Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Has a Team That Handles Mark Zuckerberg's Page (cnet.com)

theodp writes: Q. How many Facebook employees does it take to produce Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook page? A. More than a dozen! CNET's Ian Sherr offers his take on the news that Facebook has a team that handles Mark Zuckerberg's page: "Ever notice the photos, videos and posts on the profile page for Facebook's CEO are a lot nicer looking or better written than yours? Don't feel bad. Mark Zuckerberg has a team of people who are increasingly managing his public persona, according to a Wednesday report from Bloomberg Businessweek. Not only do they help write speeches and posts, but they also take photographs of his family and his travels, interspersing them with infographics about the company's user growth and sales. There're even people who delete harassing comments and spam for him. A Facebook spokeswoman said the company's service is an easy way for executives to connect with people." Wonder how many people it took to help craft the latest post, in which Zuck fired back at "some misleading stories going around" about "some land" he purchased in Hawaii (which another Zuck post noted also serves as a petting zoo of sorts for his daughter).

55 comments

  1. PR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll bet CEOs don't really say those inane things in Press Releases either.

  2. who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    just stop giving other people your private data so that they can get rich of it.

    1. Re:who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just stop giving other people your private data so that they can get rich of it.

      +100000

    2. Re:who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was in the university we used it to communicate over some projects, do team work and such. It worked somewhat well, but not everyone was committed to using it actively so there always had to be a second means of communication and data sharing. For years I felt I still needed to have a Facebook account. I mean, everyone has one, right?

      Well, a year ago I took a thorough look at what I had up on my Facebook profile. Practically nothing. Then I looked at what my "friends" were sharing. Practically nothing of importance, mostly just advertisement spam and self-promotion. I then went on to delete my account and I have not missed anything because of it. I still have plenty of means to get in touch with my real friends and family, and I don't lose any sleep over what's up on my public profile and how a commercially motivated entity may be using that data.

      Real experiences have experienced huge inflation because of social media sites. If you go abroad for a long trip, you have not really been there unless you shared it somewhere and posted photos of you posing in awkward situations with an ironic expression on your face.

      My current plan is to stay the hell away from anything that has been touched by Facebook, Twitter and the like. It's terrifying how the whole ICT sector is consolidating under just a few megacorporations, and how people and business have so much faith they'll act responsibly and always be there when needed. There's nothing one person can do about it, except not be a part of it. Sure it limits your life a bit, and you might have to make some compromises every now and then, but even when you compromise you don't have to commit.

    3. Re:who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give Buttbook a swift kick. It stinks.

    4. Re:who cares by gnick · · Score: 1

      just stop giving other people your private data

      Trading. Trading away their private data. People may be trading their information away for a pittance - And they may feel like they're getting services for "free", but they do feel they're getting something out of it. I use FB at home, I use Google whenever I need to search, and I use Win10 at work. I know I'm being "tracked" by all of them. I limit (to the extent that's practical) the amount of information that I share beyond what's actually necessary for the service, but there's enough that I feel I'm getting back from those products to share enough information to make them usable.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    5. Re:who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it limits your life a bit

      Please elaborate.

    6. Re:who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that I have never signed up for Facebook, I too am curious as to what way I might be "limited".

    7. Re:who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you won't use apps like Telegram and WhatsApp, then I think it's quite obvious what it means. Most people around you do use these apps to send messages, photos etc. If you don't have normal friends and family, then it obviously won't limit your life that much compared to current state, but for the majority deviating from the mainstream social media usage it would. I have not met a single person in real life who has even heard of apps such as Signal. Everyone uses Telegram or WhatsApp to communicate, and the younger use SnapChat (*blaargh*).

      So I would agree that it limits your life a bit, but it might not limit your life a lot.

  3. Trump's twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And our president's Twitter is managed by a single 12 year old. Go figure.

