I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter • Hacker News Board

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#161

Post by vanderZwan » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 6:29 PM UTC

pitaj wrote: post #158

eloff wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the analogy is strained. But Facebook wields absolute coercion power inside their platform. Banning posts, pages, accounts, and apps without due process or recourse. My parents run a business on Facebook and they have so many horror stories about the times Facebook has completely held their livelihood hostage. Or cut their revenue 10x with a single algorithm update.

Facebook wields absolute power over the platform, true. They do not coerce anyone by exercising that power, though. Everyone on Facebook is on there voluntarily. People don't get to choose where they are born. Don't get me wrong. I don't use Facebook, and I don't think anyone else should either. I would love if there were a (decentralized) replacement for it, and I think Facebook is on the way out.

> They do not coerce anyone by exercising that power, though.

I think you should elaborate on your definition of coercion here and what does and does not lie within its boundaries.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#162

Post by titzer » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 6:34 PM UTC

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?

Addiction and psychological hacks start to blur the boundary of what is "voluntary." Regardless of that discussion, there is a problem of "reverse herd immunity" where some large fraction of the population is constantly manipulated by a systematically controlled echo chamber run by a corporation that is coopted by, frankly, bad actors. You can opt out all you want, but democracy can be compromised by mass mind control that is now not only technically possible, but clearly in beta.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#163

Post by specializeded » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 6:35 PM UTC

bertil wrote: post #129

craftyguy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think it is a gift to mankind?

It allows me to keep in contact with many of my close friends and my family who live on three continent and more countries than I can count on a daily basis, has helped me find work a dozen times, has provided several companies who I worked for with credible identity, spectacular growth via targeted advertising. I can use Uber, AirBnB and so many more and not fear that the people with whom I share a car or a flat wit…

The moral equivalent of a gish gallop, might want to trim this a bit for an actual reply to come through...

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#164

Post by prolepunk » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 6:45 PM UTC

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…

The problem of participatory democracy is that the people need to be informed and participate and vote for the issues, if no one cares about the surveillance then nothing is going to be done about it, and this is a major problem of the society; nothing is going to be done with facebook policy internally because there is no democratic process inside corporations.

The other issue is -- as I come to grips with it myself, is yes NSA has sweeping and unjust powers, which invade privacy of many, but so far this power has been largely benign, whereas facebook was either complicit or actively participated with the subversion of several western democracies.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#165

Post by Bartweiss » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 6:45 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #79

poof131 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The distinction has to be between exclusive ethno-nationalism and more inclusive forms of civic nationalism. It can't just be for "ordinary people", it has to be for everyone, with a minimum level of rights protected by law. That's how we avoid collapsing back into ethnic cleansing.

> It can't just be for "ordinary people", it has to be for everyone, with a minimum level of rights protected by law.

Nicely put.

Around the Iraq War, I remember some clever cynic pointing out that while we might 'export democracy', it's still democratic for 51% of the people to vote to murder the other 49%. Or perhaps more commonly, to vote for a permanent dictator from the 51%. The fundamental advance of a healthy government isn't (just) democracy, it's a bedrock of inalienable or hard-to-alienate rights.

The recent talk about the 'paradox of liberalism' has been interesting, but it's all felt a bit misguided to me. There's a real question, sure, but the entire fight between "let intolerance go unchecked" and "be intolerant of intolerance" was a false dichotomy. The missing alternative is liberalism within boundaries - setting some threshold of behavior which isn't permitted, and can't be permitted by any minor political swing.

(Arguably what we were having was a debate about where to set those boundaries, but if so I wish we could actually say that.)

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#166

Post by Bartweiss » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 6:49 PM UTC

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #36

sevensor wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardly unique to Facebook though. Isn't it a bit of a Valley cliché to be on a mission to change the world? To ask employees to believe in the company, not just to work there?

> To ask employees to believe in the company, not just to work there? To ask employees to ACT LIKE they believe in the company "My PhD in maths helped me increase click conversion rate by 1%!! #soexcited " ...and then your employees leave after 1 year.

> ...and then your employees leave after 1 year.

