5 ms·

I would even say it's simpler, and the problem is Mark Zuckerberg specifically. He's deeply immoral, and continues to do what Facebook does for power and money.

I would even say it's simpler, and the problem is Mark Zuckerberg specifically. He's deeply immoral, and continues to do what Facebook does for power and money. I understand, on some level, the excitement - he's a computer nerd who came to control an organization that is more powerful than the majority of the world's countries. Zuckerberg controls the platform that is the primary means of communication for hundreds of millions of people, and in terms of power he's almost on the level of G7 leaders, just not accountable to anyone. Ethically, however, Zuckerberg seems to be on the level of murderous dictators, or human traffickers, or others that are among the very worst. I think he's willingly inflicted huge damage on modern Western society, and has certainly been the most harmful user of Internet technology. Facebook as a whole is just a reflection of Zuckerberg's values and policies, which is not surprising for a company that's ruled by one person (as in CEO and sole majority voter). It's also not surprising that a company does unethical stuff to increase profits (and we have enough examples from Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, Google, just about anyone), but I've firmly come to believe that Facebook is in a category of its own.

malloreon 5y ago
45,000 fb employees choose every day to work for him. The responsibility for what fb is is just as much theirs. If they didn’t agree with fb’s actions they’d leave.
sgt 5y ago
That's a bit far fetched. Comparing Zuckerberg to dictators and slave traders? He could be on HN.
- Biganon 5y ago
  And? Are you worried he might be sad?
- i_haz_rabies 5y ago
  Not that I (fully) agree with the comparison, but I truly hope he's on HN, reads this and feels bad.
joconde 5y ago
> an organization that is more powerful than the majority of the world's countries. Zuckerberg controls the platform that is the primary means of communication for hundreds of millions of people, and in terms of power he's almost on the level of G7 leaders, just not accountable to anyone. Let's add a header to Facebook's homepage insulting some country's leader, and see how fast they get beaten into removing it by a court. The guy heads a communication company. This is nothing close to the power of a national government. A lone US senator might have less influence, but the president of any country has more authority than MZ, except maybe over Facebook, depending on how protective that country's law is.
- michaelt 5y ago
  > the president of any country has more authority than MZ, except maybe over Facebook Well, it depends how you measure. Joe Biden has the power to start wars, to pardon people for US crimes, to have anyone disappeared and tortured indefinitely - but he doesn't have the power to create a database listing all American citizens, let alone the citizens of foreign countries.
  - quakeguy 5y ago
    I‘d assume he doesn’t need to create those DBs, Facebook shares them with all agencies.
  - TchoBeer 5y ago
    Does he not have that power, or does he not have the ability? Imo I think he has both.
    - thrashh 5y ago
      It’s soft power vs. hard power. Everyone has an amount of measurable soft power and a measurable amount of hard power in different spheres. Soft power is how much everyone wants to agree with you, while hard power is how much everyone has to agree to you. Think of it as respect vs. on paper. To lead effectively, you need both. It’s rare that leaders have both. Biden does not have the soft power to do such a thing. Soft power vs hard power also is a part of every relationship, even with your grandma or friend.
ballenf 5y ago
The combination of amorality, intelligence and power are enough to let anyone turn into that. I don't think there's anything particularly novel about Zuckerberg, other than the stars all aligned on a few mundane conditions.
KaiserPro 5y ago
> He's deeply immoral, and continues to do what Facebook does for power and money. I don't seem him wielding power. Its not like he's managed to convince half the population of a country that they should really abstain from something for shits a giggles. I'd go further and say that facebook it's self has surprisingly little power to shape the opinions of its users. There are powerful actors that use facebook as a medium for broadcast, but not facebook it's self. > Ethically, however, Zuckerberg seems to be on the level of murderous dictators, or human traffickers I think this is hyperbole. I don't like the man, and I think he is morally naive. But to compare him to a dictator fundamentally undermines just how bad dictators are. Take for example a human trafficker. They procure girls by lying to them. They know they are lying to the girls. They then deliver them to people who they know are going to force them to be raped. The trafficker does not take any steps to mitigate the outcome. Yes, facebook facilitated a massacre in burma. That is, to say the least, bad. But did facebook actively collude with the perpetrators? was facebook run by members of the militia that carried out these terrible acts (I'm asking you to compare and contrast to Rwanda) have they tried, all be it not very effectively to mitigate that risk? yes. In short, I dislike facebook. I think there are practical steps that would make things better for people. However I think people ascribe far to much agency to them. After all, how the fuck do you effectively police 2.4 billion people? Facebook is a mirror to society. The sooner we recognize that, the better.
- ACS_Solver 5y ago
  > I don't seem him wielding power. Its not like he's managed to convince half the population of a country that they should really abstain from something for shits a giggles. I'd go further and say that facebook it's self has surprisingly little power to shape the opinions of its users. There are powerful actors that use facebook as a medium for broadcast, but not facebook it's self. Zuckerberg is meeting top political leaders of his own country, and sometimes others, and negotiating with them, FB is basically treated like a country-sized negotiating entity. That's certainly has to feel like a power trip, very few people have the type of access Zuckerberg has. And as for his power internally, as CEO and majority voter, anything major FB does is ultimately a decision by Zuckerberg, so that's his power. That includes things like how Facebook's algorithms are shaped, if they're prioritizing exposure, clicks and addicting users with dopamine hits, that's ultimately his responsibility. > I think this is hyperbole. I don't like the man, and I think he is morally naive. But to compare him to a dictator fundamentally undermines just how bad dictators are. > Take for example a human trafficker. They procure girls by lying to them. They know they are lying to the girls. They then deliver them to people who they know are going to force them to be raped. The trafficker does not take any steps to mitigate the outcome. I'm really not making the comparison lightly, but I think Zuckerberg is on the same level. He's procuring user data (and attention), and he does that by tricking users into maximizing their engagement with the platform, which includes feeding some of them an endless stream of harmful misinformation, or carefully designing an addiction loop for teenage girls on Instagram, or some of the other things that platform does. Then FB delivers the product (data) in full knowledge that the process of acquiring this product has seriously hurt people. I cannot know what Zuckerberg is thinking, of course, but don't believe him naive. He might have been at first, but I'm sure he has long understood exactly what is happening, and what FB does, he just doesn't care about the people. There are certain sadistic dictators or warlords who specifically enjoy hurting people on an individual level, but for most of them it's just utter disregard for human well-being. They may not wake up in the morning excited to jail and torture a hundred random people, but they see nothing wrong with that happening as part of their effort to preserve and increase their own power and wealth. This is where I believe Zuckerberg to be the same. Does he actually enjoy genocide in Burma, or convincing millions that vaccines are evil, or driving some teen to suicide over body issues? I'm certain he doesn't. But do those things bother him? I don't think so, I imagine it's an absolute non-issue for him. So my stance is that Facebook is beyond the typical corporate greed level of evil, and cannot be reformed or improved because it's all an extension of a one particularly immoral person seeking to maximize wealth and power at any cost, without any consideration for improving the world or minimizing harm, except what's necessary for PR.
qedlab 5y ago
He is accountable to people. Those people just happen to be shareholders. And if the stock price continues to increase then what's the incentive for shareholders to ask for more accountability. All the bad news and publicity without the de-investing means that it is ultimately good news (from a shareholder perspective), thus no financial action.
- nerdkid93 5y ago
  Zuckerberg is a minority shareholder in Facebook with majority control due to dual-class Founder's shares he possesses. The only person he's accountable to is himself.
zentropia 5y ago
I suspect something more complicated. Zuckerberg doesn't want to loose users so they give users what they want. Any social networks has to compite against other social networks so they go for users engagement and profit first.
tim333 5y ago
>deeply immoral, and continues to do what Facebook does for power and money I have to say in interviews he doesn't really come over that way

