I increasingly believe that Facebook’s pivot to Meta will end up going down as one of the biggest misses in the history of business. The metaverse is a real idea yes - but strapping a phone to your face and walking through your coffee table isn’t it. Especially not with a mediocre centralized FB owned “virtual world” where they inflict heavy taxes and content moderation. Facebook has neglected its core businesses for years and seems to have real trouble shipping hardware with reasonable spending.
Now they’re scrambling to ship an iPhone alternative to get out from under Apple policy, but it really seems like they’re on constant defense now and have a very tough lift to actually get something truly mass market. I would be shocked if Apple, Microsoft or Google were irrelevant in 2030, but it is really possible (if not yet necessarily probable) that Facebook/Meta might actually just not exist in the same kind of way anymore then.
When they first announced the rebrand I actually thought it could be genius and that there’s no way they could have been doing it without a really well considered, heavily backstopped plan… but epic strategic miscalculation seems to be going around a lot this year.
To play devils advocate, Facebook is more essential to my life than it ever was before.
* Marketplace was a huge success in terms of subsuming Craigslist. The quality of posts and the volume of postings makes me rarely even check Craigslist anymore.
* Small forums for various hobbies are almost entirely driven by Facebook groups now, instead of in the past where you’d find some custom bulletin board where the last post on most subforums was 3 years ago. It’s better than Reddit for certain things. Groups for communities (ie: your neighborhood or small town) are thriving, too.
* Messenger is the sole mechanism I have to keep in touch with friends from school that are now back overseas.
I think their general success is assured, even if the metaverse isn’t ready yet. They can afford to lose some money on a big bet.
On the other hand, I think that they missed the boat with the metaverse not being a big thing during covid lockdowns, because the cultural rebound of covid yields zero appetite for virtual existence. People want to make up for lost time.
I feel compelled to say that your second sentence is probably the funniest thing I've ever read on HN. It resonates very strongly with my belief that VR/Metaverse will continue to under deliver. What people want is an escape from reality. "Just like" Ready Player One or anything from a wide choice of science fiction novels. The problem is that these systems require a fundamental disconnect from reality. Not only do we not have the input technology, the closest thing we have is a monkey playing pong, but the obstruction of physical world signals is basically non-existent. If it were, then we wouldn't have people in chronic pain. Finally, we already know how this experiment ends. This is basically SecondLife 2.0 (ThirdLife?). We'll have 0.1% stay because they invested so much (money, time, identity) into the world that the sunk cost fallacy kicks in.
Don’t confuse investor sobriety after an epic party with strategic miscalculation.
Zuck is taking a gamble. Good for him. It’s extremely rare for a big co to have the balls and for leadership to have the autonomy to do this these days. He has both.
He may fail. But at least he took a big hairy audacious risky shot at first to market and a chance at being what Steve Jobs is to smart phones.
I wouldn’t count him out just yet. What he’s doing with Oculus as a
loss leader is interesting, and the tech is hitting an interesting inflection point as it becomes wireless, low latency and cheap for the first time.
Hate on FB and confirm your biases all you want, but watch this space.
Not because there shouldn't be legitimate concerns about VR, but because it's pointing to Facebook execution fail as the only thing that matters to the success of the metaverse, and it's expecting that the timeline should have been further along by now.
Facebook has always built mediocre products. Its strength is in acquiring or copying good ones, and then jacking the internal engineering on them up to 11.
Apple is seen as putting out good products, but they put out the Newton, ROKR, and even internally designed the iPad before they released the iPhone. There is time to build a good product, and chances are, Facebook won't be the one to build it.
And yet - first year iPhone sales and first year Quest 2 sales are somewhat on par. There's reason for optimism, or at least not heavy pessimism, yet.
I would be shocked if VR/metaverse does not massively grow within the next 10 years. I think the headsets alone will continue to get massively better which will convert most of humanity, just like how much better iPhones got since the first one. In fact, I would bet anything on the foregoing, as I have near total confidence in that aspect.
It’s much harder to figure out which companies will profit off of that, so it’s certainly possible Meta will miss. But they have a leader with a vision, and are pouring more money into this than any other major player. Will that be enough? Who knows. But I think it’s a mistake to count them out so early in the process, when they are the ones putting R&D into this.
In my mind, it’s like starting an auto company right when cars arrive and people are still skeptical of them, and being the company to pour the most money into developing them. That’s who you want to bet against?
