4 ms·

I agree. The guy has always thought he's some architect of society and it really rubs me the wrong way.

kmeisthax 2y ago
The paradox of capitalism is that its biggest cheerleaders talk about the virtues of investment and bottom-up organization, while also acting like the top-down bureaucrats they (rightfully) accuse authoritarian communists of being.
- zozbot234 2y ago
  Company CEO's may be top-down bureaucrats, but they don't have power to coerce you. No one is legally required to have a Facebook account, on pain of civil or criminal penalties. And if Facebook becomes less popular with its users, Zuckerberg feels the hit immediately as the value of his stake in the venture drops. Government bureaucrats can have vast powers of coercion at their disposal, and there's no obvious way to replace them if this power is abused. Elections are better than nothing, but they're also slow and imperfect.
  - nunez 2y ago
    There's a difference between hard power, which Facebook doesn't have, and soft power, which Facebook has tons of. No one is legally required to have a Facebook account, but if you want to find out what times businesses are (actually) open and closed, get the latest information about what's happening in your neighborhood or even remain somewhat connected with people, you absolutely need to have an Instagram account and better be fine with using X (hence Musk willing to break the bank to acquire it). In many countries, you must have a WhatsApp account to receive official communications from their governments. In other words, not having a WhatsApp account could be a safety issue.
  - anonym29 2y ago
    The American consumer lacks the discipline needed to boycott products and services that merely harm the consumer, which is amusing considering how effective the American consumer is at boycotting products and services offered by companies with views which offend the consumer.
- lo_zamoyski 2y ago
  It's not an accident. Both big-C capitalism and socialism are the rule of the strong over the weak. They are tyrannical, where "tyranny" means rule for private self-interest instead of the common good. In a society that makes self-interest the highest and only principle of the land, the result will always be that the strong will, out of self-interest, come to dominate and use the weak for private gain. Hierarchy, rather than becoming a structure by which the common good is secured and by which each person can play their part, becomes a structure of domination and exploitation. Socialism is the terminus of individualistic capitalistic error, consummated in the grotesque error of egalitarianism. Your society is effectively made the supreme corporation. We should want subsidiary and solidarity.
- lupire 2y ago
  Capitalists Barons and Authoritarian Communists differ only in the lies they tell the populace.
lo_zamoyski 2y ago
"Architects of society" seems to be a running theme the last 100-200 years. And there is indeed a great deal of hubris in that idea. Thiel is a libertarian (i.e., effectively a classical liberal and then some), and libertarians are individualists who view society as some kind of thing we enter into almost grudgingly and purely for the sake of private self-interest. The notion of the common good is either offensive to them, or understood as something ceded to "society" by individuals with little enthusiasm, but for the sake of some kind of utility or unfortunate necessity. For a libertarian to "architect society" can only mean ordering it in a manner that conforms to libertarian notions, and in practice, this means rule of the powerful for their own self-interest. This is the definition of tyranny. The Soviets, too, wanted to "architect" societies, to remake Man and society in their own image, gladly throwing millions under the crushing wheels of the socialist machine. The similarities between the two are not an accident, because they're not true opposites.
- asveikau 2y ago
  I realized quite early in life, through teenage exposure to libertarianism, that there seemed to be a very high correlation between self professed libertarians and emotional imbalance. This observation has held up pretty well. There is no such thing as independence. It's a delusion. People get wrapped up in the idea that they have merit at the expense of others, and their good fortune should keep them isolated. It doesn't make sense unless you have some weird psychological issues.

The paradox of capitalism is that its biggest cheerleaders talk about the virtues of investment and bottom-up organization, while also acting like the top-down bureaucrats they (rightfully) accuse authoritarian communists of being.

zozbot234 2y ago
Company CEO's may be top-down bureaucrats, but they don't have power to coerce you. No one is legally required to have a Facebook account, on pain of civil or criminal penalties. And if Facebook becomes less popular with its users, Zuckerberg feels the hit immediately as the value of his stake in the venture drops. Government bureaucrats can have vast powers of coercion at their disposal, and there's no obvious way to replace them if this power is abused. Elections are better than nothing, but they're also slow and imperfect.
- nunez 2y ago
  There's a difference between hard power, which Facebook doesn't have, and soft power, which Facebook has tons of. No one is legally required to have a Facebook account, but if you want to find out what times businesses are (actually) open and closed, get the latest information about what's happening in your neighborhood or even remain somewhat connected with people, you absolutely need to have an Instagram account and better be fine with using X (hence Musk willing to break the bank to acquire it). In many countries, you must have a WhatsApp account to receive official communications from their governments. In other words, not having a WhatsApp account could be a safety issue.
- anonym29 2y ago
  The American consumer lacks the discipline needed to boycott products and services that merely harm the consumer, which is amusing considering how effective the American consumer is at boycotting products and services offered by companies with views which offend the consumer.
lo_zamoyski 2y ago
It's not an accident. Both big-C capitalism and socialism are the rule of the strong over the weak. They are tyrannical, where "tyranny" means rule for private self-interest instead of the common good. In a society that makes self-interest the highest and only principle of the land, the result will always be that the strong will, out of self-interest, come to dominate and use the weak for private gain. Hierarchy, rather than becoming a structure by which the common good is secured and by which each person can play their part, becomes a structure of domination and exploitation. Socialism is the terminus of individualistic capitalistic error, consummated in the grotesque error of egalitarianism. Your society is effectively made the supreme corporation. We should want subsidiary and solidarity.
lupire 2y ago
Capitalists Barons and Authoritarian Communists differ only in the lies they tell the populace.

lo_zamoyski 2y ago

"Architects of society" seems to be a running theme the last 100-200 years. And there is indeed a great deal of hubris in that idea. Thiel is a libertarian (i.e., effectively a classical liberal and then some), and libertarians are individualists who view society as some kind of thing we enter into almost grudgingly and purely for the sake of private self-interest. The notion of the common good is either offensive to them, or understood as something ceded to "society" by individuals with little enthusiasm, but for the sake of some kind of utility or unfortunate necessity. For a libertarian to "architect society" can only mean ordering it in a manner that conforms to libertarian notions, and in practice, this means rule of the powerful for their own self-interest. This is the definition of tyranny. The Soviets, too, wanted to "architect" societies, to remake Man and society in their own image, gladly throwing millions under the crushing wheels of the socialist machine. The similarities between the two are not an accident, because they're not true opposites.

asveikau 2y ago
I realized quite early in life, through teenage exposure to libertarianism, that there seemed to be a very high correlation between self professed libertarians and emotional imbalance. This observation has held up pretty well. There is no such thing as independence. It's a delusion. People get wrapped up in the idea that they have merit at the expense of others, and their good fortune should keep them isolated. It doesn't make sense unless you have some weird psychological issues.