10 ms·
Mark Zuckerberg Wants to Build WeChat for the West
- mfatica 8y agoNo thanks, go fuck yourself Mark
- pascalxus 8y agono need for such rudeness.
- qsymmachus 8y agoMaybe, on the other hand, an appeal to "civility" is often used to squelch criticism of bad behavior. There are plenty of business and political figures who, for one reason or another, deserve little more than a "fuck you" and getting booed off the stage. We can debate whether Zuckerberg falls in that category!
- kodz4 8y agoFuck you is not constructive criticism. It's takes focus away from actual constructive criticism by being a distraction.
- mfatica 8y agoZuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuck: Just ask Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks
- vernie 8y agoDisagree
- SurrealSoul 8y agoI thought that was clear when messenger tried began to tie in other apps like uber / lyft and whatever they use for collecting payments.
- duxup 8y agoThere's no way the US government gets a say on what is allowed or what isn't allowed content wise with the first amendment as it is interpreted in the US. So I've zero clue what Zuckerberg thinks is going to happen as far that goes.
- freeflight 8y ago> There's no way the US government gets a say on what is allowed or what isn't allowed content wise with the first amendment as it is interpreted in the US. The US government already has a say over that [0]. That's exactly what Senate hearings about "terrorist propaganda" and "election interference" on social media are all about [1], applying soft-power to send the message "You deal with this, or we will force you to deal with it", thus nudging these companies into self-regulation. [0] http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/the-cleaners/ http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/the-cleaners/ [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/5/17823280/facebook-twitter-hearings-congress-jack-dorsey-sheryl-sandberg https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/5/17823280/facebook-twitter-...
- duxup 8y agoThey can threaten but it depends on what it is they pass legally. That's not the same as law that makes it past a first amendment challenge.
- freeflight 8y agoLike the first amendment is supposed to prevent the NSA from domestic snooping? [0] All based on the patriot act which is still in effect to this day. That's the "beauty" about this: If you make the cause big enough, then barely anybody will mind the eroded civil rights. If you resist, you will be labeled an unpatriotic "terrorist sympathizer" who doesn't want to keep the country safe, a de-facto traitor to the cause. [0] https://www.eff.org/de/deeplinks/2017/11/nsa-internet-surveillance-under-section-702-violates-first-amendment https://www.eff.org/de/deeplinks/2017/11/nsa-internet-survei...
- 8y ago
- WheelsAtLarge 8y agoHe will. He has the users and the platform. 5 years or so from now will be using a flavor of Facebook's chat programs to buy and order stuff. He's a guy that can do it.
- wlesieutre 8y agoThey already did this in 2016: https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/05/shopify-in-facebook-messenger/ https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/05/shopify-in-facebook-mess... Next step is getting anyone to care, which probably means providing a more useful shopping UI instead of trying to shoehorn it into a chatbot.
- bduerst 8y agoThe users are acquired at this point (Instagram, Whatsapp), while their new products tend peter out (Home/Phone, Slingshot, Portal). If anything, the social media market has proven you can build it but there's no guarantee that the users will come.
- cheeyoonlee 8y agoIf he does, they really need to work on the UI/UX side of things because FB and Messenger already feel like bloatware and they're difficult to navigate. WeChat on the other hand, along with KakaoTalk but WeChat especially, does it very well without feeling heavy and annoying to use.
- asadlionpk 8y agoInstagram is good.
- cheeyoonlee 8y agoI actually think Instagram is a better candidate to become the next WeChat
- Thaxll 8y agoNone of those app are difficult to navigate...
- cheeyoonlee 8y agoRemember when Facebook and Messenger were once a single app? One of the main reasons they separated was to simplify user experience, aside from allowing sms login without a Facebook account, and I can't imagine the two together again at their current state. The reason why WeChat works so well is it's always been chat forward. Their 'moments' works moreso like a lite Twitter feed than Facebook's mess of a newsfeed. And all the misc third party integrations and apps are neatly organized and don't get in the way of chat and moments. Nothing about the interface or experience feels spammy or unnecessary and I never have to think much to get to what I want. At least that's just how I felt heavily using all those apps. There's something about all-in-one/mega apps that Asia does really well.
