11–20 of 88 posts
"Making the world open"? Facebook doesn't even offer RSS feeds, so thanks for the chuckle. "Making the world connected"? The world is connected anyway, introducing middlemen into it makes it arguably less connected, that is, it introduces more connectedness that sucks, instead of the kind that doesn't. Thanks for honing my doublethink radar or something.
"Making the world open"? Facebook doesn't even offer RSS feeds, so thanks for the chuckle. "Making the world connected"? The world is connected anyway, introducing middlemen into it makes it arguably less connected, that is, it introduces more connectedness that sucks, instead of the kind that doesn't. Thanks for honing my doublethink radar or something.
RSS feeds? They're building a product for the masses. They just want to log in and connect with friends, share with them, and gawk at pictures of their friends. "Open" doesn't mean in the neckbeard sense. "Connected" isn't about how many protocols they support. Building RSS support would be a distraction. They have support for applications that could probably give you that -- I'm not sure because I've never wanted it.
As Zuck said in Time Magazine, "Open means having access to more information, right? More transparency, being able to share things and have a voice in the world. And connected is helping people stay in touch and maintain empathy for each other, and bandwidth."[1]
Complaining about Facebook being a walled garden is a valid point. But complaining that it's doublethink is not.
1: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2...
>It is difficult to imagine a more suitable uniform for the notoriously private CEO of a company dedicated to expanding our ideas of what should be public.
>June 2, 2010, Zuckerberg, hoodie removed, begins answering Mossberg’s question.
Honestly, this seriously reminds me of the kinds of essays that most students fall into the trap of writing in English classes in school - fake certitude, speaking in absolutes, a pervasive tone of academic hysteria, and drawing parallels and implications by mere association. In my view, it tries to dissemble a sense of profundity, however hollow.
The final sentence is a particularly egregious example of drawing an association out of thin air. This essay may as well have introduced itself as studying the symbolic motif of the hoodie and its role in the constant conflict between privacy and surveillance in the literary work Facebook, by Reality.
EDIT: I would like to lightheartedly add that these essays were always really fun for me to write in school because I would get top marks for them despite knowing how meaningless they were.
Poetic and engaging writing, but ultimately dishonest. It relies on the symbol of the hoodie to carry the speech through pathos, and that does take it quite far, but no argument is given. Are we expected to fear Zuckerberg, or the consumer website Facebook? The author stirs drama but does not direct it, and the resulting flatness feels disingenuous -- yet another Facebook piece that feels important with no insight. T…
>People who know they’re being watched change their behaviour. In a world awash in surveillance devices, hoodies are an element of fashion driven by an architectural condition. They are a response to the constant presence of cameras overhead. People who don’t want to be watched wear them. People who want to be the kind of people who don’t want to be watched wear them. People who want to look like the kind of people w…
>People who know they’re being watched change their behaviour. In a world awash in surveillance devices, hoodies are an element of fashion driven by an architectural condition. They are a response to the constant presence of cameras overhead. People who don’t want to be watched wear them. People who want to be the kind of people who don’t want to be watched wear them. People who want to look like the kind of people w…
Poetic and engaging writing, but ultimately dishonest. It relies on the symbol of the hoodie to carry the speech through pathos, and that does take it quite far, but no argument is given. Are we expected to fear Zuckerberg, or the consumer website Facebook? The author stirs drama but does not direct it, and the resulting flatness feels disingenuous -- yet another Facebook piece that feels important with no insight. T…
It's giving you some things to think about without coming to a conclusion for you, and it's interesting how disorienting you find this.