Taxes and moderation are considerations, sure, and may backfire partly, but I think the users will go where the tech is. Just like people buy iPhones not withstanding the cost, moderation, App Store tax, etc, because the iPhone is what users want. If Meta makes an excellent headset and software platform, people will use it. Most people don’t care about the things HN cares about (like App Store fees).
Facebook was always doomed for failure, just like every social platform that came before it. The pivot should've happened years ago with a focus on Instagram and content creation (their shot at streaming was at least in the right direction).
At this point, Facebook has simply waited entirely too long, and the likelihood of any pivot working for a company of their size is basically nonexistent.
Meta reported revenue of $27.9 billion in Q1 2022. They will continue making billions from ads for decades even if the metaverse play goes nowhere. But if you believe that VR/AR is going to eventually go mainstream then Meta is positioned to be a player in that market, even if it’s just a 2nd or 3rd place player that’s potentially billions in additional revenue.
Disclosure: I worked at WhatsApp, part of Facebook, until the end of 2019.
If you think the name change means they're focusing on the metaverse, that's just convenient. The fact is, Facebook is a toxic brand and Meta is just a silly looking brand. Post name change, they can do acquisitions and brand them as X by Meta without associating to the toxic brand. (Plus, maybe they can get the Mennen ad team to add 'by Meta' to the end of all their ads with audio)
The real pivot for FB was their pivot to Instagram, with facebook.com pivoting to a "secret police" business model and shutting down open discussions, which used to flourish there. They've done this very well. FB today is more of a political organization than a business organization especially in the US. The Metaverse is just a distraction from this development that will have no impact on their cash cow Instagram.
The nice thing about Instagram and Twitter, as far as Washington lobbyists are concerned, is that it's influencer driven and there's very little room for bottom up discussion between "normal" people. The original Facebook was a tool where dissent could grow in a bottom up fashion, with friends posting and realizing, "holy smokes! I was thinking that too!". This doesn't happen any more now that everyone knows that big brother is watching.
I think the Metaverse will fail because it's a creepy futurism project. Creepy futurism says the solution to climate change is to replace real experiences with virtual experiences that don't burn any carbon. The pièce de résistance of creepy futurism in the metaverse is intended to be the virtual child experience[1]. You satisfy the instinctual drives to destroy the climate with more children[2], but instead you do it in a sustainable simulated way. Kind of like instead of living forever, which is utterly unsustainable, we upload our brains to the metaverse and have your carbon body used for plant food or whatever and our friends and family get the simulated experience of still having us around! Like most creepy futurism projects, nobody really wants this except the people who spend their days trying to figure out how to save the planet by any means necessary and have come up with all sorts of fake climate friendly substitutes, like the vast array of vegan meat substitutes that nobody eats, but seem to be fully in stock in every grocery store and fast food chain.
Like all creepy futurism projects, there seems to be an unlimited amount of money and associated ESG and "The Current Thing" street credibility behind these projects that see them funded and cheerled in the press to absurd levels even as the public is absolutely luke warm about it all at best.
I attended a USENIX LISA conference a few years ago in Seattle. I met a lot of people and saw a lot of demos. Before I went, I thought Facebook was a joke. After the conference, I was convinced they were doing large systems better than anybody.
Maybe that has changed, but at that time they made the other big companies look like they were way behind.
Not to mention that the metaverse "universe" looks, for lack of a better word, kind of shitty. I mean all those billions of dollars (or maybe more) invested to get something that looks like this [1]? Or like this [2]?
Not since Google+ have I seen so much hybris when it comes to one of the big SV companies, but at least back then Google didn't bet the entire company on Google+ succeeding or not the same way as Facebook (ok, Meta) seems to be doing right now with the metaverse (yes, I know about the "all small arrows behind one big arrow" or something like that speech that came from Page but it turned out not even the Google higher-ups believed in their prep-talks).
I see things completely opposite, other than my agreement that the current meta implementation is categorically bad.
The way I see it, Facebook is dead. It lost its place in society by forcibly combining free online expression with personal identity and responsibility. What remains is a culturally normative repository of groupthink with fewer and fewer participants deriving novel value, and that is reflected in the userbase trends.
What meta represents philosophically is a return to semi-anonymized and immediate human-to-human interaction, without the pretense of permanence or the necessity to project only socially righteous behavior. It is a natural, and by nature ephemeral medium. It is the only hope for meta long-term, and beating apple out of the gate is an encouraging sign to me.
