3 ms·
> I’m scared both because Facebook has this much power Media titans like Mark Zuckerberg, William Randolph Hearst, and Benjamin Franklin have always had this m
by wahern 6y ago
> I’m scared both because Facebook has this much power
Media titans like Mark Zuckerberg, William Randolph Hearst, and Benjamin Franklin have always had this much power. What Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch have made crystal clear is that regardless of how "evil" we think Zuckerberg or Hearst were, they and the people they supported were relatively[1] beneficent. That good fortune is part of what has always set America apart from countries that continually slipped into autocracy or never even made it out of that hole. Maybe they were relatively beneficent because of the American political culture they internalized, but at the end of the day the nation was always at their mercy. While they may have sought to burn and even succeeded in burning down some institutions (figuratively and actually), they never sought to burn it all down; not like the empowered nihilists of today.
[1] I stress relatively because such historical figures (e.g. John D. Rockefeller in the Ludlow Massacre) have supported or even directly engaged in mass murders of Americans, not to mention Native American and foreign populations. But it's hard to dispute that in an historical context their behavior was tempered as compared to similar figures in other societies.
- kazinator 6y agoThe Facebook instrument has inherently more power than what past media titans wielded.
- wahern 6y agoThe platform is more powerful, but political and cultural power is also more diffuse and even more chaotic than in previous eras. (And that may not be a coincidence.) So I'm not convinced Zuckerberg has a greater capacity to push society in a particular direction, and certainly don't believe that he has more direct political influence than previous titans. Perhaps he could add to the chaos and confusion in a uniquely consequential manner, but at the very least he's clearly not deliberately trying to do that. In fact, Zuckerberg strikes me as someone acting with relative sincerity, good faith, and even civic mindedness, notwithstanding his self-serving libertarian ideals. And I come to that opinion based on his views alone; I'm always forgetful of his actual philanthropy.
- gowld 6y ago> not convinced Zuckerberg has a greater capacity to push society in a particular direction, He can, but only in one direction: incivility and divisiveness.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kazinator 6y agoNick checks out; I want to award HN gowld.
- contrast 6y agoThe problem with assertions without any supporting facts is they can only be mirrored by the obvious counter-arguments: In fact, Zuckerberg strikes me as someone acting insincerely, making arguments in bad faith, with no regard to civic responsibilities, which makes perfect sense given his self-serving ideals and well-known financial incentives. And I come to that opinion based on his views and actions, notwithstanding the transparent attempts to buy good PR under the guise of philanthropy. Perhaps he is adding to the chaos and confusion in a uniquely consequential fashion, but at a minimum he is completely indifferent to the consequences of his actions. These consequences may be no worse than past consequences, so it would make sense that we should only take action comparable to past legislation e.g. passing new major laws as powerful as the Sherman Act so that his callous disregard for honesty, facts, injury and integrity do not become everybody else’s problem too.
- switch11 6y agoAgreed with this: In fact, Zuckerberg strikes me as someone acting insincerely, making arguments in bad faith, with no regard to civic responsibilities, which makes perfect sense given his self-serving ideals and well-known financial incentives. And I come to that opinion based on his views and actions, notwithstanding the transparent attempts to buy good PR under the guise of philanthropy. * The guy has screwed over 1) Winklevoss Twins 2) a few of his co founders 3) Many of his developer partners 4) many of his product's users 5) many competitors via illegal means * his entire 'philanthropy plan' is donating to a FOR PROFIT which he owns and which so far is mostly investing in things like EdTech you have to be a special kind of naive to fall for this BS philanthropy * You can tell from initiatives like INternet.org that he really does think most people are dumb f#$#$ who trust him
- sharkmerry 6y agodidnt hearst oppose the new deal? and was known for yellow journalism?