HN user
So he worked at MSFT till ~2011 (before they became open source friendly), and joined Netflix ~2011 (when they announced Qwikster [1]) and joined Facebook just a short while after the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke out? He may be talented, but boy does he have to work on his timing.
Although, the situation will start to unravel very fast for all these companies if people start aggregating the house address, telephone number, social network handles, names of relatives and estimated net worth of everyone who works at these places based on publicly available information, and posts them all in one place. For a change, it will be nice to watch the executives of these companies scramble once they realize exactly how it feels to be on the receiving end of such violations.
> if it’s just resentment.
Ah, there it comes.
Having been around lots of employees of one of the tech giants, I think the cult mentality is actually very strong.
You can observe this in two specific ways:
1 Adding in a gratuitous note at every possible chance about those who are resentful because they didn't "make the cut". Now, you could have made your point without the gratuitous note, and the fact that you still had to add it does make you part of the cult, de-facto. Interestingly, you observe this attitude in a lot of ways when you interact with them in real life too, and especially when you say something critical but factual about their software (e.g. that it is bug ridden despite an entire army of folks working on it)
2 The general idea that unlike the schmucks who need to comply with laws, a tech giant is not only above the law, but rather deservingly so (Facebook being the very obvious example with its friendly fraud case, but every tech giant has a pretty shady history in this regard). If someone disagrees, "it's just resentment". Even more tellingly, almost none of these folks actually take a stand on clearly unethical practices well after "earning enough to max out retirement accounts".
Instead of bristling at such comments, you should probably introspect a little more.
Apparently FB hyper-targeted Google employees with ads based on the profile these employees had happily volunteered when creating their FB profile. (Wish I had a reference link).
Also, from what I understand (again, only hearsay, I don't have any proof for this), there were many employees at Google who thought "Don't be evil" was a joke.
And so they decided they will go to Facebook, which was more closely aligned with their morals, as explained in this rhyme -
Move fast and break laws,
Lets show these dumb fricks who's boss,
When shit hits the fan
The CIA will cover our arse
I would certainly like Facebook the company to completely fail, but the WagesforFacebook website is probably the most idiotic thing I have seen in a long time.
It is like turning into a penniless bum by spending all your money partying, and then blaming all the party hosts for your predicament and asking them to pay you money for each visit so you can keep partying forever into the future.
Why not stop attending the parties?
Why not a) remove the mobile app and use it only on a desktop/laptop to reduce the amount of time you spend on Facebook b) monitor how much time you spend on FB and slowly cut it down c) pick up the phone and pay a few damn dollars to talk to close friends - in case you don't have a way to call for free d) meet people in real life and put your mobile phone away and actually pay attention to the other person e) spend your time educating everyone you know about the problem of FB addiction f) volunteer for some community service where you actually get to meet your friends and neighbors?
But NO! "I want to bum around on Facebook, I want my minute-by-minute dopamine hit, and I want to distort the issue so no one figures out that my FB addiction is actually my fault in the first place"
Why does everyone talk about increasing fines? Wouldn't it be a far more effective deterrent to charge some FB exec team for breaking some law (haven't they already done that in the "friendly fraud" case?) and put them in jail?
Well, its certainly much easier to upvote than to write a comment - you don't have to actually justify your upvote nor will the words be scrutinized. If you feel happy with MSFT products, you can just upvote, but if you don't like them you can't just say "Well, I don't agree!".
And the lack of downvotes can be explained by another phenomenon - there is no incentive for some to downvote a comment like yours at this point, because nearly all replies are negative! If a comment thread surfaces some bad things about someone you don't like, and it becomes popular, you actually want it to become more popular isn't it?
Well, unlike other lowly developers, FB engineers know exactly what is and isn't the right kind of mistake to make in pursuit of a company's vision.
Someone who works at FB even came out and said so:
"Remember, what Facebook is doing has never been done before. There are going to be mistakes."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19321420
So yeah, I think what that person is saying should be translated as:
"Please don't think twice about punishing rank-and-file FB engineers. We are so competent, all our mistakes have only been intentional ones."
