In case you think this is some esoteric issue involving kids’ stuff — keep in mind that the founder of TikTok was one of the most balanced voices within China, who argued that the country needed to engage with the West in a healthier manner. Zuckerberg et al and their incessant lobbying for that TikTok ban basically vaporized that guy’s pull within China, which eliminated a super-valuable asset for the West.
So, yeah, Facebook continues to be the single greatest threat to Western society outside of Russia. These are serious issues with serious consequences.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I think it's probably overstating the impact. We've seen China exert a huge amount of influence in Chinese tech space and really clamp down loosened controls. Maybe this was the excuse Chinese press gave, but I think this would have likely happened anyways given the power and direction Xi is moving China in. See their moves in the tutoring, construction, crypto, and e-commerce spaces too
LOL. The single greatest threat to Western society is Western society itself. Declining fertility, mass immigration at the border but brutally hard immigration for high skill workers, civil wars over pointless culture war issues, and the destruction of the social norms that once held us together. But go blame Facebook if you want.
For many Chinese, the US has showed its true face in the past couple of years. Unfortunately this digs a lot deeper than Facebook.
Facebook is guilty of poor management; involving themselves in partisan politics in order to get a competitor banned is an incredible stupid risk to take.
I won't pretend to know all of the details but this comes off as kind of conspiracy-theory.
Why is Zuckerberg the boogieman? He just wants to run his company well and get as many eyeballs on paid advertisements as possible... right? Why is there some notion that he wants to push either a liberal or conservative agenda internationally?
It's near impossible to moderate a billion people posting crap on a social media platform well enough to the point where you keep everybody happy. How does this make him "the single greatest threat to Western society outside of Russia"?
> the single greatest threat to Western society outside of Russia
I can't help but roll my eyes whenever I come across such statements. Which one is it now guys? Russia or China or Iran or Muslims or Liberals or etc.?
The single greatest threat to Western society is itself.
What is a "Republican strategy firm?" A consulting firm with the Republican party as one of their clients? What's the point of making "Republican" so prominent in the article? Is it just to use the negative connotation most WP readers have about the Republican party to malign Facebook a little more? It seems like we're just spectating an op-ed war, and discussing this article as if there's any meaning to it other than to malign Facebook.
Most political consulting firms do the majority of their work for a single party, so they can reasonably be identified as either "Republican" or "Democratic". Some non-nefarious reasons why this clustering tends to occur:
* The firms are the next career stepping stone for campaign workers. If you have worked on half a dozen Democratic campaigns, you presumably believe in the cause and are unlikely to want to start working on Republican campaigns where you disagree with the candidate. (Maybe you won't be as good at working on GOP campaigns either).
* If you are a politician, you are unlikely to be too excited to hire the firm that in the last election cycle wrote an ad trashing some of the positions you old. You are also more likely to get referred to a firm by a politician from the same party as you.
You might have firms that work with both parties, but they are likely to be working with centrist candidates from those parties.
So if this is a strategy firm that has mostly done political work for Republican candidates and causes, it seems perfectly reasonable to call it a "Republican strategy firm"
A consulting firm that advertises itself as being "born from political campaigns" and being "right of center." Both things on the second slide of their homepage.
If you check their website, they openly market themselves as primarily existing to serve advertising and PR roles for Republican campaigns. The CEO used to be the digital director for the Romney campaign. It seems reasonable to me to call them a Republican firm.
> The Arlington, Va.-based firm advertises on its website that it brings “a right-of-center perspective to solve marketing challenges” and can deploy field teams “anywhere in the country within 48 hours.”
The firm itself seems to advertise a “republican” outlook, and was also apparently founded initially as a strategy firm for the Republican Party.
For companies that operate in the political sphere (strategists, consultancies, etc.), it is impractical to work in a bipartisan manner. Once you take on a client in one party, members of the other party distrust your services because they'll expect you're already politically aligned with their rivals and could disclose information to those rivals. So a <party> strategy firm likely means their clientele is exclusively of that party.
> as if there's any meaning to it other than to malign Facebook.
I don't think this is malignment, per se: Facebook makes a big show of being a progressive company (internally) with a nominally neutral political outlook. Hiring a Republican strategy firm undermines that image: it demonstrates that, push come to shove, Facebook's commitment to these things is primarily a facade intended to deflect criticism.
