Does this read “Let’s ditch those ethical people who get in the way of profit.”?
Yes FB is not for me. Not as a worker, not as a customer.
Yes FB is not for me. Not as a worker, not as a customer.
(yes, I know there are probably lots of intellectually interesting jobs at Meta, but the overall purpose and mission just isn't exactly inspiring)
I think this comment says more about you than anything.
If you look into Meta's tech stack they have challenges no company on the planet has and clearly a lot of talent. Having just played with CacheLib it's an impressive project and yet to see an equivalent anywhere else. And I imagine much of what they do is like this when you're operating at their extremes.
They've definitely been responsible for pushing web technologies forward -- but all in the name of increased engagement. Let's not pretend there is an altruistic angle to this.
I’m not a fan of Facebook. I don’t even have an account. But it would be unfair to say they haven’t come up with some truly innovative approaches to large scale infrastructure.
Also, to their credit they are huge supporters of open source. For example the Open Compute Project is still alive and well in large data halls. They are also still supporting the Telecom Infra Project which is responsible for OpenRAN as well as their Open DWDM hardware.
Does all of this work in their favor to support their own business? Absolutely. But that can also be said for every tech company in some form or fashion. But, they still open source it which is way more than a lot of other shops can say.
i think the poster meant 'business model' rather than innovation.
Having an immoral business model doesn't imply they are not innovative - facebook does plenty of technical innovation indeed.
Yet, relative to the age of humanity or even modern society, they are still a new modality to humanity's interaction. One that facilitates also a lot of good that's happening in the world.
There is still a ton they could do right if they chose to, to make that environment for communication a healthier one. Could they find willingness to reroot their design choices in a wider tradition of social psychology, for instance?
Your first paragraph points out the damage FB has done to society.
Your second paragraph appears to give them a pass because social media is "new" and has also done some good.
Your third paragraph tacitly gives FB credit for the things they could do right if they chose to.
Perhaps you're not cynical enough?
Say ello to KPIs.
Imagine what the engineer capable of writing CacheLib would have done instead, had they not worked for Facebook.
(Being facetious)
Turns out "move fast and break things" doesn't make for maintainable code.
/s
Also, what a clear signal the CEO is not focusing on what matters. This was during the time the Cambridge Analytica thing broke... There's really nothing more important that needed his attention?
I just didn't like to be on the receiving end of his coping strategy.
That's a very fair need. Hope your life turns out better than you ever hope it to be.
“I’ve been looking at the Google logo on the iPhone and I’m not happy with the icon. The second O in Google doesn’t have the right yellow gradient. It’s just wrong and I’m going to have Greg fix it tomorrow. Is that okay with you?” Of course this was okay with me.
Facebook is no iPod.
The parallel to Steve Jobs is a fair one, except that Steve was brilliant at design and UX and got things right. He wasn't bothered about tiny details like the padding on a single button but rather the design of the entire system, and he picked up on things that didn't sit in the overall architecture brilliantly.
He also drove people to leave Apple, and that was a bad thing. Things aren't right or justifiable just because they're like things Steve did. Sometimes he got things wrong, particularly when it came to managing people.
If they want a change made that's basically a completely trivial detail that was already within my ability to have done when I was doing the work (e.g. just putting some padding that just felt about right), then sure, I guess. Not sure it's actually important, but whatever.
If it will go against other work (e.g. the padding comes from some central styling rules), entails substantial off-route work, or adds future maintenance debt or project risk, it should go via the product manager if there is one. A good CEO knows not to preempt the people who decide how the product works, what it needs to do and how the team(s) are going to get there. He should also know that product will consider a valid suggestion (and he should know if they're so slammed that they can't even think about it, in which case he can help in other ways than moaning about padding).
In this case it sounds like Zuckerberg is bikeshedding over something trivial (doesn't get much more trivial than padding on a specific button) just to swing his dick about. If he has something insightful to say about the business logic, that would actually show engagement and understanding.
Getting involved in button padding issues isn't one of those cases though. He can spend all the time in the world on that if he likes.
Stock classes are the biggest robbery of modern times.
> larceny from the person or presence of another by violence or threat
How does Facebook’s share offering meet the definition of robbery?
That Zuckerberg was selling a product with such high demand and so little supply that he was able to sell at a very high price does not qualify as Zuckerberg robbing others. It is not even bread for a starving person, it is equity to chase returns.
Zuck controls 90% of the voting rights of FB: https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1061237/how-facebook-si...
Unfortunately, corporations have been successfully lobbying on removing constraints on what they are doing and against adding new ones.
And I don't actually disagree with HFT or finance in general, or sending cat pictures around.
(I'm reserving my judgement on the military.)
You can work on defending the masses from the militaries and bad actors of the world.
When money is good, most people turn a blind eye. Stop the music and people will think twice.
That's like describing SpaceX as "glorified fireworks"
The same with CRUD. CRUD is simple, but to do CRUD on ~Facebook~ Meta scale, that's a different thing.
Not to me. Just reads like they want to ditch low performers.
(They might or might not still want to ditch 'ethical people', no clue. It just doesn't read that way here.)
I would have assumed that Facebook always had the ability to manage-out people they wanted out.
I read it more as let's ditch those 'lazy' people that don't 'embrace the grind', only want to work 8 hours a day and then just go home.
No. You said that. Not sure what you are reading.
It is basically getting rid of very low performers, slackers and those unable to deliver those expected goals.
No where did it say what you have just said.
No - it is specifically aimed at getting rid of people who were doing fine before -- may have been top performers, even -- but who refuse to go into overdrive (start sacrificing sleep, or time with their families) to meet artificial goals.
That is to say: goals designed to reduce headcount -- by turning high performers into low performers.