
Things that I think will be important in the next decade - juniusfree
https://www.facebook.com/4/posts/10111311886191191/
======
nikolay
I think Zuck is too full of himself. People often get confused that their
success means that they are wise, and that we should listen to them. Should we
as well follow the thought leadership of drug cartels and the Saudi monarchs?

~~~
nickbauman
"Full of himself"? Way too mild an indictment. In the last 24 hours Facebook
bought a story in a publication, pretended it wasn’t sponsored, their COO
posted it, then when they got caught, they denied knowing anything about it.
And what was that ad/story about? Their commitment to stopping disinformation.
All the while we've learned that they have utterly sold the company to
international electioneers.

~~~
cheschire
Citations to your references would be appreciated. It's the first step to
overcoming the state of internet disinformation, as well as helping society
overcome the fear of missing out just because someone doesn't already know
your references.

~~~
Ensorceled
I understand what you are saying, but this is a mainstream story, easily
searchable with DDG from hints in the comment, covered by both Washington Post
and New York Times as well as being splashed all over Business Insider,
Mashable, The Verge, etc. etc.

This is not the comment to be fighting this battle with.

~~~
creaghpatr
The first part of the comment is true, but then unfortunately used to prop up
a false claim:

>All the while we've learned that they have utterly sold the company to
international electioneers.

This is disinformation, laundered with the trust of the first comment.

~~~
Ensorceled
I wasn't agreeing with the original claim, though it's probably somewhat
accurate, nor that this news item supports that claim. Just disputing that a
citation was required for that claim in this forum.

~~~
mistermann
> Just disputing that a citation was _required_ for that claim in this forum.

The ask was: "Citations to your references would be _appreciated_."

It's true that a citation is not needed, but including one adds _value_ , in
that it increases efficiency.

~~~
Ensorceled
Curious what wording you would have liked from me here?

> Just disputing that a citation was _appreciated_ for that claim in this
> forum.

There is no word to replace _required_ that wouldn't be open to your
complaint; e.g. needed, necessary,

Yes, a citation would always be appreciated, but it's gate keeping to _ask_
people to always provide citations when not truly necessary.

~~~
mistermann
> There is no word to replace required that wouldn't be open to your
> complaint; e.g. needed, necessary

 _Appreciated_ is an appropriate word, you subconsciously swapped in
_required_.

A citation is required if the goal is to maximize constructive communication -
_if_ that's the goal, of course.

~~~
Ensorceled
You missed my point, I deliberately swapped so you could see how that word
doesn't work. Clearly we are talking by each other on this.

~~~
mistermann
I agree, we're clearly not understanding each other perfectly, I think this
phenomenon is all too common and it's worth some mild effort to investigate
where things have gone wrong.

The original comment:

> Citations to your references _would be appreciated_. It's the first step to
> _overcoming the state of internet disinformation_ , as well as helping
> society overcome the fear of missing out just because someone doesn't
> already know your references.

This _request_ (and it's just that, nothing more) seems reasonable.

This subsequent comment exchange:

>> All the while we've learned that they have utterly sold the company to
international electioneers.

> This is disinformation, laundered with the trust of the first comment.

...specifically: "laundered with the trust of the first comment" seems like
perfectly valid criticism, and arguably adds to the "onus" (or _value in_ )
for the original person to provide a proper citation, in order to minimize
misunderstanding.

And then here is where I see a problem arises:

> Just disputing _that a citation was required_ for that claim in this forum.

You are criticizing someone for saying a citation is _required_ , but it is
you that introduced the idea of it being _a requirement_ into the conversation
- which is what I pointed out (perhaps not as eloquently as I should/could
have).

Your subsequent reasoning:

> I deliberately swapped so you could see how that word doesn't work

...doesn't make sense to me. Replacing the original word with a new one that
has a distinctly different meaning, and then criticizing OP _for the new
meaning of the sentence_ , doesn't make sense to me.

Am I misunderstanding somehow?

~~~
Ensorceled
Yes, you are assuming I have a much more extreme view than I actually have.
When I used the word required that didn’t mean I thought the original poster
was ordering/demanding there be citations. When I tried to clarify that, you
again misinterpreted my intent. And again now. At three misinterpretations
it’s time to let it go. L

~~~
mistermann
> you again misinterpreted my intent. And again now

Words have distinct (non-interchangeable) and broadly accepted meanings,
independent of either intent or personal preferences for what the meaning
should be. I have merely interpreted your words according to the broadly
accepted meanings, have I not?

