4 ms·

> I have probably written more positive pieces about Facebook than just about any other company, and frankly, still will. > My deep-rooted suspicion of Zuckerb

> I have probably written more positive pieces about Facebook than just about any other company, and frankly, still will. > My deep-rooted suspicion of Zuckerberg’s manifesto has nothing to do with Facebook or Zuckerberg; I suspect that we agree on more political goals than not. > I don’t necessarily begrudge Facebook this dominance; > Moreover, my proposals are in line with Zuckerberg’s proclaimed goals: I don't honestly like how the author keeps doing this two steps forward, one step back approach, hedging at every turn. I guess hedging is the "smart" strategy, and he's fond of calling himself a strategist. However, it makes for a fairly annoying read. It echoes that term that mocks all the security at airports, "security theater", but this one instead is a theater of even-handedness. I think the pieces against Facebook need to be more decisive and less concerned with themselves.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
He's saying: 1. Facebook is executing a cunning strategy brilliantly; and 2. The power this centralizes in Zuckerberg is concerning; although 3. I'm not as worried as I might otherwise be because I trust him with that power. It's less hedging than expressing a nuanced point.
- castle-bravo 10y ago
  I think it could also be described as a bait-and-switch. > You think MZ's vision of replacing democratic institutions with facebook is a bad idea? Me too! becomes > Let me point out to you all the ways that MZ's intentions are good. I guess he's really a nice guy and we should trust him to provide a replacement for a failing democracy. Personally, I can't get behind it, no matter how nuanced the rhetorical strategy used to persuade me.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    It's an articulation of the general versus the specific. He's saying the general idea underpinning Zuckerberg's manifesto is concerning. He's just personally okay given it's specifically Zuckerberg manning the helm. (Separately, he says Facebook is in a good economic position. That's a separate train of thought from the manifesto discussion.)
    - monkbent 10y ago
      I have no idea how you guys are getting the impression I'm ok with Zuckerberg's stated goals here. I think I was pretty clear on that point at least!
      - notdonspaulding 10y ago
        You were, I had no trouble picking up on it at least. It seems to me that this battle was really lost several years ago when Google unsuccessfully tried to maintain the ability to "export your social graph" from FB. What's your feeling on how things would have played out differently if at that time FB lost its control over people's social graphs? It seems to me that if you have to legislate a solution here, writing a law that guaranteed you could export your personal data from any company would be a good place to start. What do you think?
      - RodericDay 10y ago
        Are you the author? I'm not saying you're ok with his goals. I'm saying that you seem to be very concerned with not coming off as "one of those anti-FB people", to the degree that it weakens the momentum of your writing a lot. I'm sure other people really like it.
        L_Rahman 10y ago
        Yes, monkbent is Ben's handle on HN.
      - L_Rahman 10y ago
        I thought so too, especially given that you devoted a considerable chunk of "The Cost of Monopoly" section to explain why you're actually concerned.
      - bjshepard 10y ago
        No, your essay is not very clear, nor convincing. Wechat is much better positioned to do what Zuck wants to do re: social infrastructure. Given the downwards spiral of the US and European economies, a long short on FB seems more propitious.
- L_Rahman 10y ago
  Thompson specifically says that he doesn't trust Zuckerberg with that power. Even though Thompson suspects that he and Zuckerberg probably want the same global outcomes, he is inherently suspicious of any centrally controlled entity. > my discomfort arises from my strong belief that centralized power is both inefficient and dangerous: no one person, or company, can figure out optimal solutions for everyone on their own, and history is riddled with examples of central planners ostensibly acting with the best of intentions — at least in their own minds — resulting in the most horrific of consequences; those consequences sometimes take the form of overt costs, both economic and humanitarian, and sometimes those costs are foregone opportunities and innovations. Usually it’s both.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

He's saying: 1. Facebook is executing a cunning strategy brilliantly; and 2. The power this centralizes in Zuckerberg is concerning; although 3. I'm not as worried as I might otherwise be because I trust him with that power. It's less hedging than expressing a nuanced point.

castle-bravo 10y ago
I think it could also be described as a bait-and-switch. > You think MZ's vision of replacing democratic institutions with facebook is a bad idea? Me too! becomes > Let me point out to you all the ways that MZ's intentions are good. I guess he's really a nice guy and we should trust him to provide a replacement for a failing democracy. Personally, I can't get behind it, no matter how nuanced the rhetorical strategy used to persuade me.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  It's an articulation of the general versus the specific. He's saying the general idea underpinning Zuckerberg's manifesto is concerning. He's just personally okay given it's specifically Zuckerberg manning the helm. (Separately, he says Facebook is in a good economic position. That's a separate train of thought from the manifesto discussion.)
  - monkbent 10y ago
    I have no idea how you guys are getting the impression I'm ok with Zuckerberg's stated goals here. I think I was pretty clear on that point at least!
    - notdonspaulding 10y ago
      You were, I had no trouble picking up on it at least. It seems to me that this battle was really lost several years ago when Google unsuccessfully tried to maintain the ability to "export your social graph" from FB. What's your feeling on how things would have played out differently if at that time FB lost its control over people's social graphs? It seems to me that if you have to legislate a solution here, writing a law that guaranteed you could export your personal data from any company would be a good place to start. What do you think?
    - RodericDay 10y ago
      Are you the author? I'm not saying you're ok with his goals. I'm saying that you seem to be very concerned with not coming off as "one of those anti-FB people", to the degree that it weakens the momentum of your writing a lot. I'm sure other people really like it.
      - L_Rahman 10y ago
        Yes, monkbent is Ben's handle on HN.
    - L_Rahman 10y ago
      I thought so too, especially given that you devoted a considerable chunk of "The Cost of Monopoly" section to explain why you're actually concerned.
    - bjshepard 10y ago
      No, your essay is not very clear, nor convincing. Wechat is much better positioned to do what Zuck wants to do re: social infrastructure. Given the downwards spiral of the US and European economies, a long short on FB seems more propitious.
L_Rahman 10y ago
Thompson specifically says that he doesn't trust Zuckerberg with that power. Even though Thompson suspects that he and Zuckerberg probably want the same global outcomes, he is inherently suspicious of any centrally controlled entity. > my discomfort arises from my strong belief that centralized power is both inefficient and dangerous: no one person, or company, can figure out optimal solutions for everyone on their own, and history is riddled with examples of central planners ostensibly acting with the best of intentions — at least in their own minds — resulting in the most horrific of consequences; those consequences sometimes take the form of overt costs, both economic and humanitarian, and sometimes those costs are foregone opportunities and innovations. Usually it’s both.