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

Mark Zuckerberg Stoked Washington’s Fears About TikTok

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 214 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Stoked Washington’s Fears About TikTok

#151

Post by eddieplan9 »

Aperocky wrote: post #130
colordrops wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are completely mistaken if you think simply complying with local laws will allow you to succeed in the Chinese market.

I don't think that, nor do I think that is true anywhere on this planet.

Parent’s keyword is “allow to succeed”, not “succeed”. I always warn people about false equivalence when it comes to China. The laws and rules in China are not the same concept as laws and rules in the West. There are implicit rules or 潜规则. The rules and laws are only there to make things look legit. There are very few places on earth where you can be forced into citizenship so you can be deprived of consular access and be dealt with using the convenience of Chinese rules and tools[1].

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-sentences-bookseller-gui-...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Stoked Washington’s Fears About TikTok

#152

Post by geofft »

remarkEon wrote: post #122
geofft wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care if China is aghast at American protectionism and xenophobia. I'm aghast, because as an American citizen, I'm interested in fairness and I hate protectionism and xenophobia, and that's what I think America is about. If you're telling me that neither this nation nor any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure, and that we have to fight unfairness with unfairness, you're telling me that my loya…

At the end of the day the gleaming platitudes of Americanism (the stuff about fairness, equality etc) start to bump up against the reality of geopolitics. It's an unfair game, and pretending that China will eventually embrace what could colloquially be referred to as the Western approach to setting up markets like this is naive at best and dangerous at worst. It's not that your loyalty is misplaced, it's that I think…

Sure, so - what does the American approach have to recommend it? Why shouldn't I leave for China, the apparent winning team?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Stoked Washington’s Fears About TikTok

#153

Post by chillacy »

geofft wrote: post #152
remarkEon wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the day the gleaming platitudes of Americanism (the stuff about fairness, equality etc) start to bump up against the reality of geopolitics. It's an unfair game, and pretending that China will eventually embrace what could colloquially be referred to as the Western approach to setting up markets like this is naive at best and dangerous at worst. It's not that your loyalty is misplaced, it's that I think…

Sure, so - what does the American approach have to recommend it? Why shouldn't I leave for China, the apparent winning team?

Not the parent you're responding to but the answer I see is that in the modern understanding of geopolitics (like 19th century and onwards), "fairness" and "values" aren't considerations at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Stoked Washington’s Fears About TikTok

#154

Post by beagle3 »

geofft wrote: post #152
remarkEon wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the day the gleaming platitudes of Americanism (the stuff about fairness, equality etc) start to bump up against the reality of geopolitics. It's an unfair game, and pretending that China will eventually embrace what could colloquially be referred to as the Western approach to setting up markets like this is naive at best and dangerous at worst. It's not that your loyalty is misplaced, it's that I think…

Sure, so - what does the American approach have to recommend it? Why shouldn't I leave for China, the apparent winning team?

By all means, if that’s how you feel, you should explore that possibility.

Fairness, values, work on smaller scales. When you get to city/state/country scale, like Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, China, US do - it’s not a good strategy because your opponents/peers have no alternative but to deal with you, and unless you are going on an all out war, it’s mostly slap and tickle regardless of what you actually do.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Stoked Washington’s Fears About TikTok

#155

Post by tempsy »

holografix wrote: post #81

Reality is that while China blocks Facebook, Google, etc and smartly props up their own clones, it’s “aghast” at the American protectionism and xenophobic behaviour. How dare the Americans block a Chinese app?! China is not a democracy. It’s not interested in fairness. China is playing the long game. Just like the wars of the past were fought with little toy armies of a few thousand knights and noblemen marching into…

What does this have to do with Zuck?

My issue with this story (if it's indeed true) is that the motive for"stoking fears" was entirely self serving and has nothing to do with selflessly advising the government on some blind spot.

