6 ms·

This is probably the primary reason that I can't get behind the Zuckerberg worship, no matter how much philanthropy he's involved in or how dedicated he is to s

This is probably the primary reason that I can't get behind the Zuckerberg worship, no matter how much philanthropy he's involved in or how dedicated he is to self-improvement and so on. The man's main contribution to humanity is the spiritual equivalent of cigarettes -- toxic, addictive by design, and marketed to young people. It's gross. FB is gross, and that makes Zuckerberg gross.

BenderV 11y ago
Zuckerberg is not responsable for the existence of the Friendship Paradox or our natural instinct to envy, etc. Facebook mission in itself, is good. We have no reason to doubt Zuckerberg honesty to do good. Do you have any example where Facebook did something that they knew was bad but still did it? It's true that social network bring bad side effects, everything does. They can only try to correct them.
- maxmouchet 11y ago
  They at least did doubtful experiments [1]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinker...
- creshal 11y ago
  > Zuckerberg is not responsable for the existence of the Friendship Paradox or our natural instinct to envy, etc. Nor is the tobacco industry responsible for nicotine's addictive effects. The question is, do the benefits outweigh the problems? As I've never used Facebook, I can't really judge.
  - robryk 11y ago
    > Nor is the tobacco industry responsible for nicotine's addictive effects. Devil's advocate: this is not the main problem with tobacco industry. The main issue is that other components of tobacco smoke are carcinogenic.
    - Retra 11y ago
      Any large organic molecule you burn will be carcinogenic. That includes nicotine, any plant, and any paper you wrap it in.
    - themartorana 11y ago
      The main problem is the industry has known for almost a century that severe health problems are linked to smoking tobacco, and spent the better part of that time hiding the truth while addicting a nation. Now they're concentrating their focus on the Third World, getting millions more addicted where they aren't pestered by pesky "laws."
      - necessity 11y ago
        Nor should they be (although they are, IDK what absence of laws you're talking about, there are pictures of dead children in cigarette packs and advertising is illegal in most of LA). Everyone knows the risks, people smoke because they want to. Or do you think we, citizens of third world countries are all illiterate know nothings who got tricked by tobacco companies? I can't understand people wanting so bad to be other people babysitters. If you don't want to smoke don't, don't want your children to, teach them not to. Is that so hard?
        DanBC 11y ago
        > Everyone knows the risks No, they probably don't. People don't know that smoking is the leading cause of erectile dysfunction; or that smoking is linked to penile cancer; or what the actual risks of lung cancer are. People just know that smoking is harmful, but they laugh that off with "I might get hit by a bus tomorrow". > Or do you think we, citizens of third world countries are all illiterate know nothings who got tricked by tobacco companies? It's not about citizens of developing world being illiterate know-nothings, it's about tobacco companies being abusive manipulative arseholes who lie and who have millions of dollars to fund those lies.
        saiya-jin 11y ago
- cryoshon 11y ago
  "... no reason to doubt Zuckerberg honestly to do good." That is not the way making a claim works. A claim is made, and evidence to support that claim must be brought forward before the claim is to be accepted. We have a claim, but no evidence for that claim in hand, and as such, intellectual honesty dictates that our doubt is 100%. There is the old yet reliably sourced claim of Zuck calling his users dumb fucks. It is probably that his opinion has changed as he has matured, however the sourness of the original intent remains a part of his Facebook website.
  - BenderV 11y ago
    Yes, you are right. Without any evidences, our doubts about any claims is total. I was just transposing my belief that people are generally honest and good. Though, I don't have any proof for that matter.
- loceng 11y ago
  Nothing to doubt? Do you know how Facebook was founded ?
- bad_user 11y ago
  > Do you have any example where Facebook did something that they knew was bad but still did it? Yes, here's a study on manipulating the feed of over 600,000 users, in order to elicit an emotional response. Without asking for permission of course, because apparently you agree to FB playing mind tricks on you when "agreeing" to their terms and conditions. Really, it can't get worse than this and they have no justification. Here's the resulting paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full.pdf
  - cryoshon 11y ago
