by jflowers45 on 2/16/17, 9:13 PM with 167 comments
by jdoliner on 2/16/17, 9:50 PM
by anigbrowl on 2/16/17, 10:20 PM
For example, I know a good few people who are opposed to that pipeline being built in North Dakota right now. Unfortunately they sometimes repost any news story about an oil spill or pipeline failure they come across in the mistaken assumption that they're seeing because it just happened.
by minimaxir on 2/16/17, 9:17 PM
> Fortunately, there are clear steps we can take to correct these effects. For example, we noticed some people share stories based on sensational headlines without ever reading the story. In general, if you become less likely to share a story after reading it, that's a good sign the headline was sensational. If you're more likely to share a story after reading it, that's often a sign of good in-depth content. We recently started reducing sensationalism in News Feed by taking this into account for pieces of content, and going forward signals like this will identify sensational publishers as well.
by beloch on 2/16/17, 9:51 PM
For one, give people using your site some basic privacy so their own governments can't use your site to target political enemies.
by sova on 2/16/17, 9:48 PM
by koolba on 2/16/17, 9:52 PM
From my skimming through the first 30-40 comments, they're uniformly positive. I find it hard to believe that any internet forum open to public commentary would have that many positive responses.
by mi100hael on 2/16/17, 10:08 PM
[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...
by 6stringmerc on 2/16/17, 10:06 PM
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.
by mvp on 2/16/17, 11:38 PM
It's talking about building global communities, so anybody or everybody could or should have such an ambition.
Does that give one a sense of unease thinking about it?
If that is the case then maybe global community in that sense may not be a popular or good idea.
In this context, I'd like to draw your attention to how developing countries viewed technologies and ideas from the developed countries until a couple of decades ago. They've copied them first and then moulded them to their specific needs.
But technologies and ideas of the last decade or so cannot be copied and moulded, instead the ideas subsume them. There's no Facebook like thing in India. They use Facebook. There's no Google like thing in India. They use Google. This is ok as long as it's affecting only a small slice of their experience. However that slice has been growing and becoming more important every passing day. More people are becoming more concerned.
That concern is a lot like the sense of unease I alluded to earlier.
by metaphorm on 2/16/17, 10:20 PM
> Zuck: How do we help people build supportive communities that strengthen traditional institutions in a world where membership in these institutions is declining?
what is meant by "traditional institutions"? Maybe the problem is that "traditional institutions" (which are what, exactly? churches?) are not addressing people's real concerns and have become irrelevant.
> Zuck: How do we help people build a safe community that prevents harm, helps during crises and rebuilds afterwards in a world where anyone across the world can affect us?
it sounds like he's talking about responding to terrorist attacks. this is such vague language that it can be interpreted to mean anything at all. sounds like he's practicing writing campaign rhetoric. Zuck wants to run for president?
> Zuck: How do we help people build an informed community that exposes us to new ideas and builds common understanding in a world where every person has a voice?
I hope he's sincere about this. Facebook has proved itself to be one of the greatest disseminators of propaganda, distortions, clickbait, manipulative media, and many varieties of malicious (as in privacy violating) advertising and data-mining. I somehow doubt we're going to see a real reversal of policy on this subject from Facebook. Maybe I'm just cynical and jaded but being a vehicle for disinformation and invasive advertising has made Facebook a lot of money.
by kisstheblade on 2/17/17, 5:53 AM
by cawcaw on 2/16/17, 10:25 PM
by scholia on 2/16/17, 10:18 PM
by dkn on 2/16/17, 10:11 PM
by eplanit on 2/16/17, 10:01 PM
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/zucke...
by return0 on 2/16/17, 9:46 PM
by equalarrow on 2/16/17, 10:24 PM
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.
by perseusprime11 on 2/17/17, 3:13 AM
by mmel on 2/16/17, 10:42 PM
by bootload on 2/17/17, 1:37 AM
'Us' includes: Three letter agencies, marketeers and other data gathering companies.
by gallerdude on 2/17/17, 12:09 AM
by kapauldo on 2/16/17, 11:23 PM
by badmadrad on 2/16/17, 11:01 PM
by cryoshon on 2/16/17, 11:20 PM
the rich are building the world they all want. everyone else is struggling to survive that world. so, no. we aren't building the world "we all want" because many of us want different things, and have different means to gain them. i'll note that facebook isn't intentionally blocking or supporting this dynamic... and i'll also note that they could have answered their own question by looking at their data set. but this is public relations, where facts are slim and the opinion of the actual public doesn't much matter.
