Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

Why is this about left or right or the hypocrisy of anyone?

NAFTA was widely criticised by some Mexican leftists (might still be, haven't been following as closely) because it was viewed as being hugely beneficial to foreign interests and to wealthy elites, not to common Mexicans. The same people in favour of women's rights and equality were critical of globalisation.

If this is about US politics, I find it so weird how each issue is exactly left or right and if you know someone's opinion about one issue you must immediately know their opinion about every other issue. How did that country become so polarised?

That fails if you do a first-order implementation because you have no way of knowing whether the person voting/sharing had already read the article, but not necessarily shared it at the time of reading. As a simple example, I subscribe to The Economist and prefer reading the paper version. If I see a story from there cited by someone else, I don't need to read it again to recommend it.

Also, depending on the content and source it may be possible to infer the value or significance of something from the headline alone, eg when one has specialist domain knowledge and sees a headline one knows to be an accurate summary of recent developments in that field.

>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.

What about the other 3 billion people left behind in poverty? That's more than what the total global population was when these "globalist institutions" were set up.

Sorry for the somewhat cynical post - but this kind of soft corporate propaganda deserves at least some skeptical challenge.

"On our journey to connect the world"

+ By which he means 'take over the world'

"Our greatest challenges also need global responses -- like ending terrorism, fighting climate change, and preventing pandemics. "

+ Virtue signalling and false altruism, associating his brand with highly moral causes with which Facebook has no material connection.

"Progress now requires humanity coming together not just as cities or nations, but also as a global community"

+ By 'coming together' he means turning the world into a globalized, culturally secularized and homogenized suburb as like the faux-facades and fake architecture of the building he is standing right in front of. Rhetorical question: Why does the Silicon Valley not have 'it's own' kind of identifiable architecture? Because the answer to that question is telling.

On this point, we can forgive him a little. Ironically, the soft message of 'diversity' from these folks - often hails from a positive motivation (i.e. 'equality and inclusion') - but it ultimately implies 'diversity of skin tone and of last names', but otherwise a total homogenization of cultural norms, values and ideas. Even language, local customs, laws, food and architecture.

When the entire world live across the street from a Starbucks, drives a Honda, and communicates in a manner sanctified by the thought-monitors at Facebook - I'd argue the world will be less diverse, less resilient, less interesting - and less human - place to live.

"Yet now, across the world there are people left behind by globalization"

+ Wonders the man who has personal wealth equivalent to entire African nations.

"withdrawing from global connection."

+ I'd argue some are withdrawing from your imposed social order of homogenized 'Utopia', for what they see as regaining some degree of self identity, self expression, and dignity.

" In times like these, the most important thing we at Facebook can do is develop the social infrastructure to give people the power to build a global community that works for all of us. "

+ A serious degree of assumption: most of the people in the world have a very different view of what 'works' than the global elite - who's values he shares. What happens when people are 'given a voice' and they want something completely different than your specific vision of cohesion?

Without getting into 'pro' or 'anti' European Union arguments - if it were put to a popular referendum - the EU would fail immediately because people in just a few key nations would vote against it. In France, anti-EU sentiment runs at 60% - a full 10% points higher than in the UK before Brexit (though this doesn't necessarily imply they would vote to leave - its's a pretty negative sign). It's almost 50% in Germany. And it's growing.

The people of France voted against the treaty of Rome - and yet it was enacted by their government. Ditto in Netherlands and Ireland.

Ironically - it's through Facebook and social media that people are voicing their antagonism towards many globalist causes, that seem to be 'out of touch' with the will of citizens.

I'm not making an argument for or against anything - I'm pointing out that many of these 'let's come together' globalist voices have personal views which are totally inconsistent with most others - and they seem to be keen on projecting those views in an authoritative manner.

"How do we help people build supportive communities that strengthen traditional institutions"

+ By turning off Facebook, and turning on to life?

I like Mark Zuckerberg, and having nothing against Facebook, but I wish they would stop with this rubbish and let people be - and accept that 'the true will of the people' in many ways will be inconsistent with that of the leaders of such globalist institutions.

"Zuckerberg relies on a team of at least 12 people to delete harassing comments and spam from his page while an additional team manages his communications and writes his posts and speeches, Bloomberg reports."

http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/18/14314872/mark-zuckerberg-p...