"This is Tayo. He's 11 and showed me a game he built called Spike Rush"
facebook.com
facebook.com
Nigeria and Africa are definitely the next big frontiers for the internet, and I honestly doubt that whatever facebook's got planned is mutually beneficial enough. Though if FB decides to establish and maintain a persistent, competent power company in Nigeria, it might actually be worth it, NEPA is shit.
Same shit happened when he pledged 99% of his stock charitable causes. Everyone was up in arms about how the organization was an LLC instead of a charity, claiming he did it purely for the tax benefits, despite that being bullshit.
I guess at the end of the day, once you are a billionaire for creating a successful company, everything you do is based entirely on greed. I'm sure we can come up with a self-interest reason Bill Gates is spending hundreds of millions eradicating malaria too.
Depends on the CEO and company. The behavior of a company reflects the behavior of its CEO. Microsoft and Facebook both have a a history of bad behavior.
A company is many cogs. The fact that Bill Gates was anti-competitive doesn't make him, the individual, a bad person. That's very clear from the work he's doing now. So assuming that all decisions stem from greed, from anyone, is a silly assumption.
For the rest of us, the relevant point is predicting their behavior, and in that context, the phrase certainly applies. As long as he's CEO and the largest shareholder, Facebook's actions are Zuckerberg's decision and responsibility.
That's not exactly it, but I would like if you could show me an example of a CEO doing something publicly which would go against the interest of their company.
The fact is, getting what I want and giving others what they want are usually not mutually exclusive. And anytime there is a conflict, there is usually an acceptable compromise.
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks.
Neither Mark Zuckerberg nor Facebook owe you, the people of Nigeria and India, or anyone else, anything. This kind of reaction to the philanthropic efforts of wealthy people and corporations will only serve to discourage such efforts in the future.
Even something given with no ulterior motive can have destructive effects on the recipient society, since it eliminates potential competition, while often not providing a better good or service. How many future ISPs offering cheap open internet access will not even appear?
On the subject, though not directly about Facebook, I suggest this interview with the creator of Poverty, Inc.: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/11/michael_matheso.htm...
Just think about the hundreds of other talented Nigerian children who built even better games and who are now crushed because Mark picked out this specific kid instead of them (I can guarantee you that there are other more worthy candidates).
Whenever there is a news story about a single random unknown person doing something cool, it's never about the person.
Mark would probably throw the kid under a bus if it would help Facebook.
I'm not judging if they were good or bad, but there were (and still are) far too many.
I think the East India Company comparison is entirely reasonable, if not right now, soon. And it won't need anything so vulgar as actual physical force, but its tools of war will be just as effective.