3 ms·

> I think that’s one of the reasons why we talk about why do entrepreneurial innovative people want to work in tech? Well, because you can actually work in the

> I think that’s one of the reasons why we talk about why do entrepreneurial innovative people want to work in tech? Well, because you can actually work in the virtual world. You don’t have to deal with all the real world regulations and gunk and political problems and all those sorts of things, and it’s very attractive because you can just build. That does not reflect any reality. If there was no need to care for regulation, guess what - facebook would not be under fire. Google wouldn’t be regulated left and right. There would be no GDPR, there would be no cookie consent. I have nearly stopped paying attention after that sentence. Frankly, maybe that point is placed strategically in the overall writing because the most interesting question comes later: > Is there a worry that Facebook is a liability for this future you want to build? > MZ: Are you talking about the app Facebook? > You can interpret that any way you want to. Well, that’s a disappointing frame to the original question.

spiderice 5y ago
> facebook would not be under fire And how long has it taken for them to come under any sort of real fire? 15 years? Compare that to any company that creates a physical product. They’re highly regulated from day 1.
- rad_gruchalski 5y ago
  Sure. But let’s not gloss over the point that companies like Facebook prompted regulators to actually regulate this space. Once the process started, it goes fast. It is like aerospace or automotive. There were barely any regulations in 1950s…
vineyardmike 5y ago
> Google wouldn’t be regulated left and right. There would be no GDPR, there would be no cookie consent. Google is barely regulated. Especially in america. > There would be no GDPR, there would be no cookie consent. I wish! those cookie consent prompts are annoying.
- rad_gruchalski 5y ago
  USA is an outlier. The point stands: online businesses get regulated regardless of how weak my original examples are selected. Uber, anyone?
  - InitialLastName 5y ago
    Uber, a taxi company that exists exclusively and explicitly to circumvent regulations around taxis (see also: AirBNB) is in a different situation relative to expected regulation than Google or Facebook (for whom essentially no applicable regulation existed when they were created). Having the loophole whose exploitation is your business model get ever-so-slightly tightened is distinctly different than having lawmakers show up 10 years late to the realization that your business model has the potential to exacerbate societally self-destructive behavior (and I'm registering my bet now that neither Meta nor Alphabet will face any meaningful regulation).
    - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
      As I said in another comment: it is like aerospace or automotive. There were barely any regulations in 1950s. Regulators take time to catch up. But they do. Re Google: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google. The whole switch to Alphabet isa direct result of anti-trust and the risk of forced split. Safe harbor and GDPR are direct effects of regulation. The fact that Google is sending me emails with info about third parties they share my data with is a direct effect of regulation. Google News was on the news pretty often over the years. Reasonably, digital business can’t anymore be done without worrying about regulation.
    - ImprovedSilence 5y ago
      If you think Uber sucks for society, you should have seen taxis before Uber was a thing, my god what a nightmare. I’m willing to bet Uber has saved 10s of thousands of lives from drunk driving accidents alone solely because they made getting a ride effortless.
btmiller 5y ago
I was really disappointed/anxious/upset over Zuckerberg's response to the liability question. As the CEO, how does he not immediately understand the intent behind the question? This is Facebook's most pressing current issue and he chose to stick his head in the sand and pretend that a VR vision and rebrand will whisk the problems away? Or I guess here's the reality of it: Zuckerberg, I can only assume intentionally, has seemed to master the art of slipping his way out of tough questions non-stop. He lies to governments, he lies to users, he lies to advertisers, he lies to tech journalists; all behind the vail of a vague notion of where Facebook's perceived* value is. I have never, ever seen him get pinned down - this is not a compliment, he deserves to face real and tough criticism (regulation too), but I can only guess that every audience that's questioned him exists on a scale of ignorant to apathetic (on the apathetic side of the scale, see for instance how Ben ends this interview with a quip on touching base in 10 years; Ben's no dummy, he probably just grew exhausted from Zuckerberg's non-stop slippery, indirect answers. Zuckerberg stuck to his ,,human" script.). * I stopped participating in social media years ago and my quality of life has skyrocketed (I'm here on HN to talk with others in my industry, so I view this as work-related). No one in their right mind can look at their 10-year vision of a metaverse and truly believe that Facebook will be the herald of this new economy.
- oarabbus_ 5y ago
  >He lies to governments, he lies to users, he lies to advertisers, he lies to tech journalists There's essentially no such thing as a CEO that is truthful, but serious question - what are you referring to specifically here, do you have any proof of these claims? Lying to governments (Congress at least) is, typically, a criminal offense. Lying to users and advertisers would result in loss of revenue. Lying to journalists will get you exposed by said journalists upon discovery of the lies.

