bubble_talk

I for one welcome Libra, but only for exactly one purpose.

The next time governments bail out another bank, they should just hand them a zillions Libras and ask the banks to collect the actual money from Facebook when they need it. Don't know if that is technically possible, but I would certainly support such a bailout scheme. :-)

"Remember, what Facebook is doing has never been done before. There are going to be mistakes."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19321420

Your comments would actually make sense if, say, Microsoft wasn't simultaneously going after Android phone makers to impose an "Android tax" during that very same period [1].

This is like saying: "I was really getting into open source. But I also wanted to contradict myself whenever it was convenient and profitable, as long as no one noticed. Its not really my fault that my left brain doesn't know what my right brain is doing as I am a large organization". While Microsoft may indeed be so big as to have such a dysfunctional brain, the rest of us don't suffer from such debilitations.

[1] https://www.digitaltrends.com/android/is-android-being-stifl...

If Microsoft hadn't embraced open source around the time Satya Nadella took over, by now they would have probably imploded and become irrelevant (I mean in the sense of how Bing is more or less irrelevant to most website owners even though it apparently makes a lot of money).

Its not as if they decided to open source Windows XP.

So let us say I go to some page which lists some "potentially well off" folks, like this one:

https://github.com/orgs/google/people

or this:

https://github.com/orgs/microsoft/people

or even this :-)

https://github.com/orgs/facebook/people

Given GitHub actually even provides a convenient, public, unauthenticated API, it makes it even more easy:

https://api.github.com/orgs/facebook/public_members

And then I match it with their personal phone numbers in the dataset (apparently its now offline, but maybe another one will reappear at some point).

And then I can just call these phone numbers and sell them stuff? And its perfectly OK because even if a dataset like this goes into the wild it acts as nothing more than "just a phone book"?

We should create a "privacy hall of shame" (I was tempted to call it the "privacy offender registry") and list the names of all the employees who work on these features, along with an easy-to-read blurb which explains how the feature could be misused. Bonus points for linking to their social profile. If you cannot find the actual person, go up the org chart and list the person closest on the hierarchy.

Not that it is going to matter, any more than you can dissuade members of a cult by telling them they should forego their membership. It just seems to bring the cult closer together.

>>given the press and the way it's portrayed on HN

You forgot to add the most important reason which should be at the beginning of that sentence - track record.

And also, hiding important financial details e.g. the so called "friendly fraud" case is not a serious mistake, which implies that somehow it all "just happened" and could have "happened to anyone". It was deliberate, a lot of people were complicit, and it is exactly the kind of issue that crosses the fine line between what is merely a "serious mistake" and goes and sits squarely in the realm of "intentional, systematic and deliberate fraud" to pump up the company pre-IPO. And the fact that this came to light about 7-8 years after the actual incident suggests that we have only yet seen the tip of the iceberg on these kinds of issues.

But let us suppose you are actually right that it was just a "serious mistake".

My view is that right now there are a lot more shady things going on inside FB even as you come and write this.

"Well, how can you be so sure?" is what people generally ask. That's exactly what people who were defending FB were asking as early as 2016 on these forums. But over the last 2-3 years, the skeptics have been vindicated, and those folks who were previously defending FB are nowhere to be found on threads which discuss Facebook. As the saying goes - their silence is now deafening.

Ask them how they would invest their money if they suddenly became 100x richer, which for most people isn't something they can easily comprehend. If their answers veer towards things like buying property abroad (or similar stuff indicating they don't believe there actually is any rule of law in their own country), then you can ask them why they are not investing in their own country if they truly believe in their views about it.

When asked to put their money where their mouth is, the actions of people speak far, far louder than their words.

>>similar level of prestige

Assuming this isn't sarcasm, this is how the word prestige is defined - "denoting something that arouses widespread respect or admiration".

Facebook lied to ad buyers (customers) about video views

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/17/17989712/facebook-inaccu...

Facebook lied to users about their spying app

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/03/02/facebook-...

Facebook lied to regulators about its ability to combine user data

https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/7/18215143/facebook-whatsapp...

Facebook lied to journalists about the CA issue

https://www.vice.com/en_in/article/qv777x/facebook-lied-to-j...

They don't mind doing mood manipulation experiments

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/every...

They have absolutely no qualms stooping low enough to steal money from kids

https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/facebook-friendly-fr...

Based on the definition above, there is only one prestigious job left at Facebook. Whistle-blower.

Since no one else has asked yet: You seem like a nice guy who could probably get a job elsewhere easily. Why are you still at FB?

>>Contrast that with e.g. home internet, where in many parts of the US there's literally just a single company providing internet connectivity, a single ISP, and it's illegal to start a competing ISP.

You know, you might have shed some light on the core issue here. Usually for tangible goods, it is about choice, at an affordable cost. In the case of tech however, it is not about choice, but it is actually about access, at an affordable cost.