If you recall just a few years ago he was speaking at Chinese universities, getting photo ops in front of Tiananmen Square, and even asked Xi to name his unborn baby! He was all in on fawning over China when he thought there was a chance Facebook could "get in" and then took everything back as soon as he realized it was impossible.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Stoked Washington’s Fears About TikTok

#156

Post by [deleted] »

gberger wrote: post #46
Firebrand wrote: post #22

Sort of a Frankenstein’s monster situation Zuckerberg created for himself. He took Bytedance’s money so they could plaster TikTok ads all over Facebook and Instagram back in 2018. TikTok pays its approved creators around $0.035 per 1,000 views. Maybe compete with that.

Couldn't Facebook denying to accept TikTok ads be argued as constituting amticompetitive behaviour?

[deleted]

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Stoked Washington’s Fears About TikTok

#157

Post by beagle3 »

bleepblorp wrote: post #72
MengerSponge wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness, though, the CEO of Facebook hasn't built a better product in almost two decades. Instead, his company's growth has been based on brilliant (and occasionally very shady) acquisitions.

Facebook's public-facing websites are not its product. Rather, the websites are a lure to attract people to be used as feedstock used by Facebook's actual business. Facebook's actual product is its targeted advertising algorithms that advertisers pay handsomely to exploit. Facebook's advertising product has improved massively over the past two decades. Indeed, Facebook's advertising algorithms are so good that Facebo…

Let’s put things in proportion. Facebook took the place of television. Can it be effective in changing people’s minds? Yes, within a the scope of variability that they already have.

Can it turn religious people secular, Democrats into Republicans? Citation needed.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Stoked Washington’s Fears About TikTok

#158

Post by bjo590 »

chmaynard wrote: post #6

Mark Zuckerberg knows that if another platform were sufficiently compelling, his users could turn on a dime (notice I didn't say customers). Zuckerberg is deathly afraid of competition and he is very aggressive about protecting Facebook's stranglehold on the social media advertising market.

> Zuckerberg is deathly afraid of competition and he is very aggressive about protecting Facebook's stranglehold on the social media advertising market.

It is incredibly common behavior for large businesses to raise the barrier of entry for new competitors. Almost every established business does this. It's why patents exist. Mark Zuckerberg doesn't participate in this activity to an abnormal amount.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Stoked Washington’s Fears About TikTok

#159

Post by jessaustin »

throWaythxMod wrote: post #148
tjr225 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, I was just doing this math and thinking that seems pretty awesome. You only get $35,000 but the hardware you need is in your pocket. Of course, you need to be cool and be good at marketing- but still!

I have this exact problem. In my niche, I am the best. Most people post their opinions, but I collect data and do math. It makes the content better than competitors. However I don't have a marketing team, and I'm not a hip hot girl. Don't get me wrong, the website is popular and I've been on BBC, but I can tell my lower quality competitors are doing better.

Well, just look at this post right here: you've intentionally used an anonymous account and omitted any links to your excellent content. I bet your "lower quality competitors" would take the opportunity to link to their crap-ass content. ABC!

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Stoked Washington’s Fears About TikTok

#160

Post by wombatmobile »

bleepblorp wrote: post #72
MengerSponge wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness, though, the CEO of Facebook hasn't built a better product in almost two decades. Instead, his company's growth has been based on brilliant (and occasionally very shady) acquisitions.

Facebook's public-facing websites are not its product. Rather, the websites are a lure to attract people to be used as feedstock used by Facebook's actual business. Facebook's actual product is its targeted advertising algorithms that advertisers pay handsomely to exploit. Facebook's advertising product has improved massively over the past two decades. Indeed, Facebook's advertising algorithms are so good that Facebo…

> What Facebook sells is the ability to control the course of society.

You were more on target when you praised the efficacy of FB's advertising products, bleepblorp. Unfortunately, FB doesn't offer any way to control the course of society except to hasten its decline by overwhelming users with crap.

Neil Postman anticipated this in 1985, when he explained that America had not succumbed to Orwell's dystopian 1984 vision, but rather, had become something more akin to Huxley's Brave New World:

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism.

Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with indulgences, trifles, and vanities."

Post reply on HN