5 ms·

You are the sum of the choices you make. You can't say "oh, well I'll just screw over friends, coworkers, etc. to get rich but once I am I'll be nice." All th

You are the sum of the choices you make. You can't say "oh, well I'll just screw over friends, coworkers, etc. to get rich but once I am I'll be nice." All the habits you form getting to the top will stick with you once you're there. And there is always more to want. Of course one learns from past mistakes but the question is what you learn. From all his actions, it seems to me that what Mark learned was to not be so obvious with his actions. Now he claims to want to make the world a more open and honest place. Why would making all this information about yourself public make the world a better place? We've spent thousands of years developing social protocols for how and what we reveal to others about ourselves, our families and our friends. Now we should just forgo all that because some guy thinks that would somehow make the world a better place? Does he really even believe that? Whether he does or does not, it sure would make things more convenient for him if people would just voluntarily give out more information about themselves so he can sell it.

bmelton 16y ago
I generally agree with the sum and totality of what you're saying, and frankly, I personally think that Zuckerberg is a scumbag. Still, the majority of the stories I've read that really reinforce that feeling, I have to concede were done when he was in college. College is an interesting place, where interesting things happen -- but it isn't known for fostering the most mature adults; I know that I was a dramatically different person that age than I am now. I've grown to the point where I can make the harder choice, just because I know it's the right one. I've grown to the point where I can give someone a promise, and not have to worry about whether or not I'll follow through. I've grown to the point where I can preserve my integrity in spite of a lucrative, but unsavory way to earn money. I definitely did not possess these attributes when I was younger. So as much as I'd like to hate Zuckerberg on principle, I also know that it's the wrong thing to do, and I can see where he might have made the same sort of mistakes I might have, if given the right circumstances.
- andreyf 16y ago
  loewenskind wasn't talking about him personally, but his vision of a world of "open privacy". There are tons of ways I can share my personal life with people: I can call, e-mail, meet up for lunch, bring it up when we're "out", blog about it, etc. Fundamentally, the amount of information I honestly share with everyone I'd possibly run into is quite tiny.
  - jessriedel 16y ago
    loewenskind was talking about two thing: Zuckerburg being a jerk, and the vision. Bmelton was replying only to the jerk part.
    - bmelton 16y ago
      Ug. Apologies, I missed the whole 'vision' part, but I'd been awake for just over 24 hours when I posted that, so my reading skills were somewhat impaired. Thanks.
pasbesoin 16y ago
If nothing else, it reveals a remarkable hubris.
philwelch 16y ago
"Now he claims to want to make the world a more open and honest place. Why would making all this information about yourself public make the world a better place? We've spent thousands of years developing social protocols for how and what we reveal to others about ourselves, our families and our friends. Now we should just forgo all that because some guy thinks that would somehow make the world a better place?" That's not an argument against Zuckerberg, it's a fully general argument against any social change. You have discovered the Fully General Social Conservative Argument. It wouldn't take much work to adapt your argument to critique the birth control pill or desegregation (at least before they each became a fait accompli[1]). (The rest of your post questions Zuckerberg's motives, which is not of interest to me so I'm not addressing it.) [1] (Edit) At this point, social conservatives have to argue that the change, which has already happened, hurt society. Segregation is too taboo to argue for anymore, but you'll still find some committed social conservatives still resisting the Pill, the Catholic Church for instance. If the world really becomes more open and transparent, we'll have at least a generation of pro-privacy social conservatives saying the world is going to hell because your uncle isn't keeping his leather fetish a closely guarded secret anymore.
- yequalsx 16y ago
  I would distinguish between incremental change and radical change. Yes, it's in the eye of the beholder. The loss of privacy is a radical change from the past for those who live in cities. (Privacy is a different beast in a village life.) The argument the OP presented is general but applies to radical changes and I think it applies to Facebook and Zuckerberg. Is this change in privacy a good thing or a bad thing? I don't know. Is Facebook (and Zuckerberg) the right agent to bring this change about - definitely not in my mind.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    Was a eugenicist who favored compulsory sterilization the right agent to bring about social acceptance of contraception? [1] It's a misguided question--changes like this happen for reasons much bigger than one individual, movement, or corporation, or any ulterior motives they may have. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics_and_euthanasia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics_and_eu...

bmelton 16y ago

I generally agree with the sum and totality of what you're saying, and frankly, I personally think that Zuckerberg is a scumbag. Still, the majority of the stories I've read that really reinforce that feeling, I have to concede were done when he was in college. College is an interesting place, where interesting things happen -- but it isn't known for fostering the most mature adults; I know that I was a dramatically different person that age than I am now. I've grown to the point where I can make the harder choice, just because I know it's the right one. I've grown to the point where I can give someone a promise, and not have to worry about whether or not I'll follow through. I've grown to the point where I can preserve my integrity in spite of a lucrative, but unsavory way to earn money. I definitely did not possess these attributes when I was younger. So as much as I'd like to hate Zuckerberg on principle, I also know that it's the wrong thing to do, and I can see where he might have made the same sort of mistakes I might have, if given the right circumstances.

andreyf 16y ago
loewenskind wasn't talking about him personally, but his vision of a world of "open privacy". There are tons of ways I can share my personal life with people: I can call, e-mail, meet up for lunch, bring it up when we're "out", blog about it, etc. Fundamentally, the amount of information I honestly share with everyone I'd possibly run into is quite tiny.
- jessriedel 16y ago
  loewenskind was talking about two thing: Zuckerburg being a jerk, and the vision. Bmelton was replying only to the jerk part.
  - bmelton 16y ago
    Ug. Apologies, I missed the whole 'vision' part, but I'd been awake for just over 24 hours when I posted that, so my reading skills were somewhat impaired. Thanks.

pasbesoin 16y ago

If nothing else, it reveals a remarkable hubris.

philwelch 16y ago

"Now he claims to want to make the world a more open and honest place. Why would making all this information about yourself public make the world a better place? We've spent thousands of years developing social protocols for how and what we reveal to others about ourselves, our families and our friends. Now we should just forgo all that because some guy thinks that would somehow make the world a better place?" That's not an argument against Zuckerberg, it's a fully general argument against any social change. You have discovered the Fully General Social Conservative Argument. It wouldn't take much work to adapt your argument to critique the birth control pill or desegregation (at least before they each became a fait accompli[1]). (The rest of your post questions Zuckerberg's motives, which is not of interest to me so I'm not addressing it.) [1] (Edit) At this point, social conservatives have to argue that the change, which has already happened, hurt society. Segregation is too taboo to argue for anymore, but you'll still find some committed social conservatives still resisting the Pill, the Catholic Church for instance. If the world really becomes more open and transparent, we'll have at least a generation of pro-privacy social conservatives saying the world is going to hell because your uncle isn't keeping his leather fetish a closely guarded secret anymore.

yequalsx 16y ago
I would distinguish between incremental change and radical change. Yes, it's in the eye of the beholder. The loss of privacy is a radical change from the past for those who live in cities. (Privacy is a different beast in a village life.) The argument the OP presented is general but applies to radical changes and I think it applies to Facebook and Zuckerberg. Is this change in privacy a good thing or a bad thing? I don't know. Is Facebook (and Zuckerberg) the right agent to bring this change about - definitely not in my mind.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Was a eugenicist who favored compulsory sterilization the right agent to bring about social acceptance of contraception? [1] It's a misguided question--changes like this happen for reasons much bigger than one individual, movement, or corporation, or any ulterior motives they may have. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics_and_euthanasia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics_and_eu...