5 ms·
Chris Hughes noticeably pulled a few punches regarding his old friend Zuck’s character: 1. “I don’t blame Mark for his quest for domination. He has demonstrate
by mindgam3 7y ago
Chris Hughes noticeably pulled a few punches regarding his old friend Zuck’s character:
1. “I don’t blame Mark for his quest for domination. He has demonstrated nothing more nefarious than the virtuous hustle of a talented entrepreneur.”
2. “I don’t think these proposals [Zuck finally asking for regulation] were made in bad faith.”
It’s pretty naïve at this point to say that Zuckerberg has done nothing more than a “virtuous hustle”.
And Zuck asking for weak regulation is such an obvious ploy to stave off stronger action like a breakup that would threaten dominance.
Having made those nitpicks, this is a fairly bombshell article for someone so early at FB to come out swinging.
You can expect more power players to take up this cause in the next quarter or two as early execs start waking up from what basically amounts to Facebook brainwashing.
- ThrustVectoring 7y ago>And Zuck asking for weak regulation is such an obvious ploy to stave off stronger action like a breakup that would threaten dominance. Regulation can often help incumbent businesses by raising the barrier to entry for competition, which allows higher monopoly rents.
- mindgam3 7y agoFair point. Also I just LOLed after reading the NYT editorial board reaction to this piece - apparently we disagree on whether any punches were pulled. The first line: “Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook, pulls no punches in his essay for The Times Privacy Project...” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/chris-hughes-facebook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/chris-hughes-face...
- TAForObvReasons 7y agoThis is all posturing. Different people are putting different proposals to create the spectrum of possibilities. No one is talking about 100B fine because FB already pegged the fine at ~5B