    Ah yes, I had forgotten about this unethical chestnut you have brought forth. This is the kind of research which would never (and I do mean literally never-- no chance, zero, nada, zilch) get approved by an institutional review board (IRB) if a scientist wanted to perform a similar experiment. There was no consent process, and the study aimed to effect a tangible and measurable emotional change, for no real greater good/purpose.
    - BenderV 11y ago
      I also forgot about this one. Good too recall. Especially now that algorithms dictate more and more our lives, are still not (usually) public.
    - res0nat0r 11y ago
      You are aware that every advertisement you look at every day has been designed to elicit an emotional response yes? The advertisers in the newspaper, Internet and billboard down the street didn't get your opt in permission either.
      - cryoshon 11y ago
        Not the same context, though you're right, it's similar-- the context of this was specifically to study the capacity for an effective emotional change controlled by social media only. They didn't have any monetization plans for the emotional change, which could potentially be negative.
- pen2l 11y ago
  > Do you have any example where Facebook did something that they knew was bad but still did it? The long con of Facebook itself -- fooling us all into giving up our privacy. We got here by FB misleading it in incredibly calculated ways. Google "Privacy Zuckering". It's a dark pattern that tricks users into giving up more privacy than they would want to, by making purposefully misleading UI. One trick after another like that is how we got here.
- theinternetman 11y ago
  > Do you have any example where Facebook did something that they knew was bad but still did it? Real name policy
karmacondon 11y ago
Mark Zuckerberg didn't invent social networking. If it wasn't facebook, it would be some other website. Social media doesn't cause people to envy others or engage in behaviors that you don't approve of. Human nature does. The problem here lies in the collective mirror. I've seen no evidence that Mark Zuckerberg is anything other than a normal ivy league type guy. I'm sure that he hears dozens of positive things about facebook every single day - it helped someone meet their spouse, connect with old friends, solve a problem. It's likely that in his view he's doing something to make the world a better place. Some may focus more on the negative aspects of facebook, and that's fair. But there doesn't seem to be any reason to question his character.
- ant6n 11y ago
  Philipp Morris didn't invent cigarettes. If it wasn't them, it would be some other company. etc. etc... Guns don't kill people. People kill People. etc. etc...
  - meric 11y ago
    It could have been myspace and google plus. You can take out Zuckerberg and it would change things only at the margins. People are constantly trying to figure out how to be attractive, and they constantly look out for who is attractive around them. The embers to produce social media websites like Facebook are already there, Zuckerberg was only the match. Zuckerberg not creating Facebook doesn't change the fact that we're in an era where singers and socialites are celebrities, as opposed to the previous era, where society was more enamoured with intellectuals like Einstein and Haber, or the era before that where people looked up to generals like Ulysses Grant for unifying the nation. Facebook is a product of today's decadence, rather than the other way around. Would Facebook fit in a society with attitudes from (my take): 1. 1700's England? Nope, people are too serious back then. 2. 1000's Baghdad? Yes, in a world singers and celebrities and everyone wants to be attractive. 3. 800's Baghdad? Nope. You'd lose your head. 4. 300's Rome? Why yes, breads and circuses everywhere, why not another distraction? 5. 200BC Rome? Hardy people don't use Facebook much. Here's a nice short book talking about these cycles. http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/TheFateofEmpiresbySirJohnGlubb.pdf http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/...
orthoganol 11y ago
I certainly agree there is nothing noble about Facebook, and the amount of depression and unhappiness around the world from people who don't like 'showing off themselves' and being often brutally judged based on their profile (which is the only mode of Facebook for high school, college, and even 20-something users - and at that age you have no choice but to use it or be ostracized) is astronomical.
netcan 11y ago
