Comment by non_sequitur | Hacker News Reader

Comment by non_sequitur | Hacker News Reader

I keep thinking about this article[1] whenever I see bad press about FB lately.

Relevant portion: "Murdoch hosted Zuckerberg at his Sun Valley, Idaho, villa and expressed discontent with Facebook's News Feed algorithm and its handling of news.

He requested Facebook consult publishing partners and be more generous sharing digital ad revenue, or he vowed, News Corp executives would take their dislike of Facebook public. He also hinted that News Corp lobbyists would take a more aggressive stand against Facebook with U.S. regulators, as the company had done against Google in Europe.

News Corp denied it would mobilize its journalists against Facebook, although unnamed Facebook executives said they believed at the time that would happen."

It definitely seems that someone(s) is grinding their axes against FB, much like the flurry of negative news that came out against Uber a year or so again.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/12/facebook-rupert-murdoch-thre...

Trying to decide who I dislike more out I News Corp and Facebook. I think News Corp have actively done a good deal more "evil" than FB, while FB have mostly been just sort of clueless or ambivalent about their negative effect on the world.

> while FB have mostly been just sort of clueless or ambivalent about their negative effect on the world.

Sometimes clueless, sometimes willfully ignorant.

Both FB and NewsCorp have done immeasurable harm to our system of government.

As Truman said: "If we see Germany is winning, we should do everything we can to help Russia, and if we see Russia is winning, we should help Germany. Better to let them wear each other out."

Interesting information, thank you. The knives do seem to be out for FB right now, but equally it is the douchiest of douchebag business models, essentially: we'll give you a means to engage with the world, but we're going to watch how you do it, in order to manipulate your preferences. It's like the Stasi but in corporate form. Essentially, it will die because it's the Harvey Weinstein of corporate America - and because all the #metoo victims find their voice, with a little help from the other studio heads which would like to see the monster disappear.

> Essentially, it will die because it's the Harvey Weinstein of corporate America - and because all the #metoo victims find their voice, with a little help from the other studio heads which would like to see the monster disappear.

What exactly are you trying to say about Facebook with this forced metaphor?

I'm not the original poster, but the metaphor clearly seems to be that Facebook is the dirty old man that many people don't want to get in bed with but feel they have to.

I would not call that clear. Especially following the comparison to the Stasi. It feels like chain of random ways to say "Facebook is bad".

That is a reasonable interpretation, though, so thanks.

I was thinking more of this one which is more directly relevant to abusing user expectations of privacy:

http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims...

Neither murdoch nor Zuckerberg are admirable characters.

You're comparing Murdoch now to Zuckerberg aged 19. I dread to think the sort of nonsense I said in private IMs at 19.

Zuckerberg was describing Facebook when he started. At some level, that mentality is reflected in the company and its business practices.

Most of the recent bad press about Facebook involves its light-touch handling over causes very near and dear to Murdoch's heart, so I don't know if I buy into Murdoch being the one to put the screws to FB. If so, wow, talk about having your cake and eating it too.

"Fox News declares war on Facebook" would at least help toward restoring Facebook's image, at least among those who are most upset about Cambridge Analytica.

Murdoch has been saying similar things about Google for years. I'm not sure there's much to it.

Or what? He’ll buy MySpace and outcompete Facebook? Lol! Oh wait...

When it’s your business on the line, disrespecting Rupert Murdoch’s policial clout is a mistake you make once.

This is Facebook we’re talking about, not some mom and pop shop vulnerable to “bad press.” I really don’t see what sort of legitimate threat Murdoch could pose to Facebook outside of any threats they already face on a daily basis. If the threat of Murdoch “going public” with his feelings on Facebook were sufficient to threaten its very existence, Facebook would have gone out of business a long time ago.

And the point of my tongue-in-cheek comment was that Murdoch did buy MySpace, and utterly failed to compete with Facebook, or even to grow what little traffic MySpace had before he bought it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com