6 ms·

Copying over my comment from the other thread that sparked some interesting debate: I find this letter to be deeply cynical. There's a baked in assumption that

Copying over my comment from the other thread that sparked some interesting debate: 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.

BjoernKW 10y ago
Fair enough. Should 'we' have to comply to 'their' worldview though? The opportunity to participate in a global community without a doubt is a good thing. 'Opportunity' implies that you can opt out. Others willing to take that opportunity shouldn't be kept from doing so though
- jdoliner 10y ago
  If global means everyone, and I think that's what it means here, then someone has to comply to someone else's worldview. To have a true global community the people who don't want a global community have to be part of it just like everyone else. If people can opt out of the global community and build their own insular communities which they determine the fate of then it's not a global community, it's just a community. A global community that you can opt out of is a solecism.
  - BjoernKW 10y ago
    Taking Facebook as an example for a global community: Just because I have the opportunity to participate in each and every Facebook group I don't have to do so. Yes, in real life there are compromises to take. You have to accept that in order to thrive in the world you have to comply to some of its rules. I'm very much a cultural imperialist in that I think that an open-minded, tolerant mindset is superior to isolationist, absolutist ideas.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  Opportunities are not categorically good things. I, for one, want laws that make it harder to sell my vote or my kidney.
  - BjoernKW 10y ago
    Those are far-off examples. Granted, perhaps in some cases people should be prevented from doing something utterly stupid but that shouldn't keep us from exploring opportunities in general. Just because kids occasionally hurt themselves during play they shouldn't be forbidden to play.
    - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
      Would you want to be able to change your brain so that you can productively work 70 hours per week? I wouldn't - it'd quickly become the standard against which you're measured, while the rewards for passing the test stay about the same. There's a similar argument to be made for being able to share your life on facebook - it displaces alternative interpersonal interactions, so you have the same amount of human connection except with your social graph sold to marketers.
lazaroclapp 10y ago
What are those "real reasons"? And are they against globalization in the abstract or against specific models of global institutions? I find being against globalization in the abstract very strange, because it takes arbitrary historical divisions of human-kind and tries to set them in stone. A global human community almost always seems like a more natural positive future than a fragmented system of hostile parties defined by birth location and operating in anarchy. Maybe I am lacking some context or some value system that the anti-globalist have and which might have its merits, and if so I would love to hear the argument, but to me the idea of "this person is more valuable or interesting to me because it was born my neighbor than anyone born a hundred miles away" seems to lack some ethical foundation. Let alone the same argument defined by religion or race, instead of plain location.
- rfrank 10y ago
  > Maybe I am lacking some context or some value system that the anti-globalist have and which might have its merits, and if so I would love to hear the argument, but to me the idea of "this person is more valuable or interesting to me because it was born my neighbor than anyone born a hundred miles away" seems to lack some ethical foundation. Why? People care more about what happens around them. I care more about housing issues in the Bay Area than I do the same problem in New York. I care more about Oakland crime rates than Chicago crime rates. People care more about things that directly impact them and those close to them. If people see their hometowns and communities falling apart when the main industry moves overseas, and only receive second-order benefits like slightly reduced price of good a few years later, what incentive do they have to support globalism?
  - lazaroclapp 10y ago
    Their children's having better opportunities as wealth created by their countries participation in globalized trade creates chances for improved education, scientific advancement and new industries? Don't get me wrong, we are failing many of those communities. But is not a failure to stop globalization, it is a failure to share the gains of globalization more broadly with those most affected by its negatives. We can do both. Is not either let them starve or stop global trade, both can be prevented. Besides, a lot of those industries that keep being brought up as examples of victims of globalization only ever got to be as significant as they were due to globalization: consider the American manufacturing industry, which greatly increased in significance after WW2 mostly due to the demand for its production in war-ravaged Europe. Or the American agricultural industry, where people complain about Mexican workers "stealing" jobs, while ignoring that Mexico consumes $17.7 billion of that agricultural production from U.S. exports.
kukac 10y ago
"We are building a community that's inclusive to everyone in the world, as long as they agree with us."
snarf21 10y ago
I find it even worse that he/FB feels that he/FB is the only one who can do it. "Just trust us. We have everyone else's best interest at heart." Especially when they have bought or tried to buy almost all of the competition as soon as they get to any size. The hard part is most people would sell their soul as long as it came with something for free.
dang 10y ago
> Copying over my comment from the other thread Please don't do that. We merge duplicate threads (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13663737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13663737) and now we have duplicate subthreads.
ciconia 10y ago
> 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. I would posit that presenting globalisation as a choice forced on unsuspecting victims is itself cynical. You of all people should know - your a tech guy. You are aware of how technology removes economic, cultural, lingual, even physical walls. There's no going back from globalisation. Accept it and go on with your life.
- jdoliner 10y ago
  I don't think the victims are unsuspecting and I also don't think they have a choice in the matter. > Accept it and go on with your life. Isn't that exactly what you say to someone when you're not giving them a say in what's happening in their life? > You are aware of how technology removes economic, cultural, lingual, even physical walls. Tech does remove walls but it also allows you to construct walls. That's a lot of what this letter is about isn't it? Facebook has become a tool for people to organize themselves into groups that have their own political beliefs and beliefs about reality. These groups were shielded from the ideas on the other side. Why? because these walls were more effective than the ones we had in the world before. Zuckerberg has decided this was bad because people voted the "wrong" way and wants to prevent it from happening again. You might agree with that stance, but don't delude yourself into thinking this is just some inherent feature of technology. There's human morals behind these decisions.

