Facebook Says It's Standing Up Against Apple For Small Businesses. Some Of Its Employees Don't Believe It. (buzzfeednews.com) 37
Last Tuesday, Facebook launched what it portrayed as a full-throated defense of small businesses. But while the $750 billion company's public relations effort has presented a united front with small businesses, some Facebook employees complained about what they called a self-serving campaign that bordered on hypocrisy, according to internal comments and audio of a presentation to workers that were obtained by BuzzFeed News. From a report: A change in Apple's iOS 14 mobile operating system -- which requires iPhone owners to opt in to allow companies to track them across other apps and websites -- hurts Facebook, some employees argued on the company's private message boards, and their employer was just using small businesses as a shield. "It feels like we are trying to justify doing a bad thing by hiding behind people with a sympathetic message," one engineer wrote in response to an internal post about the campaign from Dan Levy, Facebook's vice president for ads.
"Aren't we worried that our stance protecting [small- and medium-sized businesses] will backfire as people see it as 'FB protecting their own business' instead?" read one top-voted question. "People want 'privacy,'" read another. "FB objecting here will be viewed with cynicism. Did we know this would be bad PR, and decide to publish anyway?" "How do we pick a message that looks less self serving?" one employee asked.
"Aren't we worried that our stance protecting [small- and medium-sized businesses] will backfire as people see it as 'FB protecting their own business' instead?" read one top-voted question. "People want 'privacy,'" read another. "FB objecting here will be viewed with cynicism. Did we know this would be bad PR, and decide to publish anyway?" "How do we pick a message that looks less self serving?" one employee asked.
Seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
Did these people not do any research about Facebook before they joined? What expectation did they ever have of it being ethical, and why?
These are not the brightest bulbs in the drawer, but at least they're waking up.
Re:Seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
For Apple, they make most of their money on people buying their iThings and subscribing to their iServices.
https://www.macrumors.com/2020... [macrumors.com]
Remember that profits on services are usually a lot higher than profits on sales of physical products.
Typical corporations (Score:2)
Not so Stanley (Score:1)
apple cares only about the money and wants everyone to pay them as a gatekeeper for data and subscription payments
Apple lets any app use the web for subscription payments that Apple gets no cut from. How do you explain that?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple seems to have some residual morals at times. Rarely. Facebook has none. And it all comes from the people at the top. I mean, nobody sane would ever accuse ZuckerFucker of having anything resembling personal morals or ethics. He is basically a failed human being and all the money he has and will ever have cannot make up for that.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Apple's "residual morals" has more to do with their current business model just happening to be somewhat more aligned with what's in the self-interests of the user. They're marketing their products as privacy-protective because they know it appeals to a significant portion of their target audience.
If that ever stops profitable, they'll pivot away from it - just like almost any company would. There aren't very many real-world instances of the "Bailey Building and Loan".
Re:Seriously (Score:4, Insightful)
The quotes in the summary aren't about Facebook acting ethically, they're about the potential backlash in response to Facebook's blatant hypocrisy.
It sounds like at least the authors of those quotes know exactly what Facebook is, and are simply concerned about appearances.
Re: (Score:2)
The quotes in the summary aren't about Facebook acting ethically, they're about the potential backlash in response to Facebook's blatant hypocrisy.
It sounds like at least the authors of those quotes know exactly what Facebook is, and are simply concerned about appearances.
That, or they’re crafting their objections in a way that won’t get them fired.
Re: (Score:2)
Your hypothesis is that they're both stupid enough to be unaware of what Facebook does (OP's conjecture), and also smart enough to phrase their objections to what Facebook does in such a way that they don't get fired? Seems unlikely.
Re:Seriously (Score:4, Informative)
Did these people not do any research about Facebook before they joined?
Facebook tracks you whether you have an account or not [vox.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I meant "joined as an employee"
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't appear that any of them are concerned with the ethics of the company. All of the comments are geared towards how the current message may appear to backfire and make them look even more self-serving and antagonistic towards users than they already look. That's not ethics. That's marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
Did these people not do any research about Facebook before they joined? What expectation did they ever have of it being ethical, and why?