- immichaelwang 8y agoHow is Messenger Bloated?
- xbeta 8y agoMark probably mix up the cultural differences between China and rest of the world.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dgzl 8y agoWill this include a state-sanctioned backdoor?
- 14 8y agoI imagine at the very least it will have hard to find settings making it as least secure as possible so they can get your data only become secure if the end user specifically sets certain parameters just right.
- IIAOPSW 8y agoNo. It will include a state-demanded backdoor.
- slenk 8y agoI doubt they have to demand it. Zark Fuckerberg will likely welcome them in, especially if it means he can get richer off the troubles of others
- kerng 8y agoThere might be other companies that have similar penetration, but already have your payment information, they'd just have to expand their markets. Businesses like Amazon, Google, Uber, Lyft, maybe even Microsoft.. seem poised to expand to enable similar scenarios - and they arent suffering such enormous trust issues. For me most interesting candidate is Amazon in that space. Would be interesting to see if Amazon will make a move at Facebook eventually - just a matter of time.
- plussed_reader 8y agoIf Amazon were to take a swipe at FB, they'd be taking on the title of troll-regulator. I don't think the payoff is worth the headache; see the flailings of Jack Dorsey.
- JohnFen 8y agoThe idea of Facebook becoming even more ingrained into society than it already is gives me serious chills. Saying Facebook's plans are to become the "WeChat of the west" makes me even more wary. The first thing that I think of when I think of WeChat is "ubiquitous surveillance", especially governmental surveillance.
- natalyarostova 8y agoAs long as the government never builds anything around a Facebook API I don't care what zuc does with his company.
- kbenson 8y agoI think recent history shows that just because our government doesn't use it doesn't mean it won't be used some government, and not necessarily for their own people. I think that's reason enough for anyone to care.
- jbay808 8y agoIs that because only the government can force you to do things? Widespread norms can become just as powerful. Wait until insurance companies and employers universally require your Facebook account's medical risk and employability assessment ratings.
- microwavecamera 8y agoThat's like saying we shouldn't care about how many Boeing 747s crash as long as the government doesn't use them.
- natalyarostova 7y agoHmm, suggesting a social media company operate with autonomy may or may not be a good idea, but equating it with some untold number of people dying in fiery plane crashes feels a little forced.
- _august 8y ago
- trollied 8y agoIf this really is their goal, it’s weird that they are shutting down peer-to-peer payments via messenger. I was under the impression that was one of the main use cases of WeChat. https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3074222/facebook-discontinues-messenger-p2p-payments https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3074222/facebook-d...
- TACIXAT 8y agoI'm actually delighted to hear this. Every company seems to have slapped on a send money button on their app (gmail, fb, snapchat come to mind). My understanding is they were all taking a loss in hopes that it massively took off and they could capture that market (venmo is still unprofitable). I would much rather someone find an efficiency that allows them to run a profitable payments platform than have all these big players drown the market by dumping money into it.
- frosted-flakes 8y agoOr make it a standard, the way Interac E-transfer is in Canada (almost always free, instant, and everyone already has it). https://www.interac.ca/en/interac-e-transfer-consumer.html https://www.interac.ca/en/interac-e-transfer-consumer.html
- return1 8y agoSmart move. And if Facebook becomes irrelevant in a few years, he can use all the cash to turn it to a bank
- shmerl 8y agoNo, thanks. Surely not from Facebook.
- CameronBanga 8y agoI always thought it was kinda understood that WeChat was the Facebook for the East? To the point where Facebook once made their own phone and no one really batted an eye.
- rchaud 8y agoIf you're referring to the HTC ChaCha, that was a "Facebook phone" in the way the Moto Rokr was an Apple phone. I don't believe it was even released beyond a few markets, and it was discontinued pretty quickly.