------
cmdshiftf4
>"at some point in the 2020s, we will get breakthrough augmented reality
glasses that will redefine our relationship with technology."

Constant video surveillance, direct-to-eyes on-glass advertising, targeted
advertising beamed on every approved spot, interests profiling via retina
movements/focus and God knows what else will undoubtedly come about if AR
glasses become "cool" and ubiquitous like mobile phones.

Maybe we'll be able to see one another's social points, as earned on the
Facebook Ubiquity Platform for All Things Interaction, when gazing upon one
another? Maybe we'll be able to haze filter out those naughties who haven't
earned enough, or have had points taken away for naughty behaviour like
posting against the "community guidelines"?

Maybe we'll be able to use image recognition + the voter records to put an
angel or devil next to the people we agree/disagree with politically? How
novel would that be? And talk about a time saver! Who wants to even
acknowledge those who don't vote in line with our party!?

But seriously though, what options do those of us have to _not_ be part of
this dystopian fucking nightmare that the tech elite have in store for us?
Save up and try to buy a hut near their fallout shelters in NZ under the hopes
that they won't shit where they hide?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Huh, I just want my heads up life display because...why not? Maybe I won’t
trust Facebook to give it to me, but if the tech becomes good enough, I’m
definitely going to embrace it.

Is it really a dystopian future? We’ve adjusted to the telegraph, camera,
telephone, radio, TV, cell phone, smart phone and...why are AR glasses going
to be the tech to bring society down?

~~~
CaptainZapp
_Huh, I just want my heads up life display because...why not?_

Assuming that your heads-up live display contains a public facing camera
here's: Why not!

I don't like sitting in a bar (or a strip club, or in any other semi-public,
or even public dodgy or non-dodgy place) and you hang there with your heads-up
live display recording my image.

I don't like the fact that it's uploaded to some tech behemoth' server for
further analysis (or even if not - by you later to your personal social media
page, controlled by such a company).

I don't like an army of people like you recording every little nuance of my
life, which then gets abused to feed even more AI algorithms by companies
whom's major raison d'être is to violate all our privacy and infringing on my
personal rights without permission or consent.

And no! Locking myself permanently into a room is really not a solution
conductive to me or for us as a society.

Remember Google glass and why it failed? Not because the tech couldn't be
useful. But it failed thanks to a company, which didn't give a shit about the
impact of such tech and an army of glassholes (here's a nice example[1]) who
cared even less.

I think the answer to your "why not" and to your personal gratification is
that the price for us as a society is far too expensive.

[1]
[https://www.google.com/search?q=robert+scoble+glass+hole](https://www.google.com/search?q=robert+scoble+glass+hole)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Those bars and strip clubs already have plenty of CCTVs, you are being
recorded. Police have body cams, cars have dash cams, almost every phone has a
camera capable of taking video, the chance that you are being recorded if
someone wants to is already very high.

A glass cam will probably work out the same way CCTV has: people are worried
about the potential for privacy abuse, but in the end these fears don’t come
to pass.

Google Glass wasn’t ready, the tech isn’t ready yet. People stopped using it
because it wasn’t useful. The tech will be useful someday, however.

Luddites complained about the automated loom as well, saying the cost to
society was too great despite its benefits. It didn’t work out well for them
in the end.

~~~
CaptainZapp
Sigh! Where to start? OK, let me give it a shot.

 _Luddites complained about the automated loom as well_

Now that's a really bad case of whataboutism. I'm not complaining about
technological advance. I'm complaining about tech, which is a massive invasion
of privacy. Have you ever been lying on a beach and some asshole lets his
drone flying around? I don't know about you, but I really don't fancy to be
half naked on some cretin's social media feed without my consent (which,
needless to say I didn't give and would never ever provide).

 _Those bars and strip clubs already have plenty of CCTVs, you are being
recorded._

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that if such an establishment uploads the
feed to the internet they'll go out of business mighty fast. In addition I
don't have cops hanging around semi private places constantly recording what's
going on in such places.

Those establishments may have a justified use, namely security, for such tech.
You don't.

 _almost every phone has a camera capable of taking video_

That was one of the more stupid arguments used by glassholes. When you whip
out your phone and start recording that's obvious as hell. Not so, when you do
it by a wearable.