I hadn't seen this before today, but NY Times claims that around a year ago (after the Jan 6th insurrection), Zuckerberg and Sandberg started to go their separate ways.
"The pair continued their twice-weekly meetings, but Mr. Zuckerberg took over more of the areas once under her purview. He made the final call on issues surrounding Mr. Trump’s spread of hate speech and dangerous misinformation, decisions Ms. Sandberg often lobbied against or told allies she felt uncomfortable with. Mr. Zuckerberg oversaw efforts in Washington to fend off regulations and had forged a friendly relationship with Mr. Trump."
"Sitting by Mark’s side for these 14 years has been the honor and privilege of a lifetime. [...] In the critical moments of my life, in the highest highs and in the depths of true lows, I have never had to turn to Mark, because he was already there."
If this is an accurate reflection of her experience, I don't expect it's a side of Mark Zuckerberg most of us imagine exists.
Having spent a couple of years at Facebook, I was honestly surprised by how different Zuckerberg is vs the outside perception. Now, I wasn't part of his inner circle or whatever, but in his weekly Q&As he came off very thoughtful, well-rounded, human, at times opinionated, and willing to engage on any topic. He fought to keep the weekly sessions going despite the leaks, something Google gave up on as I understand. Zuck has his faults, but a robotic, non-empathetic humanoid he is not. He struck me as a strong introvert that over time got comfortable communicating with his growing organization. I don't think he's ever gotten comfortable communicating with the rest of the world (and admitted as much). Ironic that he's in charge of a communication service.
I'm no Zuckerberg fan, but I imagine being in his inner circle is probably a very good experience.
I fundamentally and vehemently disagree with his goals and the effect Facebook has on the world, but (outside of the early years) I haven't heard anything toxic about him as an executive.
I'm usually skeptical of corporate BS, but I imagine they did have a strong relationship. 14-year stints are very rare, esp. for people that have plenty of options knocking on the door
Mark Zuckerberg's interview with Lex Fridman changed my perception about him. He seems really an empathetic person. Maybe he's too deep into his own dogma but he's definitely not robotic.
> I have never had to turn to Mark, because he was already there
I've not read anything (else?) Mrs Sandberg has (or hasn't) written, but this turn of phrase has a "professional" feel & taste. It's contrived. It's not something you would say about someone truly dear to you, your best friend, your parents, etc.
If you listen to Lex Friedman, he said the thing that surprised him the most about mark zuckerberg when he met him was his overwhelming humanity and compassion. He said that part of him never comes through the media, but when he interacted with him he said it was undeniable how humane and compassionate he was.
> If this is an accurate reflection of her experience, I don't expect it's a side of Mark Zuckerberg most of us imagine exists.
That's because CEOs aren't public figures such as actors or musicians. They should not be that and they should not be politicians. The fact that people know Mark Zuckerberg name or his face at all is in itself an anomaly.
CEOs are the ones who get to sign off the quality of life that their company provides. That's about it.
I don't know the name of Shell CEO but I know they are the person who get to sign off the quality of life which comes when I take a trip to Mexico or fill the tank of my Navigator and they also get the blame for externalities in lieu of me, which is nice...otherwise the green tree hugger loons such as extinction rebellion would attack my car.
I think Sheryl is going out near the top here. She literally rode this generation of SV wave from the beginning. From a Larry Summers’ protege to one of the most influential executives on the planet. Despite all the negatives associated with Facebook, I think she was the best thing to happen to FB and Mark Zuckerberg.
> She literally rode this generation of SV wave from the beginning.
> she was the best thing to happen to FB and Mark Zuckerberg.
Or -hear me out- the person most influential in current SV business is not the best thing to happen to a (very young, impressionable) founder trying to grow his business. Pre-Sheryl ads were businesses having fb pages and advertising when your friend bought a product (very social-based). Post-Sheryl ads tracked you everywhere and learned about you.
I think she was simultaneously the best and worst thing to happen to FB. Some of the issues of the company are squarely at her feet. The revenue org is a huge clusterf** of mismanagement and improvisation that should have tamed years ago. When I was there a couple years ago I wasn't impressed at all by how it all worked and was wondering if this "beautiful journey" post was about to happen.
Sandberg has been exceptionally quiet in the last few months, and given that the succession underneath her has been horribly bungled, I suspect she's chosen this time to bugger off.
I'm not sure what this means, but I hope Sandberg's style of disingenuous personal "brand" disappears with her. Just say what you mean and give us time back.
