Look at FB's staff from back when they had comparable revenue and way more users.

I believe that 2013-14 FB was comparable in terms of revenue and users, and they had approximately half the staff.

So? WhatsApp had 35 developers and 350 million users. By that measure, every other company is grossly overstaffed.

Personally, I could argue that every social network is grossly understaffed by the measure of how lax they are about what they are supporting. E.g., in 2017, that company you say is more appropriately staffed contributed to a genocide that left tens of thousands dead: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...

WhatsApp wasn’t a social network with public posts of rich media. It’s trivial from an architectural perspective because there isn’t anything that needs to be sent to millions of users.

Oh? So you're saying a company with a similar, but not identical, product might have completely different infrastructure and staffing needs?

So we might not, in fact, be able to meaningfully compare Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc by headcount alone?

Exactly. It's very hard to know from the outside where the headcounts are or should be. E.g., Twitter had a ton of ML people. One could argue that was totally unnecessary, because Facebook didn't need that at date X. Or one could argue that they needed more of them, because it's the only way to wrangle the challenges of a large social network, and that hiring an ML person ends up being a net reduction in headcount because of the customer support/moderation people they replace.

> By that measure, every other company is grossly overstaffed.

Recent layoffs across a big chunk of the tech industry suggest this argument may have at least some truth in it.

> that company you say is more appropriately staffed contributed to a genocide that left tens of thousands dead

Contributing to a genocide has nothing to do with staffing levels and all to do with unhealthy incentives - the company makes its money on "engagement", and it turns out polarizing/divisive/violent/outrageous content generates a lot more of it than friends/family/cat pictures, so effectively moderating toxic content is actually against their bottom line and is only needed in extreme cases where the toxic content's negative PR impact outweighs what it will bring in "engagement".

This is incorrect:

> Contributing to a genocide has nothing to do with staffing levels

Unless we just want to outlaw online forums, any provider is going to need to track and moderate harmful content. Note that even something as small as HN has a full-time moderator. That's just part of the business model these days.

You're correct that moderation can run counter to short-term revenue gains. But it's much less clear that's true in the long term; as Facebook's reputation has worsened, its growth has slowed and its revenue has declined. Or on the other end of the scale, look at how the less restricted sites are doing. E.g., the 'chans are never going to move beyond a very small niche, and despite Twitter's troubles, nobody's expecting Gab to take the lead.

Personal anecdotes from any big company :)

There's a second layer to the tragedy. Also applicable to any big company:

- many teams are overstaffed for what they do/produce

- many teams are understaffed for what they do/produce

And this is also true at the same time.

Yeah, this is closer to the mark for me. It's been some years since I worked at Twitter, but if I had been suddenly made CEO, I wouldn't have gone on a mass firing spree. I would have tried to figure out how to more effectively use the people that Twitter had. As with many big companies, I suspect the problem is much more bad management than bad workers.