
I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter - huntermeyer
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/4/11/17221344/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-cambridge-analytica
======
rememberlenny
Web platforms are governments.

    
    
      "Facebook is a government. Facebook's users are citizens,
      and Facebook's applications developers are the private 
      companies that drive much of the economy. Apple. Twitter, 
      Myspace, Craigslist, Foursquare, Tumblr and every other 
      large network of engaged users (including some services of 
      Google) plays a similar role. We have always tacitly 
      acknowledged this. We talk about these networks as 
      communities, communities have governments."
    
      "Once you start thinking about large web platforms as 
      governments, the logical question is what kind of government 
      are they. One thing is for sure - none of these platforms 
      are democracies. They are oligarchies controlled by 
      founders, investors or shareholders. That may not be at all 
      bad. As long as citizens (users) can move freely from one 
      government to another with little switching cost, there is 
      no reason to burden these polities with the inherent 
      inefficiencies of popular democracy. But that does put a 
      special premium on emigration policies and property rights. 
      Do I own my data, can I export it freely? It also suggests 
      that large networks that have strong network effects may 
      someday need other incentives to act in the best interests 
      of their citizens."
    

[http://www.usv.com/blog/web-services-as-
governments](http://www.usv.com/blog/web-services-as-governments)

~~~
pitaj
Whether or not they are governments is a question of definition. Definitions
are important, and social networks don't fit very well into it.

They are fundamentally different from modern governments as they do not have a
monopoly on coercion.

If social media are governments, then every corporation - no, every
association of people - on Earth is a government.

~~~
rememberlenny
The key here is _governance_.

    
    
                ------------
    

I think if you click into the linked post, you get the analogy regarding
governments and _governance_. Web platforms have to concern themselves with
governance of their users and the respective eco-system that their users
operate on.

The point is less to be abstract or symbolic, and instead look at the concrete
decisions they have to make. Corporations or general relationships do not have
to consider these points to the same degree for survival.

In the past, governments would create policies, laws, and make decisions that
would determine the well being of a citizen. Now, web platforms are more
commonly making decisions of regulation, censorship, interoperability, which
all fall in the realm of governments.

    
    
      "So as you watch the large web services evolve, think 
      about how they are balancing the relationship between 
      the state and the private sector? What does Facebook's 
      introduction of Facebook Credits say about its monetary 
      policy? What is Apples foreign policy? Do they act 
      unilaterally promoting their own proprietary standards 
      or do they act multilaterally embracing international 
      standards? What is Twitter's industrial policy? Do they 
      invest in state owned services or encourage decentralized 
      economic development? The choices these platforms make 
      reveal a lot about who they are, and ultimately how well 
      they serve the companies operating in their economies and 
      the citizens who live there."
    

Companies or corporations in general may have a degree of these problems, but
not in a way that their survival depends on.

~~~
specialist
Emphatic agreement.

Governance is the final frontier. By that I mean "How are grievances
adjudicated?"

Any one struggling with the "platforms as government" analogy might think of
MMORPGs instead.

~~~
hammock
The final frontier is coercion... threat to life and liberty. Saying MMORPG is
a government because the game controls the adjudication of your grievances is
like saying Macy's is a government because Macy's Customer Service adjudicates
your grievances. Except when it doesn't. Except when the FTC, or the FBI, or
any other (real) government overrules them.

~~~
nitrogen
I know this is an old thread, but wanted to note that this is similar to
saying that federal courts are not courts because they can be overruled by the
supreme court. The existence of more powerful forms of government does not
negate the existence of less powerful forms.

------
Barjak
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 entity which created the NSA and continues to eavesdrop on all of
our conversations.

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

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

Don't interpret this as saying Facebook acted appropriately.

~~~
agentultra
> 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.

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

It's hard to take this 'protection' seriously in many cases. It's for more
often the case where nation-state protection is extended to one company
against other companies within the state than it is for one country's industry
to be collectively protected against other countries'.

Protecting your own company against both the state and other companies is the
CEO's mandate.

~~~
owebmaster
> Protecting your own company against both the state and other companies is
> the CEO's mandate.

Which usually mean to not care about users, laws, and any sense of moral or
ethical standards.

~~~
vinceguidry
That principle is much, much older than companies and business.

------
ashleyn
The rise of nationalist populism, although something I still disagree quite
contentiously with, really begins making more sense when opinions like this
start leaking out.

~~~
wybiral
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.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
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.