    (By the way, use @DJTCopier instead- follow Trump without following Trump)

    1. Re:Trump's twitter by gnick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      (By the way, use @DJTCopier instead- follow Trump without following Trump)

      What's wrong with following Trump? I installed Twitter and have exactly one person I'm following - I've never tweeted or had a desire to. It's a means of seeing what our president (in hours!) is announcing to the world and I don't mind if it's visible that I'm watching. I don't see why any American wouldn't be following him - More policy announcements come out over Twitter than over news conferences with this leader.

      I follow him as a concerned citizen. Whether I'm a supporter or not is none of his business.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:Trump's twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump seems to see his number of followers as a measure of support. See https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/759064533814038528

    3. Re:Trump's twitter by gnick · · Score: 0

      Trump seems to see his number of followers as a measure of support.

      What Trump "seems to see" and what "is" seem to differ quite often. I've heard him brag about how many followers he has, but I think he's being selectively blind. He obviously reads at least some of the responses to his Tweets - He's re-Tweeted a few of his favorites. From what I've seen in the responses, there's a pretty healthy mix between fervent supporters and vicious critics. Mostly it's petty sniping back and forth (like here sometimes!), but it's inescapably obvious that many of his followers are not supporters.

      Even he must see this - Even a 20 second glance makes it evident.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:Trump's twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An interesting & admirable approach. Matter of fact I'll never forget something I heard years ago... "Learn what they want you to learn, know what they want you to know. Then you'll better understand why you don't agree, and how to articulate yourself against it while rallying others to you."

  4. How is this news? by Desler · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait, so there are people who are surprised that public figures and celebrities don't usually personally run their Facebook and Twitter accounts?

    1. Re: How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Come on man, these millennials need a constant flow of things to be outraged about.
      Why are you such a bully, this is a safe space.

    2. Re:How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's more telling that it takes over a dozen people to brighten his public image. What exactly is he hiding behind all that money?

    3. Re:How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most bigly busy business man manages it just fine.

    4. Re:How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Partially true.

      The Orange One "manages" the angry twitterstorms while his staff do the mundane tweeting.

    5. Re:How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they need to crow about how this makes them job creators. When a CEO lays off 500 US workers and moves business functions to {some low cost geography}, he can still holler about how he needs 12 native US English speakers to curate his pages and keep all of the rif-raf from spamming him with complaints about all of his layoffs. Of course CEOs can't offshore the social media work as they need it to be polished English as a first language.

    6. Re:How is this news? by klubar · · Score: 1

      It doesn't seem unreasonable for a corporation or the head of a major corporation to have staff helping them with managing their personal & corporate image. Assuming that the dozen people do other things in addition to facebook posts, it seems pretty reasonable. Posting might might need to be cleared by legal and (shockingly) even proofread for typos.

      In other surprising news, politicians and executives don't write all their own speeches and have staff to pick up their laundry.

    7. Re:How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are people who don't care what this Facebook and Twitter is, some of them are the public figures and celebrities who get who have been convinced that such things need to be 'managed' for them. The fact that the head of the company can't be bothered to 'do' facebook speaks volumes about the state of the platform as a whole. If it hasn't happened already. soon everyone will feel the same about it as it's figurehead.

    8. Re:How is this news? by Miser · · Score: 2

      Exactly. A rich asshole has handlers, film at 11?

      (for the record, no facebook account - never had one, never will)

    9. Re:How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course CEOs can't offshore the social media work as they need it to be polished English as a first language.

      Thank fully its not like that hear.
      --
      Editor Msmanishs

    10. Re:How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly is he hiding behind all that money?

      Some more money.

  5. in short - Mark Zuckerberg is not using Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Mark Zuckerberg is not using Facebook? I guess he knows what a shit show it really is. And let me say that once more: Mark Zuckerberg, zuck off!

  6. Acess? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

    And do all twelve of them know the password? Hmmm....now his security is only as good as those twelve people's security.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:Acess? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      His security? Are you implying that he's using Facebook?

