acts of "smart and happy" middle-class people through the lens of "people trying to do good badly" rather than "people doing what they want to do, consistently with what they've always done."
These are the only people that need to rationalize their associations with Facebook, and this is how they do it. Republicans and libertarian-types don't actually think these are issues that Facebook should be concerned about, and lefties don't need to to rehabilitate Facebook.
> these failing have been interpreted as growing pains and various lapses in skill or judgement.
"[...]have been interpreted[...]" are wikipedia "weasel words" here; this is really what centrist party Democrats feel. They interpret the acts of "smart and happy" middle-class people through the lens of "people trying to do good badly" rather than "people doing what they want to do, consistently with what they've always done."
These are the only people that need to rationalize their associations with Facebook, and this is how they do it. Republicans and libertarian-types don't actually think these are issues that Facebook should be concerned about, and lefties don't need to to rehabilitate Facebook.
I believe Zuckerberg never made it past the "I don't know why these dumb fucks trust me" phase of his psychological development. He's never fully grasped that the fact that people did in fact trust him means he has a responsibility rather than a mandate. Unfortunately every time Zuckerberg has abused his power, he never faces a single consequence, so he just keeps learning the wrong lesson again and again.
Conspiracy theory? He did everything in his power to get liberals into political power.
Yes he is a very large threat to Western society, the United States of America and world peace. The current state of affairs should be the proof anyone needs.
Yes he is a very large threat to Western society, the United States of America and world peace. The current state of affairs should be the proof anyone needs.
Well there we go... Last one turn out the lights, this guy has solved it.
> the single greatest threat to Western society outside of Russia
I can't help but roll my eyes whenever I come across such statements. Which one is it now guys? Russia or China or Iran or Muslims or Liberals or etc.?
The single greatest threat to Western society is itself.
I can't help but roll my eyes whenever I come across such statements. Which one is it now guys? Russia or China or Iran or Muslims or Liberals or etc.?
The single greatest threat to Western society is itself.
Trump (and Pompeo) destroys the liberal oriented ideology in China much more effectively than whatever Xi did.
user3939382(1)
What is a "Republican strategy firm?" A consulting firm with the Republican party as one of their clients? What's the point of making "Republican" so prominent in the article? Is it just to use the negative connotation most WP readers have about the Republican party to malign Facebook a little more? It seems like we're just spectating an op-ed war, and discussing this article as if there's any meaning to it other than to malign Facebook.
Most political consulting firms do the majority of their work for a single party, so they can reasonably be identified as either "Republican" or "Democratic". Some non-nefarious reasons why this clustering tends to occur:
* The firms are the next career stepping stone for campaign workers. If you have worked on half a dozen Democratic campaigns, you presumably believe in the cause and are unlikely to want to start working on Republican campaigns where you disagree with the candidate. (Maybe you won't be as good at working on GOP campaigns either). * If you are a politician, you are unlikely to be too excited to hire the firm that in the last election cycle wrote an ad trashing some of the positions you old. You are also more likely to get referred to a firm by a politician from the same party as you.
You might have firms that work with both parties, but they are likely to be working with centrist candidates from those parties.
So if this is a strategy firm that has mostly done political work for Republican candidates and causes, it seems perfectly reasonable to call it a "Republican strategy firm"
* The firms are the next career stepping stone for campaign workers. If you have worked on half a dozen Democratic campaigns, you presumably believe in the cause and are unlikely to want to start working on Republican campaigns where you disagree with the candidate. (Maybe you won't be as good at working on GOP campaigns either). * If you are a politician, you are unlikely to be too excited to hire the firm that in the last election cycle wrote an ad trashing some of the positions you old. You are also more likely to get referred to a firm by a politician from the same party as you.
You might have firms that work with both parties, but they are likely to be working with centrist candidates from those parties.
So if this is a strategy firm that has mostly done political work for Republican candidates and causes, it seems perfectly reasonable to call it a "Republican strategy firm"
>What is a "Republican strategy firm?"
A consulting firm that advertises itself as being "born from political campaigns" and being "right of center." Both things on the second slide of their homepage.
A consulting firm that advertises itself as being "born from political campaigns" and being "right of center." Both things on the second slide of their homepage.
>Stagwell, formerly The Stagwell Group, is a global marketing and communications group. Founded in 2015 by Mark Penn.
>Penn was a chief strategist and pollster in the Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign
>Penn was a chief strategist and pollster in the Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign
And further in Mark Penn's Wikipedia article
>Penn met with Trump in February and November 2019 to give him advice on his 2020 re-election strategy.
The company claims to be right wing, why would you deny it?
>Penn met with Trump in February and November 2019 to give him advice on his 2020 re-election strategy.
The company claims to be right wing, why would you deny it?
I'm not denying that they claim to be republican, but their actions do serve both parties. As such, I don't think their claim to be republican is particularly meaningful.
Also worth context here that Stagwell is set up like another major holding company. They own Targeted Victory (R) and SKDKnickerbocker (D) as their two pillars in DC/public affairs/campaign comms. They also own other non-political communications companies.
He worked for D's in 2008 and the firm was founded in 2015 with primarily R political cleintelle.
What's contradictory about a strategist who worked for Ds in 2008 and was working for Rs by 2016? Hell, there's a whole term describing the large set of people who made that shift in that exact time period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama%E2%80%93Trump_voters
What's contradictory about a strategist who worked for Ds in 2008 and was working for Rs by 2016? Hell, there's a whole term describing the large set of people who made that shift in that exact time period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama%E2%80%93Trump_voters
Clinton-people and Obama-people did not and do not like each other.
This might be a better link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_Unity_My_Ass
This might be a better link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_Unity_My_Ass
hahaha amazing. This isn't contradictory at all tho. "I'm not saying she's a republican, I'm just saying the republicans think she's a republican."
https://targetedvictory.com/team/
12 matches for republican 1 match for conservative 0 matches for democrat
It's a firm comprised of former republican political talent. Maybe you're just as willing to fan the flames of political war as those you accuse?
They also seem to be into crypto.
12 matches for republican 1 match for conservative 0 matches for democrat
It's a firm comprised of former republican political talent. Maybe you're just as willing to fan the flames of political war as those you accuse?
They also seem to be into crypto.
If you check their website, they openly market themselves as primarily existing to serve advertising and PR roles for Republican campaigns. The CEO used to be the digital director for the Romney campaign. It seems reasonable to me to call them a Republican firm.
> The Arlington, Va.-based firm advertises on its website that it brings “a right-of-center perspective to solve marketing challenges” and can deploy field teams “anywhere in the country within 48 hours.”
The firm itself seems to advertise a “republican” outlook, and was also apparently founded initially as a strategy firm for the Republican Party.
The firm itself seems to advertise a “republican” outlook, and was also apparently founded initially as a strategy firm for the Republican Party.
For companies that operate in the political sphere (strategists, consultancies, etc.), it is impractical to work in a bipartisan manner. Once you take on a client in one party, members of the other party distrust your services because they'll expect you're already politically aligned with their rivals and could disclose information to those rivals. So a <party> strategy firm likely means their clientele is exclusively of that party.
> as if there's any meaning to it other than to malign Facebook.
I don't think this is malignment, per se: Facebook makes a big show of being a progressive company (internally) with a nominally neutral political outlook. Hiring a Republican strategy firm undermines that image: it demonstrates that, push come to shove, Facebook's commitment to these things is primarily a facade intended to deflect criticism.
I don't think this is malignment, per se: Facebook makes a big show of being a progressive company (internally) with a nominally neutral political outlook. Hiring a Republican strategy firm undermines that image: it demonstrates that, push come to shove, Facebook's commitment to these things is primarily a facade intended to deflect criticism.
Facebook makes a big show of being a progressive company (internally) with a nominally neutral political outlook.
Ask any progressive, they will say there's nothing politically neutral about preventing unionization: https://theintercept.com/2020/06/11/facebook-workplace-union...
I also don't think people are falling for rainbow capitalism internally or not. I think people generally understand that it is just a show and the only color on the rainbow they care about is green.
Ask any progressive, they will say there's nothing politically neutral about preventing unionization: https://theintercept.com/2020/06/11/facebook-workplace-union...
I also don't think people are falling for rainbow capitalism internally or not. I think people generally understand that it is just a show and the only color on the rainbow they care about is green.
We’re in agreement. The point I was making is that it isn’t “malignment” because it clearly is in line with Facebook’s actual values.
Having worked im the political data space, most usually the firm os closely associated with a given party, revolving door, etc.
My guess would be that Facebook hired a GOP firm for two reasons. 1) The national mood is leaning significantly toward the GOP, with major Republican gains likely in both the House and Senate (potentially supermajorities in both chambers). Democrats are so weak right now that they can't get anything done, so may as well follow the trends. TikTok isn't going to kill Facebook in nine months, so they can hold out till a Republican Congress in January.
2) The messaging is aligned with recent Republican victories or even just Democrat losses. The election in Virginia and the recall of the SF school board both highlight that Dems appear tone-dead with respect to protecting kids. (Even in FL, the Dems and media have essentially lied by maligning the new law restricting public schools from exposing K-through-3 students to sexual content as a bill banning anyone from saying the word "gay." This dishonesty is only necessary and effective because Democrats are exceptionally weak at protecting kids.)
I doubt the use of a GOP firm reflects anything beyond a desire to persuade Republican voters and lawmakers.
I doubt the use of a GOP firm reflects anything beyond a desire to persuade Republican voters and lawmakers.
The US doesn't have real political parties with memberships, so a more realistic view of them is that they are central coordinators of, and lobbyists on the behalf of, huge networks of consultants.
Having a political career means shifting between consulting companies strongly associated with political parties, direct party employment, campaign employment, government employment when your party is in power, "think tanks," "journalism," and employment as a lobbyist for government contractors or industries with a legislative agenda.
Journalists drop the keyfabe when they're speaking casually, sometimes accidentally. They do go out of their way to do so when the subject is associated with a party their employer doesn't approve of.
Including the truth about party association doesn't make a story more or less truthful. The problem is when they leave it out, or create an association out of whole cloth to fit a narrative.
Having a political career means shifting between consulting companies strongly associated with political parties, direct party employment, campaign employment, government employment when your party is in power, "think tanks," "journalism," and employment as a lobbyist for government contractors or industries with a legislative agenda.
Journalists drop the keyfabe when they're speaking casually, sometimes accidentally. They do go out of their way to do so when the subject is associated with a party their employer doesn't approve of.