 _people are worried about the potential for privacy abuse, but in the end
these fears don’t come to pass_

Actually they are very much. There were umpteen stories about glassholes using
their gizmos even in places that explicitly banned their use. They then had
the nerve to complain publicly about "ludites" that deemed this unacceptable.

Here's a search for you:

"privacy abuse google glass"

It yields 53’900’000 results. If just one procent of one procent involve
actual stories of real privacy violations that's a massive invasion of
societal privacy for ones own gratification. And that's exactly what's
completely unacceptable.

You're free to believe in your techno utopia and that it only leads to progess
and betterment of humanity.

I think you're wrong and believe my arguments to be sound as proven by the
last 20 years and the rise of those tech behemoths and their constantly shitty
behavior.

Calling me a ludite and using tech, which truly benefited humanity to make
your argument makes you, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest.

And that's where I'll close my argument, since it's pretty obvious that we'll
never agree.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
We have had CCTVs around for the last 30 years, where are the massive privacy
violations that you guys predicted 30 years ago?

Very very few people had google glass to begin with, the glass hole term was
invented and perpetuated by a bunch of conspiracy theorists, enough to get 3.9
million hits on google (for < 1000 units?), it provides no evidence of
anything.

Tech Luddism is as old as technology itself. It isn’t surprising that you
don’t want this, that you don’t want other people to have this, we’ve gone
down this road before and we will go down it again.

~~~
fghtr
Tech Luddism has nothing to do with these arguments. I do not want tech that
someone else controls, because it benefits 'them', not me. I want tech that I
can control. See, e.g., Free Software Foundation and Purism.

------
Thorrez
The section titles are pretty funny. It's almost as if they were chosen to
specifically disappoint cypherpunks.

> A New Private Social Platform

Cypherpunk: Signal! Tor! Riot!

Mark: Small groups of people who know each other.

> Decentralizing Opportunity

Cypherpunk: Bitcoin! Peertube! IPFS! Mastadon! Namecoin! Scuttlebutt!

Mark: Products for small businesses.

> The Next Computing Platform

Cypherpunk: Ethereum! Urbit! Homomorphic encryption! RISC-V! Solid! Dfinity!
Blockstack!

Mark: Augmented reality.

~~~
__float
You give a _lot_ of weight to cryptocurrency/blockchain/similar tech, and
there's a lot more out there than that. I'm still waiting to see one
reasonably decent application of a blockchain, and remarkably few of the
things you mentioned provide much more than opportunities for scams and
speculation.

~~~
Thorrez
While I do have a certain interest in some of those technologies, the
character "Cypherpunk" was not autobiographical.

Yeah, a lot of blockchain stuff seems quite impractical and motivated by pump-
and-dump opportunities. But if I close my eyes, I can almost imagine a reality
where the blockchain tech is useful and widespread.

------
JDiculous
Mark seems to be embracing remote work here citing how it can help alleviate
skyrocketing housing costs, yet Facebook doesn't hire remote workers. He's in
a position to start an industry trend here by putting his money where his
mouth is, but instead we just get this blog post.

Certainly better than nothing though, just like him previpusly bringing up
universal basic income. Would be nice to see him again put his money where his
mouth in and support Andrew Yang. He's rich enough to do whatever he wants and
actually change reality.

~~~
chillacy
Zuckerberg said he supported UBI because he recognized that he was only able
to start a business because he grew up well-off enough to know that he
wouldn't starve if the business failed.

But... I always like to think of the Taleb quote: "Don't tell me what you
think, tell me what you have in your portfolio"

So, still waiting (unlike Elon Musk and Sam Altman who have both come out in
support of Yang right now)

------
jonstewart
I think antitrust enforcement and privacy legislation will be important in the
next decade.

~~~
Cookingboy
I honestly don't think privacy legislation would make much headway, simply for
the reason that vast majority of people outside of the HackerNews crowd don't
care about it.

When people say they care about privacy, most of the time they mean they care
about anonymity, as in privacy from people who _knows_ them personally. They
don't want their internet search history to be known by friends or family or
coworkers, but they probably have no qualm if it's just data being sent to
large corporate service providers.

That's why people would continue to trade personal info for conveniences for
the foreseeable future, and as long as corporations maintain public anonymity
for those data the most we'll ever see are temporary public outrages.

