9 ms·

I find this letter to be deeply cynical. There's a baked in assumption that a global community is a good thing and that the only possible reason to resist it is

I find this letter to be deeply cynical. There's a baked in assumption that a global community is a good thing and that the only possible reason to resist it is because you're being left behind by its benefits. I don't think that's true and I certainly don't think it should be assumed a priori. There are people in this country, and every where in the world, who don't want globalization. And it's not because they haven't received enough of the benefits or need to be educated better, they don't want it for real reasons and, in a Democracy, that should be an acceptable stance. If we're not willing to accept that stance than we're forcing people into a global community that matches our vision for the future, not theirs. In other words it's a plot for world domination of one world view over another. I find it deeply cynical that instead it masquerades as a virtuous plan to help all man kind.

programmarchy 10y ago
Agree. Forced fraternity is not liberty. I want decentralized, local decision making for my community. Globalization of state power takes things in the other direction.
- davidivadavid 10y ago
  I wonder if someone's working on something based on that: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic-communitarianism/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic-...
- wu-ikkyu 10y ago
  >I want decentralized, local decision making for my community. Globalization of state power takes things in the other direction. I think we both agree that a centralized global hierarchy of power is impractical. But what about a modular decentralized network of local and non local communities across the globe working together in symbiosis?
  - edblarney 10y ago
    "But what about a modular decentralized network of local and non local communities across the globe working together in symbiosis?" Zuck is working against that. 'Sovereign nations, interacting and trading with one another with mutual respect and fraternity' is practically the motto of for example the UKIP party in the UK - but it's denigrated by most globalist types. Most globalists want more power to the UN, more power to the EU, more power even to at the Federal level of the US, more power to globally governing entities. They are usually good people, who think that they know better than the common person. Here is a good example of a voice for staunch globalism: Jean Claude Junker, President of the EU Commission: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Juncker https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Juncker You can read quite a lot from his quotes - they are quite authoritarian and in many ways totally anti-democratic.
  - nosuchthing 10y ago
    a modular decentralized network of local and non local communities across the globe working together in symbiosis? Okay, but how?
    - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
      Look at the FOSS community, they're already doing it. The biggest barriers to scaling up are not technical but social (i.e. IP laws, legacy spaghetti tax and trade codes, prejudices).
nodesocket 10y ago
You bring up great points, and hit on the miscalculation and hypocrisy of the left. They seem to think that globalization is a universally good thing, and if you're against it then you are somehow disconnected, a racist, and a monster. This a common symptom not just isolated to globalization.
- jbooth 10y ago
  We've brought 3 billion people out of poverty in the last 30 years and haven't had a major-power war since WWII when we set up all these globalist institutitions. I'd say the record holds up pretty well.
  - aylmao 10y ago
    Global cooperation/understanding and globalization are two very different things
  - srj 10y ago
    You're arguing a collective good but many opponents of globalization are looking at it from an individual rather than collective point of view.
  - nodesocket 10y ago
    Here is Peter Thiel talking about Globalization. I have not watch the entire video, but I've seen it mentioned for good points. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_3r49XXRw4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_3r49XXRw4
  - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
    >We've brought 3 billion people out of poverty in the last 30 years and haven't had a major-power war since WWII when we set up all these globalist institutitions. What about the other 3 billion people left behind in poverty? That's more than what the total global population was when these "globalist institutions" were set up.
    - jbooth 10y ago
a13n 10y ago
Then can't those people just not participate in the global community? Nobody forces you to use technology or Facebook, just log off.
- jdoliner 10y ago
  Global community means community that spans the globe, Zuckerberg isn't talking about Facebook here he's talking about society. The only way to not participate in the global community is to leave the planet or withdraw from community altogether.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    Participating locally is the best way to participate globally.
- zakk 10y ago
  Not so easy, when your friends are on Facebook, often the only feasible way of advertising your business is on Facebook, if you are an artist everyone will ask for a FB page, many services integrate with Facebook.
technotony 10y ago
I don't think that's fair at all, he openly acknowledges the idea that "There are questions about whether we can make a global community that works for everyone". I think he's outlining a vision, aligned with the arrow of history, whereby people come together through technology in greater connection and harmony. I hope we one day all realize that we are one humanity, and from that we can get to greater world peace. Of course we should be discussing how to get to that place, but it's totally reasonable for him to outline his vision/hopes to do that - that's the first part of any sensible discussion.
- jdoliner 10y ago