Including the truth about party association doesn't make a story more or less truthful. The problem is when they leave it out, or create an association out of whole cloth to fit a narrative.
From the article : "Launched as a Republican digital consulting firm by Zac Moffatt, a digital director for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, Targeted Victory ... The firm is one of the biggest recipients of Republican campaign spending, earning more than $237 million in 2020, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets. Its biggest payments came from national GOP congressional committees and America First Action, a pro-Trump super PAC."
So, yes, it is nothing more than a consulting firm with the Republican party as one of their clients. The other questions still stand:
> What's the point of making "Republican" so prominent in the article? Is it just to use the negative connotation most WP readers have about the Republican party to malign Facebook a little more?
> What's the point of making "Republican" so prominent in the article? Is it just to use the negative connotation most WP readers have about the Republican party to malign Facebook a little more?
The consulting company markets itself as a Republican/conservative operation. If it was important enough for them to put it front and center on their own website, it makes sense to include that info in the article.
Are you even bothering to read the article?
> The firm is one of the biggest recipients of Republican campaign spending, earning more than $237 million in 2020, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets. Its biggest payments came from national GOP congressional committees and America First Action, a pro-Trump super PAC.
> The firm is one of the biggest recipients of Republican campaign spending, earning more than $237 million in 2020, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets. Its biggest payments came from national GOP congressional committees and America First Action, a pro-Trump super PAC.
> A consulting firm with the Republican party as one of their clients?
Political consulting firms -- especially those that specialize in strategy, oppo, or ads -- are very often partisan-aligned. That's how the biz works.
Political consulting firms -- especially those that specialize in strategy, oppo, or ads -- are very often partisan-aligned. That's how the biz works.
> What's the point of making "Republican" so prominent in the article? Is it just to use the negative connotation most WP readers have about the Republican party to malign Facebook a little more?
A person self identifies with a party that has questionable (/s) practices in a democracy and they’re being maligned. Jokes are funny because they have truth.
A person self identifies with a party that has questionable (/s) practices in a democracy and they’re being maligned. Jokes are funny because they have truth.
>a party that has questionable (/s) practices
If you don't see that in both predominant US parties, you probably aren't looking. Of course Facebook pays the Democratic Party millions a year to look the other way. Can't have good privacy laws, ya know.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/meta/totals?id=D000033563
If you don't see that in both predominant US parties, you probably aren't looking. Of course Facebook pays the Democratic Party millions a year to look the other way. Can't have good privacy laws, ya know.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/meta/totals?id=D000033563
Is this one of those, election was rigged (on the same ballots my other candidates won) perspectives?
"Spectating an op-ed war" is a super weird way of saying "negative opinion about Facebook." Opeds are for reading. WP is a left leaning outlet. No war is going on here, and reading an oped isn't spectating a war.
Yes, political division sells papers. I looked for the "opinion" label, which is used to justify this type of manipulation but didn't see one. It's an article manipulating you talking about how Facebook uses a company that the GOP uses (and probably Dems too) to manipulate you. I suspect it wouldn't mention that some of these articles this company uses to manipulate you are probably published in The Washington Post, but that's just "opinion," so it's ok to say.
I don't know the intent of the writers or editors, but I would think a political strategy firm is reasonably aligned to one party or the other and its alignment is totally valid context. I didn't get the impression it was overplayed here. I think what does happen sometimes is that when there is a negative connotation, as there is here, and the association is with the Democratic party, that context is downplayed or omitted entirely.
Aside from that, the choice of a Republican focused group makes sense since the strategy was to assert threats to traditional values and appeals to nationalism / anti-China sentiment.
Aside from that, the choice of a Republican focused group makes sense since the strategy was to assert threats to traditional values and appeals to nationalism / anti-China sentiment.
First of all the word Republican does not even appear in the title of the wall piece. It appears in the first paragraph to characterize the firm, which is a fact and how they characterize themselves. The word Republican appears a total of 4 times in the entire price. I’m really failing to see manipulation or opinions. Can you point them out?
Don't split hairs; it says "GOP", same thing. And words in the title and lead paragraph hold about 10x the weird.
>Can you point them out?
Sure, to me it reads like Facebook and the GOP are working hand in hand to defame poor startup TikTok. In reality, Facebook donates millions of dollars to the Democratic Party to ensure their operations and ... practices ... are safely legal and unregulated.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/meta/totals?id=D000033563
I'm not certain how much different it would have made to the main thrust of the story to mention that it worked with a GOP firm. Based on the donations, I'm pretty sure they have used Democrat firms as well for similar purposes, if not this one. The author doesn't mention it, but assuming omission means it didn't happen isn't a safe assumption.
Another point, not sure it's a realistic idea to paint TikTok as anything other than a data harvesting tool for the CCP. Seems like they would be similar to Kapersky in that it's just a spying / infiltration tool used by adversarial governments.
Sure, to me it reads like Facebook and the GOP are working hand in hand to defame poor startup TikTok. In reality, Facebook donates millions of dollars to the Democratic Party to ensure their operations and ... practices ... are safely legal and unregulated.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/meta/totals?id=D000033563
I'm not certain how much different it would have made to the main thrust of the story to mention that it worked with a GOP firm. Based on the donations, I'm pretty sure they have used Democrat firms as well for similar purposes, if not this one. The author doesn't mention it, but assuming omission means it didn't happen isn't a safe assumption.
Another point, not sure it's a realistic idea to paint TikTok as anything other than a data harvesting tool for the CCP. Seems like they would be similar to Kapersky in that it's just a spying / infiltration tool used by adversarial governments.
[deleted]
Lots of comments to this miss the point. If another tech company uses a “Democrat strategy firm”, the report won’t mention it, or even put it in the title.
Every article about Mark Penn’s work for Microsoft mentioned that he was a Democratic strategist at the time.
Yes. That’s exactly the same.
[deleted]
Absent sources that are explicitly conservative, American media are prone to reinforce the narrative that the Republican Party is bad and does bad things, any chance they can.
I noticed this back in the late 2000s when I read newspapers about state politicians who were caught in corruption scandals. If the politician were a Republican, their party affiliation would be mentioned in the headline. If they were a Democrat, that fact would be mentioned in the article's continuation on a page farther back in the newspaper, if at all.
I offer no judgement on whether this is right or wrong, but it is what is done.
I noticed this back in the late 2000s when I read newspapers about state politicians who were caught in corruption scandals. If the politician were a Republican, their party affiliation would be mentioned in the headline. If they were a Democrat, that fact would be mentioned in the article's continuation on a page farther back in the newspaper, if at all.
I offer no judgement on whether this is right or wrong, but it is what is done.
Serious question, for those with more experience than me “in the game” running big successful companies: are dirty tactics like this (and worse) par for the course and generally expected, and it’s sort of understood that the outsiders/general public are shielded from it? Or is it actually shocking?
It often seems like there’s two “worlds” operating at the same time. In one, there’s outrage and indignation at this sort of thing. In the other, that public outrage is just another item in the chess game, to be weaponised against your competitors as appropriate. But maybe that’s too pessimistic of a view, and not all industries are like this? I’m genuinely curious.
It often seems like there’s two “worlds” operating at the same time. In one, there’s outrage and indignation at this sort of thing. In the other, that public outrage is just another item in the chess game, to be weaponised against your competitors as appropriate. But maybe that’s too pessimistic of a view, and not all industries are like this? I’m genuinely curious.
Many commenters here have pointed out this is the norm. I'll also point out that most companies fail, and many of the ones that don't fail are despised by their customers/users. What can we say of the companies that succeed and aren't despised? They typically don't do shit like this.
The other problem with thinking "this is what everybody does" is there's the unstated "so keep your mouth shut and just go along with it" that's really unhealthy for us all. If you work for Facebook and you think this is the norm then you're not going to be inclined to question this behavior and if you really think it's universal then you may not even be inclined to leave. Thus the problem perpetuates itself.
If you ever find yourself working for one of this hell hole companies then leave. Don't buy into the false narrative that this is normal, it's the same everywhere, keep your mouth shut and don't rock the boat. You'll come to realize the money doesn't make up for what's been done to your mental health and the quality of your life.
The other problem with thinking "this is what everybody does" is there's the unstated "so keep your mouth shut and just go along with it" that's really unhealthy for us all. If you work for Facebook and you think this is the norm then you're not going to be inclined to question this behavior and if you really think it's universal then you may not even be inclined to leave. Thus the problem perpetuates itself.
If you ever find yourself working for one of this hell hole companies then leave. Don't buy into the false narrative that this is normal, it's the same everywhere, keep your mouth shut and don't rock the boat. You'll come to realize the money doesn't make up for what's been done to your mental health and the quality of your life.
Wholeheartedly agree. This is not the norm at a couple multi-billion dollar companies where I've worked and I would leave if it were. If you are doing this you are making the world a worse place. Do not do this. Do not accept this. Find purpose in the world and strive to add to it rather than take away.
How do you know?
> The other problem with thinking "this is what everybody does" is there's the unstated "so keep your mouth shut and just go along with it" that's really unhealthy for us all.
I agree with you that most people have status quo bias making up the majority of their moral compass. But I disagree with your defense of isolated demands for ethical behavior, which are dangerous and counterproductive.
First off, they cheapen principle by making it a conditional bludgeon, used to attack only unpopular entities. Participating in the lie that FB is doing something uncommonly nefarious implicitly shields every other actor that (eg) HN doesn't feel such obsessive hate for.
Secondly, it provides a scapegoat so people can ignore the difficult work of actually addressing systemic rot. If this is a widely-used tactic, and we agree that it's harmful, then perhaps there's a structural issue to be addressed. You can't even have this conversation if everyone thinks it's just something uniquely evil that FB did.
This was my problem with the way my social milieu handled Trump. I think the guy was a dangerous lunatic, but my friends/family's tendency to immediately assign all of the world's ills solely to him (kids in cages! 100s of ks of covid deaths!) gave them an excuse to ignore the systemic rot underlying society's actual problems (borders inherently rob people of their humanity, and our public health agencies have severe cultural issues).
It's not "defending the bad guy" to say that turning them into the literal Devil, solely responsible for all evil, is harmfully letting others off the hook.
I agree with you that most people have status quo bias making up the majority of their moral compass. But I disagree with your defense of isolated demands for ethical behavior, which are dangerous and counterproductive.
First off, they cheapen principle by making it a conditional bludgeon, used to attack only unpopular entities. Participating in the lie that FB is doing something uncommonly nefarious implicitly shields every other actor that (eg) HN doesn't feel such obsessive hate for.