My guess would be that Facebook hired a GOP firm for two reasons. 1) The national mood is leaning significantly toward the GOP, with major Republican gains likely in both the House and Senate (potentially supermajorities in both chambers). Democrats are so weak right now that they can't get anything done, so may as well follow the trends. TikTok isn't going to kill Facebook in nine months, so they can hold out till a Republican Congress in January.
2) The messaging is aligned with recent Republican victories or even just Democrat losses. The election in Virginia and the recall of the SF school board both highlight that Dems appear tone-dead with respect to protecting kids. (Even in FL, the Dems and media have essentially lied by maligning the new law restricting public schools from exposing K-through-3 students to sexual content as a bill banning anyone from saying the word "gay." This dishonesty is only necessary and effective because Democrats are exceptionally weak at protecting kids.)
I doubt the use of a GOP firm reflects anything beyond a desire to persuade Republican voters and lawmakers.
The US doesn't have real political parties with memberships, so a more realistic view of them is that they are central coordinators of, and lobbyists on the behalf of, huge networks of consultants.
Having a political career means shifting between consulting companies strongly associated with political parties, direct party employment, campaign employment, government employment when your party is in power, "think tanks," "journalism," and employment as a lobbyist for government contractors or industries with a legislative agenda.
Journalists drop the keyfabe when they're speaking casually, sometimes accidentally. They do go out of their way to do so when the subject is associated with a party their employer doesn't approve of.
Including the truth about party association doesn't make a story more or less truthful. The problem is when they leave it out, or create an association out of whole cloth to fit a narrative.
From the article : "Launched as a Republican digital consulting firm by Zac Moffatt, a digital director for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, Targeted Victory ... The firm is one of the biggest recipients of Republican campaign spending, earning more than $237 million in 2020, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets. Its biggest payments came from national GOP congressional committees and America First Action, a pro-Trump super PAC."
> What's the point of making "Republican" so prominent in the article? Is it just to use the negative connotation most WP readers have about the Republican party to malign Facebook a little more?
A person self identifies with a party that has questionable (/s) practices in a democracy and they’re being maligned. Jokes are funny because they have truth.
"Spectating an op-ed war" is a super weird way of saying "negative opinion about Facebook." Opeds are for reading. WP is a left leaning outlet. No war is going on here, and reading an oped isn't spectating a war.
Yes, political division sells papers. I looked for the "opinion" label, which is used to justify this type of manipulation but didn't see one. It's an article manipulating you talking about how Facebook uses a company that the GOP uses (and probably Dems too) to manipulate you. I suspect it wouldn't mention that some of these articles this company uses to manipulate you are probably published in The Washington Post, but that's just "opinion," so it's ok to say.
Lots of comments to this miss the point. If another tech company uses a “Democrat strategy firm”, the report won’t mention it, or even put it in the title.
Serious question, for those with more experience than me “in the game” running big successful companies: are dirty tactics like this (and worse) par for the course and generally expected, and it’s sort of understood that the outsiders/general public are shielded from it? Or is it actually shocking?
It often seems like there’s two “worlds” operating at the same time. In one, there’s outrage and indignation at this sort of thing. In the other, that public outrage is just another item in the chess game, to be weaponised against your competitors as appropriate. But maybe that’s too pessimistic of a view, and not all industries are like this? I’m genuinely curious.
I would still like to see someone brag about the "Facebook whistle blower" campaign. That was the most remarkable media ballet in years, someone paid a lot for that.
I can't help but wonder if it was FB behind it, "all publicity is good publicity." And despite the amazing success of the campaign at raising "awareness" of the campaign, it didn't have any apparent aim or effect beyond that. We've seen that before from FB, vast resource deployed with intricate execution towards trivial goals.
My 9 year old watches TikTok, and I've got mixed feelings. My kid is really into videos of other kids telling jokes, making slime, doing puzzles, etc. Frankly I think that's better than the vapid dreck on Disney--and infinitely better than social media, which would just stoke the tweener social drama. (We allow TikTok but not any form of social media.) Obviously there is less age-appropriate content on there too. But the algorithm is pretty good about not surfacing that material unless you're looking for it.
Summary: "A lawsuit accusing Meta Platforms Inc.’s Facebook of overstating its advertising audience got a lot bigger Tuesday when a court expanded the pool of plaintiffs to include more than 2 million small ad buyers.
Dismissing what he called a “blunderbuss of objections” by the company, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that the case can proceed as a class action on behalf of small business owners and individuals who bought ads on Facebook or Instagram since Aug. 15, 2014.
The decision is another setback for the social networking giant after court filings in 2021 revealed that its audience-measuring tool was known by high-ranking Facebook executives to be unreliable because it was skewed by fake and duplicate accounts."