malloreon 5y ago

45,000 fb employees choose every day to work for him. The responsibility for what fb is is just as much theirs. If they didn’t agree with fb’s actions they’d leave.

sgt 5y ago

That's a bit far fetched. Comparing Zuckerberg to dictators and slave traders? He could be on HN.

Biganon 5y ago
And? Are you worried he might be sad?
i_haz_rabies 5y ago
Not that I (fully) agree with the comparison, but I truly hope he's on HN, reads this and feels bad.

joconde 5y ago

> an organization that is more powerful than the majority of the world's countries. Zuckerberg controls the platform that is the primary means of communication for hundreds of millions of people, and in terms of power he's almost on the level of G7 leaders, just not accountable to anyone. Let's add a header to Facebook's homepage insulting some country's leader, and see how fast they get beaten into removing it by a court. The guy heads a communication company. This is nothing close to the power of a national government. A lone US senator might have less influence, but the president of any country has more authority than MZ, except maybe over Facebook, depending on how protective that country's law is.

michaelt 5y ago
> the president of any country has more authority than MZ, except maybe over Facebook Well, it depends how you measure. Joe Biden has the power to start wars, to pardon people for US crimes, to have anyone disappeared and tortured indefinitely - but he doesn't have the power to create a database listing all American citizens, let alone the citizens of foreign countries.
- quakeguy 5y ago
  I‘d assume he doesn’t need to create those DBs, Facebook shares them with all agencies.
- TchoBeer 5y ago
  Does he not have that power, or does he not have the ability? Imo I think he has both.
  - thrashh 5y ago
    It’s soft power vs. hard power. Everyone has an amount of measurable soft power and a measurable amount of hard power in different spheres. Soft power is how much everyone wants to agree with you, while hard power is how much everyone has to agree to you. Think of it as respect vs. on paper. To lead effectively, you need both. It’s rare that leaders have both. Biden does not have the soft power to do such a thing. Soft power vs hard power also is a part of every relationship, even with your grandma or friend.

ballenf 5y ago

The combination of amorality, intelligence and power are enough to let anyone turn into that. I don't think there's anything particularly novel about Zuckerberg, other than the stars all aligned on a few mundane conditions.

