31–40 of 95 posts
Seems kind of a bit much. I don't know what mark's true beliefs are. For all i know maybe his actions are ernest. I feel we need more than this to subscribe him a coward. Someone doing something you disagree with, or even being straight up evil, is not the same thing as being a coward.
It's incredible, really. I thought the main point of being a billionaire was independence. "Fuck-you money" taken to the extreme. You've "won" society, now do whatever you want. Make things better for humanity by funding novel research. Or sit in a cave and build the best orgasm machine ever. Whatever. I think Larry and Sergey have the right idea, but in very different ways: Larry has completely disappeared to go live on a private island, and Sergey gets to be as weird as he wants and still pops in to work on whatever tech project he finds interesting. I don't think having billionaires who live completely separately is a good thing for society, but those responses at least make sense to me.
Zuckerberg became rich and famous for being a smart guy who didn't do the bullshit that other people wanted him to. Remember "move fast and break things"? And now instead... he (and Musk, but he's probably a true believer; and a number of others, but to lesser extents) want to... kowtow and suck up to a weak, blithering idiot? Profess the value of caveman-tier "masculinity" ideology? Never mind how obviously contradictory it is to believe in both "men should be strong" and "Donald Trump is what we should want in a man" - what is the point? Why is this what he wants to do with his power and wealth?
[flagged]
Does no one remember that in the 2010s, Zuck went around trying to advocate against the calls for censoring "disinformation", arguing free speech shouldn't be regulated by a company? These types of views aren't new for him, they were aggressively suppressed by the press which published thousands of articles calling his ideas anything from "reckless" to "violent."[1][2]
At some point, he gave in, in part because the new administration very much agreed with the media on this (and again, many of Meta's employees). But now he has the political cover to run things the way he actually wants to, which we can see from his public remarks years ago.
So, you can I guess call him a "coward," but it would be misinformed, in my opinion, to claim he's a coward because he's seemingly kowtowing to the Trump people in the changes he's making. On the contrary, if anything he was a being a coward before by not following through on his true convictions!
(fwiw, I don't agree any of this is cowardice. It's extremely difficult to run a company at that scale and try to keep everyone happy, and he's only human at the end of the day. The author simply disagrees with his currently expressed opinions. If he agreed, she might be calling him a hero, though probably not. I also think laying the NIH stuff at his feet is a huge non-sequitor. Zuck has nothing to do with any of that, idk what she's expecting he's supposed to do about it?)
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/18/mark-zuckerberg-georgetown-s... [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=mark+zuckerberg+tour+talking...
> This man is a coward. This man is a CEO. If you mistook him as something else then you simply fell victim to clever marketing. (See: Elon Musk) > Power corrupts, but cowardice corrupts more completely. What are they cowarding from? Could it not be power itself? Perhaps your analysis is too focused on the object of your anger and has devolved into printed bile. As a result it lacks any forward value.
I don't understand. CEOs cannot be considered cowards?
Seems kind of a bit much. I don't know what mark's true beliefs are. For all i know maybe his actions are ernest. I feel we need more than this to subscribe him a coward. Someone doing something you disagree with, or even being straight up evil, is not the same thing as being a coward.
He did the exact opposite when it was trendy to do the opposite. Did his beliefs change so conveniently?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a European observer, it's been an interesting lesson in how much power and sway the US presidency is invested with, despite ostensibly existing in a system that is less centralized and puts more power (and elected offices) at the state level than our flavor of democracies. You may not be able to bend the will of state officials, but if you can bend the will of national-level companies this easily, "the Feds" are e…
Since the 1950s, more and more power has been claimed by the executive, sometimes as a consequence of legislature dysfunction, more often by unchecked supremacy clause execution. The US was envisioned to look a lot more like the EU. The US Civil War required a stronger federal response, and unfortunately reconstruction failed to sufficiently address the primary economic differences in industrialization, resulting in…
Which is also quite often legistrature dysfunction.
[flagged]
In the same way that me not driving drunk doesn't protect me from drunk drivers