- ravenstine 8y ago> In time, the thinking goes, it may become as indispensable to Westerners as WeChat is in China. And this is a good thing? Not only that, but we're supposed to trust Mark "Privacy This Time" Zuckerberg with something that indispensable? > “The future is private,” he declared grandiosely. Nearly 10 years ago, Zuckerberg proclaimed, to paraphrase, that the age of privacy is over. Forgive me if I don't take what he says today seriously at all. > It could argue that a single dominant social network is easier to police than lots of smaller ones and has greater financial and technical capacity to keep users safe from harmful content. I'm reassured by this. /s It's the same old story, but with a new coat of "privacy" paint.
- kbenson 8y ago> Nearly 10 years ago, Zuckerberg proclaimed, to paraphrase, that the age of privacy is over. Forgive me if I don't take what he says today seriously at all. For Zuckerberg, as with mast CEOs, the future is, and always has been, telling potential customers what they want to hear to get them excited about their companies. Nothing conspiratorial about that view either, its part of their job description. You're right to be leery of anything he says. If only more people wouldn't equate power and fame with trustworthiness.
- microwavecamera 8y ago>For Zuckerberg, as with mast CEOs, the future is, and always has been, telling potential customers what they want to hear to get them excited about their companies. Nothing conspiratorial about that view either, its part of their job description. The executives of a corporation conspiring to mislead the public and conversely it's investors is the very definition of "conspiratorial".
- kbenson 8y agoThere's a difference between statements of fact and opinions like what a company "believes in" or "sees as the future". Both may contain lies, but you can usually only prove something about the factual statements, leaving the rest to be used (and abused) as needed. CEOs are not the only people to take advantage of this.
- vernie 8y agoImagine having the personality disorder that won't allow you to just fuck off with the unimaginable wealth you've amassed.
- client4 8y agoNo thank you. When I use WeChat I make the obvious assumption that: everything is monitored, my location is tagged when I use WeChat wallet, my location is monitored via the app constantly, my social graph is analyzed, and more. But now that I think of it, Facebook is already doing that. They are just missing the payment property.
- JohnJamesRambo 8y agoI feel he is too late for this. The only people I know that still use Facebook are old people. He missed his peak window where Facebook was cool and everyone used it, which you would need to achieve WeChat levels of integration with all things, as well as adoption by young people and tastemakers.
- JohnFen 8y ago> The only people I know that still use Facebook are old people. I'm over 50, and the only people I personally know who uses Facebook are business owners. Nonetheless, I think that you're right. My daughter told me a few years back that "Facebook is for old people and businesses". That gave me hope.
- berns 8y agoI think we are talking about the 1.5 billion Whatsapp users here.
- parliament32 8y ago> The only people I know that still use Facebook are old people. Very true, FB is known as the place where grandma hangs out. Unfortunately, WhatsApp is known here as "that third world messaging app" so that's not gaining traction anytime soon either. Most people just iMessage or SMS, with the tech crowd being more on Signal.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- strikelaserclaw 8y agoI knew fb would go this direction a year ago. They seem to be masters of looking at others for innovation and just copying/enhancing that functionality.
- jorblumesea 8y agoAh yes, that's what we need, more Chinese style governance?
- wintorez 8y agoNot gonna happen, for multitude of reasons.
- wickoff 8y agoOh. So that's where their crypto stablecoin comes in.
- panarky 8y agoFacebook's plan is the opposite of WeChat. WeChat is strictly monitored, pervasively censored and rigorously controlled to align with official dogma, stifle rumors, suppress dissent and promote harmony. The new Facebook would be end-to-end encrypted so Facebook can't read messages even under court order. It will be physically impossible to monitor, censor or control how the platform is used and abused. Facebook lost control of the monster they created, and this is their solution - abdicate any responsibility whatsoever. I don't want the WeChat model, or the current Facebook model, or the new Facebook where their toxic waste is externalized to governments and the public to clean up. These are all anti-patterns.
