5 ms·

What I was most struck by in the conversation is that Zuck is actually doing some of the things Cowen advocates - policy experimentation, taking on long-term pr

What I was most struck by in the conversation is that Zuck is actually doing some of the things Cowen advocates - policy experimentation, taking on long-term projects with uncertain payoffs, etc. at CZI. I'm a huge fan of Patrick Collison and know that Stripe is also doing tons of experimentation and product innovation, but I was struck by how much less like an academic Zuck sounded. I don't know if it's a good or bad thing, but Cowen and Collison seem to focus on what everyone should be doing, while Zuck's focus is on what he, personally, can get done (again, caveat being that Collison is simply so well-read that he comes off as an academic, while I'm aware that in reality he's doing a ton himself as well).

perseusprime11 7y ago
Zuck is practical but also naive. Collison does a lot of virtue/wisdom signaling.
- nwah1 7y ago
  Collison strikes me as genuine and focused on actually solving problems. We are in desperately short supply of such people.
pc 7y ago
> What I was most struck by in the conversation is that Zuck is actually doing some of the things Cowen advocates - policy experimentation, taking on long-term projects with uncertain payoffs, etc. at CZI. I'm a big admirer of what Mark is doing with CZI (which is part of why Cowen/I agreed to the interview). Stripe is still a private company, but maybe I'll be able to intervene more directly over time. If I do, having CZI as precedent will be very helpful.
- mikorym 7y ago
  I don't want to sound like I am trolling or something. However, I find it hard to take anything Mark Zuckerberg does seriously. For that matter, I am so biased that I have no interest in these interviews at all (maybe to your detriment). How do you see this? You say that you are an admirer of CZI. In my experience with obnoxious CEO types, they are happy to be philantrophic or "build" things when it suits them, and only then. Do you think it's a net positive? Wouldn't someone else (like Gates or even Buffet) be a better leader for these initiatives? I'm sure that if Mark did not get so successful with FB, it would have been the WA founders, otherwise someone else yet again. Sorry if this is a steriotypical reaction, but I am sorry; I just can't trust something from camp Zuck.
  - the_watcher 7y ago
    If you went back 25 years, Bill Gates was considered by many (if not most) the "obnoxious CEO", but you're now using him as an example of "someone else I'd take seriously".
    - ramzyo 7y ago
      Interesting point, although I hesitate to see this as an effective counterpoint. People change, perceptions of people change, and those who were once maligned can become beloved, while those who were once beloved can become maligned. Bill Gates has followed the maligned to beloved arch over the last 25 years - it's easy for me to see how Mark could follow this same trajectory given that he's relatively early in his career.
      - kelnos 7y ago
        I wouldn't call Gates "beloved", at least not in all circles. I consider his work with his foundation as basically table stakes in society for someone who has made his fortune from illegal, anti-competitive practices that damaged an entire industry. Beyond that, while I'll certainly admit that government has a ton of problems, I'm not sure that the best model for funding -- for example -- research into various diseases is to put decisions under the control of rich people in the private sector, no matter how "reformed" and generous they seem. Or that super-rich people deserve to have praised philanthropic legacies because they managed to game the system during some point in their lives at the expense of income inequality and unfair markets. Granted, Gates doing good with his money is orders of magnitude better than him sitting on it doing nothing, but I don't think he deserves all the praise he's been getting, given his background.
        minblaster 7y ago
        I agree. It’s amazing how easily people slip into the ends justifying the means. Yes, he’s contributing now. Doesn’t excuse the practices that got him there.
- the_watcher 7y ago
  Thanks for responding - just wanted to emphasize that I did not mean to minimize anything that you're doing, or the importance of your approach (I'm a huge fan of Stripe, as well as your work with Cowen on progress). I just thought it was interesting to highlight that Zuck is actually doing a whole lot of stuff.

perseusprime11 7y ago

Zuck is practical but also naive. Collison does a lot of virtue/wisdom signaling.

nwah1 7y ago
Collison strikes me as genuine and focused on actually solving problems. We are in desperately short supply of such people.

pc 7y ago

> What I was most struck by in the conversation is that Zuck is actually doing some of the things Cowen advocates - policy experimentation, taking on long-term projects with uncertain payoffs, etc. at CZI. I'm a big admirer of what Mark is doing with CZI (which is part of why Cowen/I agreed to the interview). Stripe is still a private company, but maybe I'll be able to intervene more directly over time. If I do, having CZI as precedent will be very helpful.

mikorym 7y ago
I don't want to sound like I am trolling or something. However, I find it hard to take anything Mark Zuckerberg does seriously. For that matter, I am so biased that I have no interest in these interviews at all (maybe to your detriment). How do you see this? You say that you are an admirer of CZI. In my experience with obnoxious CEO types, they are happy to be philantrophic or "build" things when it suits them, and only then. Do you think it's a net positive? Wouldn't someone else (like Gates or even Buffet) be a better leader for these initiatives? I'm sure that if Mark did not get so successful with FB, it would have been the WA founders, otherwise someone else yet again. Sorry if this is a steriotypical reaction, but I am sorry; I just can't trust something from camp Zuck.
- the_watcher 7y ago
  If you went back 25 years, Bill Gates was considered by many (if not most) the "obnoxious CEO", but you're now using him as an example of "someone else I'd take seriously".
  - ramzyo 7y ago
    Interesting point, although I hesitate to see this as an effective counterpoint. People change, perceptions of people change, and those who were once maligned can become beloved, while those who were once beloved can become maligned. Bill Gates has followed the maligned to beloved arch over the last 25 years - it's easy for me to see how Mark could follow this same trajectory given that he's relatively early in his career.
    - kelnos 7y ago
      I wouldn't call Gates "beloved", at least not in all circles. I consider his work with his foundation as basically table stakes in society for someone who has made his fortune from illegal, anti-competitive practices that damaged an entire industry. Beyond that, while I'll certainly admit that government has a ton of problems, I'm not sure that the best model for funding -- for example -- research into various diseases is to put decisions under the control of rich people in the private sector, no matter how "reformed" and generous they seem. Or that super-rich people deserve to have praised philanthropic legacies because they managed to game the system during some point in their lives at the expense of income inequality and unfair markets. Granted, Gates doing good with his money is orders of magnitude better than him sitting on it doing nothing, but I don't think he deserves all the praise he's been getting, given his background.
      - minblaster 7y ago
        I agree. It’s amazing how easily people slip into the ends justifying the means. Yes, he’s contributing now. Doesn’t excuse the practices that got him there.
the_watcher 7y ago
Thanks for responding - just wanted to emphasize that I did not mean to minimize anything that you're doing, or the importance of your approach (I'm a huge fan of Stripe, as well as your work with Cowen on progress). I just thought it was interesting to highlight that Zuck is actually doing a whole lot of stuff.