Well, more time to "Lean In" to activities like being in a relationship a guy that systematically covered up the sexual harassment of his female employees, I suppose?
I am always deeply saddened by the fact that so much of our digital social infrastructure was built by a company with little humanity. How many interactions have been enhanced, as opposed to monetized, by Facebook technology? My understanding is Sheryl was a supporter of this numbers based approach to the business, and maybe this will be a change for the better.
I think Sheryl Sandberg might go down as the Thomas Midgley Jr[0] of the 21st century; the single person most responsible for internet pollution and toxicity.
I wander what this means for Nick Clegg, and how much of his promotion to be “the same level” as Sheryl and Mark was related to her intention to leave.
He obviously isn’t a COO, but then Facebook has an existential legislative risk. So maybe that’s the indication, they need to be co-run by a policy leader, and opps is a solved problem.
Has it been a little more than a month since it was revealed she used Facebook employees to protect her boyfriend at the time from media scrutiny? They were launching an investigation on April 21, 2022
I think it's really deserving of praise that Sheryl managed to join Facebook in 2008, joining right as it was clear Facebook would become a behemoth. She then spent 14 years helping to steer a young Mark Zuckerberg through some of the most immoral, damaging and discrediting decisions a company can make. Now, at the absolutely peak of Facebook, where it's losing users, it's reputation is so bad it literally had to change it's name and "pivot", now she steps aside.
"To the victims of genocides organised on my platform, to the little girls who self-harmed looking at photos on our platform, to the businesses we destroyed through our arbitrary and capricious policy changes, my job is done here, it's been an honor"
This* from today was marked a dupe but it has new reporting with the likely causes instead of the PR:
>More recently, there was a fresh irritation: Earlier this year, The Wall Street Journal contacted Meta about two incidents from several years ago in which Ms. Sandberg, the chief operating officer, pressed a U.K. tabloid to shelve an article about her former boyfriend, Activision Blizzard Inc. Chief Executive Bobby Kotick, and a 2014 temporary restraining order against him.
>The episode dovetailed with a company investigation into Ms. Sandberg’s activities, which hasn’t been previously reported, including a review of her use of corporate resources to help plan her coming wedding to Tom Bernthal, a consultant, the people said. The couple has been engaged since 2020.
>As of May, that review was continuing, the people said.
Note that while she linked to Dave's FB profile, she did not link to (her new fiance) Tom's profile. I guess even those at the top of FB value their privacy while they continue to invade ours....?
[+] [-] frisco|3 years ago|reply
Now they’re scrambling to ship an iPhone alternative to get out from under Apple policy, but it really seems like they’re on constant defense now and have a very tough lift to actually get something truly mass market. I would be shocked if Apple, Microsoft or Google were irrelevant in 2030, but it is really possible (if not yet necessarily probable) that Facebook/Meta might actually just not exist in the same kind of way anymore then.
When they first announced the rebrand I actually thought it could be genius and that there’s no way they could have been doing it without a really well considered, heavily backstopped plan… but epic strategic miscalculation seems to be going around a lot this year.
[+] [-] nickysielicki|3 years ago|reply
* Marketplace was a huge success in terms of subsuming Craigslist. The quality of posts and the volume of postings makes me rarely even check Craigslist anymore.
* Small forums for various hobbies are almost entirely driven by Facebook groups now, instead of in the past where you’d find some custom bulletin board where the last post on most subforums was 3 years ago. It’s better than Reddit for certain things. Groups for communities (ie: your neighborhood or small town) are thriving, too.
* Messenger is the sole mechanism I have to keep in touch with friends from school that are now back overseas.
I think their general success is assured, even if the metaverse isn’t ready yet. They can afford to lose some money on a big bet.
On the other hand, I think that they missed the boat with the metaverse not being a big thing during covid lockdowns, because the cultural rebound of covid yields zero appetite for virtual existence. People want to make up for lost time.
[+] [-] hervature|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmaunder|3 years ago|reply
Zuck is taking a gamble. Good for him. It’s extremely rare for a big co to have the balls and for leadership to have the autonomy to do this these days. He has both.
He may fail. But at least he took a big hairy audacious risky shot at first to market and a chance at being what Steve Jobs is to smart phones.
I wouldn’t count him out just yet. What he’s doing with Oculus as a loss leader is interesting, and the tech is hitting an interesting inflection point as it becomes wireless, low latency and cheap for the first time.
Hate on FB and confirm your biases all you want, but watch this space.