  Yes, but he completely bypasses the question of whether or not it's sane to try to make a global community that works for everyone or whether it's better to stick to smaller localized communities. He acknowledges that there might be difficulties but doesn't acknowledge the possibility that the concept of a global community might be inherently flawed and evil.
tomlock 10y ago
Could you help me understand what those real anti-globalization reasons, that don't include receiving enough of the benefits, are?
- jdoliner 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone is a good place to start. The basic finding of the studies detailed in that book are that globalization, and particularly multiculturalism within communities have very negative effects on the happiness and community participation of those involved. Diversity and multiculturalism are generally considered axiomatically good by the left and these studies were done by leftist to prove that value. They found exactly the opposite, and they've been replicated many times, again by leftists, hoping to find a different result but to no avail.
  - tomlock 10y ago
    You wouldn't classify community participation and happiness as benefits?
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    Putnam's book has always seemed hilarious to me -- all of the obvious blunders are evidenced in the title alone. As if it's impossible to have "social intercourse" in a bowling alley without paying a league $20 and blocking out your Tuesday nights. You can see the same fallacy at work when greek organizations bemoan the "death of socialization" on campuses where frat/sorority membership goes into decline. But of course, people somehow (got knows how! /s) manage to have social lives, volunteer and give back, etc. without paying Alpha Omega Inc. a few grand a year. The same thing has happened writ large is society -- to the extent that you can find "decline" in the data, it's more than explained by a growth of new forms of involvement that 20 year old metrics don't properly capture (e.g., if you ignore hacker spaces, maker communities, online mentoring communities, and open source development, HN looks pretty desolate as far as "social intercourse" and volunteering go. But of course anyone who knows WTF they're talking about will roll their eyes if you use the lack of posts about Boy Scouts as an indicator of the social decline of HN's front page). > and these studies were done by leftist to prove that value. They found exactly the opposite, and they've been replicated many times, again by leftists, hoping to find a different result but to no avail. 1. The studies discussed by Putnam doesn't demonstrate any of this, and these aren't even Putnam's core claims. He demonizes VIDEO GAMES and women working more than multi-culturalism. 2. To the extent that Putnam does present evidence for his claims (which isn't nearly often enough), there's been no shortage of evidence-based refutation. The wikipedia article even has a "criticism" section, which outlines the main arguments. Basically, if Putnam's data is to be believed, open source developers (and thousands of other people who are doing something other than volunteering with out-dated orgs) are politically disengaged and insular loners who give nothing back to society.
amorphid 10y ago
Any tips for reading up on how different communities can learn to coexist peacefully? I sometimes wonder if different groups go to war because the individuals on either side don't have effective tools for demanding peaceful alternatives from their leaders.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "Any tips for reading up on how different communities can learn to coexist peacefully?" A) Balance of power (roughly equal in strength) B) Mutual dependence (trade) C) Some degree of truthfulness and transparency (i.e. freedom of information, speech, free press, institutions with integrity) Nations co-exist peacefully in a dynamic equilibrium. When that equilibrium is shifted (one weak, one strong i.e. power vacuum) - this creates conflict. This is why 'peacekeeping' as envisioned by the UN largely failed. A bunch of lightly-armed 'blue helmets' effectively does nothing to remedy the underlying causes driving conflict.
megalomanu 10y ago
Yes. And has the right of peoples to self-determination became an old idea?
number6 10y ago
Democracy, Globalism, sovereignty. Pick Two. Most Countrys Pick the latter two nowadays
aylmao 10y ago
So much +1 to this. I'd like to add a thought too. At the end of the day, this is a centralized system, built by people in a very specific sphere in a single country and thus in a relatively homogeneous culture and world view. It struck me, fore example, how they had the "change your profile picture" feature for solidarity to the Paris attacks but not for the Beirut ones; even though both were terribly deadly, by the same perpetrating organization, and they happened on consecutive days. Or how they prompted me to post about the Super Bowl, even though I don't watch or care about American Football, but they ignore other big sporting events. Facebook is very much anglo-centric and in subtle but important ways amplified by it's massive scale it's imposing a certain world views over others.
- mikedouglas 10y ago
  Are you located in North America? I really doubt Facebook would've rolled out any Super Bowl-specific features to Europe/Asia/Africa/South America.
  - bbmario 10y ago
    I'm in Brazil and i got that message.
- type0 10y ago
  > At the end of the day, this is a centralized system, built by people in a very specific sphere in a single country and thus in a relatively homogeneous culture and world view. This mantra that everyone on the web would be happy if we succumb to facebook and let us be manipulated in a way that was never even been imagined by newspapers or television is so sickening. FB isn't a free speech platform as much as it's users like to pretend it, the way it is currently run is harmful to civil and democratic society as well as our digital freedom - freedom of expression and fundamental human rights. The thought policing that is underway is remarkable, I never even imagined that this abomination of a website would grow to that extent.
