Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 267 posts

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#51

Post by mattmanser »

Barjak wrote: post #43

Am I alone in thinking this isn't heresy? A country or federal state is just a company with a monopoly over law in a certain geographical region. Facebook's "monopoly" is at least subject to the whim of the market, as the Delete Facebook campaign shows. Look at last week. The senate was on their high-horse, admonishing facebook for privacy infringements, totally unaware of the irony they are an appendage of the same…

It does all the people who fought, died, campaigned and worked to institute democracies over dictatorships or feudal lords a great dis-service to tout this drivel.

You want to make the NSA an election issue? You can go campaign on it. Setup a party, gather people to your cause. Vote.

You can't do anything even remotely similar to influence google or facebook.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#53

Post by parthdesai »

Semirhage wrote: post #47
parthdesai wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, i really don't like fb's practices as much as the next guy here ( you can check my history if you want to) but are you really going to hold someone accountable for something they said when they were 19-21?

Yes. You can be tried as an adult, go to war, vote, and drink, marry, have children, and so on. You’re an adult, and fully accountable.

Sure, but majority of us have done and said stupid things back when we were in Uni. Doesn't mean a person hasn't matured/changed since then.

Also, you are reaching if you are equating getting tried as an adult to someone labelling users as dumb-fucks.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#54

Post by eli_gottlieb »

wybiral wrote: post #17
ashleyn wrote: post #4

The rise of nationalist populism, although something I still disagree quite contentiously with, really begins making more sense when opinions like this start leaking out.

It goes counter to the idea of a globally connected internet though. Without a degree of oppression of free speech you can't stop the flow of culture and ideas no matter how big of a wall you build.

As it turns out, the actual effect of a "globally connected internet" was to make it easier for the Russian state to exploit its own underemployed citizens to pretend to be Texans and stoke racial tensions in Texas.

Meaningful human connection requires some amount of basic honesty.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#55

Post by bhauer »

Barjak wrote: post #43

Am I alone in thinking this isn't heresy? A country or federal state is just a company with a monopoly over law in a certain geographical region. Facebook's "monopoly" is at least subject to the whim of the market, as the Delete Facebook campaign shows. Look at last week. The senate was on their high-horse, admonishing facebook for privacy infringements, totally unaware of the irony they are an appendage of the same…

Agreed. I am no fan of Zuckerberg and do not use Facebook, but this seems like a non-issue from my point of view.

Perhaps it would have been more palatable if phrased as "People over countries," which is a maxim I may myself use to make a saccharin vision statement. The point is voluntary exchange over the involuntary constraints one endures as part of a country.

From there, evolving to "Market over countries" is also satisfying to me although probably a bit disarming to others. And then another hop takes you to the "Companies over countries" of Zuckerberg. That's not a vision statement I would use, because I have no particular love for companies outside of what they can do for me. But taken simply on absolute measures, I still favor the freedom I enjoy when interacting with companies versus even the most free of countries. In all but the most extreme cases (usually those involving government-provided monopolies) I can disassociate myself with a company with little effort.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#56

Post by poof131 »

ashleyn wrote: post #4

The rise of nationalist populism, although something I still disagree quite contentiously with, really begins making more sense when opinions like this start leaking out.

The problem is how those words have been coopted. While “nationalism” can be associated with nation state horrors of the twentieth century, the true alternative hasn’t really been been examined. The ideal is a global community, but the reality is much more a drift back into tribalism (i.e. company over country, or I and my Brother against my Cousin [1]). Tribalism is apparent in the growing intensity of intra-nation political conflict. Nationalism was an advance despite its flaws. Certainly the right kind of globalism would be best but we don’t seem to be there yet.

And populism can be defined as “support for the concerns of ordinary people”. [2] Is this a bad thing? Would we prefer our politics be for the rich or for the companies? Populism too has an association with reactionary movements, but what is the alternative? A platonic corporate king to rule us all? Democracy is inherently populist. It is ugly. But it is better than all other forms of governance. It feels in general that we “ordinary people” are being divided by those who favor companies over countries and in reality favor their own power and wealth over sharing power with others. Nationalist populism seems a better alternative than corporate oligarchy.

[1] https://eppc.org/publications/i-and-my-brother-against-my-co...

[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=populism

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#57

Post by throwaway84742 »

bertil wrote: post #31
throwaway84742 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just “early”. If you talk to FB employees they do really seem to believe they’re “changing the world”, and that their product is a gift to mankind rather than an abomination.

What makes you think that Facebook is an abomination?

Umm, let’s see here. A service that hacks the dopamine cycle of hoi polloi to peddle ads, gossip, manufactured outrage and fake news in one direction, and personal information in the other. Is this enough, or should I provide more reasons?

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#58

Post by rootlocus »

Wurlitzer wrote: post #50
Barjak wrote: post #43

Am I alone in thinking this isn't heresy? A country or federal state is just a company with a monopoly over law in a certain geographical region. Facebook's "monopoly" is at least subject to the whim of the market, as the Delete Facebook campaign shows. Look at last week. The senate was on their high-horse, admonishing facebook for privacy infringements, totally unaware of the irony they are an appendage of the same…

I didn't vote for Zuckerberg.

People who use facebook daily do though.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#59

Post by pfortuny »

Barjak wrote: post #43

Am I alone in thinking this isn't heresy? A country or federal state is just a company with a monopoly over law in a certain geographical region. Facebook's "monopoly" is at least subject to the whim of the market, as the Delete Facebook campaign shows. Look at last week. The senate was on their high-horse, admonishing facebook for privacy infringements, totally unaware of the irony they are an appendage of the same…

As of today and the West, countries as we understand them are the basis of the rule of law. Companies have no independent justice system.

Despite their shortcomings I back countries...

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#60

Post by entropyneur »

Barjak wrote: post #43

Am I alone in thinking this isn't heresy? A country or federal state is just a company with a monopoly over law in a certain geographical region. Facebook's "monopoly" is at least subject to the whim of the market, as the Delete Facebook campaign shows. Look at last week. The senate was on their high-horse, admonishing facebook for privacy infringements, totally unaware of the irony they are an appendage of the same…

> Why are we more worried about a voluntary and foreseeable risk than an involuntary rights violation?

Cognitive dissonance would be my guess. Admitting to ourselves how helpless we are against the actual powers of this world is too uncomfortable. Much easier is to demand "democratic oversight" over the management of some nonsense-sharing app that you could have simply never used in the first place. Because hey, you might even get it.

Post reply on HN