>I'm now starting a software company.
So are you going to
a) hire the best developer you know and pay them whatever they ask, or
b) hire the best developer who falls within your budget (which, I presume, cannot be very high when you are starting)
If you answered b), then I guess you already know the problem. No matter how qualified you personally think you are (and you are, I am not doubting that) - the only thing that matters is whether you fit into the plans of your employer, which includes whatever nebulous salary range they have in mind.
I suppose you will say that you are already running a successful business. But IMO that doesn't actually amount to much when you are creating a software business. Why? Because you are now competing with the FAANGs of the market. And there is already a lot of talk that FAANGs are actively hiring to take the best labor off the talent pool even if they don't need the services of those hires. So suddenly you have just lost almost all opportunity you had to create arbitrage - that wonderful and probably mythical situation where you buy labor low and sell the output high and take home a handsome profit.
So you recalibrate your expectations and go one rung lower. And you do grow your company quite successfully, because, lets be honest, if you can "do things which do not scale" at first to grow companies, it pretty much follows that you can make plenty of money despite hiring ordinary talent in the beginning stages if you have a good business background - which you do. And at some point, because you grew so fast, you will face a similar shortage for some kind of skillset, only to find that you suddenly cannot really afford to pay what the very well qualified person wants because that isn't even a part of your culture anymore.
And ironically, said person then goes and writes a post about how your company completely lowballed them :-)
Suppose we reverse that sentiment a little bit: I would never friend someone again who knowingly manipulated me to suit their employer and ultimately themselves. Which, once you remove all the layers of abstraction, is what it boils down to.
"Suppose you were bereft of morals, and suppose you were working at Facebook; but I repeat myself."
Since FB has gone out of their way to weaponize "friendship", my suggestion to everyone who actually likes to have some standards in their life and don't like to be manipulated like that is simple. Just do it back to them. "Unfriend" (IRL) everyone you know who works at Facebook and tell them you will "friend" them back once they leave the company.
"If you define winning solely as “who has the greater growth”, you’ve already lost. If you dismiss the standard of living enjoyed in Europe – one without medical bankruptcies, crushing college debts, or falling life expectancies – as a “retirement society”, you’re the one who deserves to be dismissed."
I agree with DHH's overall viewpoint. And Jason's portrayal of this issue as a "us Vs them" is idiotic.
But it is hard to overlook one point - if you were to choose to incorporate in one country today, the de facto choice is the US. When was the last time you heard someone who wasn't born in those countries say "Yeah! Lets incorporate in Denmark (where DHH was born) or Spain (where he currently resides, according to Wikipedia)"? And Basecamp itself is apparently incorporated in the US. There is probably a reason why Stripe Atlas doesn't take your money and decide they will open up an office for you in Switzerland.
Europe does seem to enjoy an excellent standard of living - good for them. But no one wants to immigrate to European countries because they think it is a "land of opportunity", at least not in the sense they do (or used to before Trump) when they immigrate to the US. The CEOs of some of the tech giants are first generation immigrants from developing countries. I don't see that happening in any European country in the near future. The success of these CEOs, by many accounts, is also directly related to their workaholic tendencies. And I am not sure if they are really exceptions (in the sense that other migrants who became CEOs at a much smaller scale can just afford to be bumming around). The success of these CEOs are signs of the same ambition and growth too.
Besides, there are some who think the issues pointed out by DHH as America's failing is actually because America wants to have its cake (high living standards) and eat it too (high growth powered by capitalist ventures) and turned into a confused mess. Well, clearly that doesn't seem possible in today's world for whatever reasons, but it isn't as if any country in Europe has managed to pull off both either.