Secondly, it provides a scapegoat so people can ignore the difficult work of actually addressing systemic rot. If this is a widely-used tactic, and we agree that it's harmful, then perhaps there's a structural issue to be addressed. You can't even have this conversation if everyone thinks it's just something uniquely evil that FB did.
This was my problem with the way my social milieu handled Trump. I think the guy was a dangerous lunatic, but my friends/family's tendency to immediately assign all of the world's ills solely to him (kids in cages! 100s of ks of covid deaths!) gave them an excuse to ignore the systemic rot underlying society's actual problems (borders inherently rob people of their humanity, and our public health agencies have severe cultural issues).
It's not "defending the bad guy" to say that turning them into the literal Devil, solely responsible for all evil, is harmfully letting others off the hook.
> If you work for Facebook and you think this is the norm then you're not going to be inclined to question this behavior
If Facebook is anything like the typical SV mega-corp, the rank and file questions this kind of behaviour. A lot.
But as the saying goes, a dog barks, the wind carries it away.
The politicians at the head of the firm don't care about what their workers think about political matters. [1]
[1] And would like everyone who isn't them to stop being political. #nopolitics, and all that jazz. We're just trying to do work here, not get involved in an unsanctioned-from-corporate culture war...
If Facebook is anything like the typical SV mega-corp, the rank and file questions this kind of behaviour. A lot.
But as the saying goes, a dog barks, the wind carries it away.
The politicians at the head of the firm don't care about what their workers think about political matters. [1]
[1] And would like everyone who isn't them to stop being political. #nopolitics, and all that jazz. We're just trying to do work here, not get involved in an unsanctioned-from-corporate culture war...
What is "unhealthy" about telling public TikTok is a danger?
If Facebook wants to say that, they should say it themselves, not hide behind a fake grassroots campaign. That is “unhealthy.”
"Inauthentic", even
Facebook has no motivation to make true accusations against TikTok. There may be legitimate criticisms that can be made, but facebook doesn't have a reason to care, and being tasked with making those criticisms in an environment where anything that sticks is rewarded, regardless of the truth, will have their honesty and truthfulness compromised, and will be encouraged to view that as normal, compromising their wisdom.
I spent five years at Facebook, and it was probably the best place I've ever worked.
The people were fantastic (except a the ex G and Amazon folks who were a lot less fun to work with), the problems were fun and the culture and tools were phenomenal.
Granted, I don't agree with what they're doing in this article, but if you think they're the only big tech company that does this, I have a bunch of bridges to sell you ;)
Generally, large, publicly traded companies tend to behave like psychopaths, but personally I think FB held out a lot longer than most.
The people were fantastic (except a the ex G and Amazon folks who were a lot less fun to work with), the problems were fun and the culture and tools were phenomenal.
Granted, I don't agree with what they're doing in this article, but if you think they're the only big tech company that does this, I have a bunch of bridges to sell you ;)
Generally, large, publicly traded companies tend to behave like psychopaths, but personally I think FB held out a lot longer than most.
Can I ask what kind of problems you enjoyed working on there?
Honestly, fixing ads related data science problems gave me a lot of satisfaction. I fully admit to being a weirdo, though.
> are dirty tactics like this (and worse) par for the course
The details make all the difference.
Apple goes on stage and posts misleading graphs about their competition multiple times per year. The latest event showed the M1 Ultra matching an RTX 3090 in performance, yet that’s nowhere close to true in anyone’s testing and the graph was deliberately misleading in dishonest ways (3090 curve was truncated before it reached peak performance).
The difference is that most people here really like Apple hardware, so they get a free pass. Most people here really dislike Facebook, so this seems like a mortal sin for a company to promote negative misleading ideas about their competitor.
Everyone markets against their competitors to some degree, even if it’s just a comparison chart on a marketing page somewhere. I’d need to see more evidence that Facebook was deliberately lying to really be concerned about this. It seems the authors are relying heavily on anti-Facebook anger to fuel this story.
The details make all the difference.
Apple goes on stage and posts misleading graphs about their competition multiple times per year. The latest event showed the M1 Ultra matching an RTX 3090 in performance, yet that’s nowhere close to true in anyone’s testing and the graph was deliberately misleading in dishonest ways (3090 curve was truncated before it reached peak performance).
The difference is that most people here really like Apple hardware, so they get a free pass. Most people here really dislike Facebook, so this seems like a mortal sin for a company to promote negative misleading ideas about their competitor.
Everyone markets against their competitors to some degree, even if it’s just a comparison chart on a marketing page somewhere. I’d need to see more evidence that Facebook was deliberately lying to really be concerned about this. It seems the authors are relying heavily on anti-Facebook anger to fuel this story.
When Apple lies about performance on a stage... It's clearly from Apple and people treat it accordingly. Nobody relied on that information or even believed it.
When Facebook pays a marketing agency to get anti tiktok headlines into local news, the reader has no idea who was involved and is left with negative impressions of tiktok that stay with them long after they forgot the details of the story (if they even read that far).
When Facebook pays a marketing agency to get anti tiktok headlines into local news, the reader has no idea who was involved and is left with negative impressions of tiktok that stay with them long after they forgot the details of the story (if they even read that far).
> When Apple lies about performance on a stage... It's clearly from Apple and people treat it accordingly. Nobody relied on that information or even believed it.
This is exactly the point here. If Apple paid a company to post messages under various "fake" personas that the 3090RTX under performs compared to their CPU, they would be behaving like Facebook.
This is exactly the point here. If Apple paid a company to post messages under various "fake" personas that the 3090RTX under performs compared to their CPU, they would be behaving like Facebook.
Does this make Putin an ideal politician, since we know that anything that comes out of his mouth is likely a falsehood? That someone or something compulsively lies doesn't feel like a redeeming value.
Putin doesn’t care what the foreign audience thinks, whatever he says is almost certainly intended for his domestic audience.
The one difference is that most of big tech these days doesn't actually have any competition, and will collude in ways like wage fixing in any areas they do. As such, it's not too surprising to see they don't care about competitors - they don't have any.
> The difference is that most people here really like Apple hardware, so they get a free pass
I think it’s pretty clear the difference isn’t Apple vs Facebook (e.g. CSAM blowback) but boasting about yourself versus hiring someone to attack a competitor.
An analogous comparison would be if Facebook said their algorithms benefited mental health more than competitors, or if Apple paid to have an op-ed in a newspaper talking about how Intel’s GPU’s might explode or something. The difference is that Apple’s slide was Apple’s slide and any bias was clear. Facebook went through backdoors and PR firms to sway local journalists and congressmen in an actually dark game of chess.
> I’d need to see more evidence that Facebook was deliberately lying to really be concerned about this
That’s the whole point. Facebook wasn’t lying, Targeted Victory was. Take your pick of the evidence:
Firm director’s email:
> get the message out that while Meta is the current punching bag, TikTok is the real threat especially as a foreign owned app
> Campaign operatives were also encouraged to use TikTok’s prominence as a way to deflect from Meta’s own privacy and antitrust concerns.
> rumors of the “devious licks” challenge initially spread on Facebook, not TikTok.
> Targeted Victory worked to spread rumors of the “Slap a Teacher TikTok challenge” in local news… In reality, no such challenge existed on TikTok. Again, the rumor started on Facebook
> In addition to planting local news stories, the firm has helped place op-eds targeting TikTok around the country, especially in key congressional districts.
If that feels like a wall of text, it’s because it is, chock full of specific evidence Targeted Victory was manipulating congressmen and newspapers to report in a way benefitting them, all because they know that the TikTok algorithm is leagues superior and more user curated than their own outrage-bate dumpster fire.
The authors aren’t relying on “anti-Facebook anger” anymore than it’s Facebook’s bed and now they need to lie in it after years of turning the web into a partisan surveillance state. This was a targeted campaign of disinformation ranging far further than one slide on a keynote.
I think it’s pretty clear the difference isn’t Apple vs Facebook (e.g. CSAM blowback) but boasting about yourself versus hiring someone to attack a competitor.
An analogous comparison would be if Facebook said their algorithms benefited mental health more than competitors, or if Apple paid to have an op-ed in a newspaper talking about how Intel’s GPU’s might explode or something. The difference is that Apple’s slide was Apple’s slide and any bias was clear. Facebook went through backdoors and PR firms to sway local journalists and congressmen in an actually dark game of chess.
> I’d need to see more evidence that Facebook was deliberately lying to really be concerned about this
That’s the whole point. Facebook wasn’t lying, Targeted Victory was. Take your pick of the evidence:
Firm director’s email:
> get the message out that while Meta is the current punching bag, TikTok is the real threat especially as a foreign owned app
> Campaign operatives were also encouraged to use TikTok’s prominence as a way to deflect from Meta’s own privacy and antitrust concerns.
> rumors of the “devious licks” challenge initially spread on Facebook, not TikTok.
> Targeted Victory worked to spread rumors of the “Slap a Teacher TikTok challenge” in local news… In reality, no such challenge existed on TikTok. Again, the rumor started on Facebook
> In addition to planting local news stories, the firm has helped place op-eds targeting TikTok around the country, especially in key congressional districts.
If that feels like a wall of text, it’s because it is, chock full of specific evidence Targeted Victory was manipulating congressmen and newspapers to report in a way benefitting them, all because they know that the TikTok algorithm is leagues superior and more user curated than their own outrage-bate dumpster fire.
The authors aren’t relying on “anti-Facebook anger” anymore than it’s Facebook’s bed and now they need to lie in it after years of turning the web into a partisan surveillance state. This was a targeted campaign of disinformation ranging far further than one slide on a keynote.
Apple lies themselves. They don't pay the news to lie for them, though they do sanction reporters who report inconvenient truths. Facebook has a history of paying for smear campaigns.
https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/facebook...
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-13374048
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/update-facebooks-smear...
https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/facebook...
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-13374048
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/update-facebooks-smear...
This is par for the course. Done by majority of big corps and nothing wrong with it imo. Stating TikTok is a danger isn't a stretch. The hyperventilating in this piece is hyped up by republican and FB angles but almost every big company is doing comms like this.
Some have even bought the entire newspaper to make sure it stays on message.
This is definitely not the norm for many large companies and really shows the emotional context of the leadership. If they feel attacked, or threatened, often they will resort to the same behavior in reverse.
Similarly, this seems to affect consumer companies a bit more often than B2B companies, but that isn't to say that they are immune.
Certainly not surprising to hear this about Facebook given it's history.
