>Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other.
>I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab, even privately.
why?
>I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab, even privately.
why?
I believe most humans are inherently not evil even if they don't agree with me. They want to make the world a better place, and they are simply pursuing an agenda that accomplishes that in their eyes.
I don't have any evidence that most people aren't evil, but in my day to day interactions I have yet to meet someone who I believe is sincerely evil. I'm sure they're out there, I just have faith that there's a lot more of the rest of us.
Should you fault someone for being the change they want to see in the world? (For the record I'm opposed to Free Basics)
Perhaps we should focus more on judging the outcomes of people's actions instead of their intent.
I believe most people are incapable of recognizing well-intentioned but bad actions when they agree with the intentions. Even when you don't agree with the intentions, it's can still be hard to spot without the benefit of hindsight.
Should you fault someone for being the change they want to see in the world?
"Fault" is quite a slippery word to use in this context. As it means both a failing of character and responsibility for wrongdoing.
Obviously with the second definition it's easy to fault someone when you see their actions as wrongdoing.
With the first it's mixed, and I suspect that's the one you mean. Someone who is "being the change they want to see in the world" is seen as virtuous. But when that virtuous person is also too headstrong to see, acknowledge, and correct the negatives of their plans when they encounter well-articulated resistance? Yes, I would very much fault that person.