
Mark Zuckerberg Wants to Build WeChat for the West - godelmachine
https://www.economist.com/business/2019/05/02/mark-zuckerberg-wants-to-build-wechat-for-the-west
======
JohnFen
The idea of Facebook becoming even more ingrained into society than it already
is gives me serious chills.

Saying Facebook's plans are to become the "WeChat of the west" makes me even
more wary. The first thing that I think of when I think of WeChat is
"ubiquitous surveillance", especially governmental surveillance.

~~~
_august
This is why I'm glad Google is supporting RCS [1] to improve our outdated SMS
system. Many of the reasons I use these chat apps (and I think my friends as
well) are having a responsive and modern chat system.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services)

~~~
tapoxi
Will Apple actually implement RCS though? iMessage is a selling point for
iPhones.

~~~
saghm
If Apple added RCS support into iMessage, I'm guessing it wouldn't hurt their
sales too much.

~~~
CarriersSuck
Exactly. There should not be a reason I can see that they can't incorporate it
like they've done with SMS.

------
ravenstine
> In time, the thinking goes, it may become as indispensable to Westerners as
> WeChat is in China.

And this is a _good_ thing? Not only that, but we're supposed to trust Mark
"Privacy This Time" Zuckerberg with something that indispensable?

> “The future is private,” he declared grandiosely.

Nearly 10 years ago, Zuckerberg proclaimed, to paraphrase, that the age of
privacy is over. Forgive me if I don't take what he says today seriously at
all.

> It could argue that a single dominant social network is easier to police
> than lots of smaller ones and has greater financial and technical capacity
> to keep users safe from harmful content.

I'm reassured by this. /s

It's the same old story, but with a new coat of "privacy" paint.

~~~
kbenson
> Nearly 10 years ago, Zuckerberg proclaimed, to paraphrase, that the age of
> privacy is over. Forgive me if I don't take what he says today seriously at
> all.

For Zuckerberg, as with mast CEOs, the future is, and always has been, telling
potential customers what they want to hear to get them excited about their
companies. Nothing conspiratorial about that view either, its part of their
job description.

You're right to be leery of anything he says. If only more people wouldn't
equate power and fame with trustworthiness.

~~~
microwavecamera
>For Zuckerberg, as with mast CEOs, the future is, and always has been,
telling potential customers what they want to hear to get them excited about
their companies. Nothing conspiratorial about that view either, its part of
their job description.

The executives of a corporation conspiring to mislead the public and
conversely it's investors is the very definition of "conspiratorial".

~~~
kbenson
There's a difference between statements of fact and opinions like what a
company "believes in" or "sees as the future". Both may contain lies, but you
can usually only prove something about the factual statements, leaving the
rest to be used (and abused) as needed. CEOs are not the only people to take
advantage of this.

------
vernie
Imagine having the personality disorder that won't allow you to just fuck off
with the unimaginable wealth you've amassed.

------
JohnJamesRambo
I feel he is too late for this. The only people I know that still use Facebook
are old people. He missed his peak window where Facebook was cool and everyone
used it, which you would need to achieve WeChat levels of integration with all
things, as well as adoption by young people and tastemakers.

~~~
parliament32
> The only people I know that still use Facebook are old people.

Very true, FB is known as the place where grandma hangs out.

Unfortunately, WhatsApp is known here as "that third world messaging app" so
that's not gaining traction anytime soon either.

Most people just iMessage or SMS, with the tech crowd being more on Signal.

------
cheeyoonlee
If he does, they really need to work on the UI/UX side of things because FB
and Messenger already feel like bloatware and they're difficult to navigate.
WeChat on the other hand, along with KakaoTalk but WeChat especially, does it
very well without feeling heavy and annoying to use.

~~~
immichaelwang
How is Messenger Bloated?

~~~
deepVoid
It is a piece of bloated app that adds all your FB friends to your messenger
friend list automatically and constantly spams you to contact them on
anniversaries etc. I deleted it the same day I downloaded it.

~~~
djohnston
that's weird, i never get prompted to contact anyone except for the default
thread that opens when you have a new friend, which admittedly i don't like

------
trollied
If this really is their goal, it’s weird that they are shutting down peer-to-
peer payments via messenger. I was under the impression that was one of the
main use cases of WeChat.

[https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3074222/facebook-d...](https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3074222/facebook-
discontinues-messenger-p2p-payments)

~~~
TACIXAT
I'm actually delighted to hear this. Every company seems to have slapped on a
send money button on their app (gmail, fb, snapchat come to mind). My
understanding is they were all taking a loss in hopes that it massively took
off and they could capture that market (venmo is still unprofitable). I would
much rather someone find an efficiency that allows them to run a profitable
payments platform than have all these big players drown the market by dumping
money into it.

~~~
frosted-flakes
Or make it a standard, the way Interac E-transfer is in Canada (almost always
free, instant, and everyone already has it).

[https://www.interac.ca/en/interac-e-transfer-
consumer.html](https://www.interac.ca/en/interac-e-transfer-consumer.html)

------
chriselles
I am strongly opposed to a Facebook Superplatform akin to WeChat.

However, could we face a near future scenario where WeChat expands outside of
it’s total dominance of China and penetrates One Belt, One Road trade
partners?

Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent(WeChat), and Huawei(BATH) are all well integrated into
Chinese government/PLA strategy.

Could Zipf’s Law combined with Metcalfe’s Law apply here?

In the global digital geopolitical sense((geodigital?), are we better off with
shaping and influencing the US devil we know, than the authoritarian WeChat
devil we don’t, and can’t?

To me, this effort by Facebook is just another step in the macro war between
geodigital operating systems.

Thoughts?

