6 ms·

Mark Zuckerberg, the modern Bond villain, is now coming for your children

55 points by FairDune 6y ago

annadane 6y ago
Can we just take a moment to reflect on what Zuckerberg did with regular Instagram? The typical pattern of abuse: say you won't do x, then do x (namely that he would keep it independent and not merge anything with facebook), then bully the original founders out of their company
- starkd 6y ago
  Doesn't that describe his behavior in creating Facebook as well?
- nostromo 6y ago
  > then bully the original founders out of their company They sold Instagram. It was no longer their company. It’s too bad, too. Facebook would have some real competition today if they hadn’t sold it.
  - justapassenger 6y ago
    > Facebook would have some real competition today if they hadn’t sold it. Would they? Why do you assume that they’d be able to grow to their current levels without Facebook money, engineering and know how? Building, growing and sustaining big social network is truly challenging, as we can see by how few companies were able to do it successfully. Even companies with bottomless pockets like Google failed at it spectacularly.
    - throwaway2048 6y ago
      adequate technical talent, at a large enough scale, is a commodity, they were already very successful before the facebook acquisition.
      - justapassenger 6y ago
        > adequate technical talent, at a large enough scale, is a commodity Then why did Google fail? > they were already very successful before the facebook acquisition. They had few million users - that’s pretty good, but far far for being really successful. Everyone (including me) thought that Facebook was crazy for spending one billion on some random hipster photo app.
        babesh 6y ago
        Technical talent is necessary but not sufficient. You need other things: a niche that hasn’t already been taken over due to network effects, the right design to address that market, possibly the marketing chops to get the ball rolling. Sometimes you can try to tilt the playing field by exploiting advantages that you have. That is not a guarantee of success either. Technical talent is plentiful in Silicon Valley as long as you have the secret ingredient, stock options actually worth a lot of money. Google+ bungled the very first part, the need they were serving. It is somewhat common for tech giants to hire renowned technical experts whether in design, engineering, etc but totally bungle the very first part. Just throw money at these experts and they will suddenly appear. As you can see, money isn’t much of an advantage tech giants have against fast growing upstarts, especially with valuations of high growth tech companies.
    - HDMI_Cable 6y ago
      Didn't they already have a large market share before selling to Facebook? They might not have grown as quickly, but considering that they had a foot in the door, and people were already considering Facebook to be the "old-person" social media, they might have done well otherwise.
- staring_bird 6y ago
  hmmm thats what happened at oculus...
- spoonjim 6y ago
  If you sell your company you lose your company. Everyone with the sophistication to be in a position to sell a company to Facebook for ten figures knows this. The main purpose of Zuckerberg saying “I won’t do X” is to give the Instagram some reputational repair so that when they get tsk-tsked on Twitter or at fancy parties in Napa that they can say “Hey he said he wouldn’t!” They knew he would.
  - ISL 6y ago
    If the sale contract says, "In the event that Acquirer does X, Acquirer will pay $100B to the EFF.", one might reasonably believe it, especially if $SUBSTANTIAL is held in escrow.
    - elefanten 6y ago
      Yeah those seem like terms that acquirers will just be cool with
      - ISL 6y ago
        They won't mind at all if they never intend to do X and it helps them get a discount. Poison pills like that are common in conservation easements, for example. Our family owns land with an easement which, if I recall correctly, states that anyone wishing to break the easement will owe back-taxes reaching back to 1992, with compounded interest, on the development rights to the land. In return, we were able to keep the family farm when my grandparents passed away.
Spoiled_toast 6y ago
I love the blanket statements in this article. “They manipulate me into buying things I don’t want” I believe that is called marketing. Might want to look into it. Interesting stuff.
ALittleLight 6y ago
I don't get the hyperventilating about this. If you don't want your kids to use children's Instagram, then prohibit them from doing so. There's a lot of stuff on the internet children shouldn't see or be involved with. If you think Instagram Kids is a member of that set then treat it that way.
- smt88 6y ago
  A lot of people allow their kids to do unhealthy or unsafe things out of ignorance. It's completely reasonable to advocate against the sellers of those things. People can always choose not to buy your unethical or unsafe product. That doesn't make it suddenly ethical and safe, nor does it exempt you from criticism.
- glial 6y ago
  Do you think it’s OK to market cigarettes to kids?
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    Do you think cigarettes and Instagram are comparable products?
    - xnyan 6y ago
      Yes, in the sense that they are both products that should not be marketed to kids.
      - AmericanChopper 6y ago
        Your basis for claiming that these products are comparable seems to be an entirely arbitrary opinion of yours. If you think Instagram is harmful then feel free to do some parenting and keep your own children away from it. But if you think that Instagram and cigarettes are comparably harmful, then you have an incredibly niche opinion that you shouldn’t expect anybody else to give much consideration to.
winstonchecksin 6y ago
I don’t necessarily believe Instagram or any social media for children is a good idea, but these kinds of headlines “the modern Bond villain” are a bit hard to take seriously.
- toiletfuneral 6y ago
  Myanmar.
h2odragon 6y ago
Kids are competent to decide to take hormones during puberty now, but not competent to decide who they talk to online? Anyone think Facebook et al haven't already got profiles that know how our kids feel about their sexuality better than we do?
- nicole_express 6y ago
  > Kids are competent to decide to take hormones during puberty now, but not competent to decide who they talk to online? So what you're saying is, children should only be allowed to use Instagram under a doctor's supervision?
  - h2odragon 6y ago
    I like it. I bet we can get the doctors to agree with prescriptions for social interactions. "5 min / day exposure to incorrect thought for Relaxation purposes"
baron816 6y ago
AOL had me early. I think you know what happened.
AI_WAIFU 6y ago
Couldn't have possibly picked a more sensationalist headline, now could we?
freebuju 6y ago
If this corporate fetish isn't on the same borderline as pedophilia. I don't know what is. I absolutely despise this form of capitalism. Businesses nowadays have no moral responsibility. No ethical responsibility. What makes this worse, is now even the adults (ahem parents) will have an extra excuse of a babysitter. Out of the lack of effort or just plain ignorance. I am sad for this new generation of kids being targeted from their formative years. Being hooked on social media psychologically. Not being able to form an opinion that is of themselves. Being cogs in the SM machine. It's almost funny I just saw some startup the other day, forgot the name, that wants to sort of be a LinkedIn network for young kids. I almost lost it.
- gher-shyu3i 6y ago
  > Businesses nowadays have no moral responsibility. No ethical responsibility. This is the natural outcome of capitalism plus separation of church and state. We're feeling the results now.