      Dude, that guy may be much, but he's not THAT dumb.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. It's necessary with Zuckerberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's also a lot more necessary to put a buffer between Zuckerberg and the rest of the world than it is for most.
    He's an immoral monster, probably a psychopath and he occasionally slips up when speaking or typing, giving the outside world a very unwanted glimpse of what kind of monster he really is. That his Facebook page is managed by a team was only expected.

  8. Twelve people's security. by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

    Well, as long as you can trust the 12 employees, it is an expensive but secure way to remember your password.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:Twelve people's security. by portwojc · · Score: 1

      I would bet for his account it's a system of dual control approval for changes to the page. Something I would imagine they'd probably want to offer to big names who for image management. It would be the smart way of doing it.

      Twelve people doing it just means it wouldn't be that hard to have two of the twelve around the office....

  9. Um, yes? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    Rich guy has PR flacks, news at 11?

  10. Re:Trump's tYou are posting: as Anonymous Cowitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    follow Trump without following Trump

    How much of a triggered cuck do you have to be for this?

  11. Even Zuckerberg... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    is smart enough to not use Facebook.

  12. "Quiet title action" by swillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The previous story about Zuckerberg's lawsuit caused me to do a little research. I have never thought much of the man, but there's really nothing wrong with the court action he's taken in Hawaii. What he's doing is a an "action to quiet title". Basically, he has already purchased the plots of land in question, from the majority owners. The problem is that the title to this land is unclear, because there are also many minority owners, most of whom really have no idea they own anything.

    An action to quiet title is a court proceeding used to deal with such fuzzy ownership situations, to clarify them so that clear and unambiguous ownership can be established. It involves a process to find and identify owners so they can be negotiated with, or in the event they can't be found to legally remove their ownership to clear up the title. That last bit is unfortunate, but there's really no other way in cases where the ownership in question goes back many generations and has never been documented. The alternative is to leave the legal ownership of the property in limbo. I guess Zuck could do that, but if I were in his shoes I wouldn't want that... and I know because I am more or less in his shoes.

    My wife inherited some property from her father. We have a "quit claim" deed that legally transfers the property to us, and my father-in-law had a quit claim deed from the previous owner, and so on back several steps. In our case, all of this was documented and recorded with the county (which is *not* the case with Zuckerberg's land -- so we have a much better position). Our problem is twofold: First, quit claim deeds are not warranty deeds, which means that while they're legal, they are only evidence of ownership, not a guarantee of ownership. Second, the legal description of the property boundaries was changed a few decades ago, and it's not completely clear if the new description actually matches the old one.

    In our case, odds are very good that a title company can simply research the past sequence of titles, verify that everything is good, and issue us a warranty deed which guarantees our ownership. BUT there is a possibility that the research may find that there is additional cloudiness in the ownership, in which case we'll have to file an action to quiet title to flush out any other claims to the land and, if they can't be found within a certain time period (a year, I think?), to get a court ruling that we unambiguously hold title to the land.

    This is a pretty common thing, and it's really not at all abusive.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    1. Re:"Quiet title action" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      If I own something and then you sue me to force me to sell it then that is abusive. It may happen all the time and it may be a small interest but how would you like it if I came up to you an said - "someone sold me your house so now I am forcing you to sell me the rest of the house that you own because I have more money than you" The % interest doesn't really matter. These issues should be cleared up before the original purchase or the buyer needs to live with the fact that they don't actually own the land outright and must work with the co-owners.

      The idea that he just wants to know who the owners are is complete BS. He wants to force them to sell to him even if they don't want to. If I own a piece of something then I OWN it, it is MINE. That is what the fucking definition of ownership is. If I am forced to sell it because Zuckercuck wants to build on land that I own and he only thinks he bought then the world is truly unjust and Zuckercuck is using is money to make that work in his favor and he SHOULD BE PUBLICLY SHAMED - EVEN IF THIS IS LEGAL.

    2. Re:"Quiet title action" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the reverse?

      I come up to you and say that the property you paid for and thought you owned was subject to a claim by an ancestor of mine, which I inherited and just discovered last year. Therefore I have a claim to your property.

