Hacker News Reader

The question always is - Does the Average person own the problem(or care) to actually do something about it?

Most of the examples from above - Intel, UA, Wells Fargo etc had serious issues. But the average person didn't own the problem. Today if you talk to an average person about Intel's issues they will respond - Is my laptop/pc working without issues? If yes. Then I don't care, let Intel come up with a patch.

Chipotle on the other hand was a case of customer's owning the problem. In people's mind having a burrito from Chipotle posed a health risk. Hence, the bottom line impact.

If you tell an average person, and I did try, about how Facebook sold their data and the issue with Cambridge Analytics etc, they dint seem to care. The reason is while Facebook did let CA misuse the data, it didn't really "force" people to share their data -- this is an actual quote from a non-technical user.

So, as far as an average person is concerned, the question is - will Facebook change it's structure to make it difficult to share their location, last meal etc for some likes? If not, then they don't care.

You're quite possibly right, but don't underestimate the huge difference between 'some friend telling them about risks' and 'media hysteria'.

> Chipotle had tremendous negative press years ago from food poisoning issues and hasn't recovered since.

Chipotle is an excellent example of how this might affect Facebook.

I think Chipotle could have recovered from this scandal if not for the fact that many people were already less into the 'chain restaurant' thing (in particular 'millennials', I remember reading somewhere).

Of all the people I know, a shockingly small percentage actually uses Facebook actively. And just looking at my FB feed, it's become a ghost town compared to what it used to be. Many have moved to WhatsApp/Telegram/Snapchat/Instagram/etc. for their regular interactions, and mostly use Facebook for overt marketing/self-marketing purposes, if at all (events, business pages, etc.). And there's a surprising amount of grumbling about WhatsApp and Instagram being owned by Facebook, by people who I wouldn't characterize as the 'type' for this kind of grumbling.

The fact that Facebook is still used for some things, and that they own WhatsApp/Instagram might end up saving them, but I still wouldn't be surprised if, similar to the Chipotle situation, this is just that last push that many people need to ditch the FB ecosystem, or at least actively look for alternatives. And so far I get the impression that the WhatsApp/Instagram 'moats' are much more sensitive to disruption than FB is, or used to be.

I think Chipotle was overvalued before the scandal. It was expanding rapidly and became a fad stock. I think Facebook was fairly valued, and trading at a reasonable PE ratio compared to other large tech companies.

Online privacy is too abstract to cause a visceral reaction of disgust in the average person, but food poisoning scandals can do that, especially to parents or people who recently ate at the restaurant. (Actually, framing the Facebook privacy issue as one involving the endangerment of children would probably get a lot more traction among the general public than the current media narrative.)

Funny thing about Chipotle, I never stopped eating there because I guess I felt that serving food not loaded with preservatives might come with a slightly higher chance of gastric disagreement. Sort of like shopping at a farmers market. The food is fresher, but you're a little less certain about safety because it hasn't been bleached, gassed, irradiated, pasteurized etc.

>With Facebook it will really be about how many people truly delete Facebook

Its also about action seeding, for later events. With each strike like this some people leave and its likely they are early(ish) adopters, and also likely that they are opinionated ones (just my theory). So their leaving reduces the quality of the network, for the bulk of passive users. And I know (anecdotally) few passive users. People who just read and never do any comments or likes. So the value of the network goes down for them. And they may then spend lesser time. Or may have lesser satisfaction. So network effects brought it to where it is, and they also work very well in the other direction.

On the other thread on HN today, on WhatsApp founder, I wonder if they wouldn't have sold to Facebook (of all the players), what would have been the social media landscape be like today?

I am just hoping, like I am sure many others on HN, that this event finally seeds an open social network, which works like emails do.

for Facebook to really die, the users will need to move to something else.

They need to move toward Snapchat in droves or another social media alternative.

MySpace died because of Facebook.

Digg died because of Reddit.

AOL died because of ATT, Verizon, Comcast, TWC/Charter, etc..

I agree, another option is needed for a previous social network to die. Hope whatever is the next one is a federated one, that works like emails (SMTP) under the hood.

Disclosure: I bought more FB today

You covered the fundamental reason why Facebook _could_ suffer from this but I believe it won’t. Uber is very easy to ditch because it has well-known competitors that are just or almost as good and readily available. And uber doesn’t have years of photos, friends and interactions that I’d be losing.

> Disclosure: I bought more FB today

May be you can consider the moral side of what you are doing, if you care.

This makes me really sad. People say, they care about privacy - theirs and others'. But they are okay making money investing for the same.

How does investing in Facebook stock help Facebook? It's not like Facebook gets the money. The guy you buy the stock from gets the money.

You know what would do good in the world? Invest in evil companies and use the profits to fund advocacy against what they are doing. Turn their success against them.

But if you refuse to invest in companies you don't like, it makes no difference to them at all.

It isn’t so much as “helping” a company but rather putting your money where your mouth is and refusing to make a personal profit off a company you don’t agree with.

That only hurts yourself. It results in no benefit to any cause or harm to the company you don't like.

It may not put money in Facebook's pocket but.. Last time I checked Mark Zuckerberg is Facebook's CEO and largest shareholder. I imagine that taking actions that devalue the stock and therefore his net worth are bound to influence his decisions (and therefore Facebook's)

> How does investing in Facebook stock help Facebook?

Buying stock increases demand, thus increasing the price of a stock unit. That, in turn, benefits those who own it (which I'm guessing is primarily the CEO and the shareholders)

Facebook is good for loosely connecting with acquaintances.

But for real friends, you will always keep in contact no matter the medium.

Agree it depends on the bottom line. But if this makes people more skeptical of things they see on Facebook and reduces the effectiveness of ads on the platform then it could be a problem.

Travis Kalanick resigned because his mother had recently died. The media frenzy was just noise.