8 ms·

Something about Zuck just seems inauthentic and robotic. Maybe the style of writing makes it sound like a sponsored PR piece, or maybe it's the incessant corpor

by smokeyj 10y ago

Something about Zuck just seems inauthentic and robotic. Maybe the style of writing makes it sound like a sponsored PR piece, or maybe it's the incessant corporate speak. I suspect the reality is Zuck is a strong CEO and weak innovator. Facebook is established and boring, and now all that's left is to entrench the world with proprietary Zuckernet. I strongly suspect Zuck will become the characterized depiction of the robber baron, but that's just my unfounded prediction.

Swizec 10y ago
> Maybe the style of writing makes it sound like a sponsored PR piece I wouldn't be surprised if everything he writes went through 10 layers of PR and lawyer approval and departments making sure that it absolutely certainly doesn't offend anyone, cause any potential for lawsuits, doesn't divulge off-brand information, or hints at things that haven't been approved by the rest of the company. "Corporate speak" is shorthand for that ^. It happens when you're the face of a big company.
- cthulhujr 10y ago
  The Tesla blog, Elon's contribution in particular, seems quite authentic. I wonder how many eyes see his work before it's published to the world. Maybe it's 10 layers of lawyers and PR, but the posts sure do maintain a strong level of facts and direct language. Would that be similar on his Twitter account? It seems extremely relaxed.
elorant 10y ago
I believe the problem with Mark lies in the fact that to many of us he hasn’t build anything substantial. Sure, from a technical point of view Facebook is spectacular. Other than that it’s a boring place adding no value whatsoever to the Internet. There’s nothing innovative about it. He’s isn’t solving any kind of problem. Compared to other giants of our industry he seems dull and irrelevant. And so does his vision.
- vecter 10y ago
  Facebook adds "no value whatsoever"? One billion people every day would disagree with you. Facebook is the primary method that billions of people across the world use to stay in touch with family and friends. It's one of the most important pieces of my life and something I come back to almost every single day. And no, I've never worked there nor will I ever. I don't own a single share of FB stock. I'm just a user who appreciates the value of what he uses, or at the very least, can appreciate the value that other people get out of a product that I myself may never use.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    1. you don't have the grounds to speak for 1 billion people. you are not the whole facebook userbase. not every facebook user shares your opinions or uses the product the same way you do. 2. you don't know what the primary method billions of people use is. you're presuming and projecting. your own life and habits is not the life and habits of others. 3. it doesn't matter if your have a financial or material interest or not. this is a non-argument.
  - elorant 10y ago
    Well good for you. I on the other hand never felt the need to use the place and its privacy policies annoy the heck out of me. I also don’t like the fact that it’s a walled-in garden contradicting the essence of the medium it was built upon. Other than that, you don’t have to be working somewhere to have a positive stance about the place. We’re not cheerleaders, we’re just opinionated people. No one is accusing you for promoting Facebook’s agenda out of personal interest. So chill, all is good.
    - vecter 10y ago
      Your claim of "no value" is clearly wrong. A consumer internet company cannot be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, have billions of users, and add "no value".
      - metaphorm 10y ago
metaphorm 10y ago
That's because the character now called "Mark Zuckerberg" is completely different from the human man named Mark Zuckerberg. The fact that they apparently share the same edifice and orifice is a reasonable source of confusion, but nobody should be under the illusion that "Mark Zuckerberg" and Mark Zuckerberg are the same thing.
newscracker 10y ago
He has always seemed inauthentic to me (though quite smart in handling things). Even before "The Social Network" movie came to be, many people saw him as shrewd, ruthless, arrogant and uncaring. Whatever Facebook has done, with all its missteps on privacy and the still-flourishing-but-ridiculous "authentic names" policy that puts people at a disadvantage, will always be tied as blotches to his name and legacy (not that he needs many). I thought there were some smaller positive changes in him after his daughter was born. Time will tell what kind of a world he wants his daughter (and future children) to live in and what he would like to be known for.
perseusprime11 10y ago
Steve Jobs did this really well. If you want to show authenticity, you need to show both your good and the bad side. All we see from Zuck is his good side and that's why he comes across as pretentious.
- DarkTree 10y ago
  That's an interesting insight that I never really realized before. I think a lot of people try to pinpoint why Steve Jobs is and was so respected despite the negative ways he treated people. I may have lost respect for him through these accounts, but I don't think I've ever questioned his authenticity.

