21 ms·

Does Even Mark Zuckerberg Know What Facebook Is?

177 points by chrismealy 9y ago

bertil 9y ago
> This pledge was, in some ways, the reverse of an other announcement [on retargeting]. No, it’s not: giving advertisers relevant audiences is useful; offering customers the possibility to say “me buying a vacuum cleaner was not because I was starting a collection” serves a similar purpose: showing ads to people interested by them. (On a related note: If you sell a vacuum cleaner, please don’t use retargeting.) > The only two I could think of that might feel obligated to make the same assurances are Diebold, the widely hated former manufacturer of electronic-voting systems, and Academi, the private military contractor whose founder keeps begging for a chance to run Afghanistan. This is not good company. No words on whether Diebolt, and the hundreds of private computer security companies who protect government services are good companies. > At 2 billion members, “monthly active Facebook users” is the single largest non-biologically sorted group Well, I’d wager ‘Internet users’ is larger… > For most Facebook users, these meticulously constructed and assiduously managed challenges are the only access they’ll ever have to Zuckerberg’s otherwise highly private personal life. The fact that I know his chidren’s names (and have seem a dozen pictures of the eldest) but I don’t know the names of most of my colleagues’ child kind of defeats that point. > Maybe Facebook is a state within a state and Zuckerberg is inspecting its boundaries. Something tells me that the author is American. What could it possibly be?
dom0 9y ago
Shouldn't the title be "Does Mark Zuckerberg Even Know What Facebook Is?"
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  No - it's specifically relating to him, not his knowledge.
- erikb 9y ago
  It means "it seems like most people don't know what facebook is, but you would expect that Zuckerberg knows. But we guess even he doesn't know it".
  - bryanrasmussen 9y ago
    that works with a negative 'doesn't know it' but not with a positive 'does know it'. The question does even X know Y? Implies that X is somehow out of touch, and not knowing Y, but maybe they do - surprise! The question Does even X not know Y? Implies we would expect X to know Y, but what if even X does not? The question Doesn't X even know Y? Implies that X is stupid and doesn't know a lot of things, but can it be that they are so stupid that they don't even know Y!?!? On edit: The question Does X know even Y? Implies they are knowledgable about a lot of things, but Y is such a rare and mysterious subject that we would be surprised if they did but what if they do know Y!?!
    - randallsquared 9y ago
      There are a lot more nuances than your analysis admits, and one is the assumed inflection of the speaker. Consider "Does anyone know Y?". Depending on how it is said, it could be either a straightforward question about whether anyone knows Y, or with an upward inflection on "anyone" it could mean "I doubt anyone knows Y, but it's possible someone does." With that same inflection on a person's name, "Does even Person know Y?" has the same meaning as your "Does even X not know Y?"
      - bryanrasmussen 9y ago
        Perhaps, although I had a difficult time hearing the inflection when reading the headline.
- m12k 9y ago
  It's the correct way to state what they mean to state ('not even Mark Zuckerberg knows what Facebook is' rephrased as a question). But certainly not an elegant or easy-to-read headline - I choked on it too. Reminds me of that old copy-pasta: 'Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?'
sametmax 9y ago
It is what ever he wants it to be, little man. Cause you are here trying to find definitions of something in your head, while he is controlling it, absolutely not caring about what you think, from the top of his billions and probably future presidency. Don't worry. He knows what it is.
- amelius 9y ago
  Nope, he doesn't. The dynamics of social networks are too complicated and are still being studied by researchers and probably will be forever. It's like saying the inventor of money would understand the economy, which obviously does not hold.
  - rubber_duck 9y ago
    More like saying chairman of central bank would understand the economy.
    - threatofrain 9y ago
      Or it's like saying a founder understands their large business.
- theklub 9y ago
  I was just thinking he probably has dirt on almost every American he would ever run against in an election.
- melicerte 9y ago
  Reading your comment, I'm wondering whether you actually read the post ?
- glasz 9y ago
  anybody who will vote for that guy is just plain stupid.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jo0 9y ago
Facebook is the biggest farm of data milch cows that has ever existed. How can he publically come out and say that? Yes there are, and will continue to be unintended effects on society for running such a large farm... But Everyone (trapped) employed in the credit fuelled consumption economy needs the farm to exist. Asking Zuckerberg to clarify the role of the farm is pointless. It's like asking why a gigantic herd of wildebeest are required for the Serengeti to exist. If you want a consumption culture that gives you, your iPhones and Star Wars movies you need the farm. Whether its called facebook or is run by a Zuckerberg is in an irrelevant point.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"Everyone (trapped) employed in the credit fuelled consumption economy needs the farm to exist." The consumption-based segment of the economy has existed for much longer than social networks or the internet: https://jobenomicsblog.com/consumption-based-economy/ https://jobenomicsblog.com/consumption-based-economy/ Also countries with post-industrial economies are a mix of service and consumption. There is no economy that is solely consumption based.