No kidding. I have trouble accepting the "Valley are a cult!" rhetoric, because we're talking about faiths where all the acolytes advocate changing cults every 18 months to progress faster.

(Although now that I say it, that could be a great RPG or something - like Paranoia with a Lovecraft setting. Hmm...)

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#167

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 6:53 PM UTC

lovich wrote: post #160

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we have governments watching the interest of the corporations Supplanting institutions with popular will is populism, an ideology that has a habit of bee lining towards authoritarianism. "Corporations" are employers, pension fund holdings, tax payers and instruments of foreign influence. The "people versus corporations" narrative is absurd.

I've seen this view stated several times this week on hackernews. Ive always seen it stated with no evidence. How is it not the people vs the corporations? Take any environmental disaster, BP in the gulf for instance. They cut costs on construction which caused a disaster and ruined the environment and livelihoods for thousands of people. They did this to put more money in their pockets. It's not like they were tryin…

> How is it not the people vs the corporations? Take any environmental disaster, BP in the gulf for instance

I am not pushing back on the underlying debates, just the way they're lumped together. Characterizing BP vs. the people of the Gulf as "corporation versus the people" muddies the water. Small, incorporated fishing companies were hit particularly badly by the spill. Meanwhile, certain private individuals did quite well on the clean-up contracts. It's a uniquely local issue with some federal regulatory touches.

There are deep rifts involved in every issue. Understanding those rifts is a pre-requesite to negotiating them. A good way to neuter a movement is to convince it the "corporations" are the problem. The term is so broad and so vague it's meaningless, and sometimes I suspect that's the point.

> If someone has hurt you before, is openly planning to hurt you again, and openly states they don't see a problem with their actions, you don't have to wait for them to hurt you again before you call it a confrontation

If someone hurts you and instead of confronting them, you call out their whole neighborhood, nothing will happen. The offending individual will blend into the background of people enraged at being pulled into a fight that isn't theirs. That's the problem. If someone hurts you, call them out specifically.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#168

Post by Bartweiss » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 6:57 PM UTC

adamnemecek wrote: post #120

tqi wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree that the comments on threads aren't equivalent, but I have to say that every Musk employee I've known is exceedingly passionate about their company - much moreso than the FB people I've known. More than one has explicitly told me they and the other staff treat Musk as something like a father figure, to the point of being excited and proud whenever they find out he'll visit/tour their division.

Granted, some of that gap is pretty understandable; building rockets is damned inspiring for a lot of people. But I still have the sense that Facebook isn't anywhere near the top of the "religious attitudes" ladder, they just get called out for it because of what their product does.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#169

Post by wiz21c » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 7:00 PM UTC

pitaj wrote: post #158

eloff wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the analogy is strained. But Facebook wields absolute coercion power inside their platform. Banning posts, pages, accounts, and apps without due process or recourse. My parents run a business on Facebook and they have so many horror stories about the times Facebook has completely held their livelihood hostage. Or cut their revenue 10x with a single algorithm update.

Facebook wields absolute power over the platform, true. They do not coerce anyone by exercising that power, though. Everyone on Facebook is on there voluntarily. People don't get to choose where they are born. Don't get me wrong. I don't use Facebook, and I don't think anyone else should either. I would love if there were a (decentralized) replacement for it, and I think Facebook is on the way out.

> They do not coerce anyone by exercising that power, though.

It's muuuuuuuuch worse than that. They actually hire people (20000 if I trust my local media) to actually "clean" facebook. So it means that facebook defines what is socially acceptable and what is not. And, contrary to the law, the definition is not written, not shared. I'd prefer physical coercion (normally attributed to police) any time.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#170

Post by ameister14 » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 7:01 PM UTC

Nav_Panel wrote: post #15

> why should the world trust Facebook or Zuckerberg to shape and manage this new global meta-society? Could Zuckerberg, who wields considerable power over Facebook’s share structure, develop the self-awareness and responsibility to manage it? > it’s time to set real limits on Facebook’s power Makes me wonder: who will be setting those limits, and how can we know they will have the "self-awareness and responsibility"…

The government will, and we won't entirely know but it'll be better than it is right now.