55 points by FairDune 6y ago

Can we just take a moment to reflect on what Zuckerberg did with regular Instagram? The typical pattern of abuse: say you won't do x, then do x (namely that he would keep it independent and not merge anything with facebook), then bully the original founders out of their company

starkd 6y ago
Doesn't that describe his behavior in creating Facebook as well?
nostromo 6y ago
> then bully the original founders out of their company They sold Instagram. It was no longer their company. It’s too bad, too. Facebook would have some real competition today if they hadn’t sold it.
- justapassenger 6y ago
  > Facebook would have some real competition today if they hadn’t sold it. Would they? Why do you assume that they’d be able to grow to their current levels without Facebook money, engineering and know how? Building, growing and sustaining big social network is truly challenging, as we can see by how few companies were able to do it successfully. Even companies with bottomless pockets like Google failed at it spectacularly.
  - throwaway2048 6y ago
    adequate technical talent, at a large enough scale, is a commodity, they were already very successful before the facebook acquisition.
    - justapassenger 6y ago
      > adequate technical talent, at a large enough scale, is a commodity Then why did Google fail? > they were already very successful before the facebook acquisition. They had few million users - that’s pretty good, but far far for being really successful. Everyone (including me) thought that Facebook was crazy for spending one billion on some random hipster photo app.
      - babesh 6y ago
        Technical talent is necessary but not sufficient. You need other things: a niche that hasn’t already been taken over due to network effects, the right design to address that market, possibly the marketing chops to get the ball rolling. Sometimes you can try to tilt the playing field by exploiting advantages that you have. That is not a guarantee of success either. Technical talent is plentiful in Silicon Valley as long as you have the secret ingredient, stock options actually worth a lot of money. Google+ bungled the very first part, the need they were serving. It is somewhat common for tech giants to hire renowned technical experts whether in design, engineering, etc but totally bungle the very first part. Just throw money at these experts and they will suddenly appear. As you can see, money isn’t much of an advantage tech giants have against fast growing upstarts, especially with valuations of high growth tech companies.
  - HDMI_Cable 6y ago
    Didn't they already have a large market share before selling to Facebook? They might not have grown as quickly, but considering that they had a foot in the door, and people were already considering Facebook to be the "old-person" social media, they might have done well otherwise.
staring_bird 6y ago
hmmm thats what happened at oculus...
spoonjim 6y ago
If you sell your company you lose your company. Everyone with the sophistication to be in a position to sell a company to Facebook for ten figures knows this. The main purpose of Zuckerberg saying “I won’t do X” is to give the Instagram some reputational repair so that when they get tsk-tsked on Twitter or at fancy parties in Napa that they can say “Hey he said he wouldn’t!” They knew he would.
- ISL 6y ago
  If the sale contract says, "In the event that Acquirer does X, Acquirer will pay $100B to the EFF.", one might reasonably believe it, especially if $SUBSTANTIAL is held in escrow.
  - elefanten 6y ago
    Yeah those seem like terms that acquirers will just be cool with
    - ISL 6y ago
      They won't mind at all if they never intend to do X and it helps them get a discount. Poison pills like that are common in conservation easements, for example. Our family owns land with an easement which, if I recall correctly, states that anyone wishing to break the easement will owe back-taxes reaching back to 1992, with compounded interest, on the development rights to the land. In return, we were able to keep the family farm when my grandparents passed away.