matt4077 10y ago
There's a difference between globalisation, the economic term, and what this is about. Essentially, he's talking about a world where the "in-group" (in terms of "in-group" vs. "out-group") becomes global. I simply cannot find fault with that, because almost by definition, that should greatly diminish risks of violence and war, increase cooperation, increase real freedom (because you'll have many more options for places to live without being the stranger feeling strange) and so on. I am already part of several global communities whose members have more in common with each other than with the average citizen of their home countries. HN, (my branch of) academia etc. The criticism that may be harder to dispel is weather such a community is possible: maybe there is some sort basic need for people to create groups, not just for the benefits they get from being on the inside, but also for some sort of satisfaction they get from the knowledge that others are not. But even if: it seems at least as easy to believe that humans have an innate streak of violence, and it's part of greatness of humanity to have managed to largely stunt that instinct. If there really is a need for outsiders, I doubt that it could be stronger, or that it couldn't be overcome by the same mechanisms.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  I find the idea of a "global in-group" to be a utopian fantasy. This is like saying "Communism is a great economic system". The ideal of it is great. We don't live in a world of ideals. We live in a world of flawed, frail, and sometimes vicious people.
throwaway729 10y ago
This is an incredibly confusing post. > I find this letter to be deeply cynical... I find it deeply cynical that instead it masquerades as a virtuous plan to help all man kind. As a matter of fact, this letter is hopeful, not cynical. It's certainly hoping for something that you don't want, but that's entirely beside the point. No detached native English reader would objectively describe the tone of this piece as "cynical". Additionally, "masquerade" implies deceit. Do you have any evidence that there aren't Zuckerberg's sincerely held beliefs? > There's a baked in assumption that a global community is a good thing and that the only possible reason to resist it is because you're being left behind by its benefits In what sense is this baked in? On the contrary, the first couple paragraphs are devoted to motivating the global scale of what Zuckerberg perceives as humanity's most pressing challenges -- "...ending terrorism, fighting climate change, and preventing pandemics...". Zuckerberg isn't saying "we need global cooperation because it's an inherent good." He's identifying concrete problems facing humanity, and suggesting reasons why international cooperation is necessary to tackle those concrete problems. A substantive response to Zuckerberg would like-wise address these concrete problems and discuss how his proposed solutions are ineffective or counter-productive, rather than rejecting the letter carte blanc in broad rhetorical strokes. Again, you're free to disagree with Zuckerberg, but calling these "baked in assumptions" is a mis-comprehension. > I don't think that's true and I certainly don't think it should be assumed a priori. OK, fair enough! > There are people in this country, and every where in the world, who don't want globalization. And it's not because they haven't received enough of the benefits or need to be educated better, they don't want it for real reasons and, in a Democracy, that should be an acceptable stance. Where does Zuckerberg state otherwise? > If we're not willing to accept that stance than we're forcing people into a global community that matches our vision for the future, not theirs. Zuckerberg disagrees with you. He's stating that disagreement in a public forum. Critically, he's NOT suggesting that you shouldn't be allowed to have your opinion! He's just suggesting that your opinion is wrong and that we ought to go a different direction instead. Existence of opposing political wills working publicly in good faith toward their goals (opposing or otherwise) is a foundation of democracy. You're effectively suggesting that someone is anti-democractic because they openly oppose your policy agenda. Which is a deeply flawed argument. > In other words it's a plot for world domination of one world view over another. All political projects are plots for domination. Even liberty-minded political projects aim to dominate opposing political forces in order to make room for their libertarian projects. Distribution of power is the whole point of politics. Disparaging politics is fine, of course, but it's a confusing thing to do when you're taking the opposing side of a political battle...
a13n 10y ago
Isn't Hacker News a global community? How can you say such a thing while clearly participating and getting value out of a global community?
- jdoliner 10y ago
  No, HN is a small community of people who share a narrow set of interests. Although that set of interests is broadening and I think HN is worse for it. While the community does include people from all over the globe and thus is in a literal sense global. It's not global in the sense of attempting to include and cater to everyone. If there are people who don't see much value or enjoy HN much the HN staff doesn't seem to have much interest in changing their minds.
- krapp 10y ago
  Hacker News really doesn't have the scale to be considered a global community in the sense that's being described, and it harbors a culture which self-selects against general purpose content in order to prevent itself from becoming that global community. The "global" version of Hacker News would just be a text only Reddit.
- bdueicnenbshesh 10y ago
  At least for me, participation in HN is voluntary.
Spooky23 10y ago
It helps that globalization is helpful to the fortunes of Zuck and his business. Call me an asshole, but I'm a nationalist. The amazing advances in Asia and Africa's standard of living have hurt my countrymen... why should I be ok with that?