- magashna 8y agoI'll believe it when it's been reviewed by not Facebook
- bryan_w 8y ago> I don't want the WeChat model, or the current Facebook model, or the new Facebook where their toxic waste is externalized to governments and the public to clean up. Well, what do you want? For people to not communicate?
- panarky 8y ago> For people to not communicate? Option 1: 100% state surveillance and control Option 2: Zero ability for platform operator to reduce the harm their platform inflicts Option 3: People cannot communicate Yep, those are the only choices, nothing else is possible.
- parliament32 8y ago>Facebook can't read messages even under court order Considering that FB controls the package distributions for the apps that actually handle the encryption/decryption, and they're all closed-source, it would be hilariously easy for them to be compelled to "forward any message send/received by users in badlist.txt to fbi.gov" or whatever you like. E2E is good, but frankly it doesn't do shit if the provider still controls both endpoints.
- ConfusedDog 8y agoThe issue here is that governments have laws/methods to be able get those data. So long that fact stays true, regardless what's being built (chat apps or airports), privacy is and inevitably compromised.
- slenk 8y agoIs there anything we can do to stop it (besides not having a Facebook account)?
- netwanderer3 8y agoSo they are saying that even Facebook wouldn't even be able to read your messages. Wait a moment, if I go on Facebook Ads, I can target users based on some very precise and specific criteria like interests, then how would Facebook know these information if they can't read your messages? I admit those features are pretty awesome as it allows businesses to target the exact groups of customer they wanted. It's the holy grail of advertising. Imagine you can just bypass all those who are not interested in your product and only laser target the ones who have intentions to buy. Having said that, I understand for businesses to have such effective insights, it's reasonable that consumer privacy must be compromised to some degree. We can't have the cake and eat it too. If one agrees to use Facebook they must give up privacy, it's just that simple and I accepted that when I used it. For Mark Zuckerberg to come out and say they won't peek at your information, that would be dishonest. How are they going to sell ads if they don't have your information? For Facebook to continue to grow, they must strive to innovate and provide new services that are deemed so valuable by the public that people are willing to give up some of their privacy in exchange for these new services. That's really the only way. Everyone knows Google does some surveillance on their users too but their services provide very high values to society, people simply can't ignore and not use it.
- chriselles 8y agoI am strongly opposed to a Facebook Superplatform akin to WeChat. However, could we face a near future scenario where WeChat expands outside of it’s total dominance of China and penetrates One Belt, One Road trade partners? Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent(WeChat), and Huawei(BATH) are all well integrated into Chinese government/PLA strategy. Could Zipf’s Law combined with Metcalfe’s Law apply here? In the global digital geopolitical sense((geodigital?), are we better off with shaping and influencing the US devil we know, than the authoritarian WeChat devil we don’t, and can’t? To me, this effort by Facebook is just another step in the macro war between geodigital operating systems. Thoughts?
- acct1771 8y agoWe're better off decentralizing and empowering our citizens digitally with great tools and security.
- chriselles 8y agoCompletely agree. But isn't there a substantial risk that a centralised authoritarian platform/network could have a 1st place Zipf's Law like distribution with a decentralised/empowered network in a very distant 2nd place?
- acct1771 7y agoDefinitely. We should be pushing the sentiment of digital personal security/sovereignty the same way we pushed war material manufacturing during the World Wars. Tie it to freedom in mainstream media publications, and they'll all come running.
- chriselles 7y agoFreedom’s Forge by Arthur Herman is a Greta book in the US homeland industrial transformation in WWII. I hope you’re right and I hope it works. We are up against a well aligned and fused authoritarian juggernaught. Hopefully the most trusted and best value proposition platform wins.
- zachguo 8y agoThat means fundamentally changing Facebook's business model, which is unlikely. Ads only account for less than 20% of WeChat's revenue.
- ogn3rd 8y agoI'd never touch a thing with his name on it or dollars behind it. Get bent, Zuck.