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

Ex-Facebook director's new book paints brutal image of Mark Zuckerberg

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 368 posts

Re: Ex-Facebook director's new book paints brutal image of Mark Zuckerberg

#211

Post by sidewndr46 »

firefax wrote: post #201
KaiserPro wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook beat MySpace IMO because it tricked people into using real names No, FB was a much better product, it was far more connected, any way easier to talk and make friends online. It also was a lot more reliable. > Facebook was not kind to 3rd party devs. Indeed, they were not kind, mainly because they realised, way too late, that the API they had designed gave third parties way too much access to the "social gr…

>FB was a much better product FB used to have granular privacy controls and no "feed" -- you wrote on someone's wall, they wrote on yours, and people had to actively click on your profile to see the messages rather than have them thrust front and center. FB abandoned that commitment to privacy and has suffered as a result.

How has Facebook suffered? Most of their losses seem to be self imposed, stuff like the "metaverse"

Re: Ex-Facebook director's new book paints brutal image of Mark Zuckerberg

#212

Post by kubb »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #205
kubb wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just because you don't like the person... Do we need that person to keep having the product though? > Most people don't give two fraks... They sure don't. These products and services are more like a... public good, used by and available to everyone. But if it's a common good then should it be managed like a dictatorship? The people using them don't have an equivalent alternative, and the companies have moats on a s…

Maybe? I'm first to argue that, past certain size, social media platforms become de-facto town squares / utilities, and should be treated as such. But, until they are... > Zuck is selling his customers wholesale, and squandering the resulting cash on asinine, unthinkably dumb projects like Metaverse. Maybe he should have just stayed with the initial product? ... until they are, it's kind of the core axiom behind capi…

Sure, currently Zuck can do anything he wants with the money he gets from the users in his cage.

We should really open the cage though. Can you imagine being able to call people only on your mobile network, or being able to send e-mail only to people using the same e-mail provider?

Yet we accept only being able to connect with, share photos and posts, message, subscribe to people on the same social platform as you.

If we can define a technical specification for exchanging social data, and enforce that the platforms above certain size implement it, Zuck won't even have the cash to dump on Metaverse. Every platform can then have their own algorithmic feed so you can chose your own echo chamber.

The moat is only good the Zucks of the world. It absolutely sucks for everyone else.

Re: Ex-Facebook director's new book paints brutal image of Mark Zuckerberg

#213

Post by DontchaKnowit »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #127
isoprophlex wrote: post #7

Good to have more people expose the greedy, dictatorial, detrimental shitshow that is single individuals having an outsized control over important technology. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Noone should be as big as Zuck, Musk, Altman, Bezos... I had one moment of eyebrow-raising while reading the article. On the risk of blaming someone who was mind controlled into caring too much about ultimately unimportant, s…

Blaming victims for the abuse they suffer is a common theme in modern society. The fact she felt she could not turn her phone off without there being consequences is the core point here.

At a certain point ones unwillingness to accept consequences is capitulation pure and simple and it is what allows people to continue to behave shittily. Takes 2 to tango.

Re: Ex-Facebook director's new book paints brutal image of Mark Zuckerberg

#214

Post by Hikikomori »

wyclif wrote: post #177
Hikikomori wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The twittefiles nothingburger?

Sorry not sorry, but that was no "nothingburger." The fact of the matter was that Twitter under Jack Dorsey had become completely bloated and abusive. You had people working there whose only job was to do things like manipulate pixels in emojis and more seriously, they had created a vast and cancerous DEI bureaucracy.

Guses the government is also that? You're choking on that coolaid.

Re: Ex-Facebook director's new book paints brutal image of Mark Zuckerberg

#215

Post by DeathArrow »

latexr wrote: post #125
milesrout wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't violence. Stop this stupid hyperbole. Violence is a real term. Don't water it down.

“Violence” means “to damage or adversely affect” and includes psychological harm. This is recognised by dictionaries.

Yes, the Newspeak dictionaries.

Re: Ex-Facebook director's new book paints brutal image of Mark Zuckerberg

#216

Post by cess11 »

jocaal wrote: post #138
cess11 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried figuring it out? It's not magic or miracle, there are reasons why they're profitable and if it's not obvious you might get surprised and learn something if you try to study it. One reason is that they are extremely manipulative and strategically exploit people with power over other people's money, notably taxes and what labour generates.

They are super profitable because of the naivety of their customers and for that you can't blame the companies themselves.

Do you think fraud ought to be legal?

Re: Ex-Facebook director's new book paints brutal image of Mark Zuckerberg

#218

Post by ViktorRay »

One section of this article seems intellectually dishonest.

“Over one dinner, Zuckerberg said Andrew Jackson — known for his populist appeal and his inhumane relocation of Native Americans — was America’s best president and “it’s not even close,” according to Wynn-Williams. ”

There are many reasons someone could have a person be a favorite president. It’s unfair to bring up the worst thing a president did in response to someone saying that this president or that president is their favorite.

For example I have liberal friends who say FDR is their favorite president. It would be unfair to say then “FDR known for throwing Japanese people in internment camps was the favorite president of Joe Smith!”

I have friends who say Obama was their favorite president. Imagine someone saying “Obama who killed thousands through drone attacks was the favorite president of Jane Smith!”

Anyway when it comes to Andrew Jackson specifically I had a libertarian friend in high school who was a big fan of him because he helped eliminate the Bank of the United States. I was in high school taking AP US History around the time Ron Paul was running for president so I believe my libertarian friend was connecting Ron Paul’s opposition to the Federal Reserve with Andrew Jackson’s anti Bank of US policies.

I don’t know why Zuckerberg likes Andrew Jackson so much. I wish the article had said it.

Re: Ex-Facebook director's new book paints brutal image of Mark Zuckerberg

#219

Post by latexr »

DeathArrow wrote: post #215
latexr wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Violence” means “to damage or adversely affect” and includes psychological harm. This is recognised by dictionaries.

Yes, the Newspeak dictionaries.

Are the Oxford and Collins dictionaries newspeak now? That’s a conspiracy theory I hadn’t heard before.

Re: Ex-Facebook director's new book paints brutal image of Mark Zuckerberg

#220

Post by latexr »

pixl97 wrote: post #164
latexr wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure that’s true in general. I see many people do the polar opposite: spout “every politician is the same, they’re all crooks”. Which isn’t helpful either. Could be a generational or cultural thing, though.

I mean, you're both probably correct. In the US a huge portion of the population doesn't vote, I would expect those that think every politician is a crook. The other side that does vote thinks the other politician lies and their politician is the good one.

I have no doubt both camps exist, I’m only questioning it’s (to quote above) the majority. That’s why I said I don’t think it’s true in general.
Post reply on HN