[+] [-] ynx|3 years ago|reply
Not because there shouldn't be legitimate concerns about VR, but because it's pointing to Facebook execution fail as the only thing that matters to the success of the metaverse, and it's expecting that the timeline should have been further along by now.
Facebook has always built mediocre products. Its strength is in acquiring or copying good ones, and then jacking the internal engineering on them up to 11.
Apple is seen as putting out good products, but they put out the Newton, ROKR, and even internally designed the iPad before they released the iPhone. There is time to build a good product, and chances are, Facebook won't be the one to build it.
And yet - first year iPhone sales and first year Quest 2 sales are somewhat on par. There's reason for optimism, or at least not heavy pessimism, yet.
[+] [-] berberous|3 years ago|reply
I would be shocked if VR/metaverse does not massively grow within the next 10 years. I think the headsets alone will continue to get massively better which will convert most of humanity, just like how much better iPhones got since the first one. In fact, I would bet anything on the foregoing, as I have near total confidence in that aspect.
It’s much harder to figure out which companies will profit off of that, so it’s certainly possible Meta will miss. But they have a leader with a vision, and are pouring more money into this than any other major player. Will that be enough? Who knows. But I think it’s a mistake to count them out so early in the process, when they are the ones putting R&D into this.
In my mind, it’s like starting an auto company right when cars arrive and people are still skeptical of them, and being the company to pour the most money into developing them. That’s who you want to bet against?
Taxes and moderation are considerations, sure, and may backfire partly, but I think the users will go where the tech is. Just like people buy iPhones not withstanding the cost, moderation, App Store tax, etc, because the iPhone is what users want. If Meta makes an excellent headset and software platform, people will use it. Most people don’t care about the things HN cares about (like App Store fees).
[+] [-] oldstrangers|3 years ago|reply
At this point, Facebook has simply waited entirely too long, and the likelihood of any pivot working for a company of their size is basically nonexistent.
[+] [-] throwaway3907|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toast0|3 years ago|reply
If you think the name change means they're focusing on the metaverse, that's just convenient. The fact is, Facebook is a toxic brand and Meta is just a silly looking brand. Post name change, they can do acquisitions and brand them as X by Meta without associating to the toxic brand. (Plus, maybe they can get the Mennen ad team to add 'by Meta' to the end of all their ads with audio)
[+] [-] nicodjimenez|3 years ago|reply
The nice thing about Instagram and Twitter, as far as Washington lobbyists are concerned, is that it's influencer driven and there's very little room for bottom up discussion between "normal" people. The original Facebook was a tool where dissent could grow in a bottom up fashion, with friends posting and realizing, "holy smokes! I was thinking that too!". This doesn't happen any more now that everyone knows that big brother is watching.
[+] [-] narrator|3 years ago|reply
Like all creepy futurism projects, there seems to be an unlimited amount of money and associated ESG and "The Current Thing" street credibility behind these projects that see them funded and cheerled in the press to absurd levels even as the public is absolutely luke warm about it all at best.
[1]https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/37980/20220601/virtual...
[2]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-...
[+] [-] _wldu|3 years ago|reply
Maybe that has changed, but at that time they made the other big companies look like they were way behind.
[+] [-] paganel|3 years ago|reply
Not since Google+ have I seen so much hybris when it comes to one of the big SV companies, but at least back then Google didn't bet the entire company on Google+ succeeding or not the same way as Facebook (ok, Meta) seems to be doing right now with the metaverse (yes, I know about the "all small arrows behind one big arrow" or something like that speech that came from Page but it turned out not even the Google higher-ups believed in their prep-talks).
[1] https://media.wired.com/photos/61bd32b4b540f6bc340c4449/mast...
[2] https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2022/02/15/screenshot-11-1_...
[+] [-] elif|3 years ago|reply
The way I see it, Facebook is dead. It lost its place in society by forcibly combining free online expression with personal identity and responsibility. What remains is a culturally normative repository of groupthink with fewer and fewer participants deriving novel value, and that is reflected in the userbase trends.
What meta represents philosophically is a return to semi-anonymized and immediate human-to-human interaction, without the pretense of permanence or the necessity to project only socially righteous behavior. It is a natural, and by nature ephemeral medium. It is the only hope for meta long-term, and beating apple out of the gate is an encouraging sign to me.
[+] [-] gkoberger|3 years ago|reply
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/08/business/mark-zuckerberg-...