~~~
acct1771
We're better off decentralizing and empowering our citizens digitally with
great tools and security.

~~~
chriselles
Completely agree.

But isn't there a substantial risk that a centralised authoritarian
platform/network could have a 1st place Zipf's Law like distribution with a
decentralised/empowered network in a very distant 2nd place?

~~~
acct1771
Definitely.

We should be pushing the sentiment of digital personal security/sovereignty
the same way we pushed war material manufacturing during the World Wars.

Tie it to freedom in mainstream media publications, and they'll all come
running.

~~~
chriselles
Freedom’s Forge by Arthur Herman is a Greta book in the US homeland industrial
transformation in WWII.

I hope you’re right and I hope it works.

We are up against a well aligned and fused authoritarian juggernaught.

Hopefully the most trusted and best value proposition platform wins.

------
SurrealSoul
I thought that was clear when messenger tried began to tie in other apps like
uber / lyft and whatever they use for collecting payments.

------
panarky
Facebook's plan is the opposite of WeChat.

WeChat is strictly monitored, pervasively censored and rigorously controlled
to align with official dogma, stifle rumors, suppress dissent and promote
harmony.

The new Facebook would be end-to-end encrypted so Facebook can't read messages
even under court order. It will be physically impossible to monitor, censor or
control how the platform is used and abused.

Facebook lost control of the monster they created, and this is their solution
- abdicate any responsibility whatsoever.

I don't want the WeChat model, or the current Facebook model, or the new
Facebook where their toxic waste is externalized to governments and the public
to clean up.

These are all anti-patterns.

~~~
parliament32
>Facebook can't read messages even under court order

Considering that FB controls the package distributions for the apps that
actually handle the encryption/decryption, and they're all closed-source, it
would be hilariously easy for them to be compelled to "forward any message
send/received by users in badlist.txt to fbi.gov" or whatever you like. E2E is
good, but frankly it doesn't do shit if the provider still controls both
endpoints.

~~~
panarky
_> closed-source_

Focusing on the technical implementation of e2e is a distraction.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that Facebook actually implements e2e
and they really cannot read the cleartext or make it available to fbi.gov.

My argument is that this is a dystopian outcome as bad or worse than WeChat's
model of 100% state surveillance and control.

It's a devious way for Facebook to avoid responsibility for the harm its
platform amplifies and accelerates.

------
netwanderer3
So they are saying that even Facebook wouldn't even be able to read your
messages. Wait a moment, if I go on Facebook Ads, I can target users based on
some very precise and specific criteria like interests, then how would
Facebook know these information if they can't read your messages?

I admit those features are pretty awesome as it allows businesses to target
the exact groups of customer they wanted. It's the holy grail of advertising.
Imagine you can just bypass all those who are not interested in your product
and only laser target the ones who have intentions to buy.

Having said that, I understand for businesses to have such effective insights,
it's reasonable that consumer privacy must be compromised to some degree. We
can't have the cake and eat it too. If one agrees to use Facebook they must
give up privacy, it's just that simple and I accepted that when I used it.

For Mark Zuckerberg to come out and say they won't peek at your information,
that would be dishonest. How are they going to sell ads if they don't have
your information?

For Facebook to continue to grow, they must strive to innovate and provide new
services that are deemed so valuable by the public that people are willing to
give up some of their privacy in exchange for these new services. That's
really the only way.

Everyone knows Google does some surveillance on their users too but their
services provide very high values to society, people simply can't ignore and
not use it.

------
kerng
There might be other companies that have similar penetration, but already have
your payment information, they'd just have to expand their markets. Businesses
like Amazon, Google, Uber, Lyft, maybe even Microsoft.. seem poised to expand
to enable similar scenarios - and they arent suffering such enormous trust
issues.

For me most interesting candidate is Amazon in that space. Would be
interesting to see if Amazon will make a move at Facebook eventually - just a
matter of time.

~~~
plussed_reader
If Amazon were to take a swipe at FB, they'd be taking on the title of troll-
regulator. I don't think the payoff is worth the headache; see the flailings
of Jack Dorsey.

------
shmerl
No, thanks. Surely not from Facebook.

------
dgzl
Will this include a state-sanctioned backdoor?

~~~
IIAOPSW
No. It will include a state-demanded backdoor.

