Looks like the parent comment is some sort of "reply" to the title.
Curiousity might lead some to actually look at the article. It is very short.
For those who won't, the tag line is "The problem starts at the top". Perhaps that is a reference to Zuckerberg.
The topic is reputation. The article quickly summarises the recent complaints being made against Facebook.
Then it cuts to the chase.
"The most damaging claim this week gained the least attention. Ms Haugen alleges that Facebook has concealed a decline in its young American users. She revealed internal projections that a drop in teenagers' engagement could lead to an overall decline in American users of 45% within the next two years."
This is where FB could potentially run afoul with the SEC.
Its also where FB is continuing to provide material for lawyers representing large instutional investors who want to sue Facebook.
The parent comment, typical of others routinely shared on HN, seems to suggest the only thing that matters is what "most people" think. IOW, whatever is discussed on HN should be ignored because people who do not read HN have no opinion on it. (If they do not read HN, then how would they.)
Here, the Economist suggests otherwise. What matters to the Economist is not what "most people" think. Instead it focuses on what the people who work at Facebook think.
"Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return. Even when it set out plausible responses to Ms Haugen, people no longer wanted to hear. The firm risks joining the ranks of corporate untouchables like big tobacco. If that idea takes hold, Facebook risks losing its young, liberal staff."
> the company should look hard at its public face. Mark Zuckerberg [...] increasingly looks like a liability
In sum, TFA suggests that the business may need a better spokesperson. The business model isn't going to vanish, but it is very dependent on perception.
Curiousity might lead some to actually look at the article. It is very short.
For those who won't, the tag line is "The problem starts at the top". Perhaps that is a reference to Zuckerberg.
The topic is reputation. The article quickly summarises the recent complaints being made against Facebook.
Then it cuts to the chase.
"The most damaging claim this week gained the least attention. Ms Haugen alleges that Facebook has concealed a decline in its young American users. She revealed internal projections that a drop in teenagers' engagement could lead to an overall decline in American users of 45% within the next two years."
This is where FB could potentially run afoul with the SEC.
Its also where FB is continuing to provide material for lawyers representing large instutional investors who want to sue Facebook.
The parent comment, typical of others routinely shared on HN, seems to suggest the only thing that matters is what "most people" think. IOW, whatever is discussed on HN should be ignored because people who do not read HN have no opinion on it. (If they do not read HN, then how would they.)
Here, the Economist suggests otherwise. What matters to the Economist is not what "most people" think. Instead it focuses on what the people who work at Facebook think.
"Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return. Even when it set out plausible responses to Ms Haugen, people no longer wanted to hear. The firm risks joining the ranks of corporate untouchables like big tobacco. If that idea takes hold, Facebook risks losing its young, liberal staff."