"The pair continued their twice-weekly meetings, but Mr. Zuckerberg took over more of the areas once under her purview. He made the final call on issues surrounding Mr. Trump’s spread of hate speech and dangerous misinformation, decisions Ms. Sandberg often lobbied against or told allies she felt uncomfortable with. Mr. Zuckerberg oversaw efforts in Washington to fend off regulations and had forged a friendly relationship with Mr. Trump."
[+] [-] atourgates|3 years ago|reply
If this is an accurate reflection of her experience, I don't expect it's a side of Mark Zuckerberg most of us imagine exists.
[+] [-] romanhn|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrochkind1|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gkoberger|3 years ago|reply
I fundamentally and vehemently disagree with his goals and the effect Facebook has on the world, but (outside of the early years) I haven't heard anything toxic about him as an executive.
[+] [-] schrep|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bspear|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ralph84|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qgin|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amrrs|3 years ago|reply
https://youtu.be/5zOHSysMmH0
[+] [-] bdcravens|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bambax|3 years ago|reply
I've not read anything (else?) Mrs Sandberg has (or hasn't) written, but this turn of phrase has a "professional" feel & taste. It's contrived. It's not something you would say about someone truly dear to you, your best friend, your parents, etc.
Maybe your dog.
[+] [-] farmerstan|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] walleeee|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Bubble_Pop_22|3 years ago|reply
That's because CEOs aren't public figures such as actors or musicians. They should not be that and they should not be politicians. The fact that people know Mark Zuckerberg name or his face at all is in itself an anomaly.
CEOs are the ones who get to sign off the quality of life that their company provides. That's about it.
I don't know the name of Shell CEO but I know they are the person who get to sign off the quality of life which comes when I take a trip to Mexico or fill the tank of my Navigator and they also get the blame for externalities in lieu of me, which is nice...otherwise the green tree hugger loons such as extinction rebellion would attack my car.
[+] [-] lvl102|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vineyardmike|3 years ago|reply
> she was the best thing to happen to FB and Mark Zuckerberg.
Or -hear me out- the person most influential in current SV business is not the best thing to happen to a (very young, impressionable) founder trying to grow his business. Pre-Sheryl ads were businesses having fb pages and advertising when your friend bought a product (very social-based). Post-Sheryl ads tracked you everywhere and learned about you.
[+] [-] luckydata|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JKCalhoun|3 years ago|reply
Yeah, my impression has been that she has provided cover for FB and Mark Zuckerberg.
[+] [-] KaiserPro|3 years ago|reply
Sandberg has been exceptionally quiet in the last few months, and given that the succession underneath her has been horribly bungled, I suspect she's chosen this time to bugger off.
I'm not sure what this means, but I hope Sandberg's style of disingenuous personal "brand" disappears with her. Just say what you mean and give us time back.
[+] [-] spinn3|3 years ago|reply
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sandberg-facebook-kotick-activi...
[+] [-] htrp|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shuckles|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saulpw|3 years ago|reply
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.
[+] [-] samwillis|3 years ago|reply
He obviously isn’t a COO, but then Facebook has an existential legislative risk. So maybe that’s the indication, they need to be co-run by a policy leader, and opps is a solved problem.
https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/16/nick-cleg...
> “[Mark] added that the new role would put Clegg “at the level” of himself and Sheryl Sandberg”
[+] [-] atlgator|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fnordpiglet|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rr808|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pinewurst|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SilverBirch|3 years ago|reply
"To the victims of genocides organised on my platform, to the little girls who self-harmed looking at photos on our platform, to the businesses we destroyed through our arbitrary and capricious policy changes, my job is done here, it's been an honor"
[+] [-] mzs|3 years ago|reply
>More recently, there was a fresh irritation: Earlier this year, The Wall Street Journal contacted Meta about two incidents from several years ago in which Ms. Sandberg, the chief operating officer, pressed a U.K. tabloid to shelve an article about her former boyfriend, Activision Blizzard Inc. Chief Executive Bobby Kotick, and a 2014 temporary restraining order against him.
>The episode dovetailed with a company investigation into Ms. Sandberg’s activities, which hasn’t been previously reported, including a review of her use of corporate resources to help plan her coming wedding to Tom Bernthal, a consultant, the people said. The couple has been engaged since 2020.
>As of May, that review was continuing, the people said.
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31611219
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-sheryl-sandberg-quit-facebo...
[+] [-] tsechin|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lalos|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1024core|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nowherebeen|3 years ago|reply