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

Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#41

Post by Rapzid »

bertil wrote: post #11
mindgam3 wrote: post #5

Big defector, my ass. He doesn’t even have the cojones to call out his old pal Zuck. McNamee is merely profiting from the techlash to get his name out there. Source: went to see him speak at Stanford. Asked him myself during live Q&A, if Facebook is so evil and must be stopped, why doesn’t he call out Zuck for terrible leadership given that Facebook culture and business practice comes straight from the top? His answe…

> “well, he and I are friends.” Hasn’t Mark said in public that he didn’t remember McNamee, that he was barely invested early on in Facebook and left when they switched business model? (The whole “You know what’s cool, a billion dollars?” and refusing Yahoo!’s offer was actually a big internal shift that ostracised a lot of early employees and investors.)

Imagine all the trouble we would have been spared if Yahoo purchased Facebook and ran it into the ground with the rest of its portfolio.

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#42

Post by AlexCoventry »

mc32 wrote: post #26
majormajor wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems to me like most people support Warren's anti-big-tech stance in principle or they don't much care. Not many outside of the bubble seem to be genuinely opposed to it and it's a quite esoteric argument as to why it would make things worse (maybe a true, valid and legitimate argument, - but not the sort of thing that takes on support organically without a bit of push - can we see that push?). I think the reas…

She’s too much of an ideologue —a bit like Bernie. It’s their way or the highway. So even if Joe is weaker as a candidate he’d be nominated over Warren and Sanders by the party, the people (primary voters) might go with an ideologue. That said, Tulsi is right, most of the party are a bunch of neocons (aside from Sanders and maybe Warren).

What of her policies seem ideologically driven, to you? To me, her policies seem extremely pragmatic.

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#44

Post by AlexCoventry »

Animats wrote: post #38
harry8 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am on the right. Those on the right aren't changing their views on Warren because she discusses big tech. Really they aren't suddenly decicding they don't like her anymore. Besides this the reasons for regulation are pretty damn compelling. Clear cut case of market failure. You cannot take your business elsewhere to deal with the failings of big tech. It is an industry with a long run decreasing average total cost…

Besides this the reasons for regulation are pretty damn compelling. Clear cut case of market failure. You cannot take your business elsewhere to deal with the failings of big tech. It is an industry with a long run decreasing average total cost curve and has network externalities. (Hence why there aren't 27 similar magnitude businesses competing in the Facebook space, for example). That's not market failure, it's nor…

Wal-Mart and McDonald's have plausible competitors. A better example would be cable.

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#45

Post by forgingahead »

Journalists and their corporate bosses are having a moral panic attack about "tech" because BigTech directly competes with them for ad dollars and mass-market influence.

This is nothing more than that -- through that lens, you can understand and predict all that mainstream "journalists" will advocate and push for with regards to tech.

Edit -- the larger panic that is afflicting "journalists" is that BigTech enables the masses to finally speak out. The pushback is against this actual cacophony of voices and opinions, finally set free from the old-school guardians of thought and society.

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#47

Post by wrnr »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #31
greendream17 wrote: post #22

The director of the Manhattan Project Robert Oppenheimer went on a public speaking tour to apologising for his part in creating the atomic bom. It was Von Neumann who cynically remarked that: One cannot apologise for something without also first claiming it as one's own accomplishment. Wether is the atomic bom or Facebook, I am sure they would have existed without their conscientious defectors. There is something muc…

*bomb You may have written about bill of materials enough that BOM is in your autocorrect.

When i do write a bill-of-materials it's less cheap then your point.

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#48

Post by mindgam3 »

retsibsi wrote: post #21
mindgam3 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

April 2019. See link below for context. To your point: being anti-Zuck in public is a transparent ploy for attention if you're not anti-Zuck in private. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/roger-mcnamee-facebook...

What do you mean by 'in private' here? The criticism in your other comment seems to be based on things that he said at a public or at least semi-public event.

In private meaning directly to Zuck, who he claims is his friend. His stated unwillingness to confront Zuck directly means that his entire public narrative is grandstanding at best.

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#49

Post by analyst74 »

jessaustin wrote: post #39
firasd wrote: post #8

His whole deal is about the 2016 election. While it exposed legitimate issues, I suspect a lot of anti-Zuck/'techlash' sentiment will die down if a Dem is elected next year. In fact I suspect even now the Techlash is overstated. Elizabeth Warren spent the month of October going after Zuckerberg and meanwhile lost her front-runner status in the polls. Anti-Big-Tech talking points may be red meat for journalists, but a…

I've been disgusted by Facebook for at least a decade, so McNamee's very late disillusionment seems a bit silly. He sent Zuck a stern email ten days before the election! I also enjoyed this gem: In protest of the Iraq War and other policies during the George W. Bush Administration, he refused to cut his hair. When President Obama was inaugurated, he celebrated with a trip to the barber. Kudos for being right about Ir…

Bush just invaded other countries, Obama not just invaded other countries, he also was bold enough to accept Nobel Peace award for it.

I think Obama is much more bad ass than Bush.

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#50

Post by tempsy »

firasd wrote: post #8

His whole deal is about the 2016 election. While it exposed legitimate issues, I suspect a lot of anti-Zuck/'techlash' sentiment will die down if a Dem is elected next year. In fact I suspect even now the Techlash is overstated. Elizabeth Warren spent the month of October going after Zuckerberg and meanwhile lost her front-runner status in the polls. Anti-Big-Tech talking points may be red meat for journalists, but a…

I'm far more concerned by the mental health impact of social media than whether a politician lied in an ad - I mean in every election cycle you see attack ads on TV all the time that are meant to scare you and generally filled with half-truths. Those are far worse than a sponsored post.
Post reply on HN