Similarly, this seems to affect consumer companies a bit more often than B2B companies, but that isn't to say that they are immune.
Certainly not surprising to hear this about Facebook given it's history.
Ya the startup I work at did some crazy shit in the founder days or so I’ve heard from the seniors. Competitive intelligence they called it.
We have had malicious litigation too and now I’m ramping up on security (cybersecurity or corposec as I call it, not network) because knowing our competitors I think it’s not a case of if there is a hostile op against us, but when.
We have had malicious litigation too and now I’m ramping up on security (cybersecurity or corposec as I call it, not network) because knowing our competitors I think it’s not a case of if there is a hostile op against us, but when.
I prefer the moral clarity of playing "dirty" (but legally) compared to pretending to be nice but doing shady shit like conspiring to depress SWE salaries in emails with strict retention policies
Yes. In a competitive environment with no law/enforcement, anyone who doesn't cheat loses to someone who does. This is the state of nature, law of the jungle.
The game is broken when honest players have to cheat to be competitive.
On average, these sorts of undermining tactics are uncommon because most companies have limited resources that are better spent on improving their own product or service.
That said, for the subset of companies that operate in fiercely competitive markets with well-funded players, this sort of activity is common.
In my prior company, where 2 competitors & us had raised 9 figures in venture capital, we found multiple instances of such undermining attacks going on from 1 of the competitors. Although we never engaged in such activities, it was clear to me that we were at a slight disadvantage due to our lack of willingness. Imo, such activities require sociopathic leadership, and unfortunately, that sort of personality is overrepresented in the c-suite.
That said, for the subset of companies that operate in fiercely competitive markets with well-funded players, this sort of activity is common.
In my prior company, where 2 competitors & us had raised 9 figures in venture capital, we found multiple instances of such undermining attacks going on from 1 of the competitors. Although we never engaged in such activities, it was clear to me that we were at a slight disadvantage due to our lack of willingness. Imo, such activities require sociopathic leadership, and unfortunately, that sort of personality is overrepresented in the c-suite.
There are some optimists here.
- Pharmaceutical companies trash generics and lobby both directly to doctors and governments
- The sugar and food industry has had a significant role in informing consumers that their obesity was their fault and not the fault of their products
- The oil industry has had a significant role in informing consumers that climate change was their fault and not the fault of their products
- Fruit/vegetable companies I don't even want to get into (look up Chiquita/United Fruit Company)
- Anything to do with any major retailer/distributor and unions
They aren't "dirty" tactics so much as "profit maximizing tactics" and they are inherent to capitalist mega-corps.
- Pharmaceutical companies trash generics and lobby both directly to doctors and governments
- The sugar and food industry has had a significant role in informing consumers that their obesity was their fault and not the fault of their products
- The oil industry has had a significant role in informing consumers that climate change was their fault and not the fault of their products
- Fruit/vegetable companies I don't even want to get into (look up Chiquita/United Fruit Company)
- Anything to do with any major retailer/distributor and unions
They aren't "dirty" tactics so much as "profit maximizing tactics" and they are inherent to capitalist mega-corps.
This kind of thing is entirely normal.
Given that the paper in question is owned by Bezos…
I would still like to see someone brag about the "Facebook whistle blower" campaign. That was the most remarkable media ballet in years, someone paid a lot for that.
I can't help but wonder if it was FB behind it, "all publicity is good publicity." And despite the amazing success of the campaign at raising "awareness" of the campaign, it didn't have any apparent aim or effect beyond that. We've seen that before from FB, vast resource deployed with intricate execution towards trivial goals.
I can't help but wonder if it was FB behind it, "all publicity is good publicity." And despite the amazing success of the campaign at raising "awareness" of the campaign, it didn't have any apparent aim or effect beyond that. We've seen that before from FB, vast resource deployed with intricate execution towards trivial goals.
Iirc the govt instituted bounties on corporate malfeasance fines to whistleblowers (in % - so can be huge), so there are lawfirms that target and finance whistleblowers. There are even spooks-for-hire who work the targets. It's fascinating.
So no, doesn't seem like a hit job at all, just a good mix of first-order incentives. The media balleting is part of the defense, but also it was really informative for many.
EDIT: forgot the media reaction that indeed seemed coordinated and bold. Part of that is just media hating Facebook. They take any chance they get.
So no, doesn't seem like a hit job at all, just a good mix of first-order incentives. The media balleting is part of the defense, but also it was really informative for many.
EDIT: forgot the media reaction that indeed seemed coordinated and bold. Part of that is just media hating Facebook. They take any chance they get.
Kara Swisher, for one, has stated the character assassination of whistleblowers is just part of Facebook's playbook. Make of that what you will. She's far too cozy to tech founders and leaders for my tastes, with no apparent axe to grind, so I lean towards she's just relating an open secret.
For reference, Ronan Farrow names names and relates his own lived experience. Among a zillion other similar accounts. (Sibel Edwards, Snowden, the TV journalist couple that tried to report on illegal doping of dairy cows, ad nauseum.) So I assume paid harrassment is standard practice.
Could be worse. At least killing whistleblowers is rare in the USA.
For reference, Ronan Farrow names names and relates his own lived experience. Among a zillion other similar accounts. (Sibel Edwards, Snowden, the TV journalist couple that tried to report on illegal doping of dairy cows, ad nauseum.) So I assume paid harrassment is standard practice.
Could be worse. At least killing whistleblowers is rare in the USA.
My 9 year old watches TikTok, and I've got mixed feelings. My kid is really into videos of other kids telling jokes, making slime, doing puzzles, etc. Frankly I think that's better than the vapid dreck on Disney--and infinitely better than social media, which would just stoke the tweener social drama. (We allow TikTok but not any form of social media.) Obviously there is less age-appropriate content on there too. But the algorithm is pretty good about not surfacing that material unless you're looking for it.
I'm interested to see that you don't count TikTok as social media.
Does your 9yo have friends on TikTok? I sometimes see the younger crowd often follow each other on TikTok and make posts primarily intended for their friends. This seems a very different usage pattern from mostly watching strangers on the for you page. Maybe 9 is too young for that mode though.
Does your 9yo have friends on TikTok? I sometimes see the younger crowd often follow each other on TikTok and make posts primarily intended for their friends. This seems a very different usage pattern from mostly watching strangers on the for you page. Maybe 9 is too young for that mode though.
She uses it more like YouTube. The algorithm does a good job of feeding her videos related to her interests: puzzles, slime, Pyramids, etc.
Kids seem to be far more vulnerable to become addicted to video-based social media than text-based. I say this as a mid-30s person who saw how obssessed teens and 20-somethings were with Youtubers. For them, all they knew about video was from Youtube, so they accepted the lack of polish that an older person like could not.
I have distraction issues with doomscrolling text feeds, but none whatsoever w/ TT because I dont' find super short videos entertaining. But it's probably very different for those who're exposed to it from a young age.
I have distraction issues with doomscrolling text feeds, but none whatsoever w/ TT because I dont' find super short videos entertaining. But it's probably very different for those who're exposed to it from a young age.
[deleted]
Facebook also gave cheap ad rates to BJP[1] (Party of the current prime minister of India). Facebook seems like align more with the right group.
[1]https://thewire.in/political-economy/for-campaign-ads-on-fac...
[1]https://thewire.in/political-economy/for-campaign-ads-on-fac...
That isn't how it works. The study clearly states that the targeting criteria was not included in the analysis. If you look at any 2 advertisers running their own campaigns, and one is a savvier user of auction based ad systems, a 29% difference in CPM excluding targeting is common.
They absolutely do. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/mark-zuckerberg...
While this story of Facebook smearing TikTok is getting all of HN's attention today, a perhaps more important story about Facebook is being ignored:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30855113
Summary: "A lawsuit accusing Meta Platforms Inc.’s Facebook of overstating its advertising audience got a lot bigger Tuesday when a court expanded the pool of plaintiffs to include more than 2 million small ad buyers.
Dismissing what he called a “blunderbuss of objections” by the company, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that the case can proceed as a class action on behalf of small business owners and individuals who bought ads on Facebook or Instagram since Aug. 15, 2014.
The decision is another setback for the social networking giant after court filings in 2021 revealed that its audience-measuring tool was known by high-ranking Facebook executives to be unreliable because it was skewed by fake and duplicate accounts."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30855113
Summary: "A lawsuit accusing Meta Platforms Inc.’s Facebook of overstating its advertising audience got a lot bigger Tuesday when a court expanded the pool of plaintiffs to include more than 2 million small ad buyers.
Dismissing what he called a “blunderbuss of objections” by the company, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that the case can proceed as a class action on behalf of small business owners and individuals who bought ads on Facebook or Instagram since Aug. 15, 2014.
The decision is another setback for the social networking giant after court filings in 2021 revealed that its audience-measuring tool was known by high-ranking Facebook executives to be unreliable because it was skewed by fake and duplicate accounts."
Here’s what’s sad about this; TikTok was a product clearly built for “younger” users (Gen Z, younger millennials) the same way Facebook was in the aughts for its youthful cohort (older millennials). Facebook then evolved their product and made massive inroads with older audiences, sending their value and userbase soaring… point.
But in doing so Facebook left younger users underserved they chose TikTok. And now to paper over their product failure they’re crying to the government.
But in doing so Facebook left younger users underserved they chose TikTok. And now to paper over their product failure they’re crying to the government.
Well that's not entirely true. Instagram (a Meta property) is more the competitor to TikTok. And this isn't crying to the government. This is trying to push the dangers of TikTok on right wing cultural outlets. The thing is, this is true, the incentives of TikTok are not pro-social. Then again, neither are those of Instagram (or Facebook for that matter).
Has FB met any kids? "Mom say TikTok will corrupt my morals" is recruiting campaign, not a destructive attack.
Not in many culturally conservative households. These parents exert a lot more control over what their children are exposed to / allowed to engage with.
They _try_ to exert a lot more control over what their children are exposed to. I'm not sure they're always successful.
This is definitely true in my case. The harder they tried, the more I pushed back.
Also, as anecdotal evidence, there's a reason there's a stereotype of PKs (preacher's kids).
Also, as anecdotal evidence, there's a reason there's a stereotype of PKs (preacher's kids).
Yep.
The harder control is attempted to be applied, the more resistance there will be and the further away the kids will run when they finally escape.
Those of you who are parents, keep this in mind - kid's are people too. You cannot control them, and if you think you have, they are hiding from you. Help them grow, don't push them away.
The harder control is attempted to be applied, the more resistance there will be and the further away the kids will run when they finally escape.
