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

111–120 of 267 posts

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#111

Post by gm-conspiracy »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #108
rememberlenny wrote: post #105

Web platforms are governments. "Facebook is a government. Facebook's users are citizens, and Facebook's applications developers are the private companies that drive much of the economy. Apple. Twitter, Myspace, Craigslist, Foursquare, Tumblr and every other large network of engaged users (including some services of Google) plays a similar role. We have always tacitly acknowledged this. We talk about these networks as…

Except governments should watch the interests of their citizens, not only those of their shareholders.

Yet, we have governments watching the interest of the corporations.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#112

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

ekianjo wrote: post #72
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Not really. In countries with representative government not only does that state have a monopoly on law/force but all people are granted an equal say in the state. The market may be good at some things but w…

> . The market may be good at some things but would you desire a governmental system where the rich having more power than the poor was baked into the system? Most countries around the world are led by the upper class who has large access to capital. Even in democracies power goes to the wealthy, and you dont get to vote for lower class representatives.

>Most countries around the world are led by the upper class who has large access to capital.

Yes and that's bad so we certainly shouldn't expand the power that people with lots of capital have.

>Even in democracies power goes to the wealthy, and you dont get to vote for lower class representatives.

That's not an intrinsic feature of democracies but it is of markets.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#113

Post by gm-conspiracy »

agentultra wrote: post #66
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…

> 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. A nation state is backed by armies, monetary obligations, and the need to co-operate with other nation states in each others' best interests (optimally). In order to protect its citizens and monetary interests and obligations most modern, well-functioning markets are regu…

Giving retroactive telecom immunity is moral and/or ethical?

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#114

Post by ASalazarMX »

gm-conspiracy wrote: post #111
ASalazarMX wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except governments should watch the interests of their citizens, not only those of their shareholders.

Yet, we have governments watching the interest of the corporations.

Sadly, that's why I said "should". Imagine those same governments being actual corporations... maybe your standing as a citizen would be measured by how many shares you own.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#115

Post by vinceguidry »

owebmaster wrote: post #91
vinceguidry wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In order to protect its citizens and monetary interests and obligations most modern, well-functioning markets are regulated by these nation states. It's hard to take this 'protection' seriously in many cases. It's for more often the case where nation-state protection is extended to one company against other companies within the state than it is for one country's industry to be collectively protected against other c…

> Protecting your own company against both the state and other companies is the CEO's mandate. Which usually mean to not care about users, laws, and any sense of moral or ethical standards.

That principle is much, much older than companies and business.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#116

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

nickpp wrote: post #110
prolepunk wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are comparing badly functioning government with businesses functioning as intended. At least there's ability to enforce governmental responsibility through elections and free press. Facebook can be leveraged in no other way then through government regulation, even if you opt out from facebook it still watches you, and good luck even understanding of what's going on if you're not a technical person.

Taking an average over the world, most governments are badly functioning and they've been that way for years if not centuries. Business on the other side, tend to be punished by the markets when misbehaving and then course-correct.

Yes but the point is that what is 'misbehaving' is defined by market norms. 'Misbehaving' is engaging in behavior which decreases profit but it can never help us to escape the question of profit altogether. That's what government is for - when what is good for society and what is good for profit conflict government steps in to correct. The point of markets is that they rely on only individual decisions and what may seem like a rational individual decision to every member of society may lead to an overall outcome that no member of society supports. In those instances we have democratic government to allow us to reach out of the realm of individual and act in a collective self-interest. That in recent years our government has been malfunctioning in a way that suppresses our ability to act this way is not an argument to get rid of democratic governance altogether, it's an argument to bring it back and strengthen it.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#117

Post by wybiral »

jrs95 wrote: post #49
wybiral wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How does respecting national sovereignty rather than letting your government be trampled over by international corporations run counter to a globally connected internet? This sort of attitude might seem like "nationalist populism" now, but it wasn't that long ago that "the left" was on the same page. I still am personally, but there seems to be a disturbing trend where anti-Trump sentiment is being leveraged to promo…

I'm not arguing against populism, more so the nationalist aspect of the "nationalist populism".

Particularly the idea that "diversity is the root of our problems" and "immigration is inherently bad". These ideas seem central to most of the nationalist movements in western society recently.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#118

Post by diegoperini »

rememberlenny wrote: post #105

Web platforms are governments. "Facebook is a government. Facebook's users are citizens, and Facebook's applications developers are the private companies that drive much of the economy. Apple. Twitter, Myspace, Craigslist, Foursquare, Tumblr and every other large network of engaged users (including some services of Google) plays a similar role. We have always tacitly acknowledged this. We talk about these networks as…

This reminds me this talk from GDC by Raph Koster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgw8RLHv1j4

Quite enlightening.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#119

Post by Apocryphon »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #101
prolepunk wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are comparing badly functioning government with businesses functioning as intended. At least there's ability to enforce governmental responsibility through elections and free press. Facebook can be leveraged in no other way then through government regulation, even if you opt out from facebook it still watches you, and good luck even understanding of what's going on if you're not a technical person.

> At least there's ability to enforce governmental responsibility through elections and free press. Yes, for example, voters in the U.S. elect presidential candidates who promise to scale back our military presence overseas, and then it happens! Voters also get what they want when they elect candidates promising to reform Wall Street, make government more transparent, or end the culture of graft & corruption in Washi…

And yet, living under that is preferable to living under a Facebook-governed polity.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#120

Post by adamnemecek »

tqi wrote: post #103
adamnemecek wrote: post #5

I feel like early FB culture had quite a few of the signs of a cult. Like legit, almost religious, cult.

Have you seen the comments on any Elon Musk related post?

I agree with your criticism, however this is slightly different. The difference here is that one is like a promoted company culture, the other one is just like online fanboy hagiography.
Post reply on HN