Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg on the next 10 years of Facebook

theverge.com

111–120 of 124 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on the next 10 years of Facebook

#111
post #5

On Free Basics: "We’ve learned a lot about how we need to interact with governments and the political system and regulators, and build support in order to have these things work. And I think we’ll take those lessons forward on the future work we’re doing in Free Basics, which by the way is continuing to roll out around the world. One day, once we’ve shown that it’s a successful program around the world, I hope that w…

I wish people understood you just can't go into a foreign country and do whatever the hell you want. I think it comes down to how one measures progress. Sometimes you have to work with corrupt governments and monopolies because the alternative is really null. I'd much rather give a lot of people access to basic services than no access at all--in fact, one hypothesis is that people will eventually be able to afford st…

I think the MNCs (multi-national corporations), particularly the tech MNC's, don't give a shit about countries. And why should they? The cyberspace domain doesn't consider things like borders or nationalities first-class citizens. They're just trivia.

On the internet, everyone is a few milliseconds away.

The awkward part is that most of the development of internet-based tech is happening in the West, so when it's offered to the world it looks an awful lot like Western governments intruding, since the MNC's default is their home country's laws.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on the next 10 years of Facebook

#112
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does that make you sad

Cause it's just a tool. A tool that promotes laziness in communication and personal contact. All for the low low cost of all your privacy so they can sell you to whoever. It's a convenient tool though

The point of tools is literally to enable laziness. Feel free to go back to the telegraph if you really want to work harder.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on the next 10 years of Facebook

#113
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your claim of "no value" is clearly wrong. A consumer internet company cannot be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, have billions of users, and add "no value".

define value. establish how FB provides value according to your definition. social habits and popularity alone are not sufficient to establish value. remember, we're talking about value for FB users, not value for FB customers (i.e. advertisers).

Yeah they are. Social habits and popularity are inherently valuable. Another way to say the same thing would be "what do people spend their attention on." If you capture and/or channel their attention, that's valuable.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on the next 10 years of Facebook

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook sure adds value. It connects people. Friendships, marriages, partnerships, businesses, and more exist because of facebook. I am not a user but the value it provides is real. Otherwise people would not use it (Google+).

so did myspace, so did AOL. it is just an re-implementation of existing ideas and products. Nothing it offers is new or anything we haven't had for decades. Sure, a lot of people use it NOW but that will change just like it did for myspace, AOL, and plenty of other platforms. And those marriages/partnerships/business/etc don't exist BECAUSE of facebook, they exist because people started them and now they USE facebook…

I think the key part is "if facebook disappeared and was replaced by another tool." The important part is how many people are in the SAME tool. The value to the user of a network depends on how many other people are in that network. The same number of people, split up into different networks, wouldn't be a linear decrease in value, it would be an exponential decrease in value.

Maybe the fact that reality is clearly contradicting your intuition about value is important? 1 Billion-ish people find Facebook valuable. You disagreeing with them just makes you wrong, or maybe lacking in empathy. I didn't understand the value in ridesharing. I still think it shouldn't be nearly as popular as it is. But that's me not understanding reality; it isn't reality being wrong.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on the next 10 years of Facebook

#115
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I knew that would be response, but a tiny handful of token free sites don't help. It's either the internet or it isn't. And guess what: it's not. 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.

I'm not sure how you'd propose to stop them from trying. They're offering a service. People will accept or reject that service based on the costs and benefits.

Can you think of a way to provide internet to everyone in the world that wouldn't involve a powerful entity who's intentions worry you? Maybe distributing mesh networking tech? Well, that would have to be developed, manufactured, and distributed, AND maintained. Who's going to do that? A charity? A consortium of charities?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on the next 10 years of Facebook

#116
post #87

Of all the household name tech leaders (Brin, Bezos, Musk, Jobs, etc), Zuckerberg really does strike me as the least substantial and most likely to be inauthentic. Obviously this is just a personal opinion but Facebook seems so laughably inconsequential compared to all of the companies that have made these other founders rich and famous. Apple invents incredible stuff. Google has organized the world's information in…

You're underestimating how highly people value their own vanity. All Narcissus needed was a puddle.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on the next 10 years of Facebook

#117
post #11
post #6

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.

Google wants to organize the world's information. Elon wants to go to Mars, reduce carbon emissions, save lives and increase efficiency with self-driving cars. Zuckerberg wants more users and for us to sit in VR pods like zombies.

Wait, so, Google controlling your access to information on the internet via "the front page" doesn't bother you. Facebook controlling your access to information inside of a website you have to visit and log in to, does bother you.

Google has 7 products with 1 billion users, as explained in this article titled "Google has 7 products with 1 billion users." http://www.popsci.com/google-has-7-products-with-1-billion-u...

You realize that "organize the world's information" translates into "control the world's information", right? Just like "provide internet to everyone" translates into "control everyone's internet."

Google wants you to keep coming back so it can sell advertising. Facebook want's you to stay so it can sell advertising. Musk wants your eyes free to watch advertising while the car drives itself. Advertising wins every time.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on the next 10 years of Facebook

#118
post #55
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's running it at a loss with money from other ventures so that when he works it out he is the person you have to go to. There is no altruism here, he's trying to create an industry where he would be the monopoly.

That makes little sense. There's no vendor lock-in and SpaceX has no inherent advantage over its competitors, just a greater willingness to push ahead, try new things, and relentlessly streamline. The moment one of the incumbents decides to start imitating them, or some other billionaire with an interest in space ( Bezos ) starts their own version, they'll have competition again, if competition even went away in the…

For what it's worth, I honestly think Musk is just a geek who got lucky enough to be able to pay everyone else to build his toys. I don't think he saw SpaceX as an investment I think he saw it as crazy fun. If it hadn't worked out he would have gone on to build another valuable startup, since he already had a track record at that point. It just happened to work.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on the next 10 years of Facebook

#119
post #32
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so different. Zuckerberg simply came out and said 'I want your money.' whereas Musk left it as subtext. You just buy the veneer over Musk's pitch. Musk wants to change the world ... by selling you the products to do so.

Musk wants to change the world directly by providing products designed to be world-changing. Zuckerberg hopes he can change the world through the side-effects of a product designed for advertisers to sell stuff.

To be fair, Facebook was an idea that caught on, and advertising was all they could come up with to keep the lights on.

I mean, I can't think of anything else they could do for revenue.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on the next 10 years of Facebook

#120
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet you think Zuck is in it for more money?

No, I don't know what Zuck is in it for. I just don't like what he does, nor the way he does it, regardless of what his intent is.

Didn't he put like 99% of his wealth into a charitable trust or something?

Maybe he doesn't have much of an intention. Maybe he's just sitting on top of a rocket ship and looking around and going "okay, what now?"

Post reply on HN