The company is most comfortable being at war. That's the first thing I noticed when I started working there. People glorified the days when they were fighting head-to-head with Google or before that with the other social networks. They reminse with pride about the "lockdown" periods when everyone would not leave the office for days to fend off a competitor. It's kind of an intoxicating feeling when everyone around you is driven to win, and I liked it.<p>However, I don't think it's the best environment to be creative, that's why I think FB has to rely on acquisitions to keep the growth going (except that on the infrastructure side of Facebook it is very creative and has the time and space for innovation, hence all their awesome open source stuff).
> In October, Facebook hired former U.K. deputy prime minister Nick Clegg as head of global policy and communications, the company’s most high-profile external hire since Ms. Sandberg joined from Google in 2008.<p>When Mr Clegg became deputy PM to the tory leadership he forever condemned the Lib-Dems to be classed as a poodle for the tory party. The Lib-Dems voters of 2010 deserted the party for this act of treachery which cost Clegg his constituency in 2017.<p>So if Facebook hope this failed politician can save them then it's going to be a tough way ahead for Zuck.
Is there a Facebook smear campaign going on or people just love to pile on Zuckerberg? Facebook is an advertisement company and collects data, but so does everybody else. Gmail launched in 2004. Snowden leaks in 2013 were greeted with general apathy. But know it's the time to crucify Zuckerberg for what exatly? Make use of targeted advertisement? Or letting Facebook have user-generated content, that may or may not have influenced votes in the past?<p>Either way, the ongoing collection of all kinds of data has been obvious for many years now. And it's not going to stop, so some advice: Instead blaming this one actor, better get used to it.<p>Platforms also can't fully and completely be responsible for political views expressed by user-generated content.
Large companies often get stuck in analysis paralysis, so a decisive leader can be a good thing. I think the more important question is whether the decisiveness originates from core values the company projects our, or if it’s just about defending turf. If it’s the latter, Facebook is in its long slow decline phase as a company
Facebook needs a credible trustworthy leader at this point in time. I don't know who Zuck thinks trusts him. His rep is more a liability than anything else at this stage.
The advantage of deploying a war metaphor is it resists leadership change. An at risk leader can always say "You don't change want to change horses in the middle of a river, do you?"
Exactly the wrong tack. Firstly, Facebook is 100% in the wrong here, they did bad things (including helping to facilitate genocide) and there needs to be consequences for those. They need to accept that they have done wrong they need to accept that they need to accept responsibility and they need to accept that they need to make big changes. Instead they've been avoiding taking full responsibility and issuing wishy-washy press releases. It's going to catch up with them sooner than later and the public is going to stop giving them a pass for their awful behavior.
So many articles written about a company that adds so little value to human life (at least in its current form).<p>If you spend just 1h/day on Facebook, over the course of 10 years, that's approx. 150 days or roughly half a year. I'm sure plenty of people spend more than 1h/day scrolling through their pointless feeds.<p>So my question to you is this: What could you achieve if you could spend half a year of your life, fully immersing yourself in something meaningful and of value?