  - vmateixeira 9y ago
    "Whether its called facebook or is run by a Zuckerberg is in an irrelevant point."
    - bogomipz 9y ago
      How does your comment relate to anything I wrote?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
bertil 9y ago
For the record: What Facebook is and wants to be is actually an enforceable personal relations layer on top of the web stack. Uber agrees to send in my name a “Pay me £7.23 for that shared ride” to my Facebook friends, but not to people for whom I can’t prove I know well enough. Tinder shows shared relations with strangers. That is a powerful web of features unlocked thanks to this. That’s why building an API was such a key early change of what Facebook was. Typically, Twitter does something similar to Facebook on the surface (a news feed) but is not planning on serving as an authentication layer, so they do a lot less to address grievers, inauthentic accounts and lately, unwanted political influence. The News Feed was the first key feature, built internally and it boosted the business model that Facebook has started leveraging: targeted advertising. But neither the News Feed, not advertising is the core of Facebook — no more than ads are at the core of Google. Google wants to leverage artificial intelligence to organise the world’s information. That your friends matter to you and that you trust them more, and that you want computers to tell who they are is what’s at the core of Facebook; the recent pivot to communities is clearly in that line: you also trust and are willing to help people that you might not have met before because you belong to certain groups, communities. Ads are a simple and effective way to finance both projects. Because management had to place ad-focused people high up, they took over a bit of the attention, but leaders at both companies know to focus on the end-goal. I can easily imagine Facebook making more money from transaction fee, or distributing 3D-content; I can imagine Google making more money similarly (typically, CPA is kind of that). Both have tried, and the results were underwhelming, and will most likely try again.
Digit-Al 9y ago
I can see a number of potential reasons why Zuck wouldn't want to be US president. Firstly, it seems to me that it could potentially poison his brand overseas. Everyone knows that Facebook can potentially exert a lot of influence in very subtle ways. How many countries would want most of their citizens under the potential influence of a company owned by the president of a potentially hostile country? It could cause Facebook to be banned in some countries (like it already is in China). Secondly, it could be argued that the owner of Facebook already has more power than the US president, so it would be a step down. After all, Facebook has influence over more people than POTUS. And considering the subtle ways we can be manipulated by social media, it can surely be argued that he can influence people more directly and more powerfully than POTUS. So it seems to me that becoming President gains him nothing but aggravation and stress, and stands to lose him valuable overseas business.
- lettergram 9y ago
  Although I agree Facebook has a lot of subtle influence, it's only to a point. I firmly believe (no evidence) they are unable to change most peoples minds, they may be able to change their moods. People create their own social bubbles outside of Facebook, Facebook then gives those social bubbles a way to communicate (messages, images, etc.) online - that's it. If Facebook started trying to do more manipulation, i.e. tried to change peoples minds or something, then people would likely stop using Facebook, because it would no longer be subtle.
- dogruck 9y ago
  I disagree that the head of an online advertising company has more power than the POTUS.
  - T-hawk 9y ago
    The POTUS has 300 million users. Facebook has 2 billion.
    - pscsbs 9y ago
      The POTUS has nukes and one of the most highly trained and best-equipped militaries in the world. Facebook can be shutdown by POTUS in an instant. Power is not measured by “users.”
FabHK 9y ago
> “We have been working to ensure the integrity of the German elections this weekend,” Zuckerberg writes. Excuse me, what? As an advertising company, you don't ensure the integrity of a sovereign nation's election. You can at most abstain from unduly interfering with it (and of course you should, it's not particularly laudable or supererogatory).
- odiroot 9y ago
  You may be right here. At most he/they took sides and interfered. On the other hand it's hard to enforce election silence on social networks.
- 31reasons 9y ago
  I think Facebook should not be allowed to advertise anything other than commercial products/services. It should not be a platform for propaganda.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago
    Where do you draw the line? If I share something political, am I advertising? If I can't share it, which topics am I forbidden from discussing exactly? What if I only saw this political article because someone else promoted it? What if was one-sided or even false? How does Facebook detect that? There are no easy answers to "keeping propaganda off Facebook" or twitter, while allowing people to talk politics.
    - zzalpha 9y ago
      This is a perfect example of the nirvana fallacy. Advertising on Facebook is a specific, paid mechanism for delivering messages to an identified target audience segment, that is completely distinct from their social content sharing features. Heck, you might not remember it, but there was a time when there was no advertising on Facebook at all. Regulating that specific mechanism is well within the purview of the FEC, and can be done without interfering with the ability of Facebook users to share content with their own network of connections.
jrs95 9y ago
