Hacker News Reader

Comment by bambax | Hacker News Reader

> To take another grand theory, Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg has exclaimed his desire to liberate humanity from phoniness, to end the dishonesty of secrets. “The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly,” he has said. “Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.”

Wow, did he really say that? It would be a pretty dumb thing to say. Society rests on secrets.

If you want do have just one personality what is going to happen is not less phoniness, but more: people will extend their "work" personality to the rest of their life, not the other way around. They will have personal relationships that ressemble the ones they have with their coworkers, and that will be quite horrible.

View on HN

Sometimes having secrets about who you are saves lives.

Being a gay in uae, being a jew in ww2 germany were probably secrets that would save lives. To less extreme, hiding ones political views in a population with opposite political view could make lives easier and fairer.

You're absolutely correct, but this is a disingenuous response to Zuckerberg's intention.

He's not trying to create a world where such people are forcibly outed. He's trying to create a world where such people can out themselves safely.

The basic idea is that if you share enough stories, people will stop being able to convince populations that minority groups are bogeymen.

I believe that is a utopia, because of human nature. There will always be something you will want to not tell beyond your family or friends, things youe government might think inappropriate by the societal standards at a given century, and so on.

There are things that only should matter to me: my wealth, health are among some.

Society's views on matters change over time. I dont belueve there will ever be a time where "anything" is ok by everyone.

Also, there is difference between "privacy" and "being able to tell with no consequences". First one implies a choice.

Also, i can't have a reasonably different interpretation to the quotes: “The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly,” “Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.”

That basic idea is incredibly naive.

He doesn't actually believe this. The reason why Facebook only allows people to have a single identity tied to their real name is that is what advertisers would prefer.

Zuckerberg doesn't believe in anything other than money and power.

He seems to have said it a while back - that was a quote in a 2010 book http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191804...

Funnily enough one of my non executed ideas to make a better Facebook was to allow multiple personas so you could select work/family/party and have different content appear. Dunno if that would have got anywhere - never figured how to overcome people posting on the existing networks because that's where their friends are.

Didn't google+ do just that with circles?

Yeah pretty similar and it didn't do that great if I recall. I was thinking about the thing a little before G+ came out.

I don't disagree with the sentiment (who is he to dictate how I present myself) but do you really feel that society rests on secrets?

Also this quote makes mark sound like holden caulfield

Society does rest on secrets, but also on another more nuanced thing, discretion: In areas of life where privacy is eroded and everything you do can be posted to instagram or largish whatsapp groups, people can become more reserved and start acting more conventionally and blandly. Before this kind of social media behaviour, there was gossip, but it was a noisy channel and people forwarding gossip would also stake something when forwarding gossip.

Yes, society rests on compartmentalized information, which to people outside the compartments are "secrets"

> do you really feel that society rests on secrets?

Even on a first pass, you have to answer yes. The legal and medical fields exist on a foundation of secrecy. A lawyer that cannot keep secrets is a terrible lawyer and cannot defend his/her client. A doctor that cannot keep secrets is a terrible doctor and will never have patients approach him/her for anything even remotely embarrassing.

Sometimes folks have no choice if they want to be part of society. My very survival in a social setting was to not let folks catch on that I'm bisexual just to not be treated differently. I found this out early: some girls in 8th grade decided I was lesbian and people quit talking to me. This was in the early 90's. It followed me around until I switched schools again, and I had very few friends. I'm more open about myself now, but at 13/14 through... later in life... I wasn't equipped to handle such things. I'm also atheist, which doesn't fare well in Indiana.

In societies that are more accepting of others and focus on inclusion, there isn't as much need for secrets. I never found this in American society for the most part.

Certain religious groups in the past (and maybe present) did hold very similar views. E.g. remember not having curtains on windows, etc.

Wildly off-tooic, but I recently visited Amsterdam for the first time and was absolutely astonished at the lack of curtains. The jury seems to be out on whether it's a vestige of Dutch Calvinism or if it's just somehow cultural, but it was fascinating.

It's funny coming from a guy who has a bit of paper stuck over his laptop's web cam.

It's what a psychopath looking for a competitive advantage would say.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com