This is harsh. I think it's too harsh. Facebook is in many ways an organically occurring reaction of people.. people doing things the internet enables. Facebook is as led as they are led by their users which is everyone. I agree that there are some negative consequences of online behavior. COnversing online can get nasty easily, with people feeling little slights and reacting until the whole thing collapses into far worse than normal human interaction. On the other hand it allows us to converse with a much wider group. Would we be talking in Person Mr. Stokes, about Facebook? Facebook didn't choose features for addictiveness, they chose and promoted features because people used them. We're attracted to a lot of things that aren't good for us. People read celebrity magazines, and feel bad. They wallow in jealousy and other negative emotions. They do this on Facebook because they're on facebook. There's a sense which this reasoning excuses everything. Tobacco companies gave people what they wanted too. But this is way more mixed. People follow the objects of their envy, a bastard sister of admiration. It's hard to lay that on Zuck. I'm going to completely bastardize a Douglas Adams Quote I can't find because I don't remember what words he used:
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
gotchange 11y ago
> The man's main contribution to humanity is the spiritual equivalent of cigarettes It's more like fast food or candy. When consumed moderately or intermittently , they can be relatively fine but when consumed voraciously, they can be very destructive.
ljk 11y ago
Also how dumb he thinks the users are - http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims...
Donald_Trump 11y ago
I've had mine deactivated for 8 months now an I feel better than I have in a long time. No more jealously over friends having beautiful children, getting new houses, being able to afford cars. The envy is gone and so is the depression.
jonmc12 11y ago
In a lot of ways I agree, but change doesn't come from attacking people. "Don't hate the player, hate the game" - we live in a place where we don't yet draw clear lines for capitalistic behavior or how it might affect the exploitation of our environment, our friendships, or our life-saving drugs. I'd suggest you help facilitate change by suggesting systemic improvements to how these economic behaviors could evolve and evangelizing ideas in that direction.
- maldusiecle 11y ago
  It's absurd to say that you shouldn't criticize a person's actions unless you first fix the systemic problems in our entire economic system. Anyway, change very well can come from attacking people. Publically criticizing actions which are harmful is part of the way that we, as a society, build up the standards and norms by which we judge individuals' actions--and, ultimately, form legislation and other institutions to diminish harm and exploitation. The idea of "Don't hate the player, hate the game" is an attack on morality as such.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    You can reason with people, sometimes. Attacking them triggers the competitive urge and it becomes about winning rather than the thing you originally intended to do. The anti-tobacco movement is a prime example of this, just as were the people who brought you Prohibition.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  We have very clear lines for "capitalistic" behavior; people are just disinterested. Not even just the capitalists; people write their own version of the world. The Vast majority of capitalists struggle with ethical concerns because there's downside risk in behaving badly. It's an iterated version of "all problems stem from Man's inability to sit quietly in a room."
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
I wish comparisons to tobacco would stop. I find the general accreted ... stuff I've read on facebook simply confirms my bias about confirmation bias. I unfollow people who get too noisy. I still think the original Usenet - even after the Eternal September* - to be in all ways superior to anything else online. Then came the binaries that killed it. *I would think that because that's when I found out about it and you could get one a' them dialup Internet connections boy howdy.
dominotw 11y ago
> It's gross. FB is gross Isn't a reaction to something merely expose your own feelings. Freedom from something is no freedom at all.
- fbbbbb 11y ago
  merely exposing your own feelings. (Is that what you meant?) Yes, in that case it is. Facebook is forcing us to stare in a mirror of our own mistakes and failings. We should fix them and not avoid them. Unfortunately the mirror is crooked. It only shows the apparent best features of a person, and it doesn't tell who are we supposed to compare to. There are always people who are (or appear) more successful; Facebook makes them visible to anyone as if they were the average case and not the rarity, what they really are.
halite 11y ago
Just to add to this, I was talking to a co-worker sitting across me who's a mother of three kids. She says, "we don't sit like a family anymore; chat and discuss like we used to when my kids were growing up. All my kids are on phone 24X7. I like to talk to them but facebook has taken away that family time and I don't think I can get it back".
tim333 11y ago
>I can't get behind the Zuckerberg worship It's funny - I haven't seen that. Usually it's he does something like give money to charity followed by pages of people saying how iffy that it is. If you google 'smug little shit' Zuck comes up. Who's worshiping?