Those of you who are parents, keep this in mind - kid's are people too. You cannot control them, and if you think you have, they are hiding from you. Help them grow, don't push them away.
I was wondering where did all these "I started with fresh account, randomly clicked, and found something awful" articles about TikTok came from. Now I know.
It was so puzzling, because my experience has been so different. TikTok is the most positive, large scale, social platform I've ever used. It has exposed me to disabled people's, LGBTQ, POV and all kinds of neat things I'd have never even thought of.
California forever, goodbye!
It was so puzzling, because my experience has been so different. TikTok is the most positive, large scale, social platform I've ever used. It has exposed me to disabled people's, LGBTQ, POV and all kinds of neat things I'd have never even thought of.
California forever, goodbye!
Persuasive tech company accuses persuasive tech company that its tech is too persuasive.
The “maligning” is true though. TikTok should be banned in the US because everything that people hate about Facebook (unaccountable, society warping) is also true of TikTok in addition to being controlled by an adversarial state. It is a strictly worse problem.
Imagine if most papers or news channels in the US were controlled by a single, foreign, adversarial country. That’s what TikTok is for gen z.
Imagine if most papers or news channels in the US were controlled by a single, foreign, adversarial country. That’s what TikTok is for gen z.
If there is anything happening around you which influences, it is staged and driven by someone.
I like the complete disallowance of nuance in your statement. Everything influential is staged.
> Of the stories you read in traditional media that aren't about politics, crimes, or disasters, more than half probably come from PR firms.
Stories not about politics, crimes, or disasters ... are not news?
But I would add corporate malfeasance to the list of "politics, crimes, or disasters" (or does that count as crime?).
Stories not about politics, crimes, or disasters ... are not news?
But I would add corporate malfeasance to the list of "politics, crimes, or disasters" (or does that count as crime?).
What influenced you to believe that?
I was skeptical for precisely that reason, so despite the fact that it isn't a secret (see for example https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/checks-balanc...) I didn't believe it until I saw the sausage getting made. Obviously I understand why you might not trust some random guy on this, but I've personally seen a billion dollar company where an outright majority of news coverage originated with its PR team, and nobody involved found this atypical or strange.
I'm not saying the concept isn't real, I'm just generally skeptical of prescriptive statements such as GGP.
There are plenty of things happening around me that influence me, like kind gestures big or small, the birth of my children, learning about things (that are verifiable), which I can assure you are not staged or driven by someone.
There are plenty of things happening around me that influence me, like kind gestures big or small, the birth of my children, learning about things (that are verifiable), which I can assure you are not staged or driven by someone.
> There are plenty of things happening around me that influence me
You’re being really pedantic with those examples - obviously, they weren’t talking about events like the “birth of a child”…
You’re being really pedantic with those examples - obviously, they weren’t talking about events like the “birth of a child”…
I understand the context, but I was questioning the OP:s use of "anything", so I don't think I'm being pedantic. They could've just as easily said "any news around you", or whatever they felt they meant.
If I expand OP's statement, I'm a bit troubled by the (purposeful) spreading erosion of trust in society. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot to distrust, especially now, but when you blanketly start distrusting everything, the trustworthy lose and the unscrupulous win. Further, you yourself lose.
TL;DR: trust but verify > distrust and don't verify. We might recognize that verification is the only relevant conditional, but I think it's safe to say that it's not what's being generally applied when it comes to media consumption.
If I expand OP's statement, I'm a bit troubled by the (purposeful) spreading erosion of trust in society. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot to distrust, especially now, but when you blanketly start distrusting everything, the trustworthy lose and the unscrupulous win. Further, you yourself lose.
TL;DR: trust but verify > distrust and don't verify. We might recognize that verification is the only relevant conditional, but I think it's safe to say that it's not what's being generally applied when it comes to media consumption.
> but I was questioning the OP:s use of "anything", so I don't think I'm being pedantic
Nope, you’re 100% being pedantic. OP said “things happening around you”, which most would not interpret as “birth of my child” or random “kind gestures”.
> I'm a bit troubled by the (purposeful) spreading erosion of trust in society
I hear this kind of misguided sentiment quite often. I hate to break it to you, but your hope/trust for humanity doesn’t change reality.
Eg, my European colleagues who call political corruption as “transgressions”, implying that somehow it’s a rare occurrence in the EU, but obviously developing countries are “deeply corrupt”.
Nope, you’re 100% being pedantic. OP said “things happening around you”, which most would not interpret as “birth of my child” or random “kind gestures”.
> I'm a bit troubled by the (purposeful) spreading erosion of trust in society
I hear this kind of misguided sentiment quite often. I hate to break it to you, but your hope/trust for humanity doesn’t change reality.
Eg, my European colleagues who call political corruption as “transgressions”, implying that somehow it’s a rare occurrence in the EU, but obviously developing countries are “deeply corrupt”.
Paul Graham's submarine essay probably.
Obviously, every HNer religiously reads and memorizes PG’s mediocre essays.
There’s no way you could hold the opinion that PR and influence pervade our society, without having read “Submarine”.
There’s no way you could hold the opinion that PR and influence pervade our society, without having read “Submarine”.
> Obviously, every HNer religiously reads and memorizes PG’s mediocre essays.
Idk, I like PG. I've read the really long-form pieces like "What I've Done", etc., but from what I gather by following his Twitter, he's less and less defined by creative or unique ideas and has turned towards more standard neo-con, gen X silicon valley. More than anything, there is a noticeable lack of emotional intelligence that doesn't hold up to the standards of youth today.
He went to RISD; cool, awesome; he's a brilliant computer scientist; okay, cool. The world is more global now, a lot of people have these Renaissance man-type experiences, and haven't yet made the money that will put a veil over their eyes. A lot of the essays are mediocre. A lot of them are good. But I think it's just less his time in 2022 for what he was trying to do.
Idk, I like PG. I've read the really long-form pieces like "What I've Done", etc., but from what I gather by following his Twitter, he's less and less defined by creative or unique ideas and has turned towards more standard neo-con, gen X silicon valley. More than anything, there is a noticeable lack of emotional intelligence that doesn't hold up to the standards of youth today.
He went to RISD; cool, awesome; he's a brilliant computer scientist; okay, cool. The world is more global now, a lot of people have these Renaissance man-type experiences, and haven't yet made the money that will put a veil over their eyes. A lot of the essays are mediocre. A lot of them are good. But I think it's just less his time in 2022 for what he was trying to do.
Whose essays do you like? I'm always looking for good writing to read.
That was a good essay, honestly, but just reading the media is enough to tell you that the media is fake. I mean, we've all seen headlines that switch narratives on a dime, just within mainstream media orgs, going only by their own headlines.
But yeah, anyone who knows how social media sites got started with faked engagement shouldn't believe most of the things they see online.
But yeah, anyone who knows how social media sites got started with faked engagement shouldn't believe most of the things they see online.
lol, ironic that they they're influenced to believe so by this influence...
A media company publishing a negative article on Facebook is like Ford publishing a negative article on Tesla
They cannot compete with the product so here we go
Facebooks main site is less responsive than visual studio on my school lap and i cannot use messenger on my phone from web browser cuz they want me to install spyware
Once i graduate i dont think ill use this mess more than once a month for 5mins
Facebooks main site is less responsive than visual studio on my school lap and i cannot use messenger on my phone from web browser cuz they want me to install spyware
Once i graduate i dont think ill use this mess more than once a month for 5mins
The Washington Post (a media organisation) malign Meta/Facebook (a media organisation) who were maligning TikTok (a media organisation).
Perhaps the most blatant case of "Always accuse your enemy of exactly what you are doing yourself."
Perhaps the most blatant case of "Always accuse your enemy of exactly what you are doing yourself."
LOL - WaPo and Facebook slinging political mud, what a surprise! The real surprise is that anyone still trusts what social media and ancient media oligarchs say.
The part I find most dumb about these "revelations" is that Facebook doesn't even bother to hide their efforts. No shame, no contrition. So normalized this kind of crap has become.
Facebook is using the same firm to malign Roblox with the same strategy.
Like most adults, most of what I know about Roblox comes secondhand from the media. Recently I saw[1] a pretty damning video about Roblox's lack of moderation and exploitation of its users.
My basic perception at this point is that TikTok, Facebook, and Roblox all deserve each other. Hopefully they waste their money attacking each other until they mutually self-destruct.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTMF6xEiAaY
My basic perception at this point is that TikTok, Facebook, and Roblox all deserve each other. Hopefully they waste their money attacking each other until they mutually self-destruct.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTMF6xEiAaY
That damning video could have been indirectly paid for by Facebook. I'm a fan of the Shut Up Sit Down guys, but they are pros.
Would you mind speaking more to this or providing a link?
Silly clickbait title. Why not say Democrat Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign Democrat TikTok?
Just when you think those guys can't stoop any lower, they go and surprise you yet again.
They should have paid more. Perhaps they could have been useful for once.
“Can you believe these jackals obfuscated the data that would have told us our advertising was ineffective?!”
Dont' all massive corps do this against their competition?
Gen-Z doesn't give a damn about Facebook, or Republicans.
Gen Z is the largest or second largest user group for Instagram, a wholly owned subsidiary of FB. Saying that X doesn't care about FB indicates ignorance of the simple fact that one is spending a lot of time reading what FB thinks you should be reading.
That's like saying Gen Z loves Office365 because they play XBox. It's just simply not the case. Facebook and Instagram are different products, Facebook is bleeding millions of users, and growth rates for Instagram are levelling out. These are just facts and it's mostly because Gen Z.
I am sure Sandberg is evil enough to do such stuff (she et al. have even blessed bloodshed in multiple countries), but I find it kinda ironic this is published in a newspaper owned by another one of these evil companies.
Where does the Republican angle come in to it?
FTA:
"The firm is one of the biggest recipients of Republican campaign spending, earning more than $237 million in 2020, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets. Its biggest payments came from national GOP congressional committees and America First Action, a pro-Trump super PAC."
"The firm is one of the biggest recipients of Republican campaign spending, earning more than $237 million in 2020, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets. Its biggest payments came from national GOP congressional committees and America First Action, a pro-Trump super PAC."
I guess, but that's not massively relevant to the story, is it? It looks like they've tried to shoe-horn in a political angle.
It is not unlikely that if Trump had won a second term, then TikTok would have been banned in the US.
Facebook made a gamble though and as a downside they probably have less goodwill with the current administration compared to what they could have had.