In theory, you could also just set up your own wireless mesh network to reach the internet. Its actually really simple: figure out the basic hardware, and then the software which goes with it, and then get the cooperation of your immediate neighborhood, and then the community at large, and don't centralize anything so you don't become branded as an ISP. Of course, the problem is that it is prohibitively expensive, at least in terms of time. So you might say "Well, it makes no sense. I will rather pay the very high price that my ISP charges". So you have just perpetuated the ISP's monopoly, because there is now one less person who has a good reason to potentially contribute to the wireless mesh network.

You can use Telegram instead of WhatsApp, but now you don't have access (because most of your friends are not going to move to Telegram just because you are such an amazing friend).

But here is the important thing: the fact that all these tech giants use every single dark UX pattern imaginable (to increase access on their products), and don't allow unfettered data export (to decrease access for competitors), means they are well aware of this and try to make access prohibitively expensive (again, in terms of time) if you chose one of their competitors.

I don't have a solution, but I think that is why the monopoly label makes sense.

Given that Microsoft now owns GitHub, I would add them into this list too.

Also, perhaps some of the focus should also shift towards preventing such acquisitions (Google + YouTube, Facebook + WhatsApp), which the tech community at large can immediately identify as a potential monopoly threat. A simplistic way to do this would be to look at how much the company pays for the acquisition, but I am sure others here can come up with better metrics.

Also, Facebook should not be clubbed with the other companies in this list. What they are doing isn't some poorly defined "tech monopoly consolidation". They are just a completely fraudulent company headed by someone who should probably not be running any company. Tim Cook's point may have been self-serving, but he was absolutely right when he said that "if I were Facebook, I would not be in this situation".

That's an overly simplistic analysis.

>>If you owe them billions, it's their problem.

It is also entirely possible that if the US decides to actually make this (say) China's problem by overtly refusing to pay back the debt, everyone else who holds US Treasuries would start dumping them, driving demand lower and lower until both (US and China) the giant economies come crashing down.

That is, this may not a zero sum game. By which I mean, both countries could lose (and also end up taking the entire world economy down with them for at least a while).

Yes, you can have a scroll bar - but where do you set the minimum threshold for qualification? If I slap a search box in front of CommonCrawl, have I now created a search engine?

I can relate a funny story about this. A Microsoft employee I know very well used to work at Bing and then moved on to another organization within MSFT. He isn't a big fan of Google (surprise!). When similar news came out about Google recently (audio recordings got leaked I think), he said everyone should stop using Google if they care about their privacy. So I told him that if that is the case Microsoft should have at least distanced themselves from Facebook after all the Facebook scandals which came out recently (they actually still own some chunk of Facebook shares if I understand correctly). He got a little stunned, mumbled something about how no one person represents an entire company's views, and proceeded to change the topic. :-) I would also now be curious to know what he thinks about the current story.

Unlike, say, the design of an actual rocket ship (where it is perfectly OK to leave everything to the experts), the economy is the truest form of democracy - of the people, for the people, by the people and all that. You cannot really opt out of it. And ignoring it is generally a bad idea. And to make it worse, someone you don't know and cannot influence (and is generally unaccountable to the elected political class also) controls policies which directly affect your livelihood.

We probably need more discussions, not less. But I agree with you that folks should also spend more time learning about economics. If you think there are good sources for learning the subject, please let us know.

OK, sorry, now I understand.

>>the underlying preference for current consumption has weakened substantially

I have a feeling this is a rabbit hole I don't want to go down :-) - but has the underlying preference for current consumption weakened substantially because of (the author's claim) that people are living longer after retirement, or is it because people feel current consumption isn't giving them their money's worth? When you hand in your dollar, you expect to receive something worth that dollar.

In other words, if people suddenly woke up tomorrow and started accepting gold as currency, will the preference for current consumption be as weak? Or will it return to the previous levels because it is easier to see if you are getting your "unit of currency"'s worth? To be clear, I don't know the answer. But if it is the latter, then people's time preferences may not have really changed.

Are we actually disagreeing? This seems to be a case of ambiguous terminology [1]. But either way, what you said here is exactly what governments want:

>>being presented with options like negative interest rates ought to nudge people further together (I think you meant towards) current consumption

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference

When I see people defend negative interest rates, I am reminded of this saying by Orwell: "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool."

>>One likely factor behind the savings glut and negative interest rates is negative “time preference.” Once upon a time, economic theory maintained that people always value today’s consumption more than tomorrow’s consumption – and thus display positive time preference.

An alternative theory: people's time preference is still very much positive, but becomes negative when presented with a set of equally bad options - negative interest rates plus high risk speculative investments plus a history of governments around the world unexpectedly seizing or devaluing wealth building assets. To me, these bad options seem to be the making of the governments and not naturally occurring scenarios.