BenderV 11y ago

Zuckerberg is not responsable for the existence of the Friendship Paradox or our natural instinct to envy, etc. Facebook mission in itself, is good. We have no reason to doubt Zuckerberg honesty to do good. Do you have any example where Facebook did something that they knew was bad but still did it? It's true that social network bring bad side effects, everything does. They can only try to correct them.

maxmouchet 11y ago
They at least did doubtful experiments [1]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinker...
creshal 11y ago
> Zuckerberg is not responsable for the existence of the Friendship Paradox or our natural instinct to envy, etc. Nor is the tobacco industry responsible for nicotine's addictive effects. The question is, do the benefits outweigh the problems? As I've never used Facebook, I can't really judge.
- robryk 11y ago
  > Nor is the tobacco industry responsible for nicotine's addictive effects. Devil's advocate: this is not the main problem with tobacco industry. The main issue is that other components of tobacco smoke are carcinogenic.
  - Retra 11y ago
    Any large organic molecule you burn will be carcinogenic. That includes nicotine, any plant, and any paper you wrap it in.
  - themartorana 11y ago
    The main problem is the industry has known for almost a century that severe health problems are linked to smoking tobacco, and spent the better part of that time hiding the truth while addicting a nation. Now they're concentrating their focus on the Third World, getting millions more addicted where they aren't pestered by pesky "laws."
    - necessity 11y ago
      Nor should they be (although they are, IDK what absence of laws you're talking about, there are pictures of dead children in cigarette packs and advertising is illegal in most of LA). Everyone knows the risks, people smoke because they want to. Or do you think we, citizens of third world countries are all illiterate know nothings who got tricked by tobacco companies? I can't understand people wanting so bad to be other people babysitters. If you don't want to smoke don't, don't want your children to, teach them not to. Is that so hard?
      - DanBC 11y ago
        > Everyone knows the risks No, they probably don't. People don't know that smoking is the leading cause of erectile dysfunction; or that smoking is linked to penile cancer; or what the actual risks of lung cancer are. People just know that smoking is harmful, but they laugh that off with "I might get hit by a bus tomorrow". > Or do you think we, citizens of third world countries are all illiterate know nothings who got tricked by tobacco companies? It's not about citizens of developing world being illiterate know-nothings, it's about tobacco companies being abusive manipulative arseholes who lie and who have millions of dollars to fund those lies.
        saiya-jin 11y ago
cryoshon 11y ago
"... no reason to doubt Zuckerberg honestly to do good." That is not the way making a claim works. A claim is made, and evidence to support that claim must be brought forward before the claim is to be accepted. We have a claim, but no evidence for that claim in hand, and as such, intellectual honesty dictates that our doubt is 100%. There is the old yet reliably sourced claim of Zuck calling his users dumb fucks. It is probably that his opinion has changed as he has matured, however the sourness of the original intent remains a part of his Facebook website.
- BenderV 11y ago
  Yes, you are right. Without any evidences, our doubts about any claims is total. I was just transposing my belief that people are generally honest and good. Though, I don't have any proof for that matter.
loceng 11y ago
Nothing to doubt? Do you know how Facebook was founded ?
bad_user 11y ago
> Do you have any example where Facebook did something that they knew was bad but still did it? Yes, here's a study on manipulating the feed of over 600,000 users, in order to elicit an emotional response. Without asking for permission of course, because apparently you agree to FB playing mind tricks on you when "agreeing" to their terms and conditions. Really, it can't get worse than this and they have no justification. Here's the resulting paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full.pdf
- cryoshon 11y ago
  Ah yes, I had forgotten about this unethical chestnut you have brought forth. This is the kind of research which would never (and I do mean literally never-- no chance, zero, nada, zilch) get approved by an institutional review board (IRB) if a scientist wanted to perform a similar experiment. There was no consent process, and the study aimed to effect a tangible and measurable emotional change, for no real greater good/purpose.
  - BenderV 11y ago
    I also forgot about this one. Good too recall. Especially now that algorithms dictate more and more our lives, are still not (usually) public.
  - res0nat0r 11y ago
    You are aware that every advertisement you look at every day has been designed to elicit an emotional response yes? The advertisers in the newspaper, Internet and billboard down the street didn't get your opt in permission either.
    - cryoshon 11y ago
      Not the same context, though you're right, it's similar-- the context of this was specifically to study the capacity for an effective emotional change controlled by social media only. They didn't have any monetization plans for the emotional change, which could potentially be negative.
pen2l 11y ago
> Do you have any example where Facebook did something that they knew was bad but still did it? The long con of Facebook itself -- fooling us all into giving up our privacy. We got here by FB misleading it in incredibly calculated ways. Google "Privacy Zuckering". It's a dark pattern that tricks users into giving up more privacy than they would want to, by making purposefully misleading UI. One trick after another like that is how we got here.
theinternetman 11y ago
> Do you have any example where Facebook did something that they knew was bad but still did it? Real name policy

