“I want to respond to Marc Andreessen's comments about India”
facebook.com
facebook.com
It is absolutely about growth and user acquisition. They are using their capital to subsidize and lock in a monstrous market. Is that bad? There are reasonable arguments on both sides.
But Facebook is not a charity. Facebook is not a social cause.
If it were, Zuckerberg would have sold his shares and reinvested the cash back into Facebook when announcing his plan to donate $45bn. There's a reason billionaires invest their money in charitable funds, and not all of it for tax reasons. There are some things markets just aren't great at solving.
[On edit: I seem to be getting a lot of downvotes on this post, yet no actual answers to the question]
Zuckerberg is running a long game here.
Furthermore, anyplace where Facebook isn't huge is a place where a competitor can grow. Note how Whatsapp spread from India/Africa to the rest of the world.
Don't be ridiculous.
What do you really think the world looks like? Do you honesty think that most Indians can't afford food?
(Incidentally, one of the many bailouts of the BEIC company took the form of the Tea Act of 1773. American's probably know it better as the trigger for the Boston Tea Party, and one of many steps on the road to revolution. And you thought Occupy Wall Street was upset about corporate bailouts...)
A market is a group of people. A for-profit firm provides good or services (value) to individuals in a market in exchange for money.
Sort of. I mean it sounds lovely but he is just saying words. Do people really pay attention to PR and if so how would this comment influence what anyone is feeling?
He is emitting positive signals but they are weak. Where is the substance behind these (cheap) words? IMHO Zuckerberg would have to actually DO something extraordinarily profound to come across as a sincere human being.
I am not trying to imply he is evil but all his actions fail to make me believe that he is a well meaning guy.
Could you elaborate on your reasoning for this? I've reread this a handful of times and haven't been able to figure out the rationale for such a move under those conditions.
He didn't do that. Which means, as the person with the single greatest understanding of Facebook, he thought he could have a more positive impact on humanity by putting that money elsewhere.
This doesn't mean Facebook doesn't do good things. This doesn't mean Facebook isn't a great company. His actions merely show that, for some objectives, he thinks other organizations can have a better impact.
This is a great example of how virtue signalling can be a great way of promoting your brand to young progressives.
In 2016, what better example of 'humanity', 'spirit' and the 'values of people' is there than the inspirational social network, Facebook?
I'm not up on, ah, promoting one's brand by way of virtue signaling, but is this a great example? It reads like something out of a bad college application essay.
I find attempts to financially capitalise on looking Good gross and wanted to draw attention to it. Zuckerberg does it quite often but he's not the only one.
(By the way: I had forgotten that Andreessen was a board member and large investor. Thanks for reminding me.)
It reads like it was written by a crisis management team, and it probably was. Apologies are most effective when they both are and are perceived as being sincere. It's fine to say pmarca stuck his foot in his mouth, it's fine to say that his expressed views are not those of facebook, and it's fine to say that facebook sincerely believes that offering a limited version of the Internet to poor people, for free, will be a great emancipator. But I think it would be a more effective apology if it came across as heartfelt, and that means leaving out what really sounds like self-serving praise for India.
I think what really bugged me is that it came across as something a politician would say. It was insincere and designed to offend as few people as possible. Which I find offensive, because it's not how real people talk. It's like the audience is being talked down to.
Ill-informed tweet indeed from someone that should have known better or better yet not said anything.
( edit: s/this/there/ )
Facts: - India's rate of growth under Britain was 1% and basically stagnant. - India's rate of growth under Socialist policies was 3% (Racists people often refer to his a Hindu rate of growth implying Hinduism is responsible for the poverty though the term was not coined initially for that purpose) - India's rate of growth post half hearted economic liberalization has been around 6% or more.
Also, why brand 'many in the west' as ill informed - was that nessisary?
Many in west is a perfectly valid use of phrase. Deep Hinduphobia causes a lot of (even liberal) westerners to look down on Hindus and India in general.
For example Benedict Evans displayed his ignorance using the phrase "Hindu Rate" of growth in reply to that infamous tweet. This is both Hinduphobic and racist in my opinion.
Original background of "Hindu rate of growth".
Independent India followed Soviet Styled socialist policies (should I say Bernie Sander styled). India could not grow under such policies not matter what government did. An economist Prof. Raj Krishna concluded that this was India's destiny to remain poor linking it with Hindu concept of Karma. He was not joking. Marx and Weber have serious influence on India's leftist academia (which is almost all academia). Marx dismissed Hindus as barberic because they worshiped trees and monkeys. Where as Weber argued that Hindus and Buddhists can not achieve prosperity through industrialization and capitalism because according to him they lacked individualism. Prof. Raj Krishna's phrase originated there.
Research by a Belgian Paul Bairoch has collected data about India and China's economy since 1700s. Both China and India contributed to world GDP 24% and 33% respectively which fell to 20% in 1800.
Here is the link with details : http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns/s_gurumurthy/Boss-re...
When people say "xyz was ill informed" - thats BS. Marc should educate himself before he opens his mouth. He can make an ill informed investment decision but if he makes a comment that hurts a nations sentiments then there's no way to justify it.
The fact that he doesn't tells me more about his motives than anything he says.
Remember, these Valley idols share almost all of their DNA with the rest of us.
A lot of these types of people, if not all of them, are pretty much surrounded by 'yes men' and asskissers 24/7. I think there's a big problem with the wealthy and social disconnect. Its probably unsolvable.
Andreessen repeated the above quote in his lingo.
Even as an Indian though, I don't know if the closing of investments was due to "anti-colonialism" or just a general socialist, USSR-like policy?
I don't have FB so I'm not logged in. Does FB have a list of "celebrity" users that it highlights when they like a post?
Those ill informed comments from Marc who is otherwise libertarian were disparaging.