BjoernKW 10y ago

Fair enough. Should 'we' have to comply to 'their' worldview though? The opportunity to participate in a global community without a doubt is a good thing. 'Opportunity' implies that you can opt out. Others willing to take that opportunity shouldn't be kept from doing so though

jdoliner 10y ago
If global means everyone, and I think that's what it means here, then someone has to comply to someone else's worldview. To have a true global community the people who don't want a global community have to be part of it just like everyone else. If people can opt out of the global community and build their own insular communities which they determine the fate of then it's not a global community, it's just a community. A global community that you can opt out of is a solecism.
- BjoernKW 10y ago
  Taking Facebook as an example for a global community: Just because I have the opportunity to participate in each and every Facebook group I don't have to do so. Yes, in real life there are compromises to take. You have to accept that in order to thrive in the world you have to comply to some of its rules. I'm very much a cultural imperialist in that I think that an open-minded, tolerant mindset is superior to isolationist, absolutist ideas.
ThrustVectoring 10y ago
Opportunities are not categorically good things. I, for one, want laws that make it harder to sell my vote or my kidney.
- BjoernKW 10y ago
  Those are far-off examples. Granted, perhaps in some cases people should be prevented from doing something utterly stupid but that shouldn't keep us from exploring opportunities in general. Just because kids occasionally hurt themselves during play they shouldn't be forbidden to play.
  - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    Would you want to be able to change your brain so that you can productively work 70 hours per week? I wouldn't - it'd quickly become the standard against which you're measured, while the rewards for passing the test stay about the same. There's a similar argument to be made for being able to share your life on facebook - it displaces alternative interpersonal interactions, so you have the same amount of human connection except with your social graph sold to marketers.

lazaroclapp 10y ago

What are those "real reasons"? And are they against globalization in the abstract or against specific models of global institutions? I find being against globalization in the abstract very strange, because it takes arbitrary historical divisions of human-kind and tries to set them in stone. A global human community almost always seems like a more natural positive future than a fragmented system of hostile parties defined by birth location and operating in anarchy. Maybe I am lacking some context or some value system that the anti-globalist have and which might have its merits, and if so I would love to hear the argument, but to me the idea of "this person is more valuable or interesting to me because it was born my neighbor than anyone born a hundred miles away" seems to lack some ethical foundation. Let alone the same argument defined by religion or race, instead of plain location.

rfrank 10y ago
> Maybe I am lacking some context or some value system that the anti-globalist have and which might have its merits, and if so I would love to hear the argument, but to me the idea of "this person is more valuable or interesting to me because it was born my neighbor than anyone born a hundred miles away" seems to lack some ethical foundation. Why? People care more about what happens around them. I care more about housing issues in the Bay Area than I do the same problem in New York. I care more about Oakland crime rates than Chicago crime rates. People care more about things that directly impact them and those close to them. If people see their hometowns and communities falling apart when the main industry moves overseas, and only receive second-order benefits like slightly reduced price of good a few years later, what incentive do they have to support globalism?
- lazaroclapp 10y ago
  Their children's having better opportunities as wealth created by their countries participation in globalized trade creates chances for improved education, scientific advancement and new industries? Don't get me wrong, we are failing many of those communities. But is not a failure to stop globalization, it is a failure to share the gains of globalization more broadly with those most affected by its negatives. We can do both. Is not either let them starve or stop global trade, both can be prevented. Besides, a lot of those industries that keep being brought up as examples of victims of globalization only ever got to be as significant as they were due to globalization: consider the American manufacturing industry, which greatly increased in significance after WW2 mostly due to the demand for its production in war-ravaged Europe. Or the American agricultural industry, where people complain about Mexican workers "stealing" jobs, while ignoring that Mexico consumes $17.7 billion of that agricultural production from U.S. exports.

kukac 10y ago

"We are building a community that's inclusive to everyone in the world, as long as they agree with us."

snarf21 10y ago

I find it even worse that he/FB feels that he/FB is the only one who can do it. "Just trust us. We have everyone else's best interest at heart." Especially when they have bought or tried to buy almost all of the competition as soon as they get to any size. The hard part is most people would sell their soul as long as it came with something for free.

dang 10y ago

> Copying over my comment from the other thread Please don't do that. We merge duplicate threads (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13663737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13663737) and now we have duplicate subthreads.

ciconia 10y ago

> 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. I would posit that presenting globalisation as a choice forced on unsuspecting victims is itself cynical. You of all people should know - your a tech guy. You are aware of how technology removes economic, cultural, lingual, even physical walls. There's no going back from globalisation. Accept it and go on with your life.

jdoliner 10y ago
I don't think the victims are unsuspecting and I also don't think they have a choice in the matter. > Accept it and go on with your life. Isn't that exactly what you say to someone when you're not giving them a say in what's happening in their life? > You are aware of how technology removes economic, cultural, lingual, even physical walls. Tech does remove walls but it also allows you to construct walls. That's a lot of what this letter is about isn't it? Facebook has become a tool for people to organize themselves into groups that have their own political beliefs and beliefs about reality. These groups were shielded from the ideas on the other side. Why? because these walls were more effective than the ones we had in the world before. Zuckerberg has decided this was bad because people voted the "wrong" way and wants to prevent it from happening again. You might agree with that stance, but don't delude yourself into thinking this is just some inherent feature of technology. There's human morals behind these decisions.