See also: "Here’s an unpopular opinion: We’re lucky Mark Zuckerberg is in charge" ( https://medium.com/swlh/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-stock-drop-... )
In many ways I believe that Zuckerberg is the sole reason that Facebook hasn't crashed and burned at this point.
And as for those that don’t get acquired, I think we can all take a quick look at Snap’s market performance and bleeding execs. That’s not to say that FB will not be disrupted - everyone eventually is. Just that it doesn’t seem likely to happen anytime in the near future.
Still, I'm almost shocked by how viscerally unsympathetic I feel towards these shareholders. I genuinely believe their stewardship would be worse for both Facebook and its users: they'd mismanage Facebook into the ground and, along the way, would utterly compromise users in increasingly desperate attempts to turn things around.
I also find it puzzling. Then again, as with cults or other bottom feeding fads and the increasingly ubiquitous, various and sundry addictive mires and dark patterns, to avoid the trouble in leaving, it is best not to enroll in the first place.
That would be absolutely glorious.
We probably need a better filter. I stopped using fb years ago, same for twitter. No regrets
What the Internet has lost in terms of mystique and pioneering freedom, it has gained in terms of utility and convenience, IMHO.
The main reason I would like to go back to 1999 would be because I would be 20 years younger :)
Maybe I've got a bad case of the "back in my day", but I feel more and more that "mystique" is what makes life worth living.
Watching a lot of movies from the 60s-90s recently, it's striking how much more effort we needed to put into everyday life back then.
Want to meet a friend? Call their number, hope they're home and arrange a time. Want to watch a movie? Drive to the video store and hope they've got what you want. Out of food? You're driving to the nearest restaurant, no Uber Eats. Want to find out the median rainfall in Fiji? You're waiting for the library to open and digging through a stacks of musty old books.
Nowadays, everything's instantaneous - you want something, you get it. We've lowered the bar for almost everything.
If consumption and enjoyment no longer require any effort, doesn't that devalue the entire experience? What does that mean for life in general? Don't you think that humility comes from knowing the effort required to know or acquire things?
This is an interesting perspective, surely. But the premise for reducing effort in some areas, as has always been the case with economic growth, is that we can focus that same limited effort on exploring new horizons, standing on the shoulders of giants, living in paradises of dreams past.
Look to the stars, for they will never limit your ambition.
I think you mean that you enjoyed the first years of the Internet after it became known to the general public in 1993.
The first year of the Internet was 1969.
Added in anticipation of a nitpick: some writers like to reserve the word "Internet" to refer only to the period after the great switchover to Internet Protocol in 1986, but it was the same hosts hosting the same services (e.g., mailing lists, FTP sites, Netnews and Telnet) before and after the switchover.
I want a feed of freinds writing everyday bullshit and that just got worse by time untill I no longer use Facebook. It's like chat apps like MSN Messenger that stayed the same for years with no problems what so ever.
The issues with corporate social media are now well understood by large swathes of the public.
The incumbents are still standing due to their powerful network effects - if they lose those, the public may be a bit more discerning in where they head next.
Are they? Most of the people I know are still all "gimme my feed, gimme my like buttons", and couldn't care less about anything, as long as they get to read about their parent's neighbour's cat's cousin's trip to Whereverville, or see latest pictures of our Nancy's baby boy.
Mark Zuckerberg, as bad as he is, is not the worst case scenario.
Why not take real voting rights away from all stocks, and leave it with the company/effective owner?
It is indeed really difficult to sympathise with the shareholders.
Generally speaking, this idea we have these days that activist shareholders can come in and dictate how a company is run is insane.
And you don't vote by selling your stock, you vote via proxy ballots. Which too many individual investors don't do.
I think businesses whose primary source of income is advertising to their users can't really avoid being unethical. Facebook is just one of the biggest case studies of that model. The business model is rotten from the core, but I don't think it's Zuck's fault. Any other CEO would also have to grapple with that in a way that will inevitably hurt users and help advertisers.
If I were Zuck I would maybe consider trying to start a new tech company with a completely different business model. "They 'trust me'. Dumb fucks." aside, I don't really think he's a bad guy. No worse than Schmidt or Dorsey etc., at least.