The bottom line is - Facebook pays really well, so no one who works there actually cares much about ethics. The ones who are of a somewhat more sensitive disposition pay it some shallow lip service so they can sleep better at night.
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually easy, and aligns fairly well with my own beliefs on the matter (I don't walk for Facebook though.).
There is no contradiction here for someone who believes that advertising general, and targeted advertising specifically, is not inherently evil or unethical; BUT who also believes that it IS unethical to force those advertisements (either kind) upon someone who has explicitly indicated that they do not want to receive or view them, by setting their phone and/or browser accordingly.
The real ques
Re: (Score:2)
They asked "What new unethical action can Facebook do that it hasn't already done? [slashdot.org]". There was only one sensible answer to this : "Nobody knows, except that Facebook upper management might have a vague clue".
Such answers don't inspire confidence in people not good at logic.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe they've missed "assault and battery" and "horse thievery" among many others.
Re: (Score:2)
Did these people not do any research about Facebook before they joined? What expectation did they ever have of it being ethical, and why?
I don't think it's relevant though. People go to work to make a living for their families. On top of that, FB pays very handsomely and offers excellent benefit packages. I think sometimes even a highly moral-oriented person would still accept to work at FB (despite their disagreement about ethics) because they can put their morality at home when they come to the office and make a living. I've been in situation where morality is far less important than how to make ends meet. This is especially the case whe
Re: (Score:2)
That is not relevant for programmers. They have too many options.
Re: (Score:2)
I would assume that there are VERY few small businesses that need (or even want) to track you to that degree though.
hahahahahaha (Score:5, Insightful)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
When even your employees are scratching their heads, you know you're on the wrong side of this to the point where its transparency will not be lost be even the most technologically unaware iPhone user.
99% of small businesses aren't programming their own apps. 99% of small businesses that farm out their app development are very unlikely to be impacted by the additional privacy controls, because small business apps tend to be simple - could-have-been-a-website, possibly with a contact form or bill pay or something like that.
The sorts of small businesses Facebook claims to be standing up for are going to be mostly-unimpacted by this. Nobody is fooled, Facebook comes out looking even worse, and the privacy settings will hurt them more than anyone else will make Zuck's tears all the more satisfying to see.
The most incredible thing we could see, however, is for Facebook's stock to tank as even the shareholders express awareness that Facebook's business model is built around people's lack of awareness of how their data is being leaked, and how the sunlight Apple is bringing is terrible for their business.
nobody believes it... (Score:2)
Not that Apple's motivation is any different. It's just that they sell a different product. Apple provides really nice hardware, an integrated experience, and an upgraded level of privacy as part of their service. For which they charge extra. Facebook provides a social networking site, for free, that serves two purposes: as a platform for sel
Re: (Score:2)
It could be that Facebook's business strategy (to enhance its own bottom line) relies on small business users/partners thriving on their platform (enhancing own bottom lines), whereas Apple's does not.
I'm not saying that's the case, but it's not impossible or a logical contradiction or anything.
Of course they don't believe it. (Score:2)
Helping out small businesses would go against the core of who Facebook is and what it does. This is an oxymoron at best.
--
The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry. - Robert Burns
Only "some"? (Score:2)
Facebook must have quite a few not very smart employees then. Or ones that know when to keep their mouth shut.
Does anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there anyone who actually believes that Facebook is standing up for small business against apple? I'm not even sure the folks who produced those full pages ads believed it.
Hopefully they will kill each other (Score:2)
Really the best thing that could come out of this is for both facebook and apple to become ex-companies.
Facebook's niche could esily be filled and apples already is.
Re: (Score:1)
I get that your an anti-Apple troll, but I'm going to hold out a little hope that maybe, just maybe, you'll be kind enough to explain to us (who are clearly fools, in your eyes) just how Apple becoming an "ex-company" would benefit consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
If any companies need to disappear, it's Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft. The Internet would be much better off, both for computers and people.
Facebook Employees: "Are we the Baddies?" (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Oh for f**k's sake nobody believes it (Score:2)
Even Facebook thinks that Facebook is full of shit (Score:1)
Really? Some don't believe it? (Score:2)
Why should we expect everyone to agree as to who should be sued and who should be left alone?
Their employees are right (Score:2)