7 ms·

This quote from Zuckerberg is something else: > “We don’t view your experience with the product as a single-player game,” he says. Yes, in the short run, some

This quote from Zuckerberg is something else: > “We don’t view your experience with the product as a single-player game,” he says. Yes, in the short run, some users might benefit more than others from PYMK friending. But, he contends, all users will benefit if everyone they know winds up on Facebook. We should think of PYMK as kind of a “community tax policy,” he says. Or a redistribution of wealth. “If you’re ramped up and having a good life, then you’re going to pay a little bit more in order to make sure that everyone else in the community can get ramped up. I actually think that that approach to building a community is part of why [we have] succeeded and is modeled in a lot of aspects of our society.” This attitude of "we know what's good for you" is apparent in more and more modern tech products. I find it pretty gross, especially when applied personal data. It's also a convenient after-the-fact moral justification for decisions that improve the bottom line of the company at the expense of its users.

Kaze404 7y ago
I know this might be off topic but a billionaire making a comparison to wealth redistribution almost reads like a parody to me.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  The same billionaire who spends tens of millions of dollars bulldozing houses around his in order to increase his privacy,† then tells the commoners that wanting privacy isn't normal.†† † https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/Zuckerberg-to-raze-4-houses-surrounding-Palo-Alto-7940437.php https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/Zuckerberg-to-raze-4-hou... †† https://www.huffpost.com/entry/facebooks-zuckerberg-the_n_417969 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/facebooks-zuckerberg-the_n_41...
  - mrlala 7y ago
    Physical privacy vs virtual privacy are two very different things, so it's disingenuous to pretend they are exactly the same.
    - whymauri 7y ago
      The impact that virtual privacy can have on lives is quickly approaching the impact that physical privacy can have. Further, part of the attack surface on physical privacy is virtual privacy, anyways.
    - wpietri 7y ago
      Nobody said they were exactly identical. If you're going to argue, please argue with what people actually say.
    - solotronics 7y ago
      He tapes over his camera on his laptop because he doesn't trust it. I do too and don't think this is odd behavior. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark-zuckerberg-tape-webcam-microphone-facebook https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark-zuck...
      - mrlala 7y ago
        That is physical privacy.. it's so someone can't SEE YOU. Not track your online activity.
        rhizome 7y ago
        I don't understand your point, that they're "different?" Well no shit.
        visarga 7y ago
        Lack of privacy in online activities can be even more damaging today.
        solotronics 7y ago
        There is no difference.
      - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
        While I understand the rank hypocrisy here, tech billionaires have a slightly different risk calculation than your average Joe. For example, Jeff Bezos's iPhone was hacked by a nation state using zero day exploits of video playback, delivered via a person message from its head of state. People like Bezos and Zuckerberg are on the wrong end of James Mickens's "Mossad or not-Mossad" threat model and should be taking different precautions than the average person.
- jariel 7y ago
  That's bad, but the worst part to me is the total confluence of both the legitimacy and wellbeing he makes with his own product. 'Using Facebook Is A Kind Of Wealth' is what he says basically. 'The whole world benefits so much when they use my product' This is Trumpian level of delusion. 'It's important that every American gets a chance to stay at home of my resorts. They're so nice! So I'm going to offer a government-backed tax rebate so that everyone can come and stay. Studies have shown people who stay at resorts are in better health, more relaxed. These tax rebates are Good For America'.
onetimemanytime 7y ago
I know I know...but it worked. "Everyone" is on FB and they are worth a gazillion dollars.
- gretch 7y ago
  It goes farther than that - the comment parent author doesn't even realize they are exhibiting the same behavior: "This attitude of "we know what's good for you" is apparent in more and more modern tech products" Billions of people used PYMK and are generally happy with it and Facebook in general. Who are you to tell them it's a bad thing? If FB is so bad why don't more people leave? Lots of people on HN leave FB and I respect that choice - and lots don't and enjoy using FB with it's pros and cons. What's wrong with that?
  - zaat 7y ago
    > Billions of people used PYMK and are generally happy with it and Facebook in general. You might be right, but that isn't necessarily so. I'm on Facebook, I hate many of it's features, the product design decisions and I think they are hostile and predatory. Wherever a knob was made available I changed it from the default to the more private setting. But I'm still on Facebook because I have no other option for effective communication with my globally distributed family and with the local tech community. In short, I hate PYMK and many many other things, and generally I'm not happy at all with Facebook, but you counted me along the "Billions of people" because I'm (almost) daily active on the platform. I believe you have no idea what portion of the users is happy with the platform, what portion is unaware of the privacy implication and what portion is unhappy about the platform's privacy but, as accurately put by the Zuck himself, pay the necessary tax.
    - ninth_ant 7y ago
      > But I'm still on Facebook because I have no other option for effective communication with my globally distributed family and with the local tech community. But this speaks directly to the crux of this issue mentioned in the article that you take issue with. Growth team tactics got people on the site and kept them engaged, and having a large and mostly comprehensive network makes it valuable to users. So when you find it valuable that your family and community is there, well that’s the point.
mc32 7y ago
I’m not sure id hi as far as qualifying PYMK as an invasion of privacy, but there are common situations where you DO NOT want to connect with others or others you know/knew connect with you. Exes, Stalkers, People who can’t let go, Friends who are bad influences, etc...
- brlewis 7y ago
  Suppose A has contacts B and C. If A chooses to share contacts with Facebook, and Facebook suggests B and C to A, I can see why you'd say that's not an invasion of privacy. If Facebook suggests A to C, that's arguably an invasion of privacy. If Facebook suggests B and C to each other, that's unarguably an invasion of privacy.
  - lmm 7y ago
    > If Facebook suggests B and C to each other, that's unarguably an invasion of privacy. How so? Alice tells me she knows Bob and Charlie. I mention Charlie to Bob - completely normal human thing to do. Maybe I think they're in the same circle but I've forgotten exactly why or how I found that out - completely normal human memory behaviour. Where's the invasion of privacy?
    - brlewis 7y ago
      >Where's the invasion of privacy? In both cases. Yours is understandable and forgivable. Charlie's privacy may have been violated, but it was a simple mistake. But suppose you say to Alice, "Tell me all the people you know. I'll tell you which ones I know too." If you then write down that list and systematically start telling them about each other and that they have Alice as a mutual friend, then you're a privacy-invading jerk, and Alice was wrong to trust you.
    - visarga 7y ago
      Yet you can't mention all the Charile's to Bobs on the planet like FB.
Seenso 7y ago
> This attitude of "we know what's good for you" is apparent in more and more modern tech products. I find it pretty gross... It's even grosser than that. The attitude here is really "we did what was good for us, but we think you're dumb enough to be convinced we did it because it was good for you."
- ciil 7y ago
  I think at least some engineers genuinely believe they're doing what's best for the users and that it just so happens to also be either the best for their personal bottom line or the easiest route to go with their product.
  - ahartmetz 7y ago
    As Richard Feynman said: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool." (To write something slightly more original than the "will not understand if livelihood depends on it" quote)
  - rhizome 7y ago
    In my experience engineers don't care a whit about users except as a means of revenue, or more specifically as gasoline for the company engine.
  - choward 7y ago
    If you pay people enough they can easily be brainwashed into believing what they are doing is right.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    Also, company cultures get trimmed towards it. "Googlers" are one example. I don't think employees call themselves Facebookers, since that sounds like client for prostitution, but they probably have something else.
  - deminature 7y ago
    It's possible some really drink the kool-aid, but most are just compensated too well to care. The only companies that will try to compete with Facebook on pay are financial institutions like Citadel.
choward 7y ago
> “If you’re ramped up and having a good life, then you’re going to pay a little bit more in order to make sure that everyone else in the community can get ramped up > This attitude of "we know what's good for you" is apparent in more and more modern tech products. The attitude that this also demonstrates is "our loyal customers are locked in, so it's time to screw them over to try to make more money".
michaelborromeo 7y ago
Underneath it’s “what’s good for facebook” but on the surface they have to paint it as “what is good for you.” Or they could just say nothing. Which is better?

