4 ms·
The cynic in me thinks he spent a few days using the world's biggest surveillance/analytics apparatus to gauge public sentiment, then came up with talking point
by username223 9y ago
The cynic in me thinks he spent a few days using the world's biggest surveillance/analytics apparatus to gauge public sentiment, then came up with talking points and proposals that would cause minimal damage to his business. For example, it sounds good that there will be some notification for the 50 million people whose data was scraped without their knowledge. Will that be a simple email, or a page buried deep in the FB settings menu? How about all of the other companies doing exactly the same scraping? Are their victims notified as well?
And then there was the "after the first billion, people can't afford it, so surveillance is the answer" line. Really? From a man who extracted $50 billion from that business? Here's a thought: pay them.
- adventured 9y agoYour end criticism of Zuckerberg has a very big problem: he's going to give away his fortune, the ~$69 billion, like Gates and Buffett before him. Here's what would have to really scare you, if I'm gauging your views correctly: Zuckerberg actually believes in what he's doing and based on his behavior the last 14 years he isn't very interested in the money. He has never acted like a Saudi prince or gilded age tycoon. He never hoarded Facebook equity, he took vast perpetual dilution (despite entirely controlling the Facebook corporation), and produced thousands of millionaires. He spread the wealth around, that's why he only owns ~14% of a company that went public less than six years ago. Larry Ellison by contrast, still owns 27% of Oracle after 40 years. How about all of those millionaires that got rich on Facebook stock? All those teacher pensions that got massive returns on it? The thousands of Facebook employees that have yielded 1%er salaries and wealth. The tens of thousands of average investors that rode the Facebook giant and made most of the money on it. Zuckerberg made a lot of money. Everybody else combined made more by a factor of ~8x or more. What's their guilt in having profited on all of this? Hitting someone with the wealth seeker tag, is the easy way out. The easiest, cheapest negative label there is: the profit motive. Unfortunately for your premise, criticizing him about money, makes very little sense.
- knuththetruth 9y ago>Your end criticism of Zuckerberg has a very big problem: he's going to give away his fortune, the ~$69 billion, like Gates and Buffett before him. Nope. He explicitly structured his foundation as an LLC to not do that so he, his wife, and I imagine his children, can use his wealth however he sees fit. The reputation of Gates and Buffet’s pledges were just something he capitalized on to make himself appear as benevolent.
- Lio 9y agoHe did, however, use his vast wealth to buy up his neighbor’s houses just to knock them down. Ostensibly to protect his own privacy whilst at the same time declairing that other people’s “privacy is history”. Even people who don’t have Facebook accounts. http://time.com/money/4346766/mark-zuckerberg-houses/ http://time.com/money/4346766/mark-zuckerberg-houses/
- 220V_USKettle 9y agoSo, what is your opinion of Zuck's Hawaiin real estate acquisition behaviors?
- forgot-account 9y agoI’m not a big fan of Zuck, but that’s just how real estate acquisition has to happen in Hawaii due to very odd state property laws.
- differentView 9y ago"They actually believe I'm going to give away my fortune like Warren Buffet. Dumb fucks!" -- Mark Zuckerberg, probably
- galieos_ghost 9y agogiving pledge is just a way to evade estate tax and get good publicity from plebes who don't know better.
- 908087 9y agoHis "charity" is not a charity at all. It's a personal influence machine, which he has been using to hire political operatives and influence policy.