~~~
slenk
I doubt they have to demand it. Zark Fuckerberg will likely welcome them in,
especially if it means he can get richer off the troubles of others

------
duxup
There's no way the US government gets a say on what is allowed or what isn't
allowed content wise with the first amendment as it is interpreted in the US.

So I've zero clue what Zuckerberg thinks is going to happen as far that goes.

~~~
freeflight
> There's no way the US government gets a say on what is allowed or what isn't
> allowed content wise with the first amendment as it is interpreted in the
> US.

The US government already has a say over that [0].

That's exactly what Senate hearings about "terrorist propaganda" and "election
interference" on social media are all about [1], applying soft-power to send
the message "You deal with this, or we will force you to deal with it", thus
nudging these companies into self-regulation.

[0] [http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/the-
cleaners/](http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/the-cleaners/)

[1] [https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/5/17823280/facebook-
twitter-...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/5/17823280/facebook-twitter-
hearings-congress-jack-dorsey-sheryl-sandberg)

~~~
duxup
They can threaten but it depends on what it is they pass legally.

That's not the same as law that makes it past a first amendment challenge.

~~~
freeflight
Like the first amendment is supposed to prevent the NSA from domestic
snooping? [0]

All based on the patriot act which is still in effect to this day. That's the
"beauty" about this: If you make the cause big enough, then barely anybody
will mind the eroded civil rights. If you resist, you will be labeled an
unpatriotic "terrorist sympathizer" who doesn't want to keep the country safe,
a de-facto traitor to the cause.

[0] [https://www.eff.org/de/deeplinks/2017/11/nsa-internet-
survei...](https://www.eff.org/de/deeplinks/2017/11/nsa-internet-surveillance-
under-section-702-violates-first-amendment)

~~~
duxup
I don't think a first amendment challenge as far as what you say on social
media goes has anything to do with a very non traditional legal argument that
NSA collecting involves the first amendment.

~~~
freeflight
But there's still the, very traditional, legal argument of it also breaking
the fourth [0], and that on a rather massive scale. Which the eef link also
pointed out.

No matter how you frame this, these constitutional boundaries are not as high
as many US Americans like to pretend. Because if those boundaries are not
enforced, they ain't worth the paper they are written on, leaving the door
wide open to further erode these constitutional rights.

[0]
[https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...](https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2671&context=facpub)

------
xbeta
Mark probably mix up the cultural differences between China and rest of the
world.

------
ConfusedDog
The issue here is that governments have laws/methods to be able get those
data. So long that fact stays true, regardless what's being built (chat apps
or airports), privacy is and inevitably compromised.

------
WheelsAtLarge
He will. He has the users and the platform. 5 years or so from now will be
using a flavor of Facebook's chat programs to buy and order stuff. He's a guy
that can do it.

~~~
wlesieutre
They already did this in 2016: [https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/05/shopify-
in-facebook-mess...](https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/05/shopify-in-facebook-
messenger/)

Next step is getting anyone to care, which probably means providing a more
useful shopping UI instead of trying to shoehorn it into a chatbot.

------
CameronBanga
I always thought it was kinda understood that WeChat was the Facebook for the
East? To the point where Facebook once made their own phone and no one really
batted an eye.

~~~
rchaud
If you're referring to the HTC ChaCha, that was a "Facebook phone" in the way
the Moto Rokr was an Apple phone. I don't believe it was even released beyond
a few markets, and it was discontinued pretty quickly.

------
strikelaserclaw
I knew fb would go this direction a year ago. They seem to be masters of
looking at others for innovation and just copying/enhancing that
functionality.

------
wickoff
Oh. So that's where their crypto stablecoin comes in.

------
zachguo
That means fundamentally changing Facebook's business model, which is
unlikely. Ads only account for less than 20% of WeChat's revenue.

------
return1
Smart move. And if Facebook becomes irrelevant in a few years, he can use all
the cash to turn it to a bank

------
client4
No thank you. When I use WeChat I make the obvious assumption that: everything
is monitored, my location is tagged when I use WeChat wallet, my location is
monitored via the app constantly, my social graph is analyzed, and more. But
now that I think of it, Facebook is already doing that. They are just missing
the payment property.

------
ogn3rd
I'd never touch a thing with his name on it or dollars behind it. Get bent,
Zuck.

------
slenk
Is there anything we can do to stop it (besides not having a Facebook
account)?

------
wintorez
Not gonna happen, for multitude of reasons.

------
jorblumesea
Ah yes, that's what we need, more Chinese style governance?

------
mfatica
No thanks, go fuck yourself Mark

~~~
pascalxus
no need for such rudeness.

~~~
qsymmachus
Maybe, on the other hand, an appeal to "civility" is often used to squelch
criticism of bad behavior. There are plenty of business and political figures
who, for one reason or another, deserve little more than a "fuck you" and
getting booed off the stage.

We can debate whether Zuckerberg falls in that category!

~~~
kodz4
Fuck you is not constructive criticism. It's takes focus away from actual
constructive criticism by being a distraction.

