[jgacook]

I often read about the divides between Zuckerberg and other decision-makers in the company, but I’m always unsure what the divides revolve around. Could anyone in the know clarify what the stakes are here? What is Zuck’s vision? What are dissenters unhappy with?

[vpner]

I think the writers know these stories get traction so they just keep doing a variation on the same theme. They're not really in it to explain anything. They just want the clicks and the engagement numbers to go up.

Speaking of which, I don't have a subscription and I think they paywall these things. Does anyone have a summary so we can figure out why it's on the front page?

[discordance]

http://archive.is/R3ij5

[jahn716]

Appreciate it!

[vpner]

Thanks.

[pdubs1]

This. This is super important to keep in mind.

Thank you for the reminder.

We have to remember that often, articles of "information" present themselves as such, when in reality, they're intentionally manipulative (in terms of misleading titles, etc.) simply to profit from human behavior (manipulates attention -> clicking). Sad that this is what the news & media industry has devolved into.

They are driven by their own needs for people to click. Not needs to share accurate or new information... but rather, they must simply do enough to keep their lights on, regardless of presence of merit.

[vpner]

I don't actually blame the writers for this though. The technology that made a lot of journalists obsolete is also one of the reason everything has become click-bait to appease the algorithmic processes of driving engagement.

I guess this means good journalism will stand out much easier now because we are so used to click-bait that good writing should really stand out now. When everything is indexed and searchable human curation becomes even more important and good journalists can start filling this role if they are an expert in some domain.

[catacombs]

> I think the writers know these stories get traction so they just keep doing a variation on the same theme. They're not really in it to explain anything. They just want the clicks and the engagement numbers to go up.

You are painfully uninformed as to how journalism works. Yes, there are publications -- Buzzfeed, Vice, etc. -- that feed on clickbait, but many are still doing important work. The Facebook story might look hark on the "same theme" but the fact a polarizing figure like MZ still fully controls a problematic product is still worth reporting on. It's about accountability.

[vpner]

I don't think I am. This writer specifically keeps writing very "lightweight" (to put it mildly) articles: https://www.wsj.com/news/author/deepa-seetharaman. I'm not sure what value they're adding after looking at some of those headlines. After reading this article I'm no more enlightened than I was previously and there are no actions I can take to help the situation in any way.

[catacombs]

There are other publications that aggressively cover Facebook.

[1propionyl]

Perhaps relevant: https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-at-center-of-facebo...

[koheripbal]

Try to remember that the people "reporting" on these "divides" make money by reporting on drama.

The truthiness of these alleged conflict in closed rooms is probably impossible to know.

[ubermonkey]

It's kind of a nothing-burger article, because in a real sense the board makeup doesn't matter because the nature of Zuckerburg's equity gives him voting control.

The difference, if there is one, is that dissenters are not by and large absent from the board (except marca). But this doesn't really affect his level of control of Facebook.