Spoiled_toast 6y ago

I love the blanket statements in this article. “They manipulate me into buying things I don’t want” I believe that is called marketing. Might want to look into it. Interesting stuff.

ALittleLight 6y ago

I don't get the hyperventilating about this. If you don't want your kids to use children's Instagram, then prohibit them from doing so. There's a lot of stuff on the internet children shouldn't see or be involved with. If you think Instagram Kids is a member of that set then treat it that way.

smt88 6y ago
A lot of people allow their kids to do unhealthy or unsafe things out of ignorance. It's completely reasonable to advocate against the sellers of those things. People can always choose not to buy your unethical or unsafe product. That doesn't make it suddenly ethical and safe, nor does it exempt you from criticism.
glial 6y ago
Do you think it’s OK to market cigarettes to kids?
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  Do you think cigarettes and Instagram are comparable products?
  - xnyan 6y ago
    Yes, in the sense that they are both products that should not be marketed to kids.
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      Your basis for claiming that these products are comparable seems to be an entirely arbitrary opinion of yours. If you think Instagram is harmful then feel free to do some parenting and keep your own children away from it. But if you think that Instagram and cigarettes are comparably harmful, then you have an incredibly niche opinion that you shouldn’t expect anybody else to give much consideration to.

winstonchecksin 6y ago

I don’t necessarily believe Instagram or any social media for children is a good idea, but these kinds of headlines “the modern Bond villain” are a bit hard to take seriously.

toiletfuneral 6y ago
Myanmar.

h2odragon 6y ago

Kids are competent to decide to take hormones during puberty now, but not competent to decide who they talk to online? Anyone think Facebook et al haven't already got profiles that know how our kids feel about their sexuality better than we do?

nicole_express 6y ago
> Kids are competent to decide to take hormones during puberty now, but not competent to decide who they talk to online? So what you're saying is, children should only be allowed to use Instagram under a doctor's supervision?
- h2odragon 6y ago
  I like it. I bet we can get the doctors to agree with prescriptions for social interactions. "5 min / day exposure to incorrect thought for Relaxation purposes"

baron816 6y ago

AOL had me early. I think you know what happened.

AI_WAIFU 6y ago

Couldn't have possibly picked a more sensationalist headline, now could we?

freebuju 6y ago

If this corporate fetish isn't on the same borderline as pedophilia. I don't know what is. I absolutely despise this form of capitalism. Businesses nowadays have no moral responsibility. No ethical responsibility. What makes this worse, is now even the adults (ahem parents) will have an extra excuse of a babysitter. Out of the lack of effort or just plain ignorance. I am sad for this new generation of kids being targeted from their formative years. Being hooked on social media psychologically. Not being able to form an opinion that is of themselves. Being cogs in the SM machine. It's almost funny I just saw some startup the other day, forgot the name, that wants to sort of be a LinkedIn network for young kids. I almost lost it.

gher-shyu3i 6y ago
> Businesses nowadays have no moral responsibility. No ethical responsibility. This is the natural outcome of capitalism plus separation of church and state. We're feeling the results now.