5 ms·

Did whoever write this read some article where words from the Federal Reserve were over-analyzed (e.g. "patience") and think that this model also applies to Zuc

Did whoever write this read some article where words from the Federal Reserve were over-analyzed (e.g. "patience") and think that this model also applies to Zuckerberg's Facebook posts? Because it doesn't. There are almost no real world ramifications from the words he writes on Facebook except for articles like this and movement of FB stock price. I also don't understand the direct contradiction between the ideas between #1 and #2 in this article. How does this get past editing, like I'm supposed to forget you just told me in #1 that Zuckerberg shifts blame and then in #2 there's a highlighted quote where he accepts blame? I hate Facebook either way, but Mark Zuckerberg has nothing to do with it. You're missing the boat if you equate Facebook and Zuckerberg and think that by attacking Mark Zuckerberg you're somehow fighting against the bad aspects of Facebook. Sure, Mark Zuckerberg embodies Facebook in many ways. But if he were to be ousted, I don't care if you brought Gandhi back from the dead and made him CEO of Facebook, Facebook will still be terrible. The platform and how people relate to other people on it will still be, net, detrimental to society.

pdonis 8y ago
I agree that enough other people have drunk the Facebook kool-aid by now that even if Zuckerberg were ousted, Facebook would still pursue basically the same goals and would still be net detrimental to society. However, Zuckerberg is the one who made the kool-aid in the first place, so I don't think you can say he has nothing to do with it.
- chrischen 8y ago
  For most companies it transcends any single individual, but for facebook mr. Zuckerberg has basically complete control of the board and the conpany. Even if he lets facebook be the way it is, he has the power to change it single-handidly.
- dylan604 8y ago
  Is Zuckerberg the chicken or the egg? Other sites existed before FB, but FB seemed to get the right formula. As for the evil use of the data captured by/about its users (and even more for its capturing data of non-users), it again seems to be the one that "got it right" first as far as monetizing it goes. This is from the social media view point. This is just from the FB/Zuck perspective. Google is also in different discussion with how it uses Chrome/G Suite apps.
- isoskeles 8y ago
  I remember the internet before Facebook, you probably do too. Being able to share your photos, whether it was on Myspace or something that required more effort like an earlier geocities-hosted site, was a fairly novel thing. People did feel more "connected" at that time. And I wouldn't say it was an invalid feeling. People wanted to carve out a piece of the internet and say, "Hey, I'm over here." Facebook rode that wave. So I don't think when it first became popular, I would put Zuckerberg at the center and say that he made the kool-aid. It was more like hundreds of thousands of people were saying, "We want kool-aid, we want kool-aid." And Facebook said, sure, we can do that, at least better than Myspace.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    Lots of people wanted an easier way to share photos, message people, find friends, etc. Lots of people did not want their personal data sold, their private information compromised, their creepy exes given an easy way to stalk them, and general loss of ownership of their data and their online presence. But they got all those things anyway, because Zuckerberg built Facebook that way. He could have built it a different way. But he didn't.
  - britch 8y ago
    I think a lot of what's wrong with modern Facebook follows directly from Zuckerberg's original vision and shortsightedness. It's possible to imagine a Facebook which stayed small scale, friends of friends, and served primarily as a photo-sharing/chat platform. Partly because of business pressure and partly because of Zuckerberg's vision they made this move to connect everyone. This is something they could do from a technical perspective, but they did not consider the societal consequences. They try to play the neutral platform, just giving people a chance to "share ideas" but they pick what's shown and to who. Even if it's obfuscated by an algorithm that was trained on user-data, they're still choosing. I think a lot of this stems from Zuckerberg's vision to "connect the world" without thinking through what that actually means, and what problems would come up.
appleiigs 8y ago
My impression when i read the article (whether I’m wrong or right) is that the writer is quite young. Not only in their own writing style, but also in the premise. When you’ve been around the block a few times, you don’t care about words and focus on the other persons actions.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  You should focus on actions rather than words, but that's not the reality of how the world actually works. That's why Zuckerberg bothers with words, and why PR departments exist. Words influence people, even when that seems irrational. Especially when that seems irrational. The author doesn't seem to be saying you should ignore facebook's actions and listen to the words. The author seems to be saying that Zuckerberg is bad at PR. For that to be true, the actions of Zuckerberg and Facebook are implicitly in play. If Zuckerberg's PR is said to be insufficient, it's insufficient in the context of Zuckerberg's actions.
CalChris 8y ago
> There are almost no real world ramifications from the words he writes on Facebook ... That is the point of what Bashaw is saying. He's saying that Zuckerberg's writing is ineffective because in Orwell's phrase from Politics and the English Language: The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.

