61–70 of 124 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I want them to, I don't know why they should. What's in it for them?
It'll make the world a better place. Normally that would be a bad argument, but for someone who has pledged 99% of his wealth to charity it might actually be on point.
Something about Zuck just seems inauthentic and robotic. Maybe the style of writing makes it sound like a sponsored PR piece, or maybe it's the incessant corporate speak. I suspect the reality is Zuck is a strong CEO and weak innovator. Facebook is established and boring, and now all that's left is to entrench the world with proprietary Zuckernet. I strongly suspect Zuck will become the characterized depiction of the…
The fact that they apparently share the same edifice and orifice is a reasonable source of confusion, but nobody should be under the illusion that "Mark Zuckerberg" and Mark Zuckerberg are the same thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm curious what others think about the vision for a more-connected world. I don't know about anyone else, but giving people Facebook-only service and calling it pretending that's the same as full internet access is not my idea of "more connected". Free or not, that's an insane level of lock-in.
It's not a Facebook only service, includes Google, Wikipedia, etc. and is sponsored by a consortium of companies. One bizarre consequence of zero rating limitations is that in Angola people started attaching pirated content to Wikipedia articles to create free filesharing. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikipedia-zero-facebook-fre...
It's impossible to overstate just how bad it would be to allow Facebook to define what is and isn't "the internet" for billions of people. I'm continuously stunned that anyone would defend their efforts in this area.
The contrast to Elon Musk's plan is so striking. Musk is trying to fix global climate change, avoid the 1 million+ yearly traffic deaths and secure the future of the human race in case there is a planetary-size disaster. Zuck just wants more more users, "engagement" and in the end - opportunities for monetization.
Mr Musk wasn't known for wanting to save humanity in that phase of his life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the problem with Mark lies in the fact that to many of us he hasn’t build anything substantial. Sure, from a technical point of view Facebook is spectacular. Other than that it’s a boring place adding no value whatsoever to the Internet. There’s nothing innovative about it. He’s isn’t solving any kind of problem. Compared to other giants of our industry he seems dull and irrelevant. And so does his vision.
Facebook adds "no value whatsoever"? One billion people every day would disagree with you. Facebook is the primary method that billions of people across the world use to stay in touch with family and friends. It's one of the most important pieces of my life and something I come back to almost every single day. And no, I've never worked there nor will I ever. I don't own a single share of FB stock. I'm just a user who…
2. you don't know what the primary method billions of people use is. you're presuming and projecting. your own life and habits is not the life and habits of others.
3. it doesn't matter if your have a financial or material interest or not. this is a non-argument.
If he actually going to deliver "Internet access" with those drones, or is this another one of his shenanigans trying to force-feed people Facebook as the "Internet" in poor countries?
Not sure why you were downvoted. I think for the average, uneducated internet consumer facebook is kind of becoming a one-stop shop.
I'm not entirely convinced FB will exist in any significant form in 10 years.
Why do you think that? I'm trying hard to think of something that would make it go the way of Friendster.
1. How to backup your Facebook content and delete your account.
2. How to use non-Facebook services to share photos, organize events and talk to friends.
3. How to open an online trading account and purchase PUT options against FB.
In my delusion of grandeur I imagined this site going viral with the idea that if a critical mass of users decided to follow through on those steps then Facebook's network effect and user base would crumble and their stock price would plummet.
All that lost stock value would flow directly into the hands of the users that went through step 3... a legitimate capitalistic redistribution of wealth and a new opportunity for the world to define social networking is done.
I still kind of have stars in my eyes when I talk about it.
Something about Zuck just seems inauthentic and robotic. Maybe the style of writing makes it sound like a sponsored PR piece, or maybe it's the incessant corporate speak. I suspect the reality is Zuck is a strong CEO and weak innovator. Facebook is established and boring, and now all that's left is to entrench the world with proprietary Zuckernet. I strongly suspect Zuck will become the characterized depiction of the…
I thought there were some smaller positive changes in him after his daughter was born. Time will tell what kind of a world he wants his daughter (and future children) to live in and what he would like to be known for.
Something about Zuck just seems inauthentic and robotic. Maybe the style of writing makes it sound like a sponsored PR piece, or maybe it's the incessant corporate speak. I suspect the reality is Zuck is a strong CEO and weak innovator. Facebook is established and boring, and now all that's left is to entrench the world with proprietary Zuckernet. I strongly suspect Zuck will become the characterized depiction of the…
> Maybe the style of writing makes it sound like a sponsored PR piece I wouldn't be surprised if everything he writes went through 10 layers of PR and lawyer approval and departments making sure that it absolutely certainly doesn't offend anyone, cause any potential for lawsuits, doesn't divulge off-brand information, or hints at things that haven't been approved by the rest of the company. "Corporate speak" is short…