programmarchy 10y ago

Agree. Forced fraternity is not liberty. I want decentralized, local decision making for my community. Globalization of state power takes things in the other direction.

davidivadavid 10y ago
I wonder if someone's working on something based on that: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic-communitarianism/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic-...
wu-ikkyu 10y ago
>I want decentralized, local decision making for my community. Globalization of state power takes things in the other direction. I think we both agree that a centralized global hierarchy of power is impractical. But what about a modular decentralized network of local and non local communities across the globe working together in symbiosis?
- edblarney 10y ago
  "But what about a modular decentralized network of local and non local communities across the globe working together in symbiosis?" Zuck is working against that. 'Sovereign nations, interacting and trading with one another with mutual respect and fraternity' is practically the motto of for example the UKIP party in the UK - but it's denigrated by most globalist types. Most globalists want more power to the UN, more power to the EU, more power even to at the Federal level of the US, more power to globally governing entities. They are usually good people, who think that they know better than the common person. Here is a good example of a voice for staunch globalism: Jean Claude Junker, President of the EU Commission: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Juncker https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Juncker You can read quite a lot from his quotes - they are quite authoritarian and in many ways totally anti-democratic.
- nosuchthing 10y ago
  a modular decentralized network of local and non local communities across the globe working together in symbiosis? Okay, but how?
  - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
    Look at the FOSS community, they're already doing it. The biggest barriers to scaling up are not technical but social (i.e. IP laws, legacy spaghetti tax and trade codes, prejudices).