karmacondon 11y ago

Mark Zuckerberg didn't invent social networking. If it wasn't facebook, it would be some other website. Social media doesn't cause people to envy others or engage in behaviors that you don't approve of. Human nature does. The problem here lies in the collective mirror. I've seen no evidence that Mark Zuckerberg is anything other than a normal ivy league type guy. I'm sure that he hears dozens of positive things about facebook every single day - it helped someone meet their spouse, connect with old friends, solve a problem. It's likely that in his view he's doing something to make the world a better place. Some may focus more on the negative aspects of facebook, and that's fair. But there doesn't seem to be any reason to question his character.

ant6n 11y ago
Philipp Morris didn't invent cigarettes. If it wasn't them, it would be some other company. etc. etc... Guns don't kill people. People kill People. etc. etc...
- meric 11y ago
  It could have been myspace and google plus. You can take out Zuckerberg and it would change things only at the margins. People are constantly trying to figure out how to be attractive, and they constantly look out for who is attractive around them. The embers to produce social media websites like Facebook are already there, Zuckerberg was only the match. Zuckerberg not creating Facebook doesn't change the fact that we're in an era where singers and socialites are celebrities, as opposed to the previous era, where society was more enamoured with intellectuals like Einstein and Haber, or the era before that where people looked up to generals like Ulysses Grant for unifying the nation. Facebook is a product of today's decadence, rather than the other way around. Would Facebook fit in a society with attitudes from (my take): 1. 1700's England? Nope, people are too serious back then. 2. 1000's Baghdad? Yes, in a world singers and celebrities and everyone wants to be attractive. 3. 800's Baghdad? Nope. You'd lose your head. 4. 300's Rome? Why yes, breads and circuses everywhere, why not another distraction? 5. 200BC Rome? Hardy people don't use Facebook much. Here's a nice short book talking about these cycles. http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/TheFateofEmpiresbySirJohnGlubb.pdf http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/...

orthoganol 11y ago

I certainly agree there is nothing noble about Facebook, and the amount of depression and unhappiness around the world from people who don't like 'showing off themselves' and being often brutally judged based on their profile (which is the only mode of Facebook for high school, college, and even 20-something users - and at that age you have no choice but to use it or be ostracized) is astronomical.