~~~
leereeves
> 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-...](https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-so-called-experts-
uneasy-dive-into-the-trump-russia-frenzy)

------
Nav_Panel
> _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" to handle it?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _who will be setting those limits_

The same ones who set the limits on the railroads and oil tycoons, after they
abused their power, or on AT&T, after it abused its power, _et cetera_. This
is why we have government.

~~~
Nav_Panel
The situations you mention involve antitrust law and unfair competition, with
the intent that consumers would benefit from increased competition. Internet
companies are different, and specifically Facebook is different, because its
customers are advertising companies and its _product_ is the eyeballs of its
users. Ironically, the closest contemporary internet analogy to your examples
is Net Neutrality...

Any legislation around Facebook and similar is going to look fundamentally
different than antitrust law. It's more likely to look like some sort of
"consumer protection" suit rather than a monopoly takedown. I don't trust our
lawmakers to successfully figure out the incentive structures; they'll likely
seize this opportunity to appeal to their voter base. The results might not be
what they intend.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
Antitrust law, specifically the Sherman Antitrust Act, does not talk about
customers as much as "protecting consumers" from "abuses", broadly defined. In
my discussions in New York political circles, many see a Facebook antitrust
case as a paved road to a Governorship.

~~~
Nav_Panel
> _Sherman Antitrust Act_

Broadly defined, in terms of _economics_. I don't see much discussion of
Facebook with regards to "market competition". It's free to use, tough to
argue that prices are being artificially inflated when _there are none_.

But I also don't doubt that antitrust suits are how legislators _want_ to
pursue action against Facebook.

EDIT: The justification I could see is that (1) _advertising prices_ are being
artificially inflated, which is tough given that many other tech companies
compete for the same advertising dollars, and (2) that consumers aren't
receiving fair compensation for their personal data, but even that doesn't
seem like a good fit for anti-trust law.

> _In my discussions in New York political circles, many see a Facebook
> antitrust case as a paved road to a Governorship_

As a lifetime NYS and current NYC resident, I sure wont be basing my vote for
governor on whether they take action against Facebook. I'd see it as an
attempt to use the governor position as a stepping stone to federal
government. This state has more pressing regional problems to deal with, in my
opinion.

------
adamnemecek
I feel like early FB culture had quite a few of the signs of a cult. Like
legit, almost religious, cult.

~~~
sevensor
Hardly unique to Facebook though. Isn't it a bit of a Valley cliché to be on a
mission to change the world? To ask employees to _believe_ in the company, not
just to work there?

~~~
eeZah7Ux
> To ask employees to believe in the company, not just to work there?

To ask employees to ACT LIKE they believe in the company

"My PhD in maths helped me increase click conversion rate by 1%!! #soexcited "

...and then your employees leave after 1 year.

~~~
Bartweiss
> _...and then your employees leave after 1 year._

No kidding. I have trouble accepting the "Valley are a cult!" rhetoric,
because we're talking about faiths where all the acolytes advocate changing
cults every 18 months to progress faster.

(Although now that I say it, that could be a great RPG or something - like
_Paranoia_ with a Lovecraft setting. Hmm...)

------
cwaffler
Title is a little clickbaity, but it still stands that FB is some deep shit
right now. Zuckerberg's child like competitiveness, coupled with silicon
valleys hyper capatalist nature has created a serious problem for current and
future generations...

~~~
mistrial9
.. that is how the snowball started rolling.. and that was years ago !

------
pcunite
Quote from the article:

 _Cambridge Analytica is a scandal that isn’t a scandal: Everyone who has ever
worked on or with the Facebook platform knew that for several years, the
platform made data available to third-party developers by design._

Why is this news and a problem now? What made the sky fall? If _everyone_
knew, then why has someone been picked to be the bad guy _now_?

~~~
throwaway2048
Reducing this problem to tribalistic "oh u mad because trump won!!" is
infantile and absurdly counterproductive.

Which is of course why its brought up so much...

~~~
HenryBemis
Apologies to USA's readers, no disrespect, I am merely trying to put some
sense into throwaway2048's brain :)

Dear TA2048,

In some/many parts of this planet we don't give a poop about who is the
President of the US-of-A.

But we care for our own elections (see UK referendum, Greek referendum,
Catalonia referendum, elections in Austria, Hungary, Italy, etc.)

The problem surfaced NOW, and NOW we are dealing with it. We can't turn back
time. Not even slow it down. But we can try/make sure it won't happen again,
or at least reduce its impact.

