Mark Zuckerberg should try living in the real world
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
I too read his lines and watch his moves closely, because he has the potential to affect things substantially towards things that go against my own agenda, not because of some universal distrust of people in high places. A little distrust is healthy, but to do so unconditionally risks forcing people like Mark or anyone for that matter becoming the monster you fear they can be.
Either he has changed in massive massive ways to the point he genuinely has love for middle America and can relate to them or (more likely) there is a big dissonance between the persona he is putting on and the real Zuck
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
This feels mostly like a personal attack. The author asserts that Zuckerberg doesn't know what a community is, but doesn't explain this further. Nor does he present any real reasoning beyond "my interpretation of this message is that he doesn't know what a community is." Is the point that we should abandon technology? That technology can't augment human interaction or provide a platform for discourse? I can't see any other proposition by the author. The cheap shot at Schmidt at the end implies, to me, that we shouldn't have a networked world where communication is universal and free. The author implies that we do live in "a comprehensively networked world," and that Schmidt's hypothesis has fallen flat. Does anyone actually believe that communication is a solved problem? Hell, we can't even agree on whether OSS projects should use chat rooms or not.
> There is also, I am sorry to say, a less charitable explanation. It is that he has concluded that what is wrong with the world – all the fanaticism, cruelty, warfare, myopia and xenophobia – is because some parts of the world are not yet on Facebook. If only they were all part of that mythical “global community” then everything would be OK.
I think that's a very reductive way of reading Zuckerberg's comments. Certainly, he is writing from a very privileged position atop his piles of cash. But I think it's silly to assert that "In times like these, the most important thing we at Facebook can do is develop the social infrastructure to give people the power to build a global community that works for all of us," translates to, "if we're all part of a global community, everything would be OK." Of course everything wouldn't be okay! But it's certainly better than nothing, I'd think.
Let Zuck go on his little The Simple Life experiment and let's worry about, I don't know, net neutrality being destroyed or whatever.
Yes!??!? That same infrastructure and userbase could be used for more constructive goals than selling personal info.
With this later comment?
Let Zuck go on his little The Simple Life experiment and let's worry about, I don't know, net neutrality being destroyed or whatever.
Honestly how? There is a "billionaire" currently tearing apart net neutrality because he doesn't know about (or care about) the internet other than as a way to make money and to bully people.
The world weary Jerry is counterpoint to Mark's fresh faced idealism.
The bit about staff prepping Jerry not to mention Marc's 'broken arm' had me in stitches.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mkR3BkuKCI
Seinfeld : "You and I showing up would ruin everything he likes about that community."..."Your goal was to take the social experience and put it online; my goal was to take the actual human social experience and get away from that."
Zuckerberg : "Get away ?"
Seinfeld : "I would like to eliminate the entire social experience."
Although I suggest everyone delete facebook, let's be fair to Zuckerberg. If the people on facebook were better, facebook would be better. Much of the problems of facebook come from the problems of the people on it. Sadly facebook seems to amplify these problems by optimizing for time on site, making hidden decisions about what you see and what you don't, etc.
A billionaire trying to make the world a better place is usually better than those that could care less. I know that there's surely exceptions (perhaps putin, koch brothers, etc.) It's not the status of billionaire that's important per say, but the quality of their charitable endeavors.
"Connecting" the world is just a tactic, a means to an end, advocating for better ends is superior. Sometimes people take the power you give them and do worse. Technology on its own can be used for good and bad, you must advertise hard for the good if you want the good.
In the end, I think if the world deleted facebook, it would be far better off than any charitable deployment of funds the facebook founder could make.
Its just PR talk.