Kaze404 7y ago

I know this might be off topic but a billionaire making a comparison to wealth redistribution almost reads like a parody to me.

reaperducer 7y ago
The same billionaire who spends tens of millions of dollars bulldozing houses around his in order to increase his privacy,† then tells the commoners that wanting privacy isn't normal.†† † https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/Zuckerberg-to-raze-4-houses-surrounding-Palo-Alto-7940437.php https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/Zuckerberg-to-raze-4-hou... †† https://www.huffpost.com/entry/facebooks-zuckerberg-the_n_417969 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/facebooks-zuckerberg-the_n_41...
- mrlala 7y ago
  Physical privacy vs virtual privacy are two very different things, so it's disingenuous to pretend they are exactly the same.
  - whymauri 7y ago
    The impact that virtual privacy can have on lives is quickly approaching the impact that physical privacy can have. Further, part of the attack surface on physical privacy is virtual privacy, anyways.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    Nobody said they were exactly identical. If you're going to argue, please argue with what people actually say.
  - solotronics 7y ago
    He tapes over his camera on his laptop because he doesn't trust it. I do too and don't think this is odd behavior. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark-zuckerberg-tape-webcam-microphone-facebook https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark-zuck...
    - mrlala 7y ago
      That is physical privacy.. it's so someone can't SEE YOU. Not track your online activity.
      - rhizome 7y ago
        I don't understand your point, that they're "different?" Well no shit.
      - visarga 7y ago
        Lack of privacy in online activities can be even more damaging today.
      - solotronics 7y ago
        There is no difference.
    - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
      While I understand the rank hypocrisy here, tech billionaires have a slightly different risk calculation than your average Joe. For example, Jeff Bezos's iPhone was hacked by a nation state using zero day exploits of video playback, delivered via a person message from its head of state. People like Bezos and Zuckerberg are on the wrong end of James Mickens's "Mossad or not-Mossad" threat model and should be taking different precautions than the average person.
jariel 7y ago
That's bad, but the worst part to me is the total confluence of both the legitimacy and wellbeing he makes with his own product. 'Using Facebook Is A Kind Of Wealth' is what he says basically. 'The whole world benefits so much when they use my product' This is Trumpian level of delusion. 'It's important that every American gets a chance to stay at home of my resorts. They're so nice! So I'm going to offer a government-backed tax rebate so that everyone can come and stay. Studies have shown people who stay at resorts are in better health, more relaxed. These tax rebates are Good For America'.