Facebook made a gamble though and as a downside they probably have less goodwill with the current administration compared to what they could have had.
I have argued in the past that the real problem of misinformation lies with users not FB. However, when FB itself actively supports the sourcing of false info that endangers teachers to boot, they should get the hammer.
This is what I've been saying for months. TikTok has been an instrumental tool to help fight racist right wing propaganda. We've to join in with China and fight racist right wing propaganda against China.
Isn't this what all firms do to each other, all the time?
Like, isn't this just normal business these days? Isn't this sort of thing a natural eventuality in a capitalist world?
Capitalism crowns the person who wins, regardless of how they won.
And besides, all press is good press because it's all exposure. Why wouldn't you do this sort of thing?
It's only wrong to get caught.
And even then, you can pay for a lawyer to prove that you were either:
- not doing anything wrong,
- not legitimately caught,
- or simply giving your opinion.
Like, isn't this just normal business these days? Isn't this sort of thing a natural eventuality in a capitalist world?
Capitalism crowns the person who wins, regardless of how they won.
And besides, all press is good press because it's all exposure. Why wouldn't you do this sort of thing?
It's only wrong to get caught.
And even then, you can pay for a lawyer to prove that you were either:
- not doing anything wrong,
- not legitimately caught,
- or simply giving your opinion.
Positive PR, where you pay someone to go around convincing reporters how great you are, is normal business and I'm not sure it could ever be otherwise. Negative campaigns that function solely to tear down your opponents, as the article says (and my experience matches), are relatively uncommon outside of politics.
Tell me you've never run a business without telling me you've never run a business.
> Negative campaigns that function solely to tear down your opponents, as the article says (and my experience matches), are relatively uncommon outside of politics.
If you have competitors, they will try to trash your name, I promise you. It doesn't matter what scale you're operating at.
Trash talk is universal.
> Negative campaigns that function solely to tear down your opponents, as the article says (and my experience matches), are relatively uncommon outside of politics.
If you have competitors, they will try to trash your name, I promise you. It doesn't matter what scale you're operating at.
Trash talk is universal.
I disagree, the PC vs Mac is arguably not positive PR towards the PC industry but was very popular back when it aired. Even now Samsung sometimes poke fun at Apple mistakes. I would argue micro aggressive advertising is negative PR just with lipstick on it.
There's a pretty big difference between comparing the cool Justin Long and nerdy John Hodgman (I would argue those character roles are backwards from what they should be) and a massively cynical scare theater campaign about how a Chinese company is stealing your children's data, negatively impacting their mental health, and causing destruction of property from a company that makes money using your children's data and negatively impacting everyone's mental health.
There’s a pretty large difference though. PC vs Mac were explicitly adverts, you knew Apple made them. This article describes the firm placing op-eds from “concerned parents” that they drafted themselves with no indication of their or Meta’s involvement. Whole different level.
I mean, to some extent, those ads were popular/notorious precisely _because_ they were such an unusual tactic.
Also, that was open advertising, not a covert disinformation campaign; it's a bit different.
Also, that was open advertising, not a covert disinformation campaign; it's a bit different.
The 'yellow peril' aspect of it was certainly disgusting.
Sure, but what are the repercussions?
If you know how to ride a media wave, you literally can't lose in today's media landscape (mixed metaphor, I know).
If you know how to ride a media wave, you literally can't lose in today's media landscape (mixed metaphor, I know).
All of Chinese economic activity is subservient to the state, including companies like ByteDance. The information they gather goes back to the state. This is not “yellow peril”, this is “Sino peril” if you must call it something scary sounding. It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with national security and ideology.
If we can put aside our own ideology and national bias, the business model and tactics of ByteDance, Facebook or any other company in the ad-tech supported social media realm operates more-or-less with the same objectives and does the same things.
Ideology is just the trash can we are all eating from.
Ideology is just the trash can we are all eating from.
It's not necessarily wise to put aside national bias. There are well informed, intelligent, honorable people who believe that Chinese hegemony would be a bad thing. In that lens, it would be perfectly consistent to want to prevent Western citizens from being influenced by the Chinese company/govt, while being OK with the same power in the hands of Western governments.
IE, you would need to also assert that Western companies having these data is no better than Chinese companies, an opinion which is hotly debated and not at all settled.
IE, you would need to also assert that Western companies having these data is no better than Chinese companies, an opinion which is hotly debated and not at all settled.
There are well informed, intelligent, honorable people who believe that American hegemony has been bad thing.
Yep, totally agree! They usually aren’t the ones making the case that for Us citizens, it’s better to have data in the Us companies hands rather than Chinese.
I may have missed your overall point though - would you mind being explicit about it?
I may have missed your overall point though - would you mind being explicit about it?
Yes, but no well informed, intelligent, honorable people who believe Chinese hegemony would be a good thing.
What "yellow peril"?
The focus on Asia, specifically China, as a uniquely threatening force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Peril .
Is China not a uniquely threatening force? They have the second largest GDP, the second-most expensive military with the most personnel, considerable influence over other important Asian countries, and a major role in manufacturing the world's products, and they continue to rapidly expand across all of those facets. They are very much in opposition to Liberal values (free speech, democracy, privacy), and they are somewhat aligned with other US adversaries (Russia, North Korea).
In 1910, I'd absolutely attribute focus on China to racism. Today, if I were to rank the biggest threats to US for the coming decades, I would put China in distant first place. But I'm no geopolitics expert, am I missing something?
In 1910, I'd absolutely attribute focus on China to racism. Today, if I were to rank the biggest threats to US for the coming decades, I would put China in distant first place. But I'm no geopolitics expert, am I missing something?
Capitalism has nothing to do with power disseminating information in an attempt to retain power. You are actually lucky for capitalism as it's two companies offering social media services playing PR games and not a totalitarian government operating under the guise of fascism/socialism/marxism pushing domestic propaganda demonizing people who think like you.
At what point does:
- having Facebook/Meta experience on your resume starts hurting you against others who don't
- selling your company to Facebook/Meta or product on it hurts your brand and perceived to be immoral
Is Facebook/Meta the Tobacco company of our generation? The harmful effects of smoking were covered up for almost a century, much as the impact of mass remote dopamine manipulation is not as prolific.
- having Facebook/Meta experience on your resume starts hurting you against others who don't
- selling your company to Facebook/Meta or product on it hurts your brand and perceived to be immoral
Is Facebook/Meta the Tobacco company of our generation? The harmful effects of smoking were covered up for almost a century, much as the impact of mass remote dopamine manipulation is not as prolific.
> - having Facebook/Meta experience on your resume starts hurting you against others who don't
Why would it hurt you? They're at the forefront of technical challenges of scaling an immensely popular product and developing internal tooling. These aren't necessarily applicable everywhere, but they're incredibly valuable. If anything, I think the fact that they're working at a place where a very vocal minority of their peers jeers at is a positive signal. They can withstand a snarky comment from some hipster at a party to potentially work on interesting technical challenges (money is good too).
> - selling your company to Facebook/Meta or product on it hurts your brand and perceived to be immoral
I think you're in a bubble. Facebook is a very popular brand name outside of a very vocal minority of internet commenters and tech journalists. They have a few of the most popular consumer apps in the world with 3 billion total users across the products. When you consider their products in open source like GraphQL and React, it's even more.
I get it, you don't like Facebook. But don't gaslight yourself into thinking they're some toxic entity that everyone hates and is on the verge of irrelevance
Why would it hurt you? They're at the forefront of technical challenges of scaling an immensely popular product and developing internal tooling. These aren't necessarily applicable everywhere, but they're incredibly valuable. If anything, I think the fact that they're working at a place where a very vocal minority of their peers jeers at is a positive signal. They can withstand a snarky comment from some hipster at a party to potentially work on interesting technical challenges (money is good too).
> - selling your company to Facebook/Meta or product on it hurts your brand and perceived to be immoral
I think you're in a bubble. Facebook is a very popular brand name outside of a very vocal minority of internet commenters and tech journalists. They have a few of the most popular consumer apps in the world with 3 billion total users across the products. When you consider their products in open source like GraphQL and React, it's even more.
I get it, you don't like Facebook. But don't gaslight yourself into thinking they're some toxic entity that everyone hates and is on the verge of irrelevance
I sure would think twice about hiring from Facebook. It's like hiring someone from a weapons company that targets teenagers.
Edit: I've had a chance to think about it after a cup of coffee and I take back my comment. Everyone deserves a second chance. Everyone gets the same ethical review.
Edit: I've had a chance to think about it after a cup of coffee and I take back my comment. Everyone deserves a second chance. Everyone gets the same ethical review.
I wouldn't work at a place that doctrineer. Seems like a red flag to me that the company is overly consumed with politics.
Maybe they are consumed with ethics, rather than politics. As this article (and many others) explains, Meta does not act in an ethical manner with their actions towards users, the government, competitors, etc.
Why wouldn't a future employer take that into account?
Why wouldn't a future employer take that into account?
I wouldn't mind hiring an ex-FBer, the organization I represent has a very precise ethical compass. I also believe I wouldn't be able to match their salaries, theyd be on-board because they share that same vision and ethics.
If you were a weapons company (and really, most successful big IT corps are in this metaphor) and you need specific targeting (you do) then you absolutely would. Perhaps you have trouble with their moral fiber, but you would then basically be alone in the business world. Corporations hate integrity in their workers (except when it comes to keeping corporate secrets).
They're making new talent every day. No need to hire the tainted.
If you work in this field (and if you're looking at these candidates, you are at least adjacent to it) then you are the tainted. Not hiring someone else because they had the audacity to also work in that sector is hypocritical.
You're right, I was too harsh. Everyone gets the same ethical review.
Good luck explaining to your boss that you can't fill the hiring rec because, even though you found qualified candidates, you disliked the fact that they had the audacity to be employed by a tech company you don't like and so they're "tainted". In expectation it's better for the business to lay you off and get someone not ideologically possessed to do hiring, in the same way it's better for the business to not have racist hiring managers.
It is not at all similar to racism, and you should not pretend corporate dehumanising is something to be expected or even logical. These demands are wrong and we are correct to talk about them as such.
Being unable to find the best candidates because you have racial prejudices or prejudices towards anyone with prior employment at the F in FAANG are both bad for business. You have a massive systematic blind spot that will make your company less competitive relative to peers because you have a personal ax to grind.
