I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter • Hacker News Board

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#61

Post by Semirhage » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 3:25 PM UTC

parthdesai wrote: post #53

Semirhage wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. You can be tried as an adult, go to war, vote, and drink, marry, have children, and so on. You’re an adult, and fully accountable.

Sure, but majority of us have done and said stupid things back when we were in Uni. Doesn't mean a person hasn't matured/changed since then. Also, you are reaching if you are equating getting tried as an adult to someone labelling users as dumb-fucks.

I’m equating nothing, I’m saying that you can be held to account for words and deeds as an adult. In Zuckerberg’s case, it seems he hasn’t changed much either, so why give him a pass? He treated people like dumbfucks then, and now. Getting coached to appear like less of a prick and wearing a suit didn’t change him either.

His business practices speak for him.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#62

Post by leereeves » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 3:26 PM UTC

bhauer wrote: post #55

Barjak wrote: post #43

Am I alone in thinking this isn't heresy? A country or federal state is just a company with a monopoly over law in a certain geographical region. Facebook's "monopoly" is at least subject to the whim of the market, as the Delete Facebook campaign shows. Look at last week. The senate was on their high-horse, admonishing facebook for privacy infringements, totally unaware of the irony they are an appendage of the same…

Agreed. I am no fan of Zuckerberg and do not use Facebook, but this seems like a non-issue from my point of view. Perhaps it would have been more palatable if phrased as "People over countries," which is a maxim I may myself use to make a saccharin vision statement. The point is voluntary exchange over the involuntary constraints one endures as part of a country. From there, evolving to "Market over countries" is als…

"Companies over countries" on it's own might be defensible, but combined with

watching Mark Zuckerberg raise his fist with a slight smile and say, “Domination!” as a way of closing out our weekly Friday all-hands meeting

suggests a dystopian future.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#63

Post by galactus » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 3:26 PM UTC

Barjak wrote: post #43

Am I alone in thinking this isn't heresy? A country or federal state is just a company with a monopoly over law in a certain geographical region. Facebook's "monopoly" is at least subject to the whim of the market, as the Delete Facebook campaign shows. Look at last week. The senate was on their high-horse, admonishing facebook for privacy infringements, totally unaware of the irony they are an appendage of the same…

> " A country or federal state is just a company with a monopoly over law in a certain geographical region. Facebook's "monopoly" is at least subject to the whim of the market"

Some countries are at least subject to the "whim" of democracy.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#64

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 3:27 PM UTC

Barjak wrote: post #43

Am I alone in thinking this isn't heresy? A country or federal state is just a company with a monopoly over law in a certain geographical region. Facebook's "monopoly" is at least subject to the whim of the market, as the Delete Facebook campaign shows. Look at last week. The senate was on their high-horse, admonishing facebook for privacy infringements, totally unaware of the irony they are an appendage of the same…

>A country or federal state is just a company with a monopoly over law in a certain geographical region. Facebook's "monopoly" is at least subject to the whim of the market, as the Delete Facebook campaign shows.

Not really. In countries with representative government not only does that state have a monopoly on law/force but all people are granted an equal say in the state. The market may be good at some things but would you desire a governmental system where the rich having more power than the poor was baked into the system? [0] I think most would resist that.

>We can all opt out of Facebook. Thankfully many have. But NSA surveillance is involuntary.

Well actually we can't. We've found out recently that Facebook tracks even non-users. Besides you could go so far as to say that you can opt out of NSA surveillance by rejecting email and cell phones. Even if your work requires an email and a business phone you're certainly not required to share personal information over them. So what makes surveillance of your private emails more involuntary than surveillance of your private FB messages?

>Why are we more worried about a voluntary and foreseeable risk than an involuntary rights violation?

I think if you went around and asked regular people with Facebook accounts whether they voluntarily gave fine detail location data and browsing histories to Facebook they would reject that. Certainly they would reject foreseeability.

Further I'm not sure you can even call rule by market regime more voluntary than rule by representative government. Both require loads of coercion.