nodesocket 10y ago

You bring up great points, and hit on the miscalculation and hypocrisy of the left. They seem to think that globalization is a universally good thing, and if you're against it then you are somehow disconnected, a racist, and a monster. This a common symptom not just isolated to globalization.

jbooth 10y ago
We've brought 3 billion people out of poverty in the last 30 years and haven't had a major-power war since WWII when we set up all these globalist institutitions. I'd say the record holds up pretty well.
- aylmao 10y ago
  Global cooperation/understanding and globalization are two very different things
- srj 10y ago
  You're arguing a collective good but many opponents of globalization are looking at it from an individual rather than collective point of view.
- nodesocket 10y ago
  Here is Peter Thiel talking about Globalization. I have not watch the entire video, but I've seen it mentioned for good points. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_3r49XXRw4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_3r49XXRw4
- wu-ikkyu 10y ago
  >We've brought 3 billion people out of poverty in the last 30 years and haven't had a major-power war since WWII when we set up all these globalist institutitions. What about the other 3 billion people left behind in poverty? That's more than what the total global population was when these "globalist institutions" were set up.
  - jbooth 10y ago

a13n 10y ago

Then can't those people just not participate in the global community? Nobody forces you to use technology or Facebook, just log off.

jdoliner 10y ago
Global community means community that spans the globe, Zuckerberg isn't talking about Facebook here he's talking about society. The only way to not participate in the global community is to leave the planet or withdraw from community altogether.
- edblarney 10y ago
  Participating locally is the best way to participate globally.
zakk 10y ago
Not so easy, when your friends are on Facebook, often the only feasible way of advertising your business is on Facebook, if you are an artist everyone will ask for a FB page, many services integrate with Facebook.

technotony 10y ago

I don't think that's fair at all, he openly acknowledges the idea that "There are questions about whether we can make a global community that works for everyone". I think he's outlining a vision, aligned with the arrow of history, whereby people come together through technology in greater connection and harmony. I hope we one day all realize that we are one humanity, and from that we can get to greater world peace. Of course we should be discussing how to get to that place, but it's totally reasonable for him to outline his vision/hopes to do that - that's the first part of any sensible discussion.

jdoliner 10y ago
Yes, but he completely bypasses the question of whether or not it's sane to try to make a global community that works for everyone or whether it's better to stick to smaller localized communities. He acknowledges that there might be difficulties but doesn't acknowledge the possibility that the concept of a global community might be inherently flawed and evil.

tomlock 10y ago

Could you help me understand what those real anti-globalization reasons, that don't include receiving enough of the benefits, are?

jdoliner 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone is a good place to start. The basic finding of the studies detailed in that book are that globalization, and particularly multiculturalism within communities have very negative effects on the happiness and community participation of those involved. Diversity and multiculturalism are generally considered axiomatically good by the left and these studies were done by leftist to prove that value. They found exactly the opposite, and they've been replicated many times, again by leftists, hoping to find a different result but to no avail.
- tomlock 10y ago
  You wouldn't classify community participation and happiness as benefits?
- throwaway729 10y ago
  Putnam's book has always seemed hilarious to me -- all of the obvious blunders are evidenced in the title alone. As if it's impossible to have "social intercourse" in a bowling alley without paying a league $20 and blocking out your Tuesday nights. You can see the same fallacy at work when greek organizations bemoan the "death of socialization" on campuses where frat/sorority membership goes into decline. But of course, people somehow (got knows how! /s) manage to have social lives, volunteer and give back, etc. without paying Alpha Omega Inc. a few grand a year. The same thing has happened writ large is society -- to the extent that you can find "decline" in the data, it's more than explained by a growth of new forms of involvement that 20 year old metrics don't properly capture (e.g., if you ignore hacker spaces, maker communities, online mentoring communities, and open source development, HN looks pretty desolate as far as "social intercourse" and volunteering go. But of course anyone who knows WTF they're talking about will roll their eyes if you use the lack of posts about Boy Scouts as an indicator of the social decline of HN's front page). > and these studies were done by leftist to prove that value. They found exactly the opposite, and they've been replicated many times, again by leftists, hoping to find a different result but to no avail. 1. The studies discussed by Putnam doesn't demonstrate any of this, and these aren't even Putnam's core claims. He demonizes VIDEO GAMES and women working more than multi-culturalism. 2. To the extent that Putnam does present evidence for his claims (which isn't nearly often enough), there's been no shortage of evidence-based refutation. The wikipedia article even has a "criticism" section, which outlines the main arguments. Basically, if Putnam's data is to be believed, open source developers (and thousands of other people who are doing something other than volunteering with out-dated orgs) are politically disengaged and insular loners who give nothing back to society.

