Top Meta executive said the company’s name change was a success because it beat out coverage of the ‘Facebook Papers’ revelations::Meta’s Chris Cox explained to employees the company’s rebrand succeeded in driving press coverage amid whistleblower disclosures.

  • tenitchyfingers@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    11 months ago

    Ever heard the criticism about some movie villains being “comically evil and unrealistic”? Well, tell those critics you’re sorry. Like even the MCU villains are realistic enough at this point. Matter of fact, Obadiah Stane is the perfect representation of one of these evil motherfuckers. That’s why he’s the scariest villain in the whole franchise.

    • ChewTiger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      That is a good point worth considering… Though I just think he wants to shove some Fintech in there and thinks the name X is “cool”.

  • rambaroo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    I can’t imagine willingly working for a company this openly evil. Imagine sitting through an all hands like this.

    • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Some software engineers are fine with temporarily casting aside their morals in exchange for a north of 200k USD salary.

        • rambaroo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          BS. Meta engineers can work anywhere they want. It is absolutely their fault that they choose to continue enabling Meta. Meta couldn’t survive without them.

          Many other professions have ethical standards. Software engineering should be no different.

        • Eheran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          That’s like someone saying “I didn’t make the rules” while enforcing them. It removes exactly zero responsibility.

        • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          If you have a skill set that lets you choose between working an for an ethical company for 100k and working for an evil company for 200k, it’s on you if you choose the latter.

          • jarfil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            What if I pick the 100k one… then get sick, have medical bills, can’t work anymore, and end up in debt? Because, let me tell you, being ethical only got me more insomnia.

            • rambaroo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Then how would the 200k job magically make things better? The kind of medical bills you’re talking about aren’t payable unless you’re a 1%er. You’re screwed either way. And I say that as someone who also has chronic insomnia.

              • jarfil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                100k is slightly more than what I’d need right now to stop worrying. Had I got that several years ago, chances are I wouldn’t even get this sick in the first place, meaning that would likely be several times extra 100k… and it clearly didn’t stop others from taking the high pay road, so being more ethical only screwed me, didn’t even prevent others from getting screwed.

            • Azzu@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              What if I pick the 200k one and have to live with the fact that I made the world a worse place for everyone else? Being selfish is fine of course, but I don’t even earn 50k, 100k would already be ridiculous. I can’t imagine the difference between 100k and 200k being that big of an improvement to one’s life to justify increasing the suffering of others so much.

              • jarfil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                Well, I figure out the difference between 100k and 200k in how many years would it take me to get those extra 100k… like, right now, some extra 100k would solve all my financial problems for the foreseeable future, even possibly for life (yeah, I might not have all that much life expectancy left).

                Had I been more selfish when I had the chance, I’d be much better off now. The way things are, I’m also suffering while others are… suffering the same, just someone else got more selfish in my place, we won nothing.

    • NormalC@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Software engineers (the ones who work in firms producing nonfree software) have little to no class consciousness since none of them actually have meaningful ownership of the code they produce. They are just laborers of a greater executive/shareholders’ visions. This way, they get to deflect blame since they were “another cog in the machine.”

      Software engineers will not EVER push back on these companies because they have no hutzpah materially (worker ownership) or socially (Corporate mindshare). Opponents of free software correctly point this out but never go further than “i just need to make money.”

    • froh42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Of course he knows, don’t think these people are stupid. Still it limited the amount of news about the Facebook Papers by giving the press something else to write about. This post proves it even more.

      And yet in the long run, they can make the name Meta stick, just by behaving like the renaming was a huge success and just ignoring everyone who calls the whole company Facebook.

      If you like it or not over time Facebook will be just one of their brands, also probably not even the most attractive one.

  • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Ya know what? He’s not wrong. I forgot about that for a while. I hate him a more now because it worked.

  • DozensOfDonner@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Not being a Facebook user and only seeing some mentions of FB/Meta in thread like this I can confirm I haven’t heard of the Facebook Papers. It rings a bell about some privacy violation stuff, but not a big one.

  • Kinglink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    It wasn’t a success because of that. People just don’t care about the Facebook Papers and the Twitter exposes.

    They either already suspected it, and this just confirms it, or they don’t give a fuck, they just want a place to post inane statuses and talk to people, because it’s social media.

    Sadly they are sheep and they never will wake up.