An Anti-Facebook Manifesto, by an Early Facebook Investor
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Frankly, from someone who made millions by funding "the greatest threat to global order in [his] lifetime", I expected a bit more soul-searching than "suitably circumspect". Maybe it's in the book and I just need to buy it to find out?
This is the "deflect" part of FB's strategy to "delay, deny and deflect" [0].
Google, Twitter, Amazon and Microsoft all have significant issues, but combined their threat to society is a tiny fraction of Facebook's.
If everyone's doing it, if it's a global, industry-wide problem, then Facebook can't be held specifically accountable for their actions.
It's very similar to the facile "both sides are responsible" argument I see every day in polite political discourse.
It sounds even-handed, it seems unbiased, it feels "above the fray".
But when one actor is doing the vast majority of the dirty deeds, false equivalence is heavily biased in favor of the bad actor.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-...
Definitely, but the key word is potential. Facebook has been far more careless and far worse at concealing its arrogance and selfishness, both of which have helped paint a larger target on its back.
Google, on the other hand, appears to have been far more responsible. Through past results do not guarantee future success.
I wish people would be like "im rich from it, get over it, but I realize it's the devil." I feel like the disintegration in good faith debate is mostly fucked because of the ease in which social media allows for an ad hominem fallacy.
rant over//
I’m not arguing whether this type of “ad hominem” is right or wrong. I’m not even convinced that this is a true ad hominem, but let’s leave that aside. I’m saying that credibility matters. I deeply believe in the message he is trying to spread about bringing ethics and morality into facebook, but we need our morality prophets to practice what they preach. Otherwise the message gets lost.
You know, that whole "actions speak louder than words" thing.
I don't really know much about McNamee so please inform me if he's spent his facebook wealth on something to counter the dystopia that he invested in. I might buy his book if you compare him to someone like Bill Gates, who also was a ruthless monopolist who created a dystopia of talking paperclips but now when he talks about the existential threat of climate change or various humanitarian issues, you know that he's pledged most of his fortune to fund people working on those things.
That's a case when you should buy the horseshit because you can see the horse is at least shitting what he purports to believe.
Is Zuck's personality really worth attacking up front in this piece? Can't he be an awkward nerd that found success? That's not to excuse any misbehavior on FB's part but attacking his lack of charisma seems pointless and petty.
"The most stirring parts of the book are those in which McNamee makes the angry but measured argument that “social media has enabled personal views that had previously been kept in check by social pressure.”"
This article literally starts off saying that we're living in 1984 due to Facebook and ends lamenting that people are allowed to voice their own opinions on the platform. I can't imagine a further disconnect.
I do think bringing up Zuck’s personality can be valid. But the issue isn’t that he has a “lack of charisma”, which I agree sounds petty. Like the author is picking on a nerd. If you’re going to mention personality, you need to go all the way and explore antisocial or controlling tendencies, then connect that to the platform he built.