by smokeyj 10y ago

Swizec 10y ago

> Maybe the style of writing makes it sound like a sponsored PR piece I wouldn't be surprised if everything he writes went through 10 layers of PR and lawyer approval and departments making sure that it absolutely certainly doesn't offend anyone, cause any potential for lawsuits, doesn't divulge off-brand information, or hints at things that haven't been approved by the rest of the company. "Corporate speak" is shorthand for that ^. It happens when you're the face of a big company.

cthulhujr 10y ago
The Tesla blog, Elon's contribution in particular, seems quite authentic. I wonder how many eyes see his work before it's published to the world. Maybe it's 10 layers of lawyers and PR, but the posts sure do maintain a strong level of facts and direct language. Would that be similar on his Twitter account? It seems extremely relaxed.

elorant 10y ago

I believe the problem with Mark lies in the fact that to many of us he hasn’t build anything substantial. Sure, from a technical point of view Facebook is spectacular. Other than that it’s a boring place adding no value whatsoever to the Internet. There’s nothing innovative about it. He’s isn’t solving any kind of problem. Compared to other giants of our industry he seems dull and irrelevant. And so does his vision.

vecter 10y ago
Facebook adds "no value whatsoever"? One billion people every day would disagree with you. Facebook is the primary method that billions of people across the world use to stay in touch with family and friends. It's one of the most important pieces of my life and something I come back to almost every single day. And no, I've never worked there nor will I ever. I don't own a single share of FB stock. I'm just a user who appreciates the value of what he uses, or at the very least, can appreciate the value that other people get out of a product that I myself may never use.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  1. you don't have the grounds to speak for 1 billion people. you are not the whole facebook userbase. not every facebook user shares your opinions or uses the product the same way you do. 2. you don't know what the primary method billions of people use is. you're presuming and projecting. your own life and habits is not the life and habits of others. 3. it doesn't matter if your have a financial or material interest or not. this is a non-argument.
- elorant 10y ago
  Well good for you. I on the other hand never felt the need to use the place and its privacy policies annoy the heck out of me. I also don’t like the fact that it’s a walled-in garden contradicting the essence of the medium it was built upon. Other than that, you don’t have to be working somewhere to have a positive stance about the place. We’re not cheerleaders, we’re just opinionated people. No one is accusing you for promoting Facebook’s agenda out of personal interest. So chill, all is good.
  - vecter 10y ago
    Your claim of "no value" is clearly wrong. A consumer internet company cannot be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, have billions of users, and add "no value".
    - metaphorm 10y ago

metaphorm 10y ago

That's because the character now called "Mark Zuckerberg" is completely different from the human man named Mark Zuckerberg. The fact that they apparently share the same edifice and orifice is a reasonable source of confusion, but nobody should be under the illusion that "Mark Zuckerberg" and Mark Zuckerberg are the same thing.

newscracker 10y ago

He has always seemed inauthentic to me (though quite smart in handling things). Even before "The Social Network" movie came to be, many people saw him as shrewd, ruthless, arrogant and uncaring. Whatever Facebook has done, with all its missteps on privacy and the still-flourishing-but-ridiculous "authentic names" policy that puts people at a disadvantage, will always be tied as blotches to his name and legacy (not that he needs many). I thought there were some smaller positive changes in him after his daughter was born. Time will tell what kind of a world he wants his daughter (and future children) to live in and what he would like to be known for.

perseusprime11 10y ago

Steve Jobs did this really well. If you want to show authenticity, you need to show both your good and the bad side. All we see from Zuck is his good side and that's why he comes across as pretentious.

DarkTree 10y ago
That's an interesting insight that I never really realized before. I think a lot of people try to pinpoint why Steve Jobs is and was so respected despite the negative ways he treated people. I may have lost respect for him through these accounts, but I don't think I've ever questioned his authenticity.