~~~
advaita
This, exactly this. I have been trying to convert a bunch of my non-tech
social network to start using privacy respecting services (DDG/Signal/Tutanota
primarily) and have seen more of apathy than pushback. People seem to have no
qualms about their search history/messaging being analyzed/indexed/used for
targeting as long as they can keep using those services free.

~~~
tenpies
Honestly, until they experience first-hand a totalitarian government
weaponizing their information they won't care. Even then, only that generation
- well the survivors of that generation - will care. It's not enough to ponder
about how much more deadly the Soviets could have been, or reading about what
China is doing. For most people, if it's not happening to them immediately and
directly, they just don't care.

------
arminiusreturns
Ignoring his ramblings, but saying what I think will be important:

Control. The problem with technological advances today aren't with the tech
itself, it's that the burst of consumer users allowed people like apple to
turn computing into a user prison where the user has no control. This then set
a standard, and many people have grown up without ever using a free and open
source piece of software.

So AR and VR and AI and virtual assistants etc, the main problem is always
going to go back to the root of why RMS started GNU in the first place;
because he saw the future of tech was a fight for control of the user. He was
just a man ahead of his time and socially awkward enough that it was and is
easy to dismiss him based on what are essentially ad hominem attacks.

The future I want is FOSS/FOSH, regardless of the tech!

~~~
saq7
The dream of open source isn't any closer to being realized than it has ever
been. Open source enthusiasts tend to overlook the fact that most people don't
want control. Control is difficult to handle and requires a lot more energy
and effort than ceding the control to another entity.

This isn't strictly a terrible thing. Anyone who has chosen to share their
life with a partner gets that it is a lot easier if you divide up control of
different aspects of your life among each other.

The problem is - as a society in general, and as tech consumers in particular,
who should we cede the control to and how should the controllers be held
accountable?

These are the same problems societies have faced for millennia, and now that
newly emerging tech can operate at the scale of society in a couple of years,
it is unreasonable to expect that billions of people adopt the libertarian
mindset when it comes to tech alone.

~~~
mikelyons
So then the greater holy war is to make control easier and more friendly so
that more people desire it.

------
elfexec
> Generational Change

I could do without paid PR fluff.

"When I started Facebook, one of the reasons I cared about giving people a
voice was that I thought it would empower my generation"

I'm pretty sure this was not one of his goals when he started facebook.

> A New Private Social Platform

So more facebook, just bite-sized for smaller groups.

> Decentralizing Opportunity

Essentially libra.

> The Next Computing Platform

Oculus.

> New Forms of Governance

"There are a number of areas where I believe governments establishing clearer
rules would be helpful, including around elections, harmful content, privacy,
and data portability. I've called for new regulation in these areas and over
the next decade I hope we get clearer rules for the internet."

Although I somewhat sympathize with his predicament here, whose regulation is
he talking about? If governments step in, then facebook would have to
ultimately fracture into national facebooks. US, European nations, India,
Middle eastern nations, etc are not going to have the same ideas about
elections, harmful content, privacy and data portability. Even within the US,
we are not going to have real consensus on this issue. This is where
principles could help, but principles always seem to lose to political and
financial interests.

In short, zuckerburg envisions we'll be using facebook on oculus paying with
libra while governments solve all of facebooks intractable problems for him.

------
slg
>I don't think private companies should be making so many important decisions
that touch on fundamental democratic values... As long as our governments are
seen as legitimate, rules established through a democratic process could add
more legitimacy and trust than rules defined by companies alone.

This is a big chicken and egg problem. Mark wants the government to set the
rules but what happens when Facebook doesn't make the rules, people are
elected through questionable means (notice he used the phrase 'seen as
legitimate'), and those people don't want to crack down on Facebook because an
unregulated Facebook is a key to them remaining in power. There is a feedback
loop there that Facebook could shutoff with a single decision from Mark. It is
much harder to fix that problem through government action.