spiderice 5y ago

> facebook would not be under fire And how long has it taken for them to come under any sort of real fire? 15 years? Compare that to any company that creates a physical product. They’re highly regulated from day 1.

rad_gruchalski 5y ago
Sure. But let’s not gloss over the point that companies like Facebook prompted regulators to actually regulate this space. Once the process started, it goes fast. It is like aerospace or automotive. There were barely any regulations in 1950s…

vineyardmike 5y ago

> Google wouldn’t be regulated left and right. There would be no GDPR, there would be no cookie consent. Google is barely regulated. Especially in america. > There would be no GDPR, there would be no cookie consent. I wish! those cookie consent prompts are annoying.

rad_gruchalski 5y ago
USA is an outlier. The point stands: online businesses get regulated regardless of how weak my original examples are selected. Uber, anyone?
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  Uber, a taxi company that exists exclusively and explicitly to circumvent regulations around taxis (see also: AirBNB) is in a different situation relative to expected regulation than Google or Facebook (for whom essentially no applicable regulation existed when they were created). Having the loophole whose exploitation is your business model get ever-so-slightly tightened is distinctly different than having lawmakers show up 10 years late to the realization that your business model has the potential to exacerbate societally self-destructive behavior (and I'm registering my bet now that neither Meta nor Alphabet will face any meaningful regulation).
  - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
    As I said in another comment: it is like aerospace or automotive. There were barely any regulations in 1950s. Regulators take time to catch up. But they do. Re Google: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google. The whole switch to Alphabet isa direct result of anti-trust and the risk of forced split. Safe harbor and GDPR are direct effects of regulation. The fact that Google is sending me emails with info about third parties they share my data with is a direct effect of regulation. Google News was on the news pretty often over the years. Reasonably, digital business can’t anymore be done without worrying about regulation.
  - ImprovedSilence 5y ago
    If you think Uber sucks for society, you should have seen taxis before Uber was a thing, my god what a nightmare. I’m willing to bet Uber has saved 10s of thousands of lives from drunk driving accidents alone solely because they made getting a ride effortless.

btmiller 5y ago

I was really disappointed/anxious/upset over Zuckerberg's response to the liability question. As the CEO, how does he not immediately understand the intent behind the question? This is Facebook's most pressing current issue and he chose to stick his head in the sand and pretend that a VR vision and rebrand will whisk the problems away? Or I guess here's the reality of it: Zuckerberg, I can only assume intentionally, has seemed to master the art of slipping his way out of tough questions non-stop. He lies to governments, he lies to users, he lies to advertisers, he lies to tech journalists; all behind the vail of a vague notion of where Facebook's perceived* value is. I have never, ever seen him get pinned down - this is not a compliment, he deserves to face real and tough criticism (regulation too), but I can only guess that every audience that's questioned him exists on a scale of ignorant to apathetic (on the apathetic side of the scale, see for instance how Ben ends this interview with a quip on touching base in 10 years; Ben's no dummy, he probably just grew exhausted from Zuckerberg's non-stop slippery, indirect answers. Zuckerberg stuck to his ,,human" script.). * I stopped participating in social media years ago and my quality of life has skyrocketed (I'm here on HN to talk with others in my industry, so I view this as work-related). No one in their right mind can look at their 10-year vision of a metaverse and truly believe that Facebook will be the herald of this new economy.

oarabbus_ 5y ago
>He lies to governments, he lies to users, he lies to advertisers, he lies to tech journalists There's essentially no such thing as a CEO that is truthful, but serious question - what are you referring to specifically here, do you have any proof of these claims? Lying to governments (Congress at least) is, typically, a criminal offense. Lying to users and advertisers would result in loss of revenue. Lying to journalists will get you exposed by said journalists upon discovery of the lies.