Hacker News Reader

Comment by mindgam3 | Hacker News Reader

“McNamee [early FB investor] also profited from this mentorship [of Zuckerberg]. Along with his venture capital firm, Elevation Partners, the author made a fortune off an early investment in Zuckerberg’s company, a subject about which he is now suitably circumspect, given his belief that Facebook, along with Google and other tech giants, today represents “the greatest threat to the global order in my lifetime.”

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?

View on HN

> along with Google and other tech giants

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-...

Surely Google is on par with Facebook in terms of the potential damage it can and does cause society. Together they nearly monopolize the online advertising market and both have massive amounts of personal data, tracking, ability to promote/demote views arbitrarily...

> Surely Google is on par with Facebook in terms of the potential damage it can and does cause society. Together they nearly monopolize the online advertising market and both have massive amounts of personal data, tracking, ability to promote/demote views arbitrarily...

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.

Why does he have to give back money or soul search? This isa common emotional take on all issues of this type. Human experience is dynamic and people seem to confuse a need for some type of life consistency of values with the validity of a "hot take" or conclusion.

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//

Sure, nobody has to do anything. In this case I think doing some of his own inner work would make his current stance of moral outrage more credible. People in glass houses, etc. Otherwise it’s way too easy to dismiss his (valid) concerns by attacking his own credibility.

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.

Because values are something you live, and if you write a book about values which you don't appear to practice, well, you kinda come across as selling horseshit.

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.

You can have a good idea from a bad source. It doesn't really affect the quality of the idea.

Are we talking about an idea or ideals? As an idea, FB is monstrously successful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com