
Does Even Mark Zuckerberg Know What Facebook Is? - chrismealy
http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/10/does-even-mark-zuckerberg-know-what-facebook-is.html
======
FabHK
> “We have been working to ensure the integrity of the German elections this
> weekend,” Zuckerberg writes.

Excuse me, what? As an advertising company, you don't ensure the integrity of
a sovereign nation's election. You can at most abstain from unduly interfering
with it (and of course you should, it's not particularly laudable or
supererogatory).

~~~
mortenjorck

      Facebook has grown so big, and become so totalizing, that we 
      can’t really grasp it all at once. Like a four-dimensional 
      object, we catch slices of it when it passes through the 
      three-dimensional world we recognize.
    

This is an incredible bit of prose. It reads like a description of some kind
of future mega-corporation from a Gibson novel, and it's mind-bending to
contemplate that we really do live in that universe.

~~~
__MatrixMan__
He elaborates a bit later on the properties of this object. What a sentence:

    
    
        But what had been presented as a democratic town hall was
        revealed to be a densely interwoven collection of parallel
        media ecosystems and political infrastructures outside the
        control of mainstream media outlets and major political 
        parties and moving like a wrecking ball through both.

~~~
Stratoscope
Oh my, do I have to do yet another "mobile friendly" reply? Maybe I should
write a Mobile Quote Bot. :-)

> _But what had been presented as a democratic town hall was revealed to be a
> densely interwoven collection of parallel media ecosystems and political
> infrastructures outside the control of mainstream media outlets and major
> political parties and moving like a wrecking ball through both._

Tip to HN commenters: don't indent block quotes and break them up into lines.
That is for code formatting, and it makes the quote hard to read on a mobile
device.

Instead, put the quote all on one line in this format without indenting it:

    
    
      > *Quote here.*
    

Or the quote can be on multiple lines (newlines and spaces are
interchangeable), as long as the lines are _not indented_. Just add the > and
* at the beginning, and another * at the end. This will put the quote in a
reasonable format that works both on desktop and mobile browsers.

If the quote consists of multiple paragraphs, I like to follow the above
formatting for each paragraph separately. Put a blank line between each
paragraph so they don't run together.

And then be sure to check the format after commenting. It should look like the
quote near the beginning of this comment. If it doesn't look right, edit to
fix it. And no, you do not need to add an "Edit: fixed formatting" note. That
would be silly, just fix the thing.

HN's comment formatting options are rather meager, so this is about the best
we can do.

Thanks!

~~~
__MatrixMan__
Sorry about that. I figured that the post I was replying to had done it for a
reason that I didn't understand, so I mimicked it. I'll keep your advice in
mind in the future.

~~~
Stratoscope
No worries, and no apology needed! It gave me an excuse to post some general
advice on quoting, so that's all good.

------
projectant
Quote of the year:

> _But if Facebook is bigger, newer, and weirder than a mere company, surely
> his trip is bigger, newer, and weirder than a mere presidential run. Maybe
> he’s doing research and development, reverse-­engineering social bonds to
> understand how Facebook might better facilitate them. Maybe Facebook is a
> church and Zuckerberg is offering his benedictions. Maybe Facebook is a
> state within a state and Zuckerberg is inspecting its boundaries. Maybe
> Facebook is an emerging political community and Zuckerberg is cultivating
> his constituents. Maybe Facebook is a surveillance state and Zuckerberg a
> dictator undertaking a propaganda tour. Maybe Facebook is a dual power — a
> network overlaid across the U.S., parallel to and in competition with the
> government to fulfill civic functions — and Zuckerberg is securing his
> command. Maybe Facebook is border control between the analog and the digital
> and Zuckerberg is inspecting one side for holes. Maybe Facebook is a fleet
> of alien spaceships that have colonized the globe and Zuckerberg is the
> viceroy trying to win over his new subjects._

~~~
owebmaster
Maybe someone is behind Zuckerberg? I don't find him too smart, really.

~~~
zghst
He's not the brightest, but he sure is savvy.

------
Digit-Al
I can see a number of potential reasons why Zuck wouldn't want to be US
president.

Firstly, it seems to me that it could potentially poison his brand overseas.
Everyone knows that Facebook can potentially exert a lot of influence in very
subtle ways. How many countries would want most of their citizens under the
potential influence of a company owned by the president of a potentially
hostile country? It could cause Facebook to be banned in some countries (like
it already is in China).

Secondly, it could be argued that the owner of Facebook already has more power
than the US president, so it would be a step down. After all, Facebook has
influence over more people than POTUS. And considering the subtle ways we can
be manipulated by social media, it can surely be argued that he can influence
people more directly and more powerfully than POTUS.

So it seems to me that becoming President gains him nothing but aggravation
and stress, and stands to lose him valuable overseas business.

~~~
dogruck
I disagree that the head of an online advertising company has more power than
the POTUS.

~~~
T-hawk
The POTUS has 300 million users. Facebook has 2 billion.