onetimemanytime 7y ago

I know I know...but it worked. "Everyone" is on FB and they are worth a gazillion dollars.

gretch 7y ago
It goes farther than that - the comment parent author doesn't even realize they are exhibiting the same behavior: "This attitude of "we know what's good for you" is apparent in more and more modern tech products" Billions of people used PYMK and are generally happy with it and Facebook in general. Who are you to tell them it's a bad thing? If FB is so bad why don't more people leave? Lots of people on HN leave FB and I respect that choice - and lots don't and enjoy using FB with it's pros and cons. What's wrong with that?
- zaat 7y ago
  > Billions of people used PYMK and are generally happy with it and Facebook in general. You might be right, but that isn't necessarily so. I'm on Facebook, I hate many of it's features, the product design decisions and I think they are hostile and predatory. Wherever a knob was made available I changed it from the default to the more private setting. But I'm still on Facebook because I have no other option for effective communication with my globally distributed family and with the local tech community. In short, I hate PYMK and many many other things, and generally I'm not happy at all with Facebook, but you counted me along the "Billions of people" because I'm (almost) daily active on the platform. I believe you have no idea what portion of the users is happy with the platform, what portion is unaware of the privacy implication and what portion is unhappy about the platform's privacy but, as accurately put by the Zuck himself, pay the necessary tax.
  - ninth_ant 7y ago
    > But I'm still on Facebook because I have no other option for effective communication with my globally distributed family and with the local tech community. But this speaks directly to the crux of this issue mentioned in the article that you take issue with. Growth team tactics got people on the site and kept them engaged, and having a large and mostly comprehensive network makes it valuable to users. So when you find it valuable that your family and community is there, well that’s the point.

mc32 7y ago

I’m not sure id hi as far as qualifying PYMK as an invasion of privacy, but there are common situations where you DO NOT want to connect with others or others you know/knew connect with you. Exes, Stalkers, People who can’t let go, Friends who are bad influences, etc...

brlewis 7y ago
Suppose A has contacts B and C. If A chooses to share contacts with Facebook, and Facebook suggests B and C to A, I can see why you'd say that's not an invasion of privacy. If Facebook suggests A to C, that's arguably an invasion of privacy. If Facebook suggests B and C to each other, that's unarguably an invasion of privacy.
- lmm 7y ago
  > If Facebook suggests B and C to each other, that's unarguably an invasion of privacy. How so? Alice tells me she knows Bob and Charlie. I mention Charlie to Bob - completely normal human thing to do. Maybe I think they're in the same circle but I've forgotten exactly why or how I found that out - completely normal human memory behaviour. Where's the invasion of privacy?
  - brlewis 7y ago
    >Where's the invasion of privacy? In both cases. Yours is understandable and forgivable. Charlie's privacy may have been violated, but it was a simple mistake. But suppose you say to Alice, "Tell me all the people you know. I'll tell you which ones I know too." If you then write down that list and systematically start telling them about each other and that they have Alice as a mutual friend, then you're a privacy-invading jerk, and Alice was wrong to trust you.
  - visarga 7y ago
    Yet you can't mention all the Charile's to Bobs on the planet like FB.

Seenso 7y ago

> This attitude of "we know what's good for you" is apparent in more and more modern tech products. I find it pretty gross... It's even grosser than that. The attitude here is really "we did what was good for us, but we think you're dumb enough to be convinced we did it because it was good for you."

ciil 7y ago
I think at least some engineers genuinely believe they're doing what's best for the users and that it just so happens to also be either the best for their personal bottom line or the easiest route to go with their product.
- ahartmetz 7y ago
  As Richard Feynman said: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool." (To write something slightly more original than the "will not understand if livelihood depends on it" quote)
- rhizome 7y ago
  In my experience engineers don't care a whit about users except as a means of revenue, or more specifically as gasoline for the company engine.
- choward 7y ago
  If you pay people enough they can easily be brainwashed into believing what they are doing is right.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Also, company cultures get trimmed towards it. "Googlers" are one example. I don't think employees call themselves Facebookers, since that sounds like client for prostitution, but they probably have something else.
- deminature 7y ago
  It's possible some really drink the kool-aid, but most are just compensated too well to care. The only companies that will try to compete with Facebook on pay are financial institutions like Citadel.

choward 7y ago

> “If you’re ramped up and having a good life, then you’re going to pay a little bit more in order to make sure that everyone else in the community can get ramped up > This attitude of "we know what's good for you" is apparent in more and more modern tech products. The attitude that this also demonstrates is "our loyal customers are locked in, so it's time to screw them over to try to make more money".

michaelborromeo 7y ago

Underneath it’s “what’s good for facebook” but on the surface they have to paint it as “what is good for you.” Or they could just say nothing. Which is better?