No, but I'm sure someone who writes for nymag.com has it all figured out
projectant 9y ago
Quote of the year: > But if Facebook is bigger, newer, and weirder than a mere company, surely his trip is bigger, newer, and weirder than a mere presidential run. Maybe he’s doing research and development, reverse-engineering social bonds to understand how Facebook might better facilitate them. Maybe Facebook is a church and Zuckerberg is offering his benedictions. Maybe Facebook is a state within a state and Zuckerberg is inspecting its boundaries. Maybe Facebook is an emerging political community and Zuckerberg is cultivating his constituents. Maybe Facebook is a surveillance state and Zuckerberg a dictator undertaking a propaganda tour. Maybe Facebook is a dual power — a network overlaid across the U.S., parallel to and in competition with the government to fulfill civic functions — and Zuckerberg is securing his command. Maybe Facebook is border control between the analog and the digital and Zuckerberg is inspecting one side for holes. Maybe Facebook is a fleet of alien spaceships that have colonized the globe and Zuckerberg is the viceroy trying to win over his new subjects.
- owebmaster 9y ago
  Maybe someone is behind Zuckerberg? I don't find him too smart, really.
  - jsemrau 9y ago
    Never met the Gentlemen. But it still makes me wonder how FB could beat Friendster and MySpace.
  - zghst 9y ago
    He's not the brightest, but he sure is savvy.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - dbuder 9y ago
    Eh he's obviously very smart, he's just doesn't appreciate how lucky he is too, which is probably pretty normal, everyone has been fawning over him for so long it would be hard for him to not start believing in his own exceptionalism.
heisenbit 9y ago
News publishers are subject to a certain degree of accountability. When Facebook launched the real name policy and its limited scale ensured a certain amount of accountability. These days with advertisement, constantly changing algorithms promoting user content and global scale spanning all types of legal frameworks and enforcement bodies there is no real accountability. Facebook is a tool with incredible power and access to the power is poorly guarded. Zuckerberg may be all powerful but even worse he is enabling anonymous bad organized actors to wreck havoc. An accident that was waiting to happen and of course it did.
josefresco 9y ago
From the following NYT's article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/mark-zuckerberg-facebook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/mark-zuckerberg-f... "Are you bothered by fake news, systematic misinformation campaigns and Facebook “dark posts” — micro-targeted ads not visible to the public — aimed at African-Americans to discourage them from voting? You must be one of those people “upset about ideas” you disagree with. Are you troubled when agents of a foreign power pose online as American Muslims and post incendiary content that right-wing commentators can cite as evidence that all American Muslims are sympathizers of terrorist groups like the Islamic State? Sounds like you can’t handle a healthy debate. Does it bother you that Russian actors bought advertisements aimed at swing states to sow political discord during the 2016 presidential campaign, and that it took eight months after the election to uncover any of this? Well, the marketplace of ideas isn’t for everyone."
indubitable 9y ago
Is this an issue with Facebook, or an issue with the society that has yielded the wild success of Facebook? "I read it on the internet, so it must be true." Everybody would know I was joking, yet all of this is only an issue precisely because people are insufficiently critical of the things they read. But I'm leaving off an important part of that sentence: ... people are insufficiently critical of the things they read when such things confirm their own biases. People believe what they believe because they believe that is the most logical view to have. That causes people to turn off their filter when seeing something that confirms that belief. Somebody censoring a belief or attaching an appeal to an arbitrary authority declaring it false isn't going to change people's minds. If anything, it could very well strengthen their resolve as they feel as though they're being oppressed or attacked. There needs to be more cordial debate and discussion between differing groups. I am not suggesting promoting a false balance, but rather pointing out that what we have now is a false balance. So many topics are optically homogenous - which gives participants and readers a gross misunderstanding of reality and leads both to less questioning of their own views, and a lack of understanding of how anybody could ever disagree with them.
cat199 9y ago
Also saw on the page: http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/09/election-interference-is-what-facebook-is-built-for.html http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/09/election-interference-is-... which seems to hit the nail on the head.
jeff6845 9y ago
I had an interview at Facebook where the hiring manager completely forgot about it. Ackward, because he was the one I was suppose to meet in the lobby. One of the interviewers came late and took me upstairs, and between the him and the other three, I heard three different stories about what happened to the hiring manager. However, in the interviews, I came under the impression that Facebook knows very well what they do, where they are going, and what their 7-year plan is. It's just that corporations don't market that as their image, but prefer to cultivate an image they deem more likeable to attract customers. I'll bet that Mark knows this, and what his company is doing quit well even though at some things, they seem in disarray.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  And what is that 7-year plan?