That's a somewhat odd thing to say. StackOverflow would be better off not leaving dated topics for reference (as you can see when someone leaves a comment about how they wish the highest voted answer was actually up to date with the latest changes in that technology), and aspiring to be the StackOverflow of your niche is actually not such a bad idea (in the sense that they do allow and encourage updates to the answers). Besides, in some domains which overlap heavily with technology (e.g. marketing automation), writing timeless articles is pretty hard. Lastly, updating genuinely out of date content is a big favor for your readers and one that they will appreciate, even if your overall view is simply "Fk Google!".
> AFAIK we sell it to them
That implies there are other buyers who are happy to pay money to take it, doesn't it? That doesn't seem to be happening though:
https://qz.com/117151/us-states-banned-from-exporting-their-...
I suppose some countries agree to take the trash in return for some kind of economic favor from the US?
> I managed niche newsletters with up to 35.000 subscribers in the past, built by the company I was freelancing for.
> 100.000 views. Again, So what? A column I wrote last month had 120.000 views and 800 comments
Here is the difference: You can inherit a million dollars from your dad and buy a Lamborghini. But it is more impressive if you start from nothing and buy your own Kia.
Similarly, when you say a "column you wrote" without mentioning the crucial bit: on whose platform? - without any context, it is actually very hard to say if it was a big deal. Also, can you do it consistently? (I suppose the author thinks he can). Can you follow a process and help others do the same (which presumably is what the author has tried to do)? It is the difference between winning the lottery and making a million dollars, versus building a business system and making an impressive 6 figure profit. Clearly, there is nothing to learn from the former. And usually there is something to learn from the latter.
Whether or not you think his credentials are impressive is one thing. But the data you are using to back up the criticism isn't making a lot of sense TBH.
It is the same filter bubble that leads an employee to triumphantly proclaim
"Remember, what Facebook is doing has never been done before. There are going to be mistakes."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19321420
It reminded me of this classic tweet:
https://twitter.com/emilylindin/status/933073784822579200?la...
Even then, you could have regulatory capture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Speaking of regulatory capture, I think that's really what happened and why Facebook has been able to get away with, actually, murder (e.g. Facebook's free internet had a big role in the murderous riots in Myanmar [1] and WhatsApp had a big role to play in mob lynchings [2], [3]). Not to forget the slap on the wrist they have gotten for what is basically child abuse in the "friendly fraud" case [4].
But not to worry, there is another dopamine hit coming up next minute to a mobile phone near you so you can pretend you never read this comment.
In my view, it is best not to let these tech giants anywhere near these kind of ventures.
[1] https://in.reuters.com/article/myanmar-rohingya-facebook/u-n...
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45140158
[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46145986
[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2019/01/25/facebook-tu...
> a. Do you really think they would raise suspicion by deleting all old posts or just silently delete specific posts?
How? By asking Mark Z to spend the time doing it? Or to have a third person involved, who will then need to be trusted for 1000% loyalty that he won't eventually turn? Or do you think this can somehow be automated?
> b. Do we really need to raise a twitter storm for every public figure that did something controversial 10 years ago?
Yes, until the public figure gets a punishment which will actually be a deterrent for others in the future.
> Edit: I'm just gonna leave this here: https://www.zuckerbergfiles.org/access/
That's not even comparable. If there is a public post that can actually be linked to as proof of some kind of opinion or statement, its completely different isn't it?
Isn't it amazing how much the turds who work at Facebook want to snoop into our life and are simultaneously happy to give a free pass to their own CEO?
I think of them as the trust fund babies among the tech giants. A lot of people who have actually worked on both Azure and AWS/Google Cloud remark that Azure is awful in comparison, but its their only option because (some reason which ties back to Microsoft's dominance 15+ years ago). In search, after MSN Search, Windows Live Search, Bing Rewards and what not, Microsoft still didn't really put a dent into Google's marketshare. In mobile, they are an also ran. They had to do a 180 on their open source policy to come back to relevance. In other words, if you took away their OS/Office stronghold, it is hard to see them actually competing and winning in any business which has strong competitors.
Which reminds me. I knew some folks who worked at Microsoft who used to talk about open source as if it was cancer - in 2005. Now they display equal enthusiasm for the opposite view. If you have actually seen it, it looks quite like a comedy scene from one of those movies which spoof corporate life, where all employees act gung-ho no matter what.