Kind regards, Someone-who-believes-in-democracy

~~~
pcunite
Why did it surface now? _Everyone_ knew.

~~~
s73v3r_
Can you provide a citation for that? Everyone who ever used FB knew exactly
what was going on?

------
polskibus
Sounds straight from a dystopian cyberpunk novel. Corporations rule the world!

~~~
stochastic_monk
It’s also straight out of Mussolini’s Italy.

------
tango12
I think having a military force that helps a set of people enforce an us vs
them and ‘own’ resources (natural or otherwise) makes a country a country. A
company, unless it has physical power, will never be like a country.

------
kelukelugames
How can Zuck's speehwriter write about experience without violating her NDA?

This post reminds me of Gavin Belson's blood boy. I assumed CEOs locked down
the people close to them with NDAs.

------
textmode
"But Cambridge Analytica is a scandal that isn't a scandal: _Everyone_ who has
ever worked on or with the Facebook platform knew that for several years, the
platform _made data available_ to third-party developers by design. The
scandal is that the world finally understands the ramifications of that state
of affairs."

But could the world "understand the ramifications" based on reading terms of
service and click-through permissions or did the world come to understand the
ramifications through disclosures from "whistleblowers" and investigative
journalism?

"We don't sell people's data. Period." \- David Baser, Facebook

[https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/04/data-off-
facebook/](https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/04/data-off-facebook/)

According to the former Zuckerberg speechwriter, Facebook shares access to
people's data with third-party app developers.

Does Facebook share people's data with academic researchers? Why? Can users
opt-out of this sharing? Are they opted-in by default? How much data has
Facebook shared in the past?

Do Mr. Zuckerberg, Ms. Sandberg, Mr. Baser and others at Facebook believe
people would only be concerned with "sale" of their data, but not with sharing
access to it with unidentified third parties?

------
cryptonector
"Companies over countries" is tolerable speech, but nation states will not
find it tolerable as _policy_. As a citizen, _I_ don't find "companies over
countries" a tolerable policy. I get a say in how my country is run. I get NO
say in how Facebook is run.

------
agumonkey
maybe that's the future .. globalization reduced borders and culture
meaningfulness. Lots of global social structures are results of large
companies and not nations.

If Musk martian fantasy succeed it may even be earth vs planets in a way.

------
Invictus0
I'm sure there were plenty of people that had second thoughts about privacy in
the early days; but, like the author, they probably chose not to question it
and said nothing.

------
onetimemanytime
FB should be stopped, along with Google, and maybe Amazon. One way or another.

But, is it me, or speech writers and close advisors should not be spilling all
private stuff? Maybe she was not paid for it but it's almost like a attorney-
client thing. Or it should be.

------
TwoNineA
I thought his early motto was "Dumbfucks".

~~~
NeonVice
I was hoping that a congressman would ask Zuckerberg if he still viewed his
users this way. I'm sure he had a well-prepared response to this exact
question, just in case.

~~~
parthdesai
Look, i really don't like fb's practices as much as the next guy here ( you
can check my history if you want to) but are you really going to hold someone
accountable for something they said when they were 19-21?

~~~
carapace
It's pointing out that he's not some cyber-saint.

What can we look at that would stand as evidence that he's _not_ a huge
douche-bag?

Renaming the SF General Hospital after himself? His recent behavior in front
of Congress?

Show me the evidence that he's a _good_ person, please.

~~~
parthdesai
Only thing i said is, to judge him based on something he said when he was
somewhere between 19 and 21 years old in Uni is a stupid thing to do. A
majority of us have said and done stupid things in uni.

~~~
carapace
Yes, and you're right about that.

It is stupid and unfair to judge somebody based on one thing they said when
they were young.

------
harigov
I wonder when Facebook would start incorporating some of the democratic
processes in its decision making and potentially let users elect 'directors'
to oversee some of the decision making. I guess never. I don't think
capitalism and social media, that would be good for the society, cannot go
together.

------
anonu
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
together."

The scary thing is - some kid in Silicon Valley has decided that he will wield
his power in this way. Government is bad. Monolithic companies are good.
Community is about getting behind your smartphone and liking a picture and
posting a meme (hyperbole - but ultimately the vast majority of online
interactions are such...)

It's always good to challenge the status quo - especially so if its about how
the world works and how people interact. But the underlying capitalist values
of Facebook denigrate any of those ideals.

~~~
saas_co_de
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.

~~~
hunterjrj
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?

