4 ms·

How you conclude "a severe lack of idealism and social responsibility" for Zuckerberg, a guy who turned down $1.4B in the early days of FB and has already pledg

How you conclude "a severe lack of idealism and social responsibility" for Zuckerberg, a guy who turned down $1.4B in the early days of FB and has already pledged to give away the majority of his fortune, is beyond me.

michaelchisari 16y ago
I'll admit that I probably have a higher standard of social responsibility and idealism than most. For instance, the various privacy issues that have plagued the company from the beginning, to start. Also, Facebook has been in a really good position to push for an open, distributed social networking protocol, but instead have focused on maintaining a closed, walled garden. So it's instead up to us in the open source world, severely under-funded and overworked, to build an alternative. A socially responsible CEO wouldn't sell out their user's privacy for the sake of advertisers, and set a strong, positive precedence right from the beginning of the rise of popular social networking. An idealist would help build an open, decentralized protocol, document it well, and push for it to be adopted as a standard by the W3C. What Zuckerberg does with his billions doesn't really change any of that for me.
- ebaysucks 16y ago
  Facebook is a business. You can not open source everything. Facebook controls the social graph. Apple controls the App Store. Google controls the search and ads alghorithm. Heck, even open source companies making money through consulting control the list of consultants. In short: Businesses will control their business model. They'll be for "open source" or "competition" in anything else, especially complementary markets. E.g. Google ("don't be evil") will push open standards for Android and net neutrality, but only because content and internet access are the complements to their search business, which they will keep closed. Don't waste your skills being too idealistic. Facebook, Google, Apple, even Microsoft and Yahoo bring huge net value to society.
  - michaelchisari 16y ago
    That's short-sighted. They could have easily opened up the social graph, while maintaining the largest node within the graph. Instead, the social graph will open without them, and they'll find themselves clamoring to catch up, just like AOL did with e-mail and the web. So, long term, not being idealistic, and keeping their users within a walled garden, will show itself to also be a bad business decision. Businesses will control their business model, but that means we must critique their business model and build open alternatives (which I've been doing), instead of just accepting their actions uncritically. And sure, they bring huge net value to society. With that kind of money and success, it'd be hard not to. My argument is that they don't bring nearly enough net value to society as they could, given their resources.
    - ebaysucks 16y ago
      Interesting. Could you elaborate on how Facebook could create more profits by opening the graph? How would "opening the graph while maintaining the largest node" look like in practice?

michaelchisari 16y ago

I'll admit that I probably have a higher standard of social responsibility and idealism than most. For instance, the various privacy issues that have plagued the company from the beginning, to start. Also, Facebook has been in a really good position to push for an open, distributed social networking protocol, but instead have focused on maintaining a closed, walled garden. So it's instead up to us in the open source world, severely under-funded and overworked, to build an alternative. A socially responsible CEO wouldn't sell out their user's privacy for the sake of advertisers, and set a strong, positive precedence right from the beginning of the rise of popular social networking. An idealist would help build an open, decentralized protocol, document it well, and push for it to be adopted as a standard by the W3C. What Zuckerberg does with his billions doesn't really change any of that for me.

ebaysucks 16y ago
Facebook is a business. You can not open source everything. Facebook controls the social graph. Apple controls the App Store. Google controls the search and ads alghorithm. Heck, even open source companies making money through consulting control the list of consultants. In short: Businesses will control their business model. They'll be for "open source" or "competition" in anything else, especially complementary markets. E.g. Google ("don't be evil") will push open standards for Android and net neutrality, but only because content and internet access are the complements to their search business, which they will keep closed. Don't waste your skills being too idealistic. Facebook, Google, Apple, even Microsoft and Yahoo bring huge net value to society.
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  That's short-sighted. They could have easily opened up the social graph, while maintaining the largest node within the graph. Instead, the social graph will open without them, and they'll find themselves clamoring to catch up, just like AOL did with e-mail and the web. So, long term, not being idealistic, and keeping their users within a walled garden, will show itself to also be a bad business decision. Businesses will control their business model, but that means we must critique their business model and build open alternatives (which I've been doing), instead of just accepting their actions uncritically. And sure, they bring huge net value to society. With that kind of money and success, it'd be hard not to. My argument is that they don't bring nearly enough net value to society as they could, given their resources.
  - ebaysucks 16y ago
    Interesting. Could you elaborate on how Facebook could create more profits by opening the graph? How would "opening the graph while maintaining the largest node" look like in practice?