The article reads like a bad hit job it tries to paint facebooks position as bleak while ignore all its products have continued to experience amazing growth.

It paints a picture of what the author want the world to be like rather than reality. One of the biggest examples is how they view regulation as a risk to Facebook while Facebooks views it as a guarantee of market dominance.

Reads like fan fiction rather than objective reporting.

Founders rarely stay long after acquisition and Instagram seems to be doing quite OK.

What’s the best book to learn about Zuckerberg and Facebooks?

One thing I'm surprised not to hear mentioned in this article is regulation. I'm sure there's a level of trying to assert Facebook's dominance over the more successful acquired product. But one thing that wasn't mentioned is that there is a strong political movemeent saying we should break up big tech. Elizabeth Warren was called out specifically by Zuckerberg as the most effective and transformative politician of our time.

I think one thing we need to consider about facebook is the classic middle manager wrangling. If you think that a priority you like is under the chopping block, you tie it inextridcably to something else and then go "Oh, well! Can't can this project because you'll be destroying our most important project". It is essential for Facebook to get to the point where it is so difficult to distinguish between Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp that you can make a coherent argument that you can't split that company into 3 separate parts. That's a great reason for a lot of what was going on at facebook, but the article doesn't seem to consider it.

Wasn’t this common knowledge?

As John Gruber writes after every single link to Bloomberg:

* Bloomberg, of course, is the publication that published “The Big Hack” in October 2018 — a sensational story alleging that data centers of Apple, Amazon, and dozens of other companies were compromised by China’s intelligence services. The story presented no confirmable evidence at all, was vehemently denied by all companies involved, has not been confirmed by a single other publication (despite much effort to do so), and has been largely discredited by one of Bloomberg’s own sources. By all appearances “The Big Hack” was complete bullshit. Yet Bloomberg has issued no correction or retraction, and seemingly hopes we’ll all just forget about it. I say we do not just forget about it. Bloomberg’s institutional credibility is severely damaged, and everything they publish should be treated with skepticism until they retract the story or provide evidence that it was true.

paywall

Gruber can write what he wants, but is there any evidence that Bloomberg's institutional credibility was impacted in anyway.

I see tons of articles from Bloomberg being posted on HN, where people care about that issue. Outside of this, no one cared and there are people on both camps as far as that story is concerned.

Additional friendly reminder that Bloomberg sees Facebook as the biggest threat to its existence and is extremely motivated to report negatively about them

Don't forget their "market moving bonuses" https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/the-bloomberg-m...

Go Bayesian. With every passing month/year, multiply your expectation that the story is true by a fixed decay factor between 0 and 1; this simulates the exponential distribution. But also be sure to update how surprised you will be, if the story does ever corroborate!

I'm not sure if the integrity of this article - an excerpt from an upcoming book by another editorial team - was affected by Bloomberg's previous editorial actions.

Yes. Bloomberg uses their publication to manipulate the stock market to the advantage of insiders. This is completely obvious based on the huge number of absolute bullshit fabricated stories where they and their anonymous sources are the only starting point.

I forget what country it was... somewhere in northern Europe.

(looks like it might be Bangladesh (see below for link))

They passed legislation that allows a RIVER to have rights and lawyers can sue on its behalf.

We need similar legislation for reality. We have about 50% of the country that literally doesn't give a shit about lying.

The truth should have rights to sue.

Now I KNOW there is a fuzzy ground but there are also things that are clearly, provably false.

If a politician says he was in the United States, yet there are records, showing he was in Germany, and you can prove damages, you should be able to sue.

We already have limits to the 1st amendment. You can't libel or slander someone for example. The truth needs to be protected. Otherwise we're doomed.

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/03/740604142/should-rivers-have-...