177 points by chrismealy 9y ago

> This pledge was, in some ways, the reverse of an other announcement [on retargeting]. No, it’s not: giving advertisers relevant audiences is useful; offering customers the possibility to say “me buying a vacuum cleaner was not because I was starting a collection” serves a similar purpose: showing ads to people interested by them. (On a related note: If you sell a vacuum cleaner, please don’t use retargeting.) > The only two I could think of that might feel obligated to make the same assurances are Diebold, the widely hated former manufacturer of electronic-voting systems, and Academi, the private military contractor whose founder keeps begging for a chance to run Afghanistan. This is not good company. No words on whether Diebolt, and the hundreds of private computer security companies who protect government services are good companies. > At 2 billion members, “monthly active Facebook users” is the single largest non-biologically sorted group Well, I’d wager ‘Internet users’ is larger… > For most Facebook users, these meticulously constructed and assiduously managed challenges are the only access they’ll ever have to Zuckerberg’s otherwise highly private personal life. The fact that I know his chidren’s names (and have seem a dozen pictures of the eldest) but I don’t know the names of most of my colleagues’ child kind of defeats that point. > Maybe Facebook is a state within a state and Zuckerberg is inspecting its boundaries. Something tells me that the author is American. What could it possibly be?

dom0 9y ago

Shouldn't the title be "Does Mark Zuckerberg Even Know What Facebook Is?"