[0] I'm aware that our own representative democracies have been corroded by the effects of wealth but there is at least a path towards eliminating that influence. In a market system there isn't, it's the core feature of the market.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#65

Post by fakescience » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 3:28 PM UTC

Nav_Panel wrote: post #15

> why should the world trust Facebook or Zuckerberg to shape and manage this new global meta-society? Could Zuckerberg, who wields considerable power over Facebook’s share structure, develop the self-awareness and responsibility to manage it? > it’s time to set real limits on Facebook’s power Makes me wonder: who will be setting those limits, and how can we know they will have the "self-awareness and responsibility"…

Users are the only people who will be able to set limits on Facebook's power, and the only way to do that will be to form some kind of union to organize collective action. Feel like there's a learned helplessness effect, though, that has settled into people.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#66

Post by agentultra » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 3:28 PM UTC

Barjak wrote: post #43

Am I alone in thinking this isn't heresy? A country or federal state is just a company with a monopoly over law in a certain geographical region. Facebook's "monopoly" is at least subject to the whim of the market, as the Delete Facebook campaign shows. Look at last week. The senate was on their high-horse, admonishing facebook for privacy infringements, totally unaware of the irony they are an appendage of the same…

> Am I alone in thinking this isn't heresy? A country or federal state is just a company with a monopoly over law in a certain geographical region.

A nation state is backed by armies, monetary obligations, and the need to co-operate with other nation states in each others' best interests (optimally).

In order to protect its citizens and monetary interests and obligations most modern, well-functioning markets are regulated by these nation states.

Facebook doesn't care about users, laws, and lacks any sense of moral or ethical standards.

While I enjoy the benefits of being able to freely start a business I believe that a well-functioning market requires guidance and planning from broader, more conservative social structures in order to benefit everyone.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#67

Post by leereeves » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 3:30 PM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #54

wybiral wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes counter to the idea of a globally connected internet though. Without a degree of oppression of free speech you can't stop the flow of culture and ideas no matter how big of a wall you build.

As it turns out, the actual effect of a "globally connected internet" was to make it easier for the Russian state to exploit its own underemployed citizens to pretend to be Texans and stoke racial tensions in Texas. Meaningful human connection requires some amount of basic honesty.

> I was one of the first U.S. journalists to report extensively on the St. Petersburg-based “troll farm,”

> I agree with my colleague Masha Gessen that the whole issue has been blown out of proportion. ... if I could do it all over again, I would have highlighted just how inept and haphazard those attempts were. That the Agency is now widely seen as a savvy, efficient manipulator of American public opinion is, in no small part, the fault of experts. They may derive their authority from perceived neutrality, but in reality they—we—have interests, just like everyone else. And, when it comes to the Trump-Russia story, those interests are often best served by fuelling the fear of Kremlin meddling.

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-so-called-experts-...

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#68

Post by ben509 » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 3:31 PM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #54

wybiral wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes counter to the idea of a globally connected internet though. Without a degree of oppression of free speech you can't stop the flow of culture and ideas no matter how big of a wall you build.

As it turns out, the actual effect of a "globally connected internet" was to make it easier for the Russian state to exploit its own underemployed citizens to pretend to be Texans and stoke racial tensions in Texas. Meaningful human connection requires some amount of basic honesty.

Of course, everyone but you is being manipulated.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#69

Post by ekianjo » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 3:36 PM UTC

agentultra wrote: post #66

Barjak wrote: post #43

Am I alone in thinking this isn't heresy? A country or federal state is just a company with a monopoly over law in a certain geographical region. Facebook's "monopoly" is at least subject to the whim of the market, as the Delete Facebook campaign shows. Look at last week. The senate was on their high-horse, admonishing facebook for privacy infringements, totally unaware of the irony they are an appendage of the same…

> Am I alone in thinking this isn't heresy? A country or federal state is just a company with a monopoly over law in a certain geographical region. A nation state is backed by armies, monetary obligations, and the need to co-operate with other nation states in each others' best interests (optimally). In order to protect its citizens and monetary interests and obligations most modern, well-functioning markets are regu…

> Facebook doesn't care about users, laws, and lacks any sense of moral or ethical standards.

its difficult to say with a straight face that a government that runs trillions of deficits, spies constantly on its population, and engages in so called defensive wars abroad, cares about its citizens. The lack of responsibility is rampant among government figures.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#70

Post by hunterjrj » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 3:36 PM UTC

saas_co_de wrote: post #46

anonu wrote: post #35

Zuckerberg espouses some sort of utopian idealism and is pushing his Facebook experiment on the world. The capitalist underpinnings of his project completely denigrate those views. I've heard the same thing from him and his apparatchiks consistently - and in his written testimony to Congress: "My top priority has always been our social mission of connecting people, building community and bringing the world closer tog…

Facebook only exists as a surveillance and control tool. Everything else is just a means to an end. Zuckerberg is just the front man. Once they are done with him he will be in the ditch like Travis.

Can you clarify? Assuming you are talking about Travis Kalanick, are you implying he was ousted by a 3rd party with an interest in surveillance/control?