amorphid 10y ago

Any tips for reading up on how different communities can learn to coexist peacefully? I sometimes wonder if different groups go to war because the individuals on either side don't have effective tools for demanding peaceful alternatives from their leaders.

edblarney 10y ago
"Any tips for reading up on how different communities can learn to coexist peacefully?" A) Balance of power (roughly equal in strength) B) Mutual dependence (trade) C) Some degree of truthfulness and transparency (i.e. freedom of information, speech, free press, institutions with integrity) Nations co-exist peacefully in a dynamic equilibrium. When that equilibrium is shifted (one weak, one strong i.e. power vacuum) - this creates conflict. This is why 'peacekeeping' as envisioned by the UN largely failed. A bunch of lightly-armed 'blue helmets' effectively does nothing to remedy the underlying causes driving conflict.

megalomanu 10y ago

Yes. And has the right of peoples to self-determination became an old idea?

number6 10y ago

Democracy, Globalism, sovereignty. Pick Two. Most Countrys Pick the latter two nowadays

aylmao 10y ago

So much +1 to this. I'd like to add a thought too. At the end of the day, this is a centralized system, built by people in a very specific sphere in a single country and thus in a relatively homogeneous culture and world view. It struck me, fore example, how they had the "change your profile picture" feature for solidarity to the Paris attacks but not for the Beirut ones; even though both were terribly deadly, by the same perpetrating organization, and they happened on consecutive days. Or how they prompted me to post about the Super Bowl, even though I don't watch or care about American Football, but they ignore other big sporting events. Facebook is very much anglo-centric and in subtle but important ways amplified by it's massive scale it's imposing a certain world views over others.

mikedouglas 10y ago
Are you located in North America? I really doubt Facebook would've rolled out any Super Bowl-specific features to Europe/Asia/Africa/South America.
- bbmario 10y ago
  I'm in Brazil and i got that message.
type0 10y ago
> At the end of the day, this is a centralized system, built by people in a very specific sphere in a single country and thus in a relatively homogeneous culture and world view. This mantra that everyone on the web would be happy if we succumb to facebook and let us be manipulated in a way that was never even been imagined by newspapers or television is so sickening. FB isn't a free speech platform as much as it's users like to pretend it, the way it is currently run is harmful to civil and democratic society as well as our digital freedom - freedom of expression and fundamental human rights. The thought policing that is underway is remarkable, I never even imagined that this abomination of a website would grow to that extent.

matt4077 10y ago

There's a difference between globalisation, the economic term, and what this is about. Essentially, he's talking about a world where the "in-group" (in terms of "in-group" vs. "out-group") becomes global. I simply cannot find fault with that, because almost by definition, that should greatly diminish risks of violence and war, increase cooperation, increase real freedom (because you'll have many more options for places to live without being the stranger feeling strange) and so on. I am already part of several global communities whose members have more in common with each other than with the average citizen of their home countries. HN, (my branch of) academia etc. The criticism that may be harder to dispel is weather such a community is possible: maybe there is some sort basic need for people to create groups, not just for the benefits they get from being on the inside, but also for some sort of satisfaction they get from the knowledge that others are not. But even if: it seems at least as easy to believe that humans have an innate streak of violence, and it's part of greatness of humanity to have managed to largely stunt that instinct. If there really is a need for outsiders, I doubt that it could be stronger, or that it couldn't be overcome by the same mechanisms.