~~~
pscsbs
The POTUS has nukes and one of the most highly trained and best-equipped
militaries in the world. Facebook can be shutdown by POTUS in an instant.

Power is not measured by “users.”

~~~
qq66
The President of the US indisputably has more destructive power than the CEO
of Facebook, but the ability to kill people is not the only measure of power.
And, how would the President shut down Facebook in an instant? The US
President's powers are highly constrained, as many of them have complained
about.

~~~
dogruck
I'd like a better understanding of your viewpoint.

What actions do you think Zuck could take which would demonstrate that he has
more power than Trump?

And, why do you raise the hypothetical of Trump shutting down Facebook? In
particular, it's my understanding that many of Trump's foes are blaming FB for
his win.

~~~
qq66
I only raise the point about "Trump shutting down Facebook" in response to the
comment "Facebook can be shutdown by POTUS in an instant." It simply isn't
true. The President of the United States often can't even get the legislative
platform that they ran on through Congress. I don't see any way they can shut
down a major US corporation in an instant, unless with the cooperation of
dozens of different parties within the government. The power of the US
presidency is staggering and fairly unconstrained when it comes to killing
millions of people with nuclear and conventional weapons. It's pretty
constrained in every other arena.

As to actions that Zuck could take to show that he has more power than the
POTUS? As I mentioned, constructive power and destructive power are of
different natures, so that the power of an artist building a great sculpture
is not really comparable to the power to smash that sculpture with a hammer.

------
bertil
For the record: What Facebook is and wants to be is actually an _enforceable
personal relations layer_ on top of the web stack.

Uber agrees to send in my name a “Pay me £7.23 for that shared ride” to my
Facebook friends, but not to people for whom I can’t prove I know well enough.
Tinder shows shared relations with strangers. That is a powerful web of
features unlocked thanks to this. That’s why building an API was such a key
early change of what Facebook was.

Typically, Twitter does something similar to Facebook on the surface (a news
feed) but is not planning on serving as an authentication layer, so they do a
lot less to address grievers, inauthentic accounts and lately, unwanted
political influence.

The News Feed was the first key feature, built internally and it boosted the
business model that Facebook has started leveraging: targeted advertising. But
neither the News Feed, not advertising is the core of Facebook — no more than
ads are at the core of Google.

Google wants to leverage artificial intelligence to organise the world’s
information. That your friends matter to you and that you trust them more, and
that you want computers to tell who they are is what’s at the core of
Facebook; the recent pivot to communities is clearly in that line: you also
trust and are willing to help people that you might not have met before
because you belong to certain groups, communities.

Ads are a simple and effective way to finance both projects. Because
management had to place ad-focused people high up, they took over a bit of the
attention, but leaders at both companies know to focus on the end-goal.

I can easily imagine Facebook making more money from transaction fee, or
distributing 3D-content; I can imagine Google making more money similarly
(typically, CPA is kind of that). Both have tried, and the results were
underwhelming, and will most likely try again.

------
josefresco
From the following NYT's article:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/mark-
zuckerberg-f...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/mark-zuckerberg-
facebook.html)

 _" Are you bothered by fake news, systematic misinformation campaigns and
Facebook “dark posts” — micro-targeted ads not visible to the public — aimed
at African-Americans to discourage them from voting? You must be one of those
people “upset about ideas” you disagree with.

Are you troubled when agents of a foreign power pose online as American
Muslims and post incendiary content that right-wing commentators can cite as
evidence that all American Muslims are sympathizers of terrorist groups like
the Islamic State? Sounds like you can’t handle a healthy debate.

Does it bother you that Russian actors bought advertisements aimed at swing
states to sow political discord during the 2016 presidential campaign, and
that it took eight months after the election to uncover any of this? Well, the
marketplace of ideas isn’t for everyone."_

------
indubitable
Is this an issue with Facebook, or an issue with the society that has yielded
the wild success of Facebook?

 _" I read it on the internet, so it must be true."_

Everybody would know I was joking, yet all of this is only an issue precisely
because people are insufficiently critical of the things they read. But I'm
leaving off an important part of that sentence: _... people are insufficiently
critical of the things they read when such things confirm their own biases._
People believe what they believe because they believe that is the most logical
view to have. That causes people to turn off their filter when seeing
something that confirms that belief.

Somebody censoring a belief or attaching an appeal to an arbitrary authority
declaring it false isn't going to change people's minds. If anything, it could
very well strengthen their resolve as they feel as though they're being
oppressed or attacked. There needs to be more cordial debate and discussion
between differing groups. I am not suggesting promoting a false balance, but
rather pointing out that what we have _now_ is a false balance. So many topics
are optically homogenous - which gives participants and readers a gross
misunderstanding of reality and leads both to less questioning of their own
views, and a lack of understanding of how anybody could ever disagree with
them.

------
heisenbit
News publishers are subject to a certain degree of accountability.

When Facebook launched the real name policy and its limited scale ensured a
certain amount of accountability.

These days with advertisement, constantly changing algorithms promoting user
content and global scale spanning all types of legal frameworks and
enforcement bodies there is no real accountability. Facebook is a tool with
incredible power and access to the power is poorly guarded. Zuckerberg may be
all powerful but even worse he is enabling anonymous bad organized actors to
wreck havoc. An accident that was waiting to happen and of course it did.

------
jo0
Facebook is the biggest farm of data milch cows that has ever existed. How can
he publically come out and say that? Yes there are, and will continue to be
unintended effects on society for running such a large farm...

But

Everyone (trapped) employed in the credit fuelled consumption economy needs
the farm to exist.

Asking Zuckerberg to clarify the role of the farm is pointless. It's like
asking why a gigantic herd of wildebeest are required for the Serengeti to
exist.

If you want a consumption culture that gives you, your iPhones and Star Wars
movies you need the farm. Whether its called facebook or is run by a
Zuckerberg is in an irrelevant point.

