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

Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 176 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#141

Post by jdoliner »

ciconia wrote: post #131
jdoliner wrote: post #107

Copying over my comment from the other thread that sparked some interesting debate: I find this letter to be deeply cynical. There's a baked in assumption that a global community is a good thing and that the only possible reason to resist it is because you're being left behind by its benefits. I don't think that's true and I certainly don't think it should be assumed a priori. There are people in this country, and ev…

> If we're not willing to accept that stance than we're forcing people into a global community that matches our vision for the future, not theirs. I would posit that presenting globalisation as a choice forced on unsuspecting victims is itself cynical. You of all people should know - your a tech guy. You are aware of how technology removes economic, cultural, lingual, even physical walls. There's no going back from g…

I don't think the victims are unsuspecting and I also don't think they have a choice in the matter.

> Accept it and go on with your life.

Isn't that exactly what you say to someone when you're not giving them a say in what's happening in their life?

> You are aware of how technology removes economic, cultural, lingual, even physical walls.

Tech does remove walls but it also allows you to construct walls. That's a lot of what this letter is about isn't it? Facebook has become a tool for people to organize themselves into groups that have their own political beliefs and beliefs about reality. These groups were shielded from the ideas on the other side. Why? because these walls were more effective than the ones we had in the world before. Zuckerberg has decided this was bad because people voted the "wrong" way and wants to prevent it from happening again. You might agree with that stance, but don't delude yourself into thinking this is just some inherent feature of technology. There's human morals behind these decisions.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#142

Post by BjoernKW »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #130
BjoernKW wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. Should 'we' have to comply to 'their' worldview though? The opportunity to participate in a global community without a doubt is a good thing. 'Opportunity' implies that you can opt out. Others willing to take that opportunity shouldn't be kept from doing so though

Opportunities are not categorically good things. I, for one, want laws that make it harder to sell my vote or my kidney.

Those are far-off examples. Granted, perhaps in some cases people should be prevented from doing something utterly stupid but that shouldn't keep us from exploring opportunities in general. Just because kids occasionally hurt themselves during play they shouldn't be forbidden to play.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#143

Post by lazaroclapp »

rfrank wrote: post #133
lazaroclapp wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are those "real reasons"? And are they against globalization in the abstract or against specific models of global institutions? I find being against globalization in the abstract very strange, because it takes arbitrary historical divisions of human-kind and tries to set them in stone. A global human community almost always seems like a more natural positive future than a fragmented system of hostile parties def…

> Maybe I am lacking some context or some value system that the anti-globalist have and which might have its merits, and if so I would love to hear the argument, but to me the idea of "this person is more valuable or interesting to me because it was born my neighbor than anyone born a hundred miles away" seems to lack some ethical foundation. Why? People care more about what happens around them. I care more about hou…

Their children's having better opportunities as wealth created by their countries participation in globalized trade creates chances for improved education, scientific advancement and new industries?

Don't get me wrong, we are failing many of those communities. But is not a failure to stop globalization, it is a failure to share the gains of globalization more broadly with those most affected by its negatives. We can do both. Is not either let them starve or stop global trade, both can be prevented. Besides, a lot of those industries that keep being brought up as examples of victims of globalization only ever got to be as significant as they were due to globalization: consider the American manufacturing industry, which greatly increased in significance after WW2 mostly due to the demand for its production in war-ravaged Europe. Or the American agricultural industry, where people complain about Mexican workers "stealing" jobs, while ignoring that Mexico consumes $17.7 billion of that agricultural production from U.S. exports.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#144

Post by Spooky23 »

nodesocket wrote: post #15
jdoliner wrote: post #7

I find this letter to be deeply cynical. There's a baked in assumption that a global community is a good thing and that the only possible reason to resist it is because you're being left behind by its benefits. I don't think that's true and I certainly don't think it should be assumed a priori. There are people in this country, and every where in the world, who don't want globalization. And it's not because they have…

You bring up great points, and hit on the miscalculation and hypocrisy of the left. They seem to think that globalization is a universally good thing, and if you're against it then you are somehow disconnected, a racist, and a monster. This a common symptom not just isolated to globalization.

That's a flip -- NAFTA was supported by all of the establishment players except Labor.

The republicans loved it because they got to get rid of unions in the north and protect against unionization drives in the South (where we previously outsourced to).

The democrats liked it because their backers, particularly farmers saw it as a boon to agriculture.

It was, and it fucked American, Canadian and Mexican working class people. Millions of Mexicans didn't decide to walk across the desert for kicks. They did that because NAFTA flooded their market with cheap subsidized corn that vaporized the rural agricultural economy in Mexico, just like it did in the US.

Now the republicans have been eaten from the inside out by the true believers of their AstroTurf tea party movement. So they make a lot of noise about being against it now.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#145

Post by type0 »

aylmao wrote: post #35
jdoliner wrote: post #7

I find this letter to be deeply cynical. There's a baked in assumption that a global community is a good thing and that the only possible reason to resist it is because you're being left behind by its benefits. I don't think that's true and I certainly don't think it should be assumed a priori. There are people in this country, and every where in the world, who don't want globalization. And it's not because they have…

So much +1 to this. I'd like to add a thought too. At the end of the day, this is a centralized system, built by people in a very specific sphere in a single country and thus in a relatively homogeneous culture and world view. It struck me, fore example, how they had the "change your profile picture" feature for solidarity to the Paris attacks but not for the Beirut ones; even though both were terribly deadly, by the…

> At the end of the day, this is a centralized system, built by people in a very specific sphere in a single country and thus in a relatively homogeneous culture and world view.