pdonis 8y ago

I agree that enough other people have drunk the Facebook kool-aid by now that even if Zuckerberg were ousted, Facebook would still pursue basically the same goals and would still be net detrimental to society. However, Zuckerberg is the one who made the kool-aid in the first place, so I don't think you can say he has nothing to do with it.

chrischen 8y ago
For most companies it transcends any single individual, but for facebook mr. Zuckerberg has basically complete control of the board and the conpany. Even if he lets facebook be the way it is, he has the power to change it single-handidly.
dylan604 8y ago
Is Zuckerberg the chicken or the egg? Other sites existed before FB, but FB seemed to get the right formula. As for the evil use of the data captured by/about its users (and even more for its capturing data of non-users), it again seems to be the one that "got it right" first as far as monetizing it goes. This is from the social media view point. This is just from the FB/Zuck perspective. Google is also in different discussion with how it uses Chrome/G Suite apps.
isoskeles 8y ago
I remember the internet before Facebook, you probably do too. Being able to share your photos, whether it was on Myspace or something that required more effort like an earlier geocities-hosted site, was a fairly novel thing. People did feel more "connected" at that time. And I wouldn't say it was an invalid feeling. People wanted to carve out a piece of the internet and say, "Hey, I'm over here." Facebook rode that wave. So I don't think when it first became popular, I would put Zuckerberg at the center and say that he made the kool-aid. It was more like hundreds of thousands of people were saying, "We want kool-aid, we want kool-aid." And Facebook said, sure, we can do that, at least better than Myspace.
- pdonis 8y ago
  Lots of people wanted an easier way to share photos, message people, find friends, etc. Lots of people did not want their personal data sold, their private information compromised, their creepy exes given an easy way to stalk them, and general loss of ownership of their data and their online presence. But they got all those things anyway, because Zuckerberg built Facebook that way. He could have built it a different way. But he didn't.
- britch 8y ago
  I think a lot of what's wrong with modern Facebook follows directly from Zuckerberg's original vision and shortsightedness. It's possible to imagine a Facebook which stayed small scale, friends of friends, and served primarily as a photo-sharing/chat platform. Partly because of business pressure and partly because of Zuckerberg's vision they made this move to connect everyone. This is something they could do from a technical perspective, but they did not consider the societal consequences. They try to play the neutral platform, just giving people a chance to "share ideas" but they pick what's shown and to who. Even if it's obfuscated by an algorithm that was trained on user-data, they're still choosing. I think a lot of this stems from Zuckerberg's vision to "connect the world" without thinking through what that actually means, and what problems would come up.

appleiigs 8y ago

My impression when i read the article (whether I’m wrong or right) is that the writer is quite young. Not only in their own writing style, but also in the premise. When you’ve been around the block a few times, you don’t care about words and focus on the other persons actions.

darkpuma 8y ago
You should focus on actions rather than words, but that's not the reality of how the world actually works. That's why Zuckerberg bothers with words, and why PR departments exist. Words influence people, even when that seems irrational. Especially when that seems irrational. The author doesn't seem to be saying you should ignore facebook's actions and listen to the words. The author seems to be saying that Zuckerberg is bad at PR. For that to be true, the actions of Zuckerberg and Facebook are implicitly in play. If Zuckerberg's PR is said to be insufficient, it's insufficient in the context of Zuckerberg's actions.

CalChris 8y ago

> There are almost no real world ramifications from the words he writes on Facebook ... That is the point of what Bashaw is saying. He's saying that Zuckerberg's writing is ineffective because in Orwell's phrase from Politics and the English Language: The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.