Comment by matthewdgreen
2 months ago
I’m only part of the way through the book, so have nothing to spoil here. But it’s entertaining. And shocking. The author will relate a scene that’s so absurd that you think “ah, this can’t be true, this is made up for dramatic effect, nobody would act like that” and then you Google it and you realize the absurd thing is totally true and was fully documented at the time. All the author is adding is a perspective from the inside.
I understand why Facebook people might have wanted the book to go away. That their attempt to do so comically backfired and resulted in entirely the opposite effect, well, that’s also pretty much what you’d expect from this crew after reading the book.
Did you find the author/narrator very unlikable?
[mild spoilers ahead]
I was tempted to stop reading after the shark attack story when she wakes up in the hospital and declares "I saved myself". Ugh. But I think it makes narrative sense: why would a good person stay at the company after all she has witnessed? It also makes the company leaders seem so much worse in comparison.
One more thing: Is it credible that she had such a high profile job for so long and still be worried about money?
> One more thing: Is it credible that she had such a high profile job for so long and still be worried about money?
Read threads at bogleheads for a month or so. The eighth post that is a variation on "we have fifteen million dollars in cash, and more in stock, can we afford to buy a used 2008 Accord" and you'll go insane.
Cash in USD? They aren't hedged at all against hyperinflation. Wait for a few more gold bars before buying that Accord.
> why would a good person stay at the company after all she has witnessed?
Wait, is the angle of the book that she’s a good person? That can’t possibly be right… it’s a book about all the horrible things she tried to help Facebook do.
The title of the book doesn’t suggest she was disappointed in their morals. It suggests she was disappointed in their ability to do their jobs.
> Wait, is the angle of the book that she’s a good person? That can’t possibly be right…
Well, she paints herself as an idealist who believes Facebook can be an agent of [presumably positive] change, so at least she thinks of herself as good in some sense of the word. That’s what I found intriguing about that shark attack prologue. If it had been written by a third person or if this were a novelization, it would feel like a character-revealing moment, telling the audience that she’s actually selfish and self-absorbed, and setting expectations for her behavior before getting into the story.
3 replies →
Many times its easier to look back over a period of time and see the differences than when you are gradually exposed to those things over time. Thats kind of how I'm understanding her recollection about it all. I do tend to take things with a grain of salt, not all Americans are as ridiculous as some of the people she makes us out to sound like. She does paint broadly with the "international community is all good and Americans are all morons" brush, again grain of salt.
About the money thing, I think she was probably compensated better at some point, probably when she was more involved with sandberg and zuck. But also sounds like she was working constantly so she may not have had time to worry about it or worry about spending it. I'm only ~20 chapters in, when they move to MP.
Overall I like the author/narrator, we all tell our stories from our perspective and I just keep that in mind.
It's called the Streisand Effect. :)
It's kind of amazing that people still hit this, really. Like, if you're Facebook's lawyers, how are you not telling them "don't talk about this; anything you say or do will only promote it further"? The lawyers must _know_.
Competing incentives.
Lawyers get paid to “do something”. To wealthy people, a lawyer saying “let’s actually not do anything” seems like a “what am I paying you for then” moment.
After reading the article, it seems plausible that they were advised against this and, well... didn’t care.
(Perhaps it’s more accurate to say they did not think it would manifest but that’s not a fun play on words.)
From the lawyer's point of view I guess you're making a risk judgement, presumably they thought the chance of getting a successful court order outweighed the potential increase in press of they happened to fail.
3 replies →
Their lawyers are daft as bricks.
They can't even control their client from lying in public.
The lawyers and the PR team don’t talk to each other.
That is not the lawyers' concern.
It's right there in the URL, along with #ZDGAF
For a company that supposedly runs on data and strategy, they're shockingly bad at anticipating how people will react when they try to bury criticism
What is the thing? (you can rot13 it for spoilers)
It's hardly just one single thing. The book is full of absurd scenes all the way through.
Sounds like the book is similar to the almost famous movie main idea.
Please tell me exactly when it gets interesting, Im listening to it and completely uninterested in the author’s “job pitch”
> completely uninterested in the author’s “job pitch”
It's central to the arc of the narrative though. She begins with the idealistic possibilities for Facebook; and now, in a real-life epilogue, is concluding by pulling back the curtain on how horrible these people are. And by extension this company.
The book has great stories. You could skip the job pitch part and jump straight to once she joins Facebook, that's fine too.
Sheryl inviting the author to go to bed with her, and then holding it against her when she didn’t. That was my double-take moment in the book.