Here’s what’s sad about this; TikTok was a product clearly built for “younger” users (Gen Z, younger millennials) the same way Facebook was in the aughts for its youthful cohort (older millennials). Facebook then evolved their product and made massive inroads with older audiences, sending their value and userbase soaring… point.
But in doing so Facebook left younger users underserved they chose TikTok. And now to paper over their product failure they’re crying to the government.
I was wondering where did all these "I started with fresh account, randomly clicked, and found something awful" articles about TikTok came from. Now I know.
It was so puzzling, because my experience has been so different. TikTok is the most positive, large scale, social platform I've ever used. It has exposed me to disabled people's, LGBTQ, POV and all kinds of neat things I'd have never even thought of.
The “maligning” is true though. TikTok should be banned in the US because everything that people hate about Facebook (unaccountable, society warping) is also true of TikTok in addition to being controlled by an adversarial state. It is a strictly worse problem.
Imagine if most papers or news channels in the US were controlled by a single, foreign, adversarial country. That’s what TikTok is for gen z.
They cannot compete with the product so here we go
Facebooks main site is less responsive than visual studio on my school lap and i cannot use messenger on my phone from web browser cuz they want me to install spyware
Once i graduate i dont think ill use this mess more than once a month for 5mins
LOL - WaPo and Facebook slinging political mud, what a surprise! The real surprise is that anyone still trusts what social media and ancient media oligarchs say.
The part I find most dumb about these "revelations" is that Facebook doesn't even bother to hide their efforts. No shame, no contrition. So normalized this kind of crap has become.
[+] [-] elsewhen|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] btbuildem|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] numair|4 years ago|reply
So, yeah, Facebook continues to be the single greatest threat to Western society outside of Russia. These are serious issues with serious consequences.
[+] [-] TSiege|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmlx|4 years ago|reply
this statement is both hyperbolic and naive at the same time.
[+] [-] Leary|4 years ago|reply
If Facebook did this to Tiktok, you can bet it tried similar tactics against Snapchat.
[+] [-] spoonjim|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] j16sdiz|4 years ago|reply
Except TikTok, like Facebook, is not available in China. The 抖音 platform cannot see posts from tiktok.
[+] [-] dqpb|4 years ago|reply
No it’s not. The greatest threat to any society is its own ineptitude.
[+] [-] throwaway4good|4 years ago|reply
Facebook is guilty of poor management; involving themselves in partisan politics in order to get a competitor banned is an incredible stupid risk to take.
[+] [-] jollybean|4 years ago|reply
This is ridiculous hyperbole.
And TikTok, as a Chinese company whereupon they can be compelled to do the bidding of the CCP at any time, in whatever terms, remains problematic.
It doesn't matter what the 'founder' thinks.
[+] [-] MuffinFlavored|4 years ago|reply
Why is Zuckerberg the boogieman? He just wants to run his company well and get as many eyeballs on paid advertisements as possible... right? Why is there some notion that he wants to push either a liberal or conservative agenda internationally?
It's near impossible to moderate a billion people posting crap on a social media platform well enough to the point where you keep everybody happy. How does this make him "the single greatest threat to Western society outside of Russia"?
[+] [-] curiousgal|4 years ago|reply
I can't help but roll my eyes whenever I come across such statements. Which one is it now guys? Russia or China or Iran or Muslims or Liberals or etc.?
The single greatest threat to Western society is itself.
[+] [-] eunos|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] user3939382|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nmilo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s28l|4 years ago|reply
* The firms are the next career stepping stone for campaign workers. If you have worked on half a dozen Democratic campaigns, you presumably believe in the cause and are unlikely to want to start working on Republican campaigns where you disagree with the candidate. (Maybe you won't be as good at working on GOP campaigns either). * If you are a politician, you are unlikely to be too excited to hire the firm that in the last election cycle wrote an ad trashing some of the positions you old. You are also more likely to get referred to a firm by a politician from the same party as you.
You might have firms that work with both parties, but they are likely to be working with centrist candidates from those parties.
So if this is a strategy firm that has mostly done political work for Republican candidates and causes, it seems perfectly reasonable to call it a "Republican strategy firm"
[+] [-] boomboomsubban|4 years ago|reply
A consulting firm that advertises itself as being "born from political campaigns" and being "right of center." Both things on the second slide of their homepage.
