Strategy question

Should Facebook invest in a separate experience for news?

Practice this question out loud. An AI interviewer asks it, follows up like a real interviewer would, and scores your answer. Type or speak.

What this question tests

Strategic trade-off reasoning involving reputational, regulatory, and business considerations, grounded in real history.

Frame the real context: Facebook actually launched and later scaled back Facebook News, paying publishers, a useful grounding fact.
Weigh the upside: could rebuild trust and engagement around quality information and create a licensing relationship with publishers.
Weigh the downside: news is a low-margin, politically fraught category inviting regulatory scrutiny disproportionate to its engagement value.
Compare against the core: the feed already surfaces news organically, so a dedicated surface may not add proportional value versus the risk and cost.
Recommend based on the real outcome: consistent with what Meta actually did, deprioritize dedicated News investment and let news live in the core feed and Groups.
Note the risk of the recommendation: ceding ground on quality journalism distribution could hurt public trust longer-term.

Grounds the answer in the real, known history, Facebook News launched then scaled back, rather than speculating blind.
Weighs concrete costs, publisher payments and regulatory attention, against a real but modest engagement upside.
Reaches a clear recommendation with an honestly stated risk, not a wishy-washy 'it depends.'

Not knowing or acknowledging that this is a real product Meta already tried and pulled back from.
Giving a one-sided answer with no counter-risk to the recommendation.

What would change your recommendation?
How would you measure whether a news surface builds trust versus just adding cost?