I might add that prior employment at Facebook is very positively correlated with engineering talent -- you are not just selecting against something orthogonal to engineering talent, you are actually selecting against something that indicates they are a good engineer, meaning you have a smaller labor force you are willing to hire and a lower quality one. Go tell HR and your boss that you have prejudices against people from Facebook and you are going to discriminate against them in hiring as a consequence, see how well that goes for you.
I might add that prior employment at Facebook is very positively correlated with engineering talent -- you are not just selecting against something orthogonal to engineering talent, you are actually selecting against something that indicates they are a good engineer, meaning you have a smaller labor force you are willing to hire and a lower quality one. Go tell HR and your boss that you have prejudices against people from Facebook and you are going to discriminate against them in hiring as a consequence, see how well that goes for you.
You are again enshrining (purely) fiscal motivation as expected and logical. I'm sorry, I just don't agree. I doubt you will start seeing it my way. Let's just leave it at that.
All I've said is that your ideological prejudices will cause you to have more difficulty finding good quality candidates (you are selecting against things correlated with quality) and you'll be paying more for equal quality candidates as a result.
> smaller labor force you are willing to hire and a lower quality one.
The first part is true. The second is a leap, plenty of high quality talent actively chooses to not work at FB, or happens to not work there. By not selecting from the former FB pool I have not lowered the overall quality of my labor pool. I have increased the integrity standards though.
The first part is true. The second is a leap, plenty of high quality talent actively chooses to not work at FB, or happens to not work there. By not selecting from the former FB pool I have not lowered the overall quality of my labor pool. I have increased the integrity standards though.
Given the nebulous notion of a set of high quality talent (assume quality is a scalar and they're the people above a given threshold), it's pretty clear that:
len(set(high quality talent) - set(ever employed at facebook)) < len(set(high quality talent) - set(refuses to work at facebook))
Note that "refuses to work at facebook" doesn't select for engineering talent, while "ever employed at facebook" explicitly does, meaning the average talent in the set containing facebook employees is higher.
Given all this, you have to fill the roll (or why hire?) and you don't have infinite time (there is a cost associated with every day you've not filled the role relative to it being filled). Given those constraints, if you limit your pool due to prejudice the optimal outcome is for you to hire a lower quality person versus the situation if you were not prejudiced; if you hire the same quality person, it means you likely paid for it in another form, namely the cost associated with the role being unfilled longer.
len(set(high quality talent) - set(ever employed at facebook)) < len(set(high quality talent) - set(refuses to work at facebook))
Note that "refuses to work at facebook" doesn't select for engineering talent, while "ever employed at facebook" explicitly does, meaning the average talent in the set containing facebook employees is higher.
Given all this, you have to fill the roll (or why hire?) and you don't have infinite time (there is a cost associated with every day you've not filled the role relative to it being filled). Given those constraints, if you limit your pool due to prejudice the optimal outcome is for you to hire a lower quality person versus the situation if you were not prejudiced; if you hire the same quality person, it means you likely paid for it in another form, namely the cost associated with the role being unfilled longer.
[deleted]
curious where do you work?
Forefront of technical challenges? Are you effin' kidding me? That website that can't get its shit together for 15+ years I use it. Constantly and consistently there are tons of bugs in its behavior. Doubling comments, missing pictures, can't create photo albums, then they are created twice, site unavailable, some parts of site not working, feed not loading, videos not playing, back button almost completely broken. I could go on and on and on. Any browser, anytime.
I've never ever experienced any other popular system/service so broken.
I am sure behind it all is complex overengineered cathedral of frameworks, systems and libraries. Some of it may be even cool. But the final result is piece of shit, no matter how I look on it, no matter how many chances I give it.
Compared to quality of say various google apps is... well incomparable. So yeah, having this on resume is underwhelming, even without looking at moral topics.
I've never ever experienced any other popular system/service so broken.
I am sure behind it all is complex overengineered cathedral of frameworks, systems and libraries. Some of it may be even cool. But the final result is piece of shit, no matter how I look on it, no matter how many chances I give it.
Compared to quality of say various google apps is... well incomparable. So yeah, having this on resume is underwhelming, even without looking at moral topics.
I really dislike FB, but I can’t say I have your experience. Both mobile and desktop versions of FB worked flawlessly for me for the time that I used it, starting back in 2005 when our University was granted access.
I don't think it hurts from a technical perspective but from an ethical and moral perspective facebook is harmful to society. The good news is someone in a job interview is looking to get away from facebook and that should carry some weight.
[deleted]
I didn't really present any strong opinions just raising questions off what I am reading and seeing based on trends.
It's quite bizarre that you would go out of your way to try and gaslight me that Facebook's toxicity is my own imagination.
Do you work for facebook in some way, sold a company to them or own their stocks?
It's quite bizarre that you would go out of your way to try and gaslight me that Facebook's toxicity is my own imagination.
Do you work for facebook in some way, sold a company to them or own their stocks?
You conflate toxicity, popularity and commercial success. Someone in tech might have a skewed view of the latter two given their environment but they're well capable of evaluating the potential danger of the tools being built there. They're also the ones doing the recruiting.
Anecdotally, I had a friend who used to work at Monsanto and he told me of a few very uncomfortable social encounters when people learned where he worked. It made him question whether he should find a job somewhere else. I don't think we're there with Facebook, the general public mostly seems focused on misinformation rather than privacy but who knows what the future holds.
Anecdotally, I had a friend who used to work at Monsanto and he told me of a few very uncomfortable social encounters when people learned where he worked. It made him question whether he should find a job somewhere else. I don't think we're there with Facebook, the general public mostly seems focused on misinformation rather than privacy but who knows what the future holds.
[deleted]
When you see a Meta candidate you know
* They went through one of the hardest interview loops in the industry
* They went through one of the hardest promotion ladders in the industry
* They solve all problems at huge scale out of the box
* If you aren't paying top of market and they're still interested, they're most likely financially comfortable from their years at Meta and won't be jumping ship every 18 months for a 20% raise
I'd say that's pretty attractive as a hiring manager
* They went through one of the hardest interview loops in the industry
* They went through one of the hardest promotion ladders in the industry
* They solve all problems at huge scale out of the box
* If you aren't paying top of market and they're still interested, they're most likely financially comfortable from their years at Meta and won't be jumping ship every 18 months for a 20% raise
I'd say that's pretty attractive as a hiring manager
I think all of this assumes the candidate is for a highly technical position, which is not all Meta jobs.
Even then, why do we assume they were promoted, or solved "all problems", or have some altruistic reason to make less?
The only thing we know is that they were hired by Meta sometime in the past.
Even then, why do we assume they were promoted, or solved "all problems", or have some altruistic reason to make less?
The only thing we know is that they were hired by Meta sometime in the past.
> - having Facebook/Meta experience on your resume starts hurting you against others who don't
Would you penalize a mechanical engineer for having Volkswagen on their resume because you read about the VW emissions scandal? Should we refuse to hire anyone who interned for politicians who were later involved in scandals?
Of course not, because it’s dumb to punish former engineers for something a previous employer did over which they had no control.
Good engineers are good engineers. Period. Trying to get revenge on a company you don’t like by forcing former employees in unrelated departments to suffer the consequences of your anger is ridiculous.
Would you penalize a mechanical engineer for having Volkswagen on their resume because you read about the VW emissions scandal? Should we refuse to hire anyone who interned for politicians who were later involved in scandals?
Of course not, because it’s dumb to punish former engineers for something a previous employer did over which they had no control.
Good engineers are good engineers. Period. Trying to get revenge on a company you don’t like by forcing former employees in unrelated departments to suffer the consequences of your anger is ridiculous.
VW emissions scandal is small potatoes compared to what Facebook is doing to the world. Working for a war machine company (Lockheed, GD, etc) would be a much better analogy, and I think the question is a valid one for employees of those companies, too.
The VW emissions violations are 100% proven deceit among customers and governments, as nefarious programming in their vehicles is much harder to detect than say, an editorial funded by FB spreading rumors about a competitor where the reader can form their own opinion. Unethical, yea, but 'small potatoes' compared to VW.
Facebook is party to genocide and is actively working to end democracy. Lying on emissions reports is small potatoes compared to that, yes.
While the VW scandal is based on facts with hard evidence [1], your other theory is currently conjecture.
[1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830414-800-how-did-...
"Volkswagen programmed its on-board software to detect when cars with its TDI diesel engine were undergoing an emissions test, using information from the steering, brakes and accelerator. It then tweaked the engine settings to minimise levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx)."
[1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830414-800-how-did-...
"Volkswagen programmed its on-board software to detect when cars with its TDI diesel engine were undergoing an emissions test, using information from the steering, brakes and accelerator. It then tweaked the engine settings to minimise levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx)."
Today, people from Ukraine are glad of products of such war machine companies.
> what Facebook is doing to the world.
connecting people?
connecting people?
I think if a candidate said they worked at Volkswagen between 2009 to 2015, followed by a 3-year gap in their resume I'd likely not hire them. Regardless of your position in a company, your existence there does endorse it, and some responsibility (to varying extents obviously) must be acknowledged.
1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41053740
1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41053740
I pretty well despise Meta, but not hiring people from there because you disagree with the product is not okay. If I did that I'd never hire another former Googler in my life. I'd never hire someone from Microsoft, and I'd certainly never hire someone from Amazon.
This kind of thinking, first and foremost, will only result in a culture of fear (eg: what company will be next to be unsafe on my resume?) It also is a quiet signal that certain people have given up on the long fight to change things. Changing things is hard, but it is just that - a long exhausting process. It requires patience and changing people's minds and perspectives, not by strong arming, but by aligning incentives in a direction that's better for the majority.
This kind of thinking, first and foremost, will only result in a culture of fear (eg: what company will be next to be unsafe on my resume?) It also is a quiet signal that certain people have given up on the long fight to change things. Changing things is hard, but it is just that - a long exhausting process. It requires patience and changing people's minds and perspectives, not by strong arming, but by aligning incentives in a direction that's better for the majority.
Are we writing off most of FAANG then? Maybe just reduce it down to "AN", assuming we aren't yet too annoyed with Apple and Netflix? Amazon and Google as well are both certainly full of dark patterns and badness. I'm certain that they have both tried to crush their competition as well. Can we assume that anyone who has worked at any of those companies has at best dubious morals, or are they instead small players in a big machine?
> Can we assume that anyone who has worked at any of those companies has at best dubious morals, or are they instead small players in a big machine?
Why not both? They certainly are small players in a big machine, but the reality is that any engineer capable of getting a job in FAANG has plenty of other options that are less morally dubious. If they chose FAANG in spite of this they either don't believe it's immoral or are willing to look the other way for money/prestige.