KaiserPro 5y ago

> He's deeply immoral, and continues to do what Facebook does for power and money. I don't seem him wielding power. Its not like he's managed to convince half the population of a country that they should really abstain from something for shits a giggles. I'd go further and say that facebook it's self has surprisingly little power to shape the opinions of its users. There are powerful actors that use facebook as a medium for broadcast, but not facebook it's self. > Ethically, however, Zuckerberg seems to be on the level of murderous dictators, or human traffickers I think this is hyperbole. I don't like the man, and I think he is morally naive. But to compare him to a dictator fundamentally undermines just how bad dictators are. Take for example a human trafficker. They procure girls by lying to them. They know they are lying to the girls. They then deliver them to people who they know are going to force them to be raped. The trafficker does not take any steps to mitigate the outcome. Yes, facebook facilitated a massacre in burma. That is, to say the least, bad. But did facebook actively collude with the perpetrators? was facebook run by members of the militia that carried out these terrible acts (I'm asking you to compare and contrast to Rwanda) have they tried, all be it not very effectively to mitigate that risk? yes. In short, I dislike facebook. I think there are practical steps that would make things better for people. However I think people ascribe far to much agency to them. After all, how the fuck do you effectively police 2.4 billion people? Facebook is a mirror to society. The sooner we recognize that, the better.

ACS_Solver 5y ago
> I don't seem him wielding power. Its not like he's managed to convince half the population of a country that they should really abstain from something for shits a giggles. I'd go further and say that facebook it's self has surprisingly little power to shape the opinions of its users. There are powerful actors that use facebook as a medium for broadcast, but not facebook it's self. Zuckerberg is meeting top political leaders of his own country, and sometimes others, and negotiating with them, FB is basically treated like a country-sized negotiating entity. That's certainly has to feel like a power trip, very few people have the type of access Zuckerberg has. And as for his power internally, as CEO and majority voter, anything major FB does is ultimately a decision by Zuckerberg, so that's his power. That includes things like how Facebook's algorithms are shaped, if they're prioritizing exposure, clicks and addicting users with dopamine hits, that's ultimately his responsibility. > I think this is hyperbole. I don't like the man, and I think he is morally naive. But to compare him to a dictator fundamentally undermines just how bad dictators are. > Take for example a human trafficker. They procure girls by lying to them. They know they are lying to the girls. They then deliver them to people who they know are going to force them to be raped. The trafficker does not take any steps to mitigate the outcome. I'm really not making the comparison lightly, but I think Zuckerberg is on the same level. He's procuring user data (and attention), and he does that by tricking users into maximizing their engagement with the platform, which includes feeding some of them an endless stream of harmful misinformation, or carefully designing an addiction loop for teenage girls on Instagram, or some of the other things that platform does. Then FB delivers the product (data) in full knowledge that the process of acquiring this product has seriously hurt people. I cannot know what Zuckerberg is thinking, of course, but don't believe him naive. He might have been at first, but I'm sure he has long understood exactly what is happening, and what FB does, he just doesn't care about the people. There are certain sadistic dictators or warlords who specifically enjoy hurting people on an individual level, but for most of them it's just utter disregard for human well-being. They may not wake up in the morning excited to jail and torture a hundred random people, but they see nothing wrong with that happening as part of their effort to preserve and increase their own power and wealth. This is where I believe Zuckerberg to be the same. Does he actually enjoy genocide in Burma, or convincing millions that vaccines are evil, or driving some teen to suicide over body issues? I'm certain he doesn't. But do those things bother him? I don't think so, I imagine it's an absolute non-issue for him. So my stance is that Facebook is beyond the typical corporate greed level of evil, and cannot be reformed or improved because it's all an extension of a one particularly immoral person seeking to maximize wealth and power at any cost, without any consideration for improving the world or minimizing harm, except what's necessary for PR.

qedlab 5y ago

He is accountable to people. Those people just happen to be shareholders. And if the stock price continues to increase then what's the incentive for shareholders to ask for more accountability. All the bad news and publicity without the de-investing means that it is ultimately good news (from a shareholder perspective), thus no financial action.

nerdkid93 5y ago
Zuckerberg is a minority shareholder in Facebook with majority control due to dual-class Founder's shares he possesses. The only person he's accountable to is himself.

zentropia 5y ago

I suspect something more complicated. Zuckerberg doesn't want to loose users so they give users what they want. Any social networks has to compite against other social networks so they go for users engagement and profit first.

tim333 5y ago

>deeply immoral, and continues to do what Facebook does for power and money I have to say in interviews he doesn't really come over that way