Him and Sheryl Sandberg.
Then again, maybe societies would be better off if Facebook crashed and burned.
He had explicitly talked about the average SV' short term mentality multiple times: "It's still a little short-term focused in a way that bothers me," Zuckerberg says of Silicon Valley. "There's people who want to start a company not knowing what they want to do, or just to flip it." ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2011/10/31/mark-zuck... )
When it is time to cash out investors do whatever they can to pump up the valuation of a company even if it ends up creating handicaps for the future. When that happened to FB, Mark Zuckerberg was able to oppose to it.
Fb was like Friendster/MySpace then it copied twitter then they bought ig and copied stuff from there. Snapchat.
So just look what the trend is. And currently there is ig and messaging. So you see they’re putting back messaging in the main app bc people have abandoned messenger.
We all make mistakes. The important part is to learn from them and do not repeat them.
Since the beacon, Mark has always been sincerely recognized his mistakes, ask for forgiveness and try to fix those mistakes.
I see maturity and integrity of character in this.
Things that the young Zuckerberg did not have (ex: https://techcrunch.com/2011/06/25/im-ceo-bitch/ and https://i.redd.it/cqyiaxm1j6n01.jpg ).
I find remarkable that was able to quickly grow up and become a better leader.
Isn't Facebook's MO that they do basically whatever they want and when called out for shady stuff they issue some sincere apology and try again?
Even with all the privacy issues, I think the original idea has merit and could make Facebook more than just what it is now. And while I haven't thought this through properly, I think it's possible to find a way to pull off much of what they promised while respecting the privacy of their users.
Perhaps I'm wrong, and they gave up on the Graph API because they knew what would happen, but I can't help but wonder if the main reason they went the route they did is because of lack of imagination and a desire to 'make money' in a more conventional way (advertising?).
Which is Mark Zuckerberg? Probably a bit of both.
In case of both VC-funded and publicly traded companies, investors/shareholders mostly don't give a damn about the company or the product, they just want to flip it for more than they put in. That promotes extremely short-term thinking and abusive business practices. A "dictator" who actually cares about the company and the product is better.
A reminder for those with short memories, a recap of 2018:
https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/12/21/18149099/delete-fa...
Was enough for me to permanently delete my account. So zuck fails my standards.
It's all about how social media companies are forced to pursue profit above all else and this harms society.
Your average public corporation has a fiduciary duty to maximize profit for its shareholders. So arguably, we are lucky that Facebook is not your average public corporation. Zuck has plenty of money, and he's pledged to give almost all of it away, so he is probably motivated by more than just profit. He has been talking the talk about fixing social media, let's see if he walks the walk.
The reason for that is that I didn't buy any. Shouldn't I get some for free? Maybe other people are willing to pay just like maybe other investors are on board with his ownership structure. But that doesn't give me any Facebook stock.
Maybe the government could step in? How can we fix this situation?
Anyone have any ideas?
Hope FB crashes and burns ASAP.
Also, most institutions aren't particularly short-term in their outlook (if you are an institution buying a stock that has a valuation like FB...you have to be taking the very long view). Where the short-term "meme" comes from is analysts (whose bark significantly outweighs their bite) and the pressure that failing companies get to preserve shareholder value (and the real-world evidence here is that managers win close to 100% of the time and take shareholder's money down with them).
In my experience, I have seen countless companies decimated by unaccountable managers (no super-voting shares to my recollection, just weak oversight). I am not aware of any public company harmed by short-term thinking. The only possible exceptions are private equity (but for different reasons, still terrible) and acquisitions...but in the latter case, this happens for a ton of other reasons too. In most cases, there is no pressure.
Tbh, I don't even understand the logic...you can invest heavily, and that isn't showing up on your income statement immediately. It is true that most investors don't understand the difference between ROI and marginal ROI (these situations probably represent a good chunk of my lifetime returns) but companies feel limited in what they can disclose (and I have had conversations with non-US companies to that effect) and, in the end, the market always works it out.