metaphorm 10y ago
I find the idea of a "global in-group" to be a utopian fantasy. This is like saying "Communism is a great economic system". The ideal of it is great. We don't live in a world of ideals. We live in a world of flawed, frail, and sometimes vicious people.

throwaway729 10y ago

This is an incredibly confusing post. > I find this letter to be deeply cynical... I find it deeply cynical that instead it masquerades as a virtuous plan to help all man kind. As a matter of fact, this letter is hopeful, not cynical. It's certainly hoping for something that you don't want, but that's entirely beside the point. No detached native English reader would objectively describe the tone of this piece as "cynical". Additionally, "masquerade" implies deceit. Do you have any evidence that there aren't Zuckerberg's sincerely held beliefs? > There's a baked in assumption that a global community is a good thing and that the only possible reason to resist it is because you're being left behind by its benefits In what sense is this baked in? On the contrary, the first couple paragraphs are devoted to motivating the global scale of what Zuckerberg perceives as humanity's most pressing challenges -- "...ending terrorism, fighting climate change, and preventing pandemics...". Zuckerberg isn't saying "we need global cooperation because it's an inherent good." He's identifying concrete problems facing humanity, and suggesting reasons why international cooperation is necessary to tackle those concrete problems. A substantive response to Zuckerberg would like-wise address these concrete problems and discuss how his proposed solutions are ineffective or counter-productive, rather than rejecting the letter carte blanc in broad rhetorical strokes. Again, you're free to disagree with Zuckerberg, but calling these "baked in assumptions" is a mis-comprehension. > I don't think that's true and I certainly don't think it should be assumed a priori. OK, fair enough! > There are people in this country, and every where in the world, who don't want globalization. And it's not because they haven't received enough of the benefits or need to be educated better, they don't want it for real reasons and, in a Democracy, that should be an acceptable stance. Where does Zuckerberg state otherwise? > If we're not willing to accept that stance than we're forcing people into a global community that matches our vision for the future, not theirs. Zuckerberg disagrees with you. He's stating that disagreement in a public forum. Critically, he's NOT suggesting that you shouldn't be allowed to have your opinion! He's just suggesting that your opinion is wrong and that we ought to go a different direction instead. Existence of opposing political wills working publicly in good faith toward their goals (opposing or otherwise) is a foundation of democracy. You're effectively suggesting that someone is anti-democractic because they openly oppose your policy agenda. Which is a deeply flawed argument. > In other words it's a plot for world domination of one world view over another. All political projects are plots for domination. Even liberty-minded political projects aim to dominate opposing political forces in order to make room for their libertarian projects. Distribution of power is the whole point of politics. Disparaging politics is fine, of course, but it's a confusing thing to do when you're taking the opposing side of a political battle...

a13n 10y ago

Isn't Hacker News a global community? How can you say such a thing while clearly participating and getting value out of a global community?

jdoliner 10y ago
No, HN is a small community of people who share a narrow set of interests. Although that set of interests is broadening and I think HN is worse for it. While the community does include people from all over the globe and thus is in a literal sense global. It's not global in the sense of attempting to include and cater to everyone. If there are people who don't see much value or enjoy HN much the HN staff doesn't seem to have much interest in changing their minds.
krapp 10y ago
Hacker News really doesn't have the scale to be considered a global community in the sense that's being described, and it harbors a culture which self-selects against general purpose content in order to prevent itself from becoming that global community. The "global" version of Hacker News would just be a text only Reddit.
bdueicnenbshesh 10y ago
At least for me, participation in HN is voluntary.

Spooky23 10y ago

It helps that globalization is helpful to the fortunes of Zuck and his business. Call me an asshole, but I'm a nationalist. The amazing advances in Asia and Africa's standard of living have hurt my countrymen... why should I be ok with that?