~~~
bogomipz
>"Everyone (trapped) employed in the credit fuelled consumption economy needs
the farm to exist."

The consumption-based segment of the economy has existed for much longer than
social networks or the internet:

[https://jobenomicsblog.com/consumption-based-
economy/](https://jobenomicsblog.com/consumption-based-economy/)

Also countries with post-industrial economies are a mix of service and
consumption. There is no economy that is solely consumption based.

~~~
vmateixeira
_" Whether its called facebook or is run by a Zuckerberg is in an irrelevant
point."_

~~~
bogomipz
How does your comment relate to anything I wrote?

------
jeff6845
I had an interview at Facebook where the hiring manager completely forgot
about it. Ackward, because he was the one I was suppose to meet in the lobby.
One of the interviewers came late and took me upstairs, and between the him
and the other three, I heard three different stories about what happened to
the hiring manager.

However, in the interviews, I came under the impression that Facebook knows
very well what they do, where they are going, and what their 7-year plan is.

It's just that corporations don't market that as their image, but prefer to
cultivate an image they deem more likeable to attract customers. I'll bet that
Mark knows this, and what his company is doing quit well even though at some
things, they seem in disarray.

~~~
dredmorbius
And what is that 7-year plan?

------
bertil
> This pledge was, in some ways, the reverse of an other announcement [on
> retargeting].

No, it’s not: giving advertisers relevant audiences is useful; offering
customers the possibility to say “me buying a vacuum cleaner was not because I
was starting a collection” serves a similar purpose: showing ads to people
interested by them. (On a related note: If you sell a vacuum cleaner, please
don’t use retargeting.)

> The only two I could think of that might feel obligated to make the same
> assurances are Diebold, the widely hated former manufacturer of electronic-
> voting systems, and Academi, the private military contractor whose founder
> keeps begging for a chance to run Afghanistan. This is not good company.

No words on whether Diebolt, and the hundreds of private computer security
companies who protect government services are good companies.

> At 2 billion members, “monthly active Facebook users” is the single largest
> non-biologically sorted group

Well, I’d wager ‘Internet users’ is larger…

> For most Facebook users, these meticulously constructed and assiduously
> managed challenges are the only access they’ll ever have to Zuckerberg’s
> otherwise highly private personal life.

The fact that I know his chidren’s names (and have seem a dozen pictures of
the eldest) but I don’t know the names of most of my colleagues’ child kind of
defeats that point.

> Maybe Facebook is a state within a state and Zuckerberg is inspecting its
> boundaries.

Something tells me that the author is American. What could it possibly be?

------
cat199
Also saw on the page:

[http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/09/election-interference-
is-...](http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/09/election-interference-is-what-
facebook-is-built-for.html)

which seems to hit the nail on the head.

------
dom0
Shouldn't the title be "Does Mark Zuckerberg Even Know What Facebook Is?"

~~~
erikb
It means "it seems like most people don't know what facebook is, but you would
expect that Zuckerberg knows. But we guess _even he_ doesn't know it".

~~~
bryanrasmussen
that works with a negative 'doesn't know it' but not with a positive 'does
know it'.

The question does even X know Y? Implies that X is somehow out of touch, and
not knowing Y, but maybe they do - surprise!

The question Does even X not know Y? Implies we would expect X to know Y, but
what if even X does not?

The question Doesn't X even know Y? Implies that X is stupid and doesn't know
a lot of things, but can it be that they are so stupid that they don't even
know Y!?!?

On edit:

The question Does X know even Y? Implies they are knowledgable about a lot of
things, but Y is such a rare and mysterious subject that we would be surprised
if they did but what if they do know Y!?!

~~~
randallsquared
There are a lot more nuances than your analysis admits, and one is the assumed
inflection of the speaker.

Consider "Does anyone know Y?". Depending on how it is said, it could be
either a straightforward question about whether anyone knows Y, or with an
upward inflection on "anyone" it could mean "I doubt anyone knows Y, but it's
possible someone does."

With that same inflection on a person's name, "Does even Person know Y?" has
the same meaning as your "Does even X not know Y?"

~~~
bryanrasmussen
Perhaps, although I had a difficult time hearing the inflection when reading
the headline.