zimpenfish 9y ago
No - it's specifically relating to him, not his knowledge.
erikb 9y ago
It means "it seems like most people don't know what facebook is, but you would expect that Zuckerberg knows. But we guess even he doesn't know it".
- bryanrasmussen 9y ago
  that works with a negative 'doesn't know it' but not with a positive 'does know it'. The question does even X know Y? Implies that X is somehow out of touch, and not knowing Y, but maybe they do - surprise! The question Does even X not know Y? Implies we would expect X to know Y, but what if even X does not? The question Doesn't X even know Y? Implies that X is stupid and doesn't know a lot of things, but can it be that they are so stupid that they don't even know Y!?!? On edit: The question Does X know even Y? Implies they are knowledgable about a lot of things, but Y is such a rare and mysterious subject that we would be surprised if they did but what if they do know Y!?!
  - randallsquared 9y ago
    There are a lot more nuances than your analysis admits, and one is the assumed inflection of the speaker. Consider "Does anyone know Y?". Depending on how it is said, it could be either a straightforward question about whether anyone knows Y, or with an upward inflection on "anyone" it could mean "I doubt anyone knows Y, but it's possible someone does." With that same inflection on a person's name, "Does even Person know Y?" has the same meaning as your "Does even X not know Y?"
    - bryanrasmussen 9y ago
      Perhaps, although I had a difficult time hearing the inflection when reading the headline.
m12k 9y ago
It's the correct way to state what they mean to state ('not even Mark Zuckerberg knows what Facebook is' rephrased as a question). But certainly not an elegant or easy-to-read headline - I choked on it too. Reminds me of that old copy-pasta: 'Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?'

sametmax 9y ago

It is what ever he wants it to be, little man. Cause you are here trying to find definitions of something in your head, while he is controlling it, absolutely not caring about what you think, from the top of his billions and probably future presidency. Don't worry. He knows what it is.

amelius 9y ago
Nope, he doesn't. The dynamics of social networks are too complicated and are still being studied by researchers and probably will be forever. It's like saying the inventor of money would understand the economy, which obviously does not hold.
- rubber_duck 9y ago
  More like saying chairman of central bank would understand the economy.
  - threatofrain 9y ago
    Or it's like saying a founder understands their large business.
theklub 9y ago
I was just thinking he probably has dirt on almost every American he would ever run against in an election.
melicerte 9y ago
Reading your comment, I'm wondering whether you actually read the post ?
glasz 9y ago
anybody who will vote for that guy is just plain stupid.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jo0 9y ago

Facebook is the biggest farm of data milch cows that has ever existed. How can he publically come out and say that? Yes there are, and will continue to be unintended effects on society for running such a large farm... But Everyone (trapped) employed in the credit fuelled consumption economy needs the farm to exist. Asking Zuckerberg to clarify the role of the farm is pointless. It's like asking why a gigantic herd of wildebeest are required for the Serengeti to exist. If you want a consumption culture that gives you, your iPhones and Star Wars movies you need the farm. Whether its called facebook or is run by a Zuckerberg is in an irrelevant point.

bogomipz 9y ago
>"Everyone (trapped) employed in the credit fuelled consumption economy needs the farm to exist." The consumption-based segment of the economy has existed for much longer than social networks or the internet: https://jobenomicsblog.com/consumption-based-economy/ https://jobenomicsblog.com/consumption-based-economy/ Also countries with post-industrial economies are a mix of service and consumption. There is no economy that is solely consumption based.
- vmateixeira 9y ago
  "Whether its called facebook or is run by a Zuckerberg is in an irrelevant point."
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    How does your comment relate to anything I wrote?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

bertil 9y ago

For the record: What Facebook is and wants to be is actually an enforceable personal relations layer on top of the web stack. Uber agrees to send in my name a “Pay me £7.23 for that shared ride” to my Facebook friends, but not to people for whom I can’t prove I know well enough. Tinder shows shared relations with strangers. That is a powerful web of features unlocked thanks to this. That’s why building an API was such a key early change of what Facebook was. Typically, Twitter does something similar to Facebook on the surface (a news feed) but is not planning on serving as an authentication layer, so they do a lot less to address grievers, inauthentic accounts and lately, unwanted political influence. The News Feed was the first key feature, built internally and it boosted the business model that Facebook has started leveraging: targeted advertising. But neither the News Feed, not advertising is the core of Facebook — no more than ads are at the core of Google. Google wants to leverage artificial intelligence to organise the world’s information. That your friends matter to you and that you trust them more, and that you want computers to tell who they are is what’s at the core of Facebook; the recent pivot to communities is clearly in that line: you also trust and are willing to help people that you might not have met before because you belong to certain groups, communities. Ads are a simple and effective way to finance both projects. Because management had to place ad-focused people high up, they took over a bit of the attention, but leaders at both companies know to focus on the end-goal. I can easily imagine Facebook making more money from transaction fee, or distributing 3D-content; I can imagine Google making more money similarly (typically, CPA is kind of that). Both have tried, and the results were underwhelming, and will most likely try again.