This mantra that everyone on the web would be happy if we succumb to facebook and let us be manipulated in a way that was never even been imagined by newspapers or television is so sickening. FB isn't a free speech platform as much as it's users like to pretend it, the way it is currently run is harmful to civil and democratic society as well as our digital freedom - freedom of expression and fundamental human rights. The thought policing that is underway is remarkable, I never even imagined that this abomination of a website would grow to that extent.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#146

Post by rfrank »

lazaroclapp wrote: post #143
rfrank wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe I am lacking some context or some value system that the anti-globalist have and which might have its merits, and if so I would love to hear the argument, but to me the idea of "this person is more valuable or interesting to me because it was born my neighbor than anyone born a hundred miles away" seems to lack some ethical foundation. Why? People care more about what happens around them. I care more about hou…

Their children's having better opportunities as wealth created by their countries participation in globalized trade creates chances for improved education, scientific advancement and new industries? Don't get me wrong, we are failing many of those communities. But is not a failure to stop globalization, it is a failure to share the gains of globalization more broadly with those most affected by its negatives. We can…

That's not reality though. Their schools are failing, opiate addiction is rising, and opportunity is drying up. We are failing essentially all of those communities. Global corporations have no incentive to share the gains of their decisions with the communities they damage. Pressure to make them do so will likely just quicken the pace of automation, not suddenly make people care about the plight of the middle America. We can do both, but if the history of globalization is any indicator, we won't.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#147

Post by anigbrowl »

gydfi wrote: post #137
wilg wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you like them to share the news?

Why would I want people sharing news? If I want to read about what's going on with the world, I'll read a news site. If I want to know what's going on with my friends' lives, I'll read facebook.

Your friends may not share your highly compartmentalized approach to socializing. For many people events in politics directly impact their lives; it seems to me you're asking that your friends refrain from disturbing you with information you don't want to know about.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#148

Post by BjoernKW »

jdoliner wrote: post #127
BjoernKW wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. Should 'we' have to comply to 'their' worldview though? The opportunity to participate in a global community without a doubt is a good thing. 'Opportunity' implies that you can opt out. Others willing to take that opportunity shouldn't be kept from doing so though

If global means everyone, and I think that's what it means here, then someone has to comply to someone else's worldview. To have a true global community the people who don't want a global community have to be part of it just like everyone else. If people can opt out of the global community and build their own insular communities which they determine the fate of then it's not a global community, it's just a community.…

Taking Facebook as an example for a global community: Just because I have the opportunity to participate in each and every Facebook group I don't have to do so.

Yes, in real life there are compromises to take. You have to accept that in order to thrive in the world you have to comply to some of its rules. I'm very much a cultural imperialist in that I think that an open-minded, tolerant mindset is superior to isolationist, absolutist ideas.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#149

Post by lazaroclapp »

rfrank wrote: post #146
lazaroclapp wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their children's having better opportunities as wealth created by their countries participation in globalized trade creates chances for improved education, scientific advancement and new industries? Don't get me wrong, we are failing many of those communities. But is not a failure to stop globalization, it is a failure to share the gains of globalization more broadly with those most affected by its negatives. We can…

That's not reality though. Their schools are failing, opiate addiction is rising, and opportunity is drying up. We are failing essentially all of those communities. Global corporations have no incentive to share the gains of their decisions with the communities they damage. Pressure to make them do so will likely just quicken the pace of automation, not suddenly make people care about the plight of the middle America…

Fair enough, but you really consider isolationism, trade barriers and anti-immigrant rhetoric either significantly more feasible than or preferable to trying to improve wealth and opportunity distribution? Do you think forcing companies to bring manufacturing to the U.S. and fire foreign workers will result in anything else than automation, loss of foreign markets for U.S. companies and even further poverty for these communities, absent any other measure or the political will to help them? It seems to me just as hard to assist them under nationalism as under globalism, and globalism still has at the least the potential of doing better. For my part my current view is that I should try to both champion globalism and try to make it do better in whatever small sphere of influence I have.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#150

Post by rfrank »

lazaroclapp wrote: post #149
rfrank wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not reality though. Their schools are failing, opiate addiction is rising, and opportunity is drying up. We are failing essentially all of those communities. Global corporations have no incentive to share the gains of their decisions with the communities they damage. Pressure to make them do so will likely just quicken the pace of automation, not suddenly make people care about the plight of the middle America…

Fair enough, but you really consider isolationism, trade barriers and anti-immigrant rhetoric either significantly more feasible than or preferable to trying to improve wealth and opportunity distribution? Do you think forcing companies to bring manufacturing to the U.S. and fire foreign workers will result in anything else than automation, loss of foreign markets for U.S. companies and even further poverty for these…

Yes, I think trade barriers are both more feasible and preferable. I perceive automation as a constant, it's happening no matter what. Enforcing a border adjustment tax is easier than trying to remove every international tax loophole a la the double Irish. How is reshoring not trying to improve wealth and opportunity distribution, just with the benefactor being Americans and not the factory town in SEA or Central/South America? How does it not "have the potential to do better"? Someone keeping or re-gaining a job in their field is better. Those people contributing to their cities and towns in the form of taxes and other spending makes them better. I work in electronics manufacturing, and people are generally pretty excited about the potential changes.
Post reply on HN