[+] [-] spywaregorilla|4 years ago|reply
12 matches for republican 1 match for conservative 0 matches for democrat
It's a firm comprised of former republican political talent. Maybe you're just as willing to fan the flames of political war as those you accuse?
They also seem to be into crypto.
[+] [-] beaconstudios|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nneonneo|4 years ago|reply
The firm itself seems to advertise a “republican” outlook, and was also apparently founded initially as a strategy firm for the Republican Party.
[+] [-] alpha_squared|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] woodruffw|4 years ago|reply
I don't think this is malignment, per se: Facebook makes a big show of being a progressive company (internally) with a nominally neutral political outlook. Hiring a Republican strategy firm undermines that image: it demonstrates that, push come to shove, Facebook's commitment to these things is primarily a facade intended to deflect criticism.
[+] [-] whimsicalism|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baryphonic|4 years ago|reply
I doubt the use of a GOP firm reflects anything beyond a desire to persuade Republican voters and lawmakers.
[+] [-] pessimizer|4 years ago|reply
Having a political career means shifting between consulting companies strongly associated with political parties, direct party employment, campaign employment, government employment when your party is in power, "think tanks," "journalism," and employment as a lobbyist for government contractors or industries with a legislative agenda.
Journalists drop the keyfabe when they're speaking casually, sometimes accidentally. They do go out of their way to do so when the subject is associated with a party their employer doesn't approve of.
Including the truth about party association doesn't make a story more or less truthful. The problem is when they leave it out, or create an association out of whole cloth to fit a narrative.
[+] [-] tangue|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaygh|4 years ago|reply
Political consulting firms -- especially those that specialize in strategy, oppo, or ads -- are very often partisan-aligned. That's how the biz works.
[+] [-] testbjjl|4 years ago|reply
A person self identifies with a party that has questionable (/s) practices in a democracy and they’re being maligned. Jokes are funny because they have truth.
[+] [-] scotuswroteus|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Clubber|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] temp8964|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway2474|4 years ago|reply
It often seems like there’s two “worlds” operating at the same time. In one, there’s outrage and indignation at this sort of thing. In the other, that public outrage is just another item in the chess game, to be weaponised against your competitors as appropriate. But maybe that’s too pessimistic of a view, and not all industries are like this? I’m genuinely curious.
[+] [-] h2odragon|4 years ago|reply
I can't help but wonder if it was FB behind it, "all publicity is good publicity." And despite the amazing success of the campaign at raising "awareness" of the campaign, it didn't have any apparent aim or effect beyond that. We've seen that before from FB, vast resource deployed with intricate execution towards trivial goals.
[+] [-] rayiner|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newhotelowner|4 years ago|reply
[1]https://thewire.in/political-economy/for-campaign-ads-on-fac...
[+] [-] greenyoda|4 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30855113
Summary: "A lawsuit accusing Meta Platforms Inc.’s Facebook of overstating its advertising audience got a lot bigger Tuesday when a court expanded the pool of plaintiffs to include more than 2 million small ad buyers.
Dismissing what he called a “blunderbuss of objections” by the company, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that the case can proceed as a class action on behalf of small business owners and individuals who bought ads on Facebook or Instagram since Aug. 15, 2014.
The decision is another setback for the social networking giant after court filings in 2021 revealed that its audience-measuring tool was known by high-ranking Facebook executives to be unreliable because it was skewed by fake and duplicate accounts."
[+] [-] spamizbad|4 years ago|reply
But in doing so Facebook left younger users underserved they chose TikTok. And now to paper over their product failure they’re crying to the government.
[+] [-] atotic|4 years ago|reply
It was so puzzling, because my experience has been so different. TikTok is the most positive, large scale, social platform I've ever used. It has exposed me to disabled people's, LGBTQ, POV and all kinds of neat things I'd have never even thought of.
California forever, goodbye!
[+] [-] thenerdhead|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AbrahamParangi|4 years ago|reply
Imagine if most papers or news channels in the US were controlled by a single, foreign, adversarial country. That’s what TikTok is for gen z.
[+] [-] zerop|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hardware2win|4 years ago|reply
Facebooks main site is less responsive than visual studio on my school lap and i cannot use messenger on my phone from web browser cuz they want me to install spyware
Once i graduate i dont think ill use this mess more than once a month for 5mins
[+] [-] mayowaxcvi|4 years ago|reply
Perhaps the most blatant case of "Always accuse your enemy of exactly what you are doing yourself."
[+] [-] kevwil|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] specialist|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] datalopers|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] corn13read2|4 years ago|reply