I certainly wouldn't advocate for writing people off entirely based on their work history (after all, it could be that they went in not realizing the extent of the harm and that's why they're leaving), but I do think it's a factor worth considering.
Why not both? They certainly are small players in a big machine, but the reality is that any engineer capable of getting a job in FAANG has plenty of other options that are less morally dubious. If they chose FAANG in spite of this they either don't believe it's immoral or are willing to look the other way for money/prestige.
I certainly wouldn't advocate for writing people off entirely based on their work history (after all, it could be that they went in not realizing the extent of the harm and that's why they're leaving), but I do think it's a factor worth considering.
I would be very hesitant to hire anyone with Google on their resume for the same reason. Maybe they're good, but maybe they're one of those engineers willing to trade in ethics for bucks. (I'm thinking specifically of those engineers that write the code used to terminate accounts without sufficient recourse).
> I'm thinking specifically of those engineers that write the code used to terminate accounts without sufficient recourse
Do people typically put that specific information on their resume? Alphabet employs over a hundred thousand people, 99% of them won't have looked at that at all. I personally don't work at a FAANG but I'd take the chance if I got it - the bucks are so monstrous compared to my current compensation it would be borderline unethical to not accept a position when I know how much it could help my family.
Do people typically put that specific information on their resume? Alphabet employs over a hundred thousand people, 99% of them won't have looked at that at all. I personally don't work at a FAANG but I'd take the chance if I got it - the bucks are so monstrous compared to my current compensation it would be borderline unethical to not accept a position when I know how much it could help my family.
They might put that they worked on, say, Google Play, which would certainly raise concerns. I'd need to figure out what they worked on before making any sort of offer. If they didn't say what products they worked on, the resume would go right in the bin (of course).
I look at it less like smoking and more like obesity because people know its bad, but will foam at the mouth if someone dares address it.
There were vocal complaints about the introduction of indoor smoking bans in the UK and Ireland before they were enacted; in practice the vast majority of people seemed happier afterwards.
Part of the playbook of any addiction-based industry is to encourage outrage at the prospect of the product being restricted; it builds their moat and delays the resolution of the problem (allowing their revenue streams to continue for longer).
Part of the playbook of any addiction-based industry is to encourage outrage at the prospect of the product being restricted; it builds their moat and delays the resolution of the problem (allowing their revenue streams to continue for longer).
It already does. I spoke to several trainees that don't want companies like Facebook or Shell on their resume.
Problem is those companies start to attract people that thrive in toxic cultures, worsening the problem.
Problem is those companies start to attract people that thrive in toxic cultures, worsening the problem.
There's a good book about it: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1476637.Political_Ponero...
Why is Shell so bad? I spoke to a Shell employee the other day and the guy couldn't stop talking about all the great things they are doing for the environment and with new green technologies. /s
At no point. You’ll only hear the opposite from a small cohort that can hop around faangs. There’s plenty of people working in all kinds of industries that overall suck for humanity.
I, for one, won't touch anything with Zuck's fingerprints on it. Oculus is dead to me and many other game developers.
But that is balanced out by having Carmack's prints on it. He has status as a God on HN.
Carmack lost a lot of his shine working at Facebook. He was a champion of an industry when he was young, but now he's just some guy helping further entrench Facebook.
Didn't he leave Facebook years ago shortly after basically being aquired along with oculus?
He still consults for Facebook and is still a big Meta booster, see this from just a few months ago: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/10/john-carmack-sounds-a...
That is disappointing. I very much admired his thoughts on coding.
No it's not. If someone walks through your living room with dirty shoes you don't get the floor cleaned up by having someone over who takes their shoes off.
We’re here I think. I’ve seen a few hiring threads on other communities where the topic came up and there was a healthy sample of “will never a former Fbook/Meta” prognosticators in the room
[deleted]
> having Facebook/Meta experience on your resume starts hurting you against others who don't
Depends if one is a React, Folly, BOLT, OCaml, GHC, clang contributor or not.
Depends if one is a React, Folly, BOLT, OCaml, GHC, clang contributor or not.
> having Facebook/Meta experience on your resume starts hurting you against others who don't
It already does. Meta is reportedly paying more to hire talent because of their reputation.[0]
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-pays-brand-tax-hire...
It already does. Meta is reportedly paying more to hire talent because of their reputation.[0]
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-pays-brand-tax-hire...
> having Facebook/Meta experience on your resume starts hurting you against others who don't
I'd say never. There will always be some company more than glad to hire high-merit developers without paying a premium. As a result, you know that all these Meta developers you're rejecting are going straight in the arms of your competitor. This tends to balance the market.
I'd say never. There will always be some company more than glad to hire high-merit developers without paying a premium. As a result, you know that all these Meta developers you're rejecting are going straight in the arms of your competitor. This tends to balance the market.
It seems the whole industry considers underhanded tactics a good thing. Facebook has been exploiting users' phonebooks from Day 1, it's not new. It's just that the industry bent towards facebook-like rather than the reverse
Good luck getting anyone to do anything about it though, tobacco was an easy target because it causes cancer... Americans are much better at solving medical problems than mental health problems.
> Is Facebook/Meta the Tobacco company of our generation?
Yes. It is a digital pharmaceuticals drugs company and it was 'addictive' for the previous generation back then. Not so for this generation as it has no effect on them. Facebook™ and Instagram™ do not work on them anymore.
The new digital crack / cocaine is TikTok™, manufactured by ByteDance. Another generation will find another 'hit' to be addicted to once they get bored off on this one.
Rinse and repeat.
Yes. It is a digital pharmaceuticals drugs company and it was 'addictive' for the previous generation back then. Not so for this generation as it has no effect on them. Facebook™ and Instagram™ do not work on them anymore.
The new digital crack / cocaine is TikTok™, manufactured by ByteDance. Another generation will find another 'hit' to be addicted to once they get bored off on this one.
Rinse and repeat.
>The White House is briefing TikTok stars about the war in Ukraine
>“We recognize this is a critically important avenue in the way the American public is finding out about the latest,” said the White House director of digital strategy, Rob Flaherty, “so we wanted to make sure you had the latest information from an authoritative source.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/11/tik-tok...
>“We recognize this is a critically important avenue in the way the American public is finding out about the latest,” said the White House director of digital strategy, Rob Flaherty, “so we wanted to make sure you had the latest information from an authoritative source.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/11/tik-tok...
jjtheblunt(3)
gentleman11(2)
rvz(1)
(1) Facebook has consistently acted on a partisan basis supporting Republicans and right-wing causes as much as it can. Any normal company would have thrown Sheryl Steinberg under the bus for funding anti-semitic conspiracy theories but that kind of stuff is at the DNA core of Facebook. (2) That doesn't mean TikTok isn't toxic.
So even if that's true, every other big tech company supports left wingers and left-wing causes.
Why the focus on the fact that it was a Republican strategy firm? Why does that matter?
Being the Washington Post, I'm sure it's to insinuate that all the bad things that happen are Republican-led. Only the GOP plays dirty tricks, right? After the Steele dossier, the Biden laptop, the Russia collusion misinformation campaign, and willfully hiding the mental decline of the current president - you'd think we'd get past the whole "only Republicans bad" narrative. But I guess that just goes to show how successfully the WashPo and others are running their own strategies to push agendas...
Being the Washington Post, I'm sure it's to insinuate that all the bad things that happen are Republican-led. Only the GOP plays dirty tricks, right? After the Steele dossier, the Biden laptop, the Russia collusion misinformation campaign, and willfully hiding the mental decline of the current president - you'd think we'd get past the whole "only Republicans bad" narrative. But I guess that just goes to show how successfully the WashPo and others are running their own strategies to push agendas...
Completely unnecessary. TikTok maligns itself.
How convinced are you that your opinion is coming from actions of TikTok itself and not reports of alleged actions by TikTok? The American public (and by association, a large controlling part of the digital hivemind) is very easy to sway
> very easy to sway opinion of American public
Compared to what? Chinese public?
Compared to what? Chinese public?
Compared to the non-average American public that might have an educated opinion about any given topic
At this point I simply would not be surprised even if Facebook is accused of murder
Why not, they've already been accused of genocide.
Should this story have a disclaimer that the paper is owned by the founder of Amazon, who is a competitor?
> who is a competitor
It is? In which markets?
It is? In which markets?
Amazon owns twitch and Facebook runs Facebook gaming which is a direct competitor.
Amazon Prime video is also an indirect competitor to other time wasting products like social media apps / video sharing etc.
edit: Also don't forget data collection / AI / advertising.
Amazon Prime video is also an indirect competitor to other time wasting products like social media apps / video sharing etc.
edit: Also don't forget data collection / AI / advertising.
Seems like a bit of stretch. Twitch and FB Gaming are like a drop in the ocean for both companies revenue.
How would you explain articles like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/01/amazon-...
How would you explain articles like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/01/amazon-...
[deleted]
Digital advertising. Amazon generates $40b per year in advertising revenue.
What social network does Amazon own?
It’s digital advertising, not social media that is the competition.
Facebook market place...? Not really sure either
They still haven't learned a thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/may/12/facebook-...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/may/12/facebook-...
I agree with both sides. Facebook is right that TikTok is Chinese government spyware. TikTok is right that Facebook is human-farming advertising spyware.
>The campaign includes placing op-eds and letters to the editor in major regional news outlets, promoting dubious stories about alleged TikTok trends that actually originated on Facebook, and pushing to draw political reporters and local politicians into helping take down its biggest competitor. These bare-knuckle tactics...
Letters to the editor and soliciting reporters is considered "bare-knuckle"!?!
>In October, Targeted Victory worked to spread rumors of the “Slap a Teacher TikTok challenge” in local news, touting a local news report on the alleged challenge in Hawaii. In reality, no such challenge existed on TikTok. Again, the rumor started on Facebook, according to a series of Facebook posts first documented by Insider.
I guess this was not communicated to the entire WaPo newsroom...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/10/06/tiktok-slap...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/10/08/tiktok-t...
Letters to the editor and soliciting reporters is considered "bare-knuckle"!?!
>In October, Targeted Victory worked to spread rumors of the “Slap a Teacher TikTok challenge” in local news, touting a local news report on the alleged challenge in Hawaii. In reality, no such challenge existed on TikTok. Again, the rumor started on Facebook, according to a series of Facebook posts first documented by Insider.
I guess this was not communicated to the entire WaPo newsroom...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/10/06/tiktok-slap...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/10/08/tiktok-t...