Digit-Al 9y ago

I can see a number of potential reasons why Zuck wouldn't want to be US president. Firstly, it seems to me that it could potentially poison his brand overseas. Everyone knows that Facebook can potentially exert a lot of influence in very subtle ways. How many countries would want most of their citizens under the potential influence of a company owned by the president of a potentially hostile country? It could cause Facebook to be banned in some countries (like it already is in China). Secondly, it could be argued that the owner of Facebook already has more power than the US president, so it would be a step down. After all, Facebook has influence over more people than POTUS. And considering the subtle ways we can be manipulated by social media, it can surely be argued that he can influence people more directly and more powerfully than POTUS. So it seems to me that becoming President gains him nothing but aggravation and stress, and stands to lose him valuable overseas business.

lettergram 9y ago
Although I agree Facebook has a lot of subtle influence, it's only to a point. I firmly believe (no evidence) they are unable to change most peoples minds, they may be able to change their moods. People create their own social bubbles outside of Facebook, Facebook then gives those social bubbles a way to communicate (messages, images, etc.) online - that's it. If Facebook started trying to do more manipulation, i.e. tried to change peoples minds or something, then people would likely stop using Facebook, because it would no longer be subtle.
dogruck 9y ago
I disagree that the head of an online advertising company has more power than the POTUS.
- T-hawk 9y ago
  The POTUS has 300 million users. Facebook has 2 billion.
  - pscsbs 9y ago
    The POTUS has nukes and one of the most highly trained and best-equipped militaries in the world. Facebook can be shutdown by POTUS in an instant. Power is not measured by “users.”

FabHK 9y ago

> “We have been working to ensure the integrity of the German elections this weekend,” Zuckerberg writes. Excuse me, what? As an advertising company, you don't ensure the integrity of a sovereign nation's election. You can at most abstain from unduly interfering with it (and of course you should, it's not particularly laudable or supererogatory).

odiroot 9y ago
You may be right here. At most he/they took sides and interfered. On the other hand it's hard to enforce election silence on social networks.
31reasons 9y ago
I think Facebook should not be allowed to advertise anything other than commercial products/services. It should not be a platform for propaganda.
- SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago
  Where do you draw the line? If I share something political, am I advertising? If I can't share it, which topics am I forbidden from discussing exactly? What if I only saw this political article because someone else promoted it? What if was one-sided or even false? How does Facebook detect that? There are no easy answers to "keeping propaganda off Facebook" or twitter, while allowing people to talk politics.
  - zzalpha 9y ago
    This is a perfect example of the nirvana fallacy. Advertising on Facebook is a specific, paid mechanism for delivering messages to an identified target audience segment, that is completely distinct from their social content sharing features. Heck, you might not remember it, but there was a time when there was no advertising on Facebook at all. Regulating that specific mechanism is well within the purview of the FEC, and can be done without interfering with the ability of Facebook users to share content with their own network of connections.

jrs95 9y ago

No, but I'm sure someone who writes for nymag.com has it all figured out

projectant 9y ago

Quote of the year: > But if Facebook is bigger, newer, and weirder than a mere company, surely his trip is bigger, newer, and weirder than a mere presidential run. Maybe he’s doing research and development, reverse-engineering social bonds to understand how Facebook might better facilitate them. Maybe Facebook is a church and Zuckerberg is offering his benedictions. Maybe Facebook is a state within a state and Zuckerberg is inspecting its boundaries. Maybe Facebook is an emerging political community and Zuckerberg is cultivating his constituents. Maybe Facebook is a surveillance state and Zuckerberg a dictator undertaking a propaganda tour. Maybe Facebook is a dual power — a network overlaid across the U.S., parallel to and in competition with the government to fulfill civic functions — and Zuckerberg is securing his command. Maybe Facebook is border control between the analog and the digital and Zuckerberg is inspecting one side for holes. Maybe Facebook is a fleet of alien spaceships that have colonized the globe and Zuckerberg is the viceroy trying to win over his new subjects.

