31–40 of 176 posts
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…
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…
I don't think that's fair at all, he openly acknowledges the idea that "There are questions about whether we can make a global community that works for everyone". I think he's outlining a vision, aligned with the arrow of history, whereby people come together through technology in greater connection and harmony. I hope we one day all realize that we are one humanity, and from that we can get to greater world peace. O…
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…
Look, I get it and I think for a while it actually worked. Mostly because the User base was, offhandedly speaking, more responsible with how they used the Communication Tool of Facebook. When the internet was "difficult" and not as instant as turning on a TV, look, there was a threshold of participation that resulted in Selection Bias of sorts.
Let's take an extreme example of another type of Tool, that when placed in the "Wrong" hands - so to speak - can wreak a lot of havoc: A Firearm. In the hands of a Responsible Person, a Firearm is a Tool, though it can also be a Weapon if so intended. It has pretty limited scope, but it's useful and can be controlled.
Put the Firearm in the hand of an Irresponsible Person and the outcomes will likely be "Unpleasant" to put it lightly. Irresponsibility takes many forms - sometimes it's a case of Emotional Stress (relationship break up), Financial Catastrophe (debt), Desperation (drug addiction). Humans are very much unrefined and uncivilized as much as we'd like to promote a different image.
I mean, when I think about BIG PROBLEMS it's stuff that Facebook isn't really the right tool for the job. You know, things like water. I just checked, and the UN posits:
>783 million people do not have access to clean water and almost 2.5 billion do not have access to adequate sanitation.
It might seem like I'm moving the goalposts here, but it's actually kind of a way of twisting your attention around a little.
My impression is that Facebook, in the past two years, has been one of the most divisive, family and friendship havoc wreaking wastelands and, like it or not, a behemoth with only a vestigial relationship to Zuck's latest missive. I've seen far too many posts time and time again about people noticing their lives are happier and more positive by either vastly reducing or altogether eliminating participation in Facebook.
It's hard to bring the world together when providing the forum for it to tear itself apart. Right? Maybe that essay is still in the works.
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…
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 same perpetrating organization, and they happened on consecutive days.
Or how they prompted me to post about the Super Bowl, even though I don't watch or care about American Football, but they ignore other big sporting events.
Facebook is very much anglo-centric and in subtle but important ways amplified by it's massive scale it's imposing a certain world views over others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
We've brought 3 billion people out of poverty in the last 30 years and haven't had a major-power war since WWII when we set up all these globalist institutitions. I'd say the record holds up pretty well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
We've brought 3 billion people out of poverty in the last 30 years and haven't had a major-power war since WWII when we set up all these globalist institutitions. I'd say the record holds up pretty well.
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38998884
[2] http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/caterpillar-moving-jo...
[3] https://www.rt.com/news/373853-sweden-no-go-zones-gangs/
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/05/germany-crisis...
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…
Essentially, he's talking about a world where the "in-group" (in terms of "in-group" vs. "out-group") becomes global. I simply cannot find fault with that, because almost by definition, that should greatly diminish risks of violence and war, increase cooperation, increase real freedom (because you'll have many more options for places to live without being the stranger feeling strange) and so on.
I am already part of several global communities whose members have more in common with each other than with the average citizen of their home countries. HN, (my branch of) academia etc.
The criticism that may be harder to dispel is weather such a community is possible: maybe there is some sort basic need for people to create groups, not just for the benefits they get from being on the inside, but also for some sort of satisfaction they get from the knowledge that others are not.
But even if: it seems at least as easy to believe that humans have an innate streak of violence, and it's part of greatness of humanity to have managed to largely stunt that instinct. If there really is a need for outsiders, I doubt that it could be stronger, or that it couldn't be overcome by the same mechanisms.