It’s frankly not for you to say “what happened” when it comes to their opinion, which is based on what they’ve witnessed and experienced. Note that this entire thread does not concern facts, it concerns impressions and opinions. This isn’t the place to “Actually, ...” what someone else has said.
It strikes me as particularly condescending that you’re telling this person they only feel this way because of “free food and free toys.”
From OP:
> I hear real change from leadership
> Fb has invested hugely in protecting elections, possibly more than any single government. They have doubled that on integrity, etc.
> I think FB, and especially Zuckerberg, have done a great job responding to these issues to try and solve them.
You might think they're misinformed or incorrect, but you can't say they didn't address product/company issues.
I think the negative fb news of late has really enabled people to strengthen their confirmation bias against fb.
For every super negative story that HN latches onto, there are a dozen internal projects that help the world in some way.
I guess I just see the intentions and a broader Perspective in some ways. When I saw how the sausage was made, I was actually impressed with the earnestness of peoples intentions.
Put simply, I don’t think anyone on HN has enough facts and measurements of outcomes to judge FB.
What makes facebook so much worse than email? The fact that its default sorting algorithm is based on how relevant it thinks stories are to your interests? Any spread of false information could happen basically as easily through gmail. I dont see people getting mad at gmail and outlook for allowing chain letters to keep existing.
the utility_function of email is utilitarian. No email server wants to keep their user hooked on their emails.
All the conversations I’ve heard discuss how to make products better for users. Even if it hurts standard metrics.
For example, the goal of the feed team hasn’t been to increase engagement for a couple of years now. The metric of choice is meaningful interactions.
The outsiders perspective of FB seems to be a couple of years out of date, compared to what I’ve seen.
Same with sports teams: I hope they all play crappy so that people are not hooked onto them.
/s
I think You joined Facebook, and they showed you the "Employee side" where everything is beautiful, with free food and free toys and you became convinced. Yes, they treat employees super well, nobody contradicts that. But how does it change anything related to how bad the product is (and all the bad things it does to people that use it a lot).
It is easy to let the beautiful inner side of Facebook take over the product side of Facebook that everyone else is seeing from the outside.