owebmaster 9y ago
Maybe someone is behind Zuckerberg? I don't find him too smart, really.
- jsemrau 9y ago
  Never met the Gentlemen. But it still makes me wonder how FB could beat Friendster and MySpace.
- zghst 9y ago
  He's not the brightest, but he sure is savvy.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- dbuder 9y ago
  Eh he's obviously very smart, he's just doesn't appreciate how lucky he is too, which is probably pretty normal, everyone has been fawning over him for so long it would be hard for him to not start believing in his own exceptionalism.

heisenbit 9y ago

News publishers are subject to a certain degree of accountability. When Facebook launched the real name policy and its limited scale ensured a certain amount of accountability. These days with advertisement, constantly changing algorithms promoting user content and global scale spanning all types of legal frameworks and enforcement bodies there is no real accountability. Facebook is a tool with incredible power and access to the power is poorly guarded. Zuckerberg may be all powerful but even worse he is enabling anonymous bad organized actors to wreck havoc. An accident that was waiting to happen and of course it did.

josefresco 9y ago

From the following NYT's article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/mark-zuckerberg-facebook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/mark-zuckerberg-f... "Are you bothered by fake news, systematic misinformation campaigns and Facebook “dark posts” — micro-targeted ads not visible to the public — aimed at African-Americans to discourage them from voting? You must be one of those people “upset about ideas” you disagree with. Are you troubled when agents of a foreign power pose online as American Muslims and post incendiary content that right-wing commentators can cite as evidence that all American Muslims are sympathizers of terrorist groups like the Islamic State? Sounds like you can’t handle a healthy debate. Does it bother you that Russian actors bought advertisements aimed at swing states to sow political discord during the 2016 presidential campaign, and that it took eight months after the election to uncover any of this? Well, the marketplace of ideas isn’t for everyone."

indubitable 9y ago

Is this an issue with Facebook, or an issue with the society that has yielded the wild success of Facebook? "I read it on the internet, so it must be true." Everybody would know I was joking, yet all of this is only an issue precisely because people are insufficiently critical of the things they read. But I'm leaving off an important part of that sentence: ... people are insufficiently critical of the things they read when such things confirm their own biases. People believe what they believe because they believe that is the most logical view to have. That causes people to turn off their filter when seeing something that confirms that belief. Somebody censoring a belief or attaching an appeal to an arbitrary authority declaring it false isn't going to change people's minds. If anything, it could very well strengthen their resolve as they feel as though they're being oppressed or attacked. There needs to be more cordial debate and discussion between differing groups. I am not suggesting promoting a false balance, but rather pointing out that what we have now is a false balance. So many topics are optically homogenous - which gives participants and readers a gross misunderstanding of reality and leads both to less questioning of their own views, and a lack of understanding of how anybody could ever disagree with them.

cat199 9y ago

Also saw on the page: http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/09/election-interference-is-what-facebook-is-built-for.html http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/09/election-interference-is-... which seems to hit the nail on the head.

jeff6845 9y ago

I had an interview at Facebook where the hiring manager completely forgot about it. Ackward, because he was the one I was suppose to meet in the lobby. One of the interviewers came late and took me upstairs, and between the him and the other three, I heard three different stories about what happened to the hiring manager. However, in the interviews, I came under the impression that Facebook knows very well what they do, where they are going, and what their 7-year plan is. It's just that corporations don't market that as their image, but prefer to cultivate an image they deem more likeable to attract customers. I'll bet that Mark knows this, and what his company is doing quit well even though at some things, they seem in disarray.

dredmorbius 9y ago
And what is that 7-year plan?