Hacker News Reader

Comment by danans | Hacker News Reader

> then goes out and sues said community, build walls to keep the community at bay

People who are wealthy and famous like him take these measures because they fear for their family's personal security. As an unknown person who also takes my family's security seriously, it's hard to fault him for that.

But that is really unrelated to the concept of "community" on Facebook. One can be quite concerned about social media's negative effect on society (promoting tribalism, othering) while granting that Mark Z has exceptional security needs.

View on HN

I find it utterly hilarious that Mark Zuckerberg is concerned about his own privacy given the product he’s unleashed upon the world. Hypocrisy doesn’t begin to describe it.

I agree, but physical security and privacy, while related, are different. And physical security measures are different when someone's wealth puts a big target on their back.

This is ridiculous. The wealthy don't have big targets on their back.

Zuck has a Facebook account, doesn't he? Where's the hypocrisy?

There's a photo of Zuck is his office doing the rounds, but if you zoom in he's taped up his laptop camera and even microphone...

So what? Facebook isn't listening on your laptop mic or camera.

> People who are wealthy and famous like him take these measures because they fear for their family's personal security.

Whereas poor people are totally cavalier about their security? I think this is nothing more than a guy so rich that he can afford to do things that put his own privacy ahead of the rest of the community. This is that common delusion that the super rich have. They think they are super rich because they are special, and so need protection. The truth being that they are super rich because they work as hard as the top 50% but were insanely lucky. I'm starting to really dislike the Zuck

I agree in large part with your characterization of the super wealthy being that way in no small part because of luck and privilege. That doesn't invalidate the idea that Mark Z's wealth and fame change his personal security risk profile compared to someone who is neither wealthy or famous.

The injustice is that because of the societal wealth disparity, the poorer you are, the less security you can afford.

Note that Zuck isn't using his money to reduce the need for the security he's implementing.

> using his money to reduce the need for the security he's implementing

how would that be accomplished? ostensibly, the money's existence is what creates that need.

perhaps you mean he should give it all away?

how would that be accomplished?

I don't know, but I'm sure money helps to accomplish it.

I don't know how much his money as spent by him can reduce the need, but as a society we could move toward a wealth and opportunity distribution that reduces the need.

Excellent! Is this something e.g. part of Facebook's values and hiring standards?

> That doesn't invalidate the idea that Mark Z's wealth and fame change his personal security risk profile compared to someone who is neither wealthy or famous.

It certainly changes his profile. I'm not sure that this makes him at a higher risk of crime or makes him need a wall around him.

> The injustice is that because of the societal wealth disparity, the poorer you are, the less security you can afford.

And indeed there are many poor people who have a much higher risk of crime than this Zucker, whether they have a wall or not.

> Whereas poor people are totally cavalier about their security?

i don't think that was the implication, in any respect.

> They think they are super rich because they are special, and so need protection.

this just seems like a sneering generalization. all throughout history wealthy people - especially those in the public eye, or otherwise with a degree of fame - are huge targets for burglary, kidnapping/ransom and other such things.

this isn't to "justify" anything in particular (i don't use facebook or follow news about zuckerberg or other facebook-related people).

> The truth being that they are super rich because they work as hard as the top 50% but were insanely lucky.

in my view, the sort of "better breed" narrative about rich people being superior tends to be something coming out of the conservative and right-libertarian direction; there if you're not rich, it's because you deserve to not be rich.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com