Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

facebook.com

71–80 of 176 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#71
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you help me understand what those real anti-globalization reasons, that don't include receiving enough of the benefits, are?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone is a good place to start. The basic finding of the studies detailed in that book are that globalization, and particularly multiculturalism within communities have very negative effects on the happiness and community participation of those involved. Diversity and multiculturalism are generally considered axiomatically good by the left and these studies were done by leftist t…

Putnam's book has always seemed hilarious to me -- all of the obvious blunders are evidenced in the title alone.

As if it's impossible to have "social intercourse" in a bowling alley without paying a league $20 and blocking out your Tuesday nights.

You can see the same fallacy at work when greek organizations bemoan the "death of socialization" on campuses where frat/sorority membership goes into decline. But of course, people somehow (got knows how! /s) manage to have social lives, volunteer and give back, etc. without paying Alpha Omega Inc. a few grand a year.

The same thing has happened writ large is society -- to the extent that you can find "decline" in the data, it's more than explained by a growth of new forms of involvement that 20 year old metrics don't properly capture (e.g., if you ignore hacker spaces, maker communities, online mentoring communities, and open source development, HN looks pretty desolate as far as "social intercourse" and volunteering go. But of course anyone who knows WTF they're talking about will roll their eyes if you use the lack of posts about Boy Scouts as an indicator of the social decline of HN's front page).

> and these studies were done by leftist to prove that value. They found exactly the opposite, and they've been replicated many times, again by leftists, hoping to find a different result but to no avail.

1. The studies discussed by Putnam doesn't demonstrate any of this, and these aren't even Putnam's core claims.

He demonizes VIDEO GAMES and women working more than multi-culturalism.

2. To the extent that Putnam does present evidence for his claims (which isn't nearly often enough), there's been no shortage of evidence-based refutation. The wikipedia article even has a "criticism" section, which outlines the main arguments.

Basically, if Putnam's data is to be believed, open source developers (and thousands of other people who are doing something other than volunteering with out-dated orgs) are politically disengaged and insular loners who give nothing back to society.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#72

One simple way to improve the quality of news republished on Facebook (albeit at a possible loss of some revenue) is to pull out the date of publication and clearly indicate to the person sharing how old the article is. Well-meaning friends are constantly posting urgent-sounding stories about events that happened months or years ago because they overlooked the date of publication. For example, I know a good few peopl…

A way I'd prefer: quit letting people share news on facebook.

Heck, let's go back to text-only status updates and I can go back to reading what my acquaintances are eating. That would be much more pleasant than today's facebook.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#74
post #51
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Lessig said, the code is law. Given facebook's role, undoubtedly they will (and do) play a role in governance.

Facebook could upend the world order if they built elections into their platform. I mean who 's gonna delegitimize a government elected online by massive audience? People would create new countries

I really don't believe that's realistic, and if you think that it's possible I would encourage you to broaden your social groups. The idea of a private company holding an election to choose my representatives is completely unacceptable - much less the concept that it would be global and not tied to the places I care about.

People go to war over that kind of thing.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#75
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…

Isn't Hacker News a global community? How can you say such a thing while clearly participating and getting value out of a global community?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#76
post #22
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…

Could you help me understand what those real anti-globalization reasons, that don't include receiving enough of the benefits, are?

I guess one possibility is if you think there's something very good or important about your society, culture, or economy, that you don't want to see change. Globalization means all sorts of pressures to change. People elsewhere who become aware of some aspect of your ways that upsets them may start political campaigns against it, or people in your own community may become interested in moving elsewhere or adopting values or practices that are unfamiliar or previously disfavored in your community. Let's think of a few possible complaints:

"I want my indigenous community to keep speaking our language and practising our religion, but outsiders want us to stop."

"I want to keep having a local community based on farming, but outsiders are tempting our children to move away."

"I want to have the skills I grew up with stay economically relevant, but connecting to the wider economy is making it hard to compete because outsiders are selling similar things cheaper, and making us want new things we don't have an easy way to trade for."

"I want to keep my family learning the things that I think are important but outsiders are trying to teach them skills that are more relevant to a different way of life or set of professions, and trying to teach them a new set of tastes and cravings."

"I want to keep hunting baby seals/whaling/participating in blood sports/practising female circumcision/using corporal punishment on my children/performing animal sacrifices, but outsiders think that's backwards and barbaric and want to stigmatize or outlaw it."

"I want my children to stay in my religion, but other people are trying to evangelize them or deconvert them or expose them to media that mocks or argues against my religion."

