5 ms·

Agreed, though the GP's characterization likely stems from pre-2020 Facebook trying to help solve problems outside of its scope. To quote Zuckerberg: https://t

Agreed, though the GP's characterization likely stems from pre-2020 Facebook trying to help solve problems outside of its scope. To quote Zuckerberg: https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/11/mark-zuckerberg-says-hes-done-apologizing/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/11/mark-zuckerberg-says-hes-d... > But when reflecting on the biggest mistakes of his career, Zuckerberg said his largest one was a “political miscalculation” that he described as a “20-year mistake.” Specifically, he said, he’d taken too much ownership for problems allegedly out of Facebook’s control. “Some of the things they were asserting that we were doing or were responsible for, I don’t actually think we were,” said Zuckerberg. “When it’s a political problem… there are people operating in good faith who are identifying a problem and want something to be fixed, and there are people who are just looking for someone to blame.” TechCrunch then goes on to blame Zuckerberg by insinuation. As someone who dislikes Facebook and Zuckerberg, I think Big Tech is a rather convenient boogeyman for fallout from the 2016 election & beyond.

xorcist 12d ago
There's also the fact that all parties involved benefits from overstating the story. Facebook doesn't hate the reputation that their impact is so powerful as to sway elections. Cambridge Analytica and whatever they turned into has a reference customer like any other. Those who lost the election has an explanation that doesn't involve having to change. Zuckerberg sounds a bit entitled in that interview. Yes, it was a chore having to appear in the senate and all, but he would probably not hesitate to take that same chance again if he could. As they say, all attention is good attention, and that probably goes double if you personally control the biggest social network on the planet.

xorcist 12d ago

There's also the fact that all parties involved benefits from overstating the story. Facebook doesn't hate the reputation that their impact is so powerful as to sway elections. Cambridge Analytica and whatever they turned into has a reference customer like any other. Those who lost the election has an explanation that doesn't involve having to change. Zuckerberg sounds a bit entitled in that interview. Yes, it was a chore having to appear in the senate and all, but he would probably not hesitate to take that same chance again if he could. As they say, all attention is good attention, and that probably goes double if you personally control the biggest social network on the planet.