Oh, this is the thread which is reserved for everyone who left one year ago from Amazon. If you left two years ago, you are supposed to comment in a different thread. That's just how large companies work.
Isn't that because we haven't yet figured out how to actually get them to do complex stuff? If you could actually have a bot which could just go out and shovel snow perfectly, would you still prefer the status quo of doing it by yourself?
Big tech has nothing to fear at all. Europe is waging an all out war on companies/entrepreneurship of every size. Big tech will probably face massive losses. On the other hand, a bootstrapped company/MicroISV or whatever you want to call it these days will not face any loss, because it would have been legislated out of even being born. So big tech will probably be secretly cheering on the greater chance of establishing monopoly.
Or it could also be that people who code these algorithms are not quite skilled enough to develop them in the first place? "If it is too big to fail, it is probably too big to exist"
> The only thing I know is that I'd probably have done the same, as I reckon most would have.
Nothing wrong with that. But then he shouldn't have written blog posts about how WhatsApp cares about privacy, and that there will never be ads on WhatsApp etc.
The real issue is all the lies. And the whiners are correct in whining because they are not (usually) saying they are somehow better people who would have taken a better decision, they are whining that they once supported this company on the basis of the lies it said, and feel like they have been backstabbed.
There is also another problem - Facebook's scummy behavior seems to actually have no end in sight, with employees now hilariously patting themselves in the back and giving themselves good grades with "Remember, what Facebook is doing has never been done before. There are going to be mistakes." [1]. By that measure, should we start throwing the CEO of big tech companies into prison for "massive and systematic privacy invasion". So what if it hasn't been "done before"? Maybe its a mistake to jail them, but that's just a small price for trying new ideas that haven't been "done before".
I think the whiners are not whining loudly enough.
So you added to the demand for this otherwise mediocre product (education), and then wonder why the product quality isn't better? I think it is just supply-demand economics.
Why didn't you drop out then?
There was also a time when Facebook was just a random website run from a dorm room. Just like Facebook itself grew, so will the group of people who dislike it. And the trend can only go in one direction, because as Tim Cook said "If I were running Facebook, I wouldn't be in this situation".
>Most people who work at facebook believe the company is positive or neutral
Yeah, you can be smart without having any guts (to demand change). That many Facebook employees still believe the company is positive or neutral is a good example of this.
>Facebook doesn't owe anybody a free ad-optional platform to engage with people, they aren't a government entity.
Unless you are just claiming that shadow profiles are not a real thing [1], I think Facebook is becoming more like a government entity in the sense that you cannot "opt out" of Facebook any more than you can "opt out" of your government, or you can "opt out" of having any friends in your life.
Unlike a government, which, even at its most corrupt and inefficient, is actually supposed to be built with a system of checks and balances to help serve its constituents, and in theory can at least be overthrown via coup or elections, the only thing you have with Facebook is this expectation that they don't "owe anybody" anything.
Make no mistake, Facebook is devious enough to know this, and it also knows there are lots of "useful idiots" (and I don't mean you, I mean the others who think this point shouldn't even be up for discussion!) who keep saying Facebook doesn't owe anybody <anything> without acknowledging that we have a phenomenon here which has never been seen before.
[1] https://www.cnet.com/news/shadow-profiles-facebook-has-infor...
I am leaving a link to what I think should now be an obligatory reference to the Facebook Free Business post by DHH every time this topic comes up: https://m.signalvnoise.com/become-a-facebook-free-business/
Although I am guessing you would suddenly start arguing for right vs wrong if I took your own idea about defaults and suggest that all governments which want to restrict Facebook's power (which is probably all of them by now) should just default to blocking access to Facebook and Instagram and Whatsapp unless people go to some government building and sign a release form saying that they are aware of all the consequences of using social networks and that they should not come to the government for help if, say, said social network swindles their kids of real money.