"Attracting the attention of outsiders for how great our culture or land is brings all kinds of problems, like tourists who behave badly and inappropriately, or are violent to us, or want to move here and drive up land prices, or want to increase the level of economic activity or bring in extractive industries, or different governments fighting wars over our territory."

"I think my people have an important connection to our land, in a way that we don't have to other places and other people don't have to this place, for example because we know how and why the places here are holy, and that connection or awareness means it's important that we live here and that other people don't."

"My people aren't really that good at interacting with outsiders; our culture or education means that others take advantage of us easily by proposing bargains that aren't really good deals for us, and we don't know how to cope with the disruptions of rapid change, and we tend to get addicted to the drugs that other people bring us that we don't have a prior history with."

"These people say they like and care about us, but then they want to change everything about how we live!"

"My language is stigmatized as a 'dialect' and is useless anywhere else outside of my community. When other people come here they all want us to speak French/Chinese/Russian/English, yet when I go elsewhere people laugh at my attempts to use my own language. This asymmetry makes me feel cheated."

"My community has values I think are really important, like the way we think about family, but now that we're seeing all of these contrary examples in foreign media, people seem less sure of the importance of those values and less willing to act on them. The foreign media don't even always directly engage with our values; they may just subtly suggest that they're just not a big deal."

"We used to have lots of jobs here but at some point they all seemed to disappear. I don't even understand exactly how, but it must have to do with the larger economy. People are telling me that I have an opportunity to move somewhere else and find lots of work, but I was happier with how it was before when I didn't have to move elsewhere to find work."

"It feels like outsiders are manufacturing ethnic conflicts in my community and trying to divide us. In the past, we didn't have conflicts along the lines we do now."

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#77
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

We've gone from 85% of the global population in extreme poverty to 25%. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/declining-global-poverty-...

Percentages can be highly misleading because they abstract from the hard reality of absolute numbers. This is especially true when considering the exponential nature of population growth.

The cited percentage change would be far more encouraging if population was constant, but it's not.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#78

I also just read a BBC article[1] that includes an interview with Zuck regarding this piece, and I can't help but think "they still don't get it." There are valid concerns regarding globalism that have gone largely ignored by (usually liberal) politicians. Those who raise issues like manufacturing jobs moving abroad[2] or violence from a sudden influx of refugees[3][4] have been labeled racist, bigoted, and ignorant.…

As much as this sounds as a defence of people who want to build walls, I have to agree with it to some degree. I don't agree with the "violence from a sudden influx of refugees" claim, but here's an interesting anecdote on the issue.

When NAFTA was originally signed in 1994, with the intention of opening borders to big businesses, there were some unfortunate side effects.

A lot of Mexican farmers used to operate in smaller scales. Many worked on communal lands that grew food in smaller scale.

Now, fast forward to NAFTA. Part of the deal phased out tariffs that were protecting and helping these small farmers keep in place. With the market open, American corn started flooding Mexico, bringing many of these millions of small farmers out of business or severely hurting their economic prospects.

What was left for them to do? Mexico didn't have a supply of alternative jobs for all these people, so illegal migration to the United States picked up. Lots of illegal immigrants didn't move to the US because things are just "better" there; they were willing to leave their home land, their families, cross a desert, risk not only decoration but their lives and move into an unknown country that speaks another language because they were desperate. They didn't have a choice, since they lost their land and source of income. It was, and still is, a big risk and sacrifice.

That's largely why we saw that 20 year hump in Mexicans coming illegally into the United States (Mexican migration to the US has been falling these last few years though).

It's interesting, because now the US wants to close their borders. Effectively the consequence of this development is that big food corporations greatly benefited from the open borders, but the average person did not.

This is not black and white, about opening borders always, or having nothing go through. Globalization and open borders needs to be to the interest of the people, and it's not always good. Building physical walls is incredibly stupid and childish, but there do need to be some hurdles in place so the big fish doesn't eat the small, specifically, so the big corporation doesn't destroy local economies all of a sudden.

A few interesting reads.

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/26/257255787/wave-of-illegal-immi...

http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/10/11/globalization-an...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#80
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

But the point is that the tables flipped entirely. Go back to 1990's and you'll find GOP senators decrying Rage Against The Machine as communist radicals for their opposition to NAFTA. A big chunk of the GOP is still pro-free-markets.

If core parts of what "left" and "right" mean are subject to re-definition every 4 years, maybe the polarized tail is wagging the dog.

Post reply on HN