      Is that okay?

      Or lets say it's more innocent. Property and ownership can quickly become a rabbithole of minor screwups turning into major issues. I have a neighbor in a 100 year old house that is technically half-located in a 50 year old city park - he has been trying to get this rectified for years and this has had all sorts of ramifications. Meanwhile he has claim to a different parcel of the park. Obviously someone screwed up recording property lines and/or deeds years ago, and nobody noticed until recently, but it happens.

      Is that okay?

      Imagine everyone who has owned your property. Imagine their heirs, spouses, liens, and lawsuits. That's a lot of protential claims.

    3. Re:"Quiet title action" by monkeyxpress · · Score: 2

      I don't know. I saw the 2010 documentary about Zuckerberg, and he really came across as a bit of a dick.

      Having said that, at least he didn't come across all fruit-loops and unicorns like that 2015 documentary about the internship at Google.

    4. Re:"Quiet title action" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ??? Why, as a Google minion, would you post this if it doesn't get you anyone's personal information???

    5. Re:"Quiet title action" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't how it works. Ownership can be fuzzy. Some people may not be aware that they even own the land or not. Essentially what you are doing to making the ownership clear. If someone OWNS the property they aren't "forced to sell".

    6. Re:"Quiet title action" by swillden · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I saw the 2010 documentary about Zuckerberg, and he really came across as a bit of a dick.

      I never said he wasn't.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:"Quiet title action" by swillden · · Score: 1

      If I own something and then you sue me to force me to sell it then that is abusive.

      True. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with actions to quiet title. That does happen in eminent domain actions, but that's something entlrely different.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:"Quiet title action" by swillden · · Score: 2

      ??? Why, as a Google minion, would you post this if it doesn't get you anyone's personal information???

      Mu.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:"Quiet title action" by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      We have a "quit claim"

      Get the fuck out, then.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. Speak for yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe Zuckerberg's page is better written and has nicer pictures than YOUR page.

    1. Re:Speak for yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I looked at the web page for the first time, I thought, "Six pictures of him? Why so many?" There were six pictures of him in the web page then. One of the pictures of him was at the top of the column that's labeled "Others Named Mark Zuckerberg".

      Now that picture has been replaced by a picture of a guy standing next to a red car. I'm guessing either Zukerberg or one of the people who manages his web page saw this Slashdot article, checked his web page to make sure it was ok, saw the mistake, and fixed it.

  14. Connecting with people by doconnor · · Score: 2

    "A Facebook spokeswoman said the company's service is an easy way for executives to connect with people."

    Having your staff post on Facebook for you doesn't technically meet the definition of connecting with people.

  15. Team or Cordon? by ZipK · · Score: 1

    Is it a team that manages his page, or a wall of meat to cordon off trespassers from his compound?

  16. Re: in short - Mark Zuckerberg is not using Facebo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right in the pussy!

  17. Why is he doing it the HARD way? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    A team just to prepare photos and tidbits and press sound bytes?

    He could have just taken a tip from a near-famous celebrity:

    Hire a stunt double.

    Walk and talk like him, dress like him, pose in family photos, take exotic trips, kiss the current arm accessory, prep bogus "leaked" sex tapes, deny everything, watch stock value rise, etc.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  18. Shocking! by newdsfornerds · · Score: 1

    I never would have imagined this in a million years!

    --
    Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
  19. AsiaticJewDom BDSM Petting Zoo. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Title says it all.

    No wonder they want to find owners to entrap on those parcels inside his property...

    *WHPSSH* Ojousama to Oyobi!

  20. i hope he died of aids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    if you want to sell cocaine, you must not use it.

  21. Re:in short - Mark Zuckerberg is not using Faceboo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mark Zuckerberg is not using Facebook?

    The odds of that are 0.000 percent. That IS his a big part of his job. He's got people in charge of everything else.

  22. Zuckerberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the same number of dudes he has sucking his dick! Coincidence? I think not.