Facebook’s weapon amid chaos and controversy: misdirection | Hacker News Reader

Facebook’s weapon amid chaos and controversy: misdirection

techcrunch.com

62 pointsAnatMl220 comments

The craziest part to me was that they wanted to discredit their protestors via both: 1. anti-Semitism (claiming the protestors were working for Soros) 2. anti-anti-Semitism (claiming the protesters hated Jews)

I feel like there's an incredulity limit to what a company can do before the general populace starts revolting against them, and attempting to combine these two tactics may severely strain it, if not blow past it altogether.

>anti-Semitism (claiming the protestors were working for Soros)

That's not anti-semitism and you do yourself a disservice if you convince yourself it is. It's like claiming everyone mad at the Koch brothers is just racist against Dutch decent.

I disagree. The Jewish Chronicle specifically links the use of "globalists" as an anti-Semitic dog whistle term to George Soros.

https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/what-does-the-term-glo...

To me the rhetoric around "globalists" in general and George Soros in particular really are functionally very similar to anti Semitic rhetoric against those same groups (who happen to be mostly Jewish). This is seen where the person responsible for the Synagogue shooting referenced a conspiracy theory about how Jews were helping the migrant caravan and then president Trump echoed the same theory about George Soros.

Edit: the connection between the rhetoric is fairly close and the real question is do those ideas about globalists come from anti Semitic ideas, do anti Semitic ideas come from rhetoric around globalists or is it both? Personally I think it's both as the anti Semitic ideas had similar rhetoric long before people started talking about "globalists".

>who happen to be mostly Jewish

Is that not a connection?

This is one too many missteps in my eyes. I deleted my facebook, now it's time to delete my Instagram.

For anyone running a business or otherwise involved in the selling process of any service or product, deleting FB/IG is foolish. You are letting your emotions distance yourself and your business from where the customers and prospects are.

After all that’s happened and what can likely happen in the future, do you really want to associate your brand with something like Facebook?

Yes. You are looking at it from a developer/employee point of view. Running multiple businesses I know for a fact Facebook is a must. Even CEOs and other execs at companies using our products reach out routinely over Facebook. Then of course you have the private groups. So much business is done at private FB groups, you have no idea. Leads that we have been chasing for a long time over regular channels such as email, phone, Linkedin, etc. - became closed deals due to short Facebook messenger exchanges with decision makers.

That's on the business deal making side.

From a consumer point of view - if you don't have presence on Facebook, you simply do not exist.

> So much business is done at private FB groups, you have no idea.

Would you care to quantify that, then?

I really don't care to do that, no. I'm not looking to convince anyone of anything, just stating facts. The level of access to decision makers in many industry-specific private FB groups is incredibly valuable. I closed several 6-digit multi year deals just because I was at the right private group at the right time. To dismiss FB as a useless tool and delete a profile is short sighted. As a business you owe it to your employees and customers to be where business is conducted. A big part of it is now transacted inside FB's walled garden. Deal with it.

> I really don't care to do that, no. I'm not looking to convince anyone of anything, just stating facts.

That's cool. Well I really meant provide evidence, so forgive me for being skeptical ;-)

> Even CEOs and other execs at companies using our products reach out routinely over Facebook.

I find this hard to believe. FB doesn’t strike me as a formal business communications channel.

> Leads that we have been chasing for a long time over regular channels such as email, phone, Linkedin, etc. - became closed deals due to short Facebook messenger exchanges with decision makers.

Again, hard to believe.

> From a consumer point of view - if you don't have presence on Facebook, you simply do not exist.

Bullshit. There’s more ways to market besides dumping everything into FB.

Couldn't Soros sue for libel? I had the same question when high-level Republicans kept saying that the anti-Kavanaugh protestors where all paid by Soros.

Does this surprise anyone who understands the level of psychological manipulation they deploy to create quick dopamine hits that create addicts out of users?

This might get downvoted for being political, but I find it completely fascinating that 2 polar opposites, both Trump and Zuckerberg, seem to be employing the exact same tactics. They both are very divisive when there is controversy and both link people they are battling against to Soros.

Why do you think trump and Zuckerberg are opposites? Zuckerberg has been a colossal asshole since before he started Facebook.

It's true. iirc he's been a giant douche his entire life according to people that have known him.

Both are billionaires. Maybe they have more in common than many think.

EDIT: Grammar

What exactly makes the two "polar opposites"?

They both seem to have acquired a taste for reaching to the top by fooling everyone along the way, at least.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com