netcan 11y ago

This is harsh. I think it's too harsh. Facebook is in many ways an organically occurring reaction of people.. people doing things the internet enables. Facebook is as led as they are led by their users which is everyone. I agree that there are some negative consequences of online behavior. COnversing online can get nasty easily, with people feeling little slights and reacting until the whole thing collapses into far worse than normal human interaction. On the other hand it allows us to converse with a much wider group. Would we be talking in Person Mr. Stokes, about Facebook? Facebook didn't choose features for addictiveness, they chose and promoted features because people used them. We're attracted to a lot of things that aren't good for us. People read celebrity magazines, and feel bad. They wallow in jealousy and other negative emotions. They do this on Facebook because they're on facebook. There's a sense which this reasoning excuses everything. Tobacco companies gave people what they wanted too. But this is way more mixed. People follow the objects of their envy, a bastard sister of admiration. It's hard to lay that on Zuck. I'm going to completely bastardize a Douglas Adams Quote I can't find because I don't remember what words he used:

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

gotchange 11y ago

> The man's main contribution to humanity is the spiritual equivalent of cigarettes It's more like fast food or candy. When consumed moderately or intermittently , they can be relatively fine but when consumed voraciously, they can be very destructive.

ljk 11y ago

Also how dumb he thinks the users are - http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims...

Donald_Trump 11y ago

I've had mine deactivated for 8 months now an I feel better than I have in a long time. No more jealously over friends having beautiful children, getting new houses, being able to afford cars. The envy is gone and so is the depression.

jonmc12 11y ago

In a lot of ways I agree, but change doesn't come from attacking people. "Don't hate the player, hate the game" - we live in a place where we don't yet draw clear lines for capitalistic behavior or how it might affect the exploitation of our environment, our friendships, or our life-saving drugs. I'd suggest you help facilitate change by suggesting systemic improvements to how these economic behaviors could evolve and evangelizing ideas in that direction.

maldusiecle 11y ago
It's absurd to say that you shouldn't criticize a person's actions unless you first fix the systemic problems in our entire economic system. Anyway, change very well can come from attacking people. Publically criticizing actions which are harmful is part of the way that we, as a society, build up the standards and norms by which we judge individuals' actions--and, ultimately, form legislation and other institutions to diminish harm and exploitation. The idea of "Don't hate the player, hate the game" is an attack on morality as such.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  You can reason with people, sometimes. Attacking them triggers the competitive urge and it becomes about winning rather than the thing you originally intended to do. The anti-tobacco movement is a prime example of this, just as were the people who brought you Prohibition.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
We have very clear lines for "capitalistic" behavior; people are just disinterested. Not even just the capitalists; people write their own version of the world. The Vast majority of capitalists struggle with ethical concerns because there's downside risk in behaving badly. It's an iterated version of "all problems stem from Man's inability to sit quietly in a room."

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

I wish comparisons to tobacco would stop. I find the general accreted ... stuff I've read on facebook simply confirms my bias about confirmation bias. I unfollow people who get too noisy. I still think the original Usenet - even after the Eternal September* - to be in all ways superior to anything else online. Then came the binaries that killed it. *I would think that because that's when I found out about it and you could get one a' them dialup Internet connections boy howdy.

dominotw 11y ago

> It's gross. FB is gross Isn't a reaction to something merely expose your own feelings. Freedom from something is no freedom at all.

fbbbbb 11y ago
merely exposing your own feelings. (Is that what you meant?) Yes, in that case it is. Facebook is forcing us to stare in a mirror of our own mistakes and failings. We should fix them and not avoid them. Unfortunately the mirror is crooked. It only shows the apparent best features of a person, and it doesn't tell who are we supposed to compare to. There are always people who are (or appear) more successful; Facebook makes them visible to anyone as if they were the average case and not the rarity, what they really are.

halite 11y ago

Just to add to this, I was talking to a co-worker sitting across me who's a mother of three kids. She says, "we don't sit like a family anymore; chat and discuss like we used to when my kids were growing up. All my kids are on phone 24X7. I like to talk to them but facebook has taken away that family time and I don't think I can get it back".

tim333 11y ago

>I can't get behind the Zuckerberg worship It's funny - I haven't seen that. Usually it's he does something like give money to charity followed by pages of people saying how iffy that it is. If you google 'smug little shit' Zuck comes up. Who's worshiping?