>How do we help people build supportive communities that strengthen traditional institutions in a world where membership in these institutions is declining?
non-starter; facebook is anathema to traditional institutions because it localizes power within itself instead of relying on them... and this has been the goal of facebook all along. put differently: honest answers to this question cannot include facebook as part of the solution without actively subverting the "traditional institutions". furthermore, in the US at least, the institutions are hollowed out anyway.
>How do we help people build a safe community that prevents harm, helps during crises and rebuilds afterwards in a world where anyone across the world can affect us?
also a non-starter; facebook is a social network and software platform, not an army of robotic guards. "preventing harm" will be conflated with "enforcing stability" when they are prompted by groups with more power (governments).
>How do we help people build an informed community that exposes us to new ideas and builds common understanding in a world where every person has a voice?
don't let people use facebook unless they have a college degree or higher. you'll see university classes fill suddenly. more seriously: facebook is a filter bubble by design, and cares absolutely nothing about the reach of people's voices... and it's tiring to hear otherwise.
>How do we help people build a civically-engaged community in a world where participation in voting sometimes includes less than half our population?
by doing something that facebook won't do: taking a stand and promoting groups pushing social change forward. they already know that this is a line they won't ever cross. we all know that they won't cross that line. facebook is a large institution, which by default sides with other large established powers rather than the public. i will also note that "civic engagement" is a dogwhistle for the disempowered members of the public doing something to improve their own standing, typically in opposition to (and rarely, in cooperation with) the established powers. they don't even genuinely want to improve civic engagement, because civic engagement leads to them being obsolete.
>How do we help people build an inclusive community that reflects our collective values and common humanity from local to global levels, spanning cultures, nations and regions in a world with few examples of global communities?
what if we don't have common values, and what if we don't want inclusive communities? what if those of us who follow the western liberal tradition want nothing to do with those who live in contradiction to it and despise it? some cultural chasms can't be rectified... and i can definitively say that facebook won't change that.
in summary: leaving the construction of a global community to facebook is a surefire way to make sure that the "global community" is neutered and ripe for profit extraction. i guess this comes off as a very negative post, but come on-- think about who benefits if people worldwide jump on the zuck train and think about things in the way he's encouraging here. does anyone really think that facebook is actually interested in doing anything other than making money?
by duracel on 2/17/17, 4:44 AM
I'm really against facebooks spying, hiding and deleting people's account culture.
Also forcing people in these small ghettos gives to me strong claustrophobia feelings.
Also calling users "Dumb f.." is really low..
Nope Mark, cannot see this happening.
by jdoliner on 2/16/17, 11:23 PM
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 haven't received enough of the benefits or need to be educated better, they don't want it for real reasons and, in a Democracy, that should be an acceptable stance. If we're not willing to accept that stance than we're forcing people into a global community that matches our vision for the future, not theirs. In other words it's a plot for world domination of one world view over another. I find it deeply cynical that instead it masquerades as a virtuous plan to help all man kind.
by throwawasiudy on 2/16/17, 10:29 PM
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.
by brilliantcode on 2/16/17, 11:27 PM
I think the HN community have discussed at great lengths and even Veritasium's video have talked about some of the things they like to do when Wall Street is watching.
So my question is, why? Why show one side to the world and the other a very different treatment one that must appease Wall Street?
I get that public companies are on the line when it comes to Wall Street but if a company that is supposedly almost as valuable as Google but unable to print cash like Google, does it not make sense that Facebook will be overly aggressive and downright questionable when it comes to strategies to maximize it's user base which it heavily relies on for it's current valuation?
This is the vibe I'm getting whenever I read something Mark writes. No credibility that matches my standards which other tech giant easily passes.
Just take a look at TWTR. Investors are signaling they are increasingly anxious to see more cash and sooner. TWTR looks like the first to go and as global risk premium increases so do the continued viability of FB against cash rich giants like Google & Microsoft.
I'm going to do some research on FB and see if there's any shorting opportunities. If TWTR can crash and burn, there's nothing stopping FB which operates on the same business model of building an audience first before seriously monetizing it.
I'd love it if somebody could offer more insights or even correct me, but I can't shake the feeling, Facebook is in serious trouble as reflected in their strange policies recently, especially around Fake News and trying to enter an attricious battle in China.
Why would FB keep doing what they were doing 10 years ago if they have money printing machine like Google Adwords? I don't think they'll figure it out in time.
by Neliquat on 2/16/17, 11:30 PM
by edblarney on 2/16/17, 10:18 PM
"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.
by tardo99 on 2/16/17, 10:50 PM
by bambax on 2/16/17, 10:35 PM