>>My inside-FAAMNG experience has been that most employees seem to be not interested in the politics and are primarily focused on doing good work

In other words, you could end up having absolutely no conflicts about scenarios like these: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...

Or maybe even end up patting yourself in the back at the end of the quarter for outperforming KPI (e.g. ISP marketshare increase) and get a nice bonus while you are at it.

The problem with your reasoning is that your actions at FAAMNG does not happen in a vacuum.

If you are going to go after Google, you really should do a much better job. And there are very good reasons to reduce Google's dominance, but this whiny approach isn't helping.

1 Don't be a thin wrapper around an inferior search engine. Apparently Bing cannot index "JS only" websites. [1] Improve your search quality first. Unless your search quality is remarkable in at least some small niche, you are probably not even going to get on the radar.

2 "Google is trying to create artificial scarcity" - As others in this thread have pointed out, no search engine is actually blocked on Android devices to the best of my knowledge. Android setup screen is completely Google's prerogative, and if you don't want to participate in the auction, fine. Save the money for better things (see point 4).

3 "Purpose-driven search engines will be crowded out by profit-hungry rivals" If you use Bing, aren't you already supporting non-"purpose driven" search engines? Is Bing's purpose somehow superior to Google's purpose? If all search engines became "purpose driven", you can be pretty damn sure that the quality will take a big hit.

4 Focus on getting word of mouth in more intelligent ways, less expensive ways. Why not go after Google where they are actually vulnerable? So many popular independent websites get hit randomly by all kinds of Google updates. Make no mistake, a lot of them would be very happy to promote alternative search engines. Find these websites, build relationships with the people who run them, and sponsor their work. It is just as important a mission in my view, plus who will say no to a chance to promote a good cause (assuming Ecosia.org are running everything on the up-and-up)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20605484

"Only thuggish regimes and failed dictatorships demand for things like removal of encryption."

Unfortunately, when it comes to leadership, the key word in that sentence is "believable" and not "lie". The vast majority of people are just waiting for someone to come and convince them that the reason they don't get what they want in life is because of "that outsider over there", and not their own shortcomings.

The cheats just figure this out and supply an item which is already in tremendous demand - absolution of responsibility.

Of course, over time the cheats will think they can get away with anything and go on to use this skill in all aspects of their life. And some get caught, but not enough for the cycle to stop repeating. :-)

2009: Are you smart enough to be a Facebook engineer?

2019: Are you scummy enough to be a Facebook engineer?

This is how it went:

Product Manager: And don't forget to add the word free into the copy

Marketer: Make sure you A/B test bold text on some part of the sentence

Copywriter: Preface it with "We are sorry to hear" instead of the simpler "Don't want?" to give it more emotional appeal

Jeff B: Take a deep breath and just imagine what won't change in the next 20 years... OK, f all that, just write whatever the f you need to write so we can sell more stuff

Facebook engineers know exactly what is going on, and I don't think they actually care.

If you want to see exactly how creepy the whole thing is going to get in the future, you just have to take a look at the transcripts from the Software Engineering Daily podcast where a group of engineers from FB were interviewed recently. The interviewer never once mentioned the word privacy in the entire interview across all the five interviews (with pretty senior FB folks who have been there for quite a while). Or for that matter, there wasn't really a single question across all the five interviews which left me thinking "Well, at least there is someone inside Facebook who disagrees at least minimally with company policies".

You can search for this in the transcripts yourself.

https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019...

https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019...

https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019...

https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019...

https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019...

I cannot explain it, hopefully someone from DDG actually chimes in :-) If they just use the Bing API, how can their results be better than Bing? I suppose they also use other sources.

OK, are you suggesting there is a search engine which produces better results for this specific case?

For everyone who is suggesting Google search quality has taken a hit, I would suggest a quick test to see for yourself that Google is still WAY better than the competitors when it comes to long tail queries.

Example: someone compiled a list of things they learned from indiehackers.com interviews.

http://www.toomas.net/2017/07/18/reverse-engineering-a-succe...

There are a lot of quotes on that page, and unfortunately none of them are linked back to the original interview. Some quotes are very interesting, so I wanted to find the original interview.

I took some of those quotes, put them in double quotation marks, and searched on Google, DuckDuckGo and Bing. By the way, you can only replicate these results by adding the double quotation marks.

Results:

Google always shows toomas.net in the top results, and almost always finds the relevant interview article on the indiehackers website.

DDG (usually) finds the article written on toomas.net, but not the indiehackers interview.

Bing often fails to list toomas as the top result, and doesn't find the indiehackers interview at all.

>>preferably in a way that does not discourage going back to work.

Isn't this much easier said than done? Where will you cap the unemployment benefits so people are not discouraged? How do you come up with the number? How do you plan to verify the effect of your suggested cap?