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

61–70 of 176 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#61

Post by metaphorm »

matt4077 wrote: post #39
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…

There's a difference between globalisation, the economic term, and what this is about. 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 plac…

I find the idea of a "global in-group" to be a utopian fantasy. This is like saying "Communism is a great economic system". The ideal of it is great. We don't live in a world of ideals. We live in a world of flawed, frail, and sometimes vicious people.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#62

Post by edblarney »

amorphid wrote: post #29
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…

Any tips for reading up on how different communities can learn to coexist peacefully? I sometimes wonder if different groups go to war because the individuals on either side don't have effective tools for demanding peaceful alternatives from their leaders.

"Any tips for reading up on how different communities can learn to coexist peacefully?"

A) Balance of power (roughly equal in strength)

B) Mutual dependence (trade)

C) Some degree of truthfulness and transparency (i.e. freedom of information, speech, free press, institutions with integrity)

Nations co-exist peacefully in a dynamic equilibrium. When that equilibrium is shifted (one weak, one strong i.e. power vacuum) - this creates conflict.

This is why 'peacekeeping' as envisioned by the UN largely failed. A bunch of lightly-armed 'blue helmets' effectively does nothing to remedy the underlying causes driving conflict.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#63

Post by equalarrow »

I'm still tryig to figure out how to process all this.

My first thought is, communities do not need facebook to form/grow. They never have.

However, even in light of the Arab Spring and other social uprisings around the world, I still can't buy into anything Zuck says.

I just can't reconcile in my head how the most detailed online advertising machine can ever 'help create' any real or longstanding community.

Real communities are based on real people with real interactions. Granted, I know there are discussions and groups on fb (my wife is part of a group that meets up every few mos in the 'real world'). But i also see how mich time people spend with their faces plowed into their devices, ignoring the real world going on around them.

I'm not saying fb or twitter aren't powerful tools to organize with. I am saying that I put little to no faith into them as stewards of global community building. Their motives are not altruistic and I'm sure if their ad market dropped out next week, we would not see any of these types of posts from Zuck.

And regarding the fake news bit, what's to do about that? People found massive audiences in their system and deliberately posted lies to sway opinions. To me, that's a complete failure of the benefit of fb ('connecting' the world) and why I just don't believe anything that comes out of there.

I been on campus numerous times and have quite a number of friends that work there, so it's not like I don't get fb and how they make their money. I really do. But, are these really the types of companies we want to build? You can probably say this about a lot of tech companies nowadays, but when it's free, you're the product.. This is not good for the global community long term.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#64

Post by anigbrowl »

privong wrote: post #54
anigbrowl wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. It might still hold for a large group of people, though, and be valid in a statistical sense? Which is what they're really after.

It could definitely help as long as it's appropriately weighted rather than being a binary choice. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#65

Post by jdoliner »

jordigh wrote: post #41
nodesocket wrote: post #15

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.

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…

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

Because we have eyes and brains and we use language to describe what's going on. There might be some instances of people who called themselves leftists who opposed something which we're now referring to as a leftist agenda. It's not a perfect black and white classification scheme but the deep link between leftism and globalization is painfully obvious to anyone with a brain. We're polarized because we disagree, deeply, trying to mix up the language used to describe that disagreement isn't going to make us less polarized.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#67

Post by edblarney »

jdoliner wrote: post #20
a13n wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then can't those people just not participate in the global community? Nobody forces you to use technology or Facebook, just log off.

Global community means community that spans the globe, Zuckerberg isn't talking about Facebook here he's talking about society. The only way to not participate in the global community is to leave the planet or withdraw from community altogether.

Participating locally is the best way to participate globally.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#68

Post by danielcampos93 »

return0 wrote: post #3

Did he just proclaim the Facebook Global Government?

I for one welcome our new overlords. It not like anything bad ever came from centralizing everything and providing ways for governments to access information of individual groups with ease. Also everyone with a little distributed systems experience knows the best policy is just one enormous server, why not an enormous company?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#69

Post by wu-ikkyu »

programmarchy wrote: post #14
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…

Agree. Forced fraternity is not liberty. I want decentralized, local decision making for my community. Globalization of state power takes things in the other direction.

>I want decentralized, local decision making for my community. Globalization of state power takes things in the other direction.

I think we both agree that a centralized global hierarchy of power is impractical.

But what about a modular decentralized network of local and non local communities across the globe working together in symbiosis?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#70

Post by throwawasiudy »

My god it sounds like the philosophical ideals of somebody plucked straight from the Star Trek universe. Are silicon valley billionaires really this detached from reality?

The reason globalization is coming to a screeching halt is that human cultures vary so much. It's slowly going away, but in general for a belief to truly die off; everyone that believes in it needs to be dead. This gives us around 70 years before the walls really start coming down. That's assuming hate and prejudice are globally snuffed from the ears of the young and impressionable yesterday.

Sounds like he thinks a globally ideal society is possible and not that far away. Sounds like he needs to visit a country locked in civil war for the last 50 years for a week or two.

The "developed" world is quickly approaching utopia, but the other 4 billion people are rapidly being left behind. It's a tragedy that a double digit percentage of the human population is starving to death while I sit here in my heated and air conditioned house with ten foot ceilings, more rooms than people in it, nearly free electricity, running water of any temperature, instant access to any information I want through the internet, and more vehicles than people living here.

He needs to take a look at Bill Gates who's a lot older and wiser than Zuck appears to be. Bill has gained immense respect from me in recent years even though I'm still not a fan of Microsoft. He's doing things that will truly make a difference that nobody else wants to pay for. We make such a hero out of somebody that runs into a burning building to save one person. Bill Gates is bank rolling malaria vaccines that might save 400,000 lives a year. What does that make him? A saint at the least.

Zuck should go back to building his internet satellites, that's a lot better use of his billions than some kind of fairy land curated "safe space" for SJW's to hang out in.

Post reply on HN