~~~
hellisothers
Mark wants the government to enact rules that only huge established players
can possibly comply with in order to stamp out competition. If FB just went
ahead and did these things themselves another player could enter the field in
their place.

~~~
rhizome
And he wants a seat at the table where those rules are designed. It's all of a
piece, Facebook's place in the law and the kind of bog-standard Econ 101
regulatory capture I'd expect from Zuckerberg.

------
CptFribble
Look at everything Mark's overseen at Facebook over the last decade.

The unimaginably deep dark pools of data collection, the targeting,
Internet.org's absolutely transparent attempt to get developing nations
trapped on Facebook under the guise of philanthropy, the complete non-response
to extremism on their own platform until way after it was a problem, the list
goes on and on.

That's the last 10 years. Now Mark says they're building a more private,
smaller platform? Private for who?

Mark says he wants to enable small businesses to connect with customers
through their networks. What he's really saying is he wants every last piece
of society to operate through his network so Facebook can get it's cut of the
local laundromat.

I hate these grand-yet-bland, corporate flavored prognostications. There's
absolutely no reason we should believe any of these things he's excited about
will be a net benefit for the rest of us.

------
Nextgrid
So his main point is a private & potentially decentralised social platform. He
didn't address how the platform is going to be funded though.

Advertising as we know it is well and truly dead, and I don't think Facebook
or Zuckerberg are the right entities to push for change in this field. They've
already demonstrated their bad faith and maliciousness.

There are ways to make advertising ethical, but Facebook definitely won't do
that, as they currently profit from the negative externalities & bad side
effects of the current advertising model. Doing advertising ethically will be
a serious downgrade from their current income, and while it's still a big
chunk of money they for sure won't like it and will never do it for this
reason.

~~~
cmdshiftf4
>Advertising as we know it is well and truly dead

Based on what? More people are spending more money online than ever, the
holidays alone in 2019 broke records at an increase of 3.4% over the previous
year's sales [0].

That is on top of an increase of 2.8% the previous year, something which was
heralded as a disappointment [1].

Given the above, people are clearly being guided what to buy and where to buy
it, so how could one realistically claim that "advertising as we know it is
well and truly dead"?

[0][https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/25/reuters-america-corrected-
re...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/25/reuters-america-corrected-record-
online-sales-give-u-s-holiday-shopping-season-a-boost-report.html)

[1][https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/holiday-sales-were-a-huge-
di...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/holiday-sales-were-a-huge-
disappointment-retail-report-says.html)

~~~
Nextgrid
People are creeped out and think phones are listening to them, privacy
regulations around the world (GDPR and the California one) are making it very
hard to do targeted ads, etc.

~~~
kwonkicker
Nobody thinks that. Just a handful of loud ones. Look what happened after
Snowden. Did people start spending less time using their phones? The biggest
step they took was covering their webcams via tape. Nobody cares that they are
being watched as long as it doesnt make the news.

------
kick
No one in this thread has pointed out that Zuckerberg states that he is
literally planning to bring how WeChat works in China (one marketplace for
literally everything, sent through conventional apps and all fielded by a
single company) to the entire world with Facebook.

That ambition is impressive, amazing, and terrifying, and everyone is
completely ignoring it.

The 2020s are going to be interesting.

------
dvduval
Since I am self taught Mandarin, I thought it was novel when he did too, and I
saw his humility when he tried to speak it. Now he is painful to read for me.
First, he lost my trust. Second, it's esoteric, nothing very concrete. Perhaps
our ability to be anywhere through augmented reality sounds interesting, but
not all that novel.

~~~
redis_mlc
> I thought it was novel when he did too

He thought learning Mandarin would help him conquer China. lol.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
I really don’t think he did, just that is what the Chinese wanted to think for
face reasons. He seemed very much like the average foreigner leaning it
because he thought it was cool, because he had some family connection, and so
on. Even him jogging in smoky Beijing is something a fresh off the plane
foreigner would want to do (like I did when I was newly arrived to Beijing).

------
titzer
Hi Mark,

In the next decade I don't want to give you any money and I don't want you to
know anything about me. Also my friends, family, likes, dislikes, my
appearance, what my voice sounds like, or what I'm susceptible to buying. You
have no right to this data and I want you to stop trying to get it. Kind of
like what was absolutely normal in the 1990s or earlier, where it would have
been impossible to know such things without literally following people around
24/7--you know, the kind of stalker behavior that would end up with me getting
a restraining order against you. Kind of like before your insatiable and
frightening lust to know everything about people drove you to build a
surveillance panopticon designed for one purpose: to make you and your ilk
some of the richest people in the world.

Please stop trying to sell access to my eyeballs.

------
obilgic
Honestly for a decade of change; this doesn't seem like a big enough
perspective to have. Rather current challenges and things that are mostly
anticipated. All of this is on CNBC everyday.

------
dannyw
What sort of censorship is going on in the comments?

If you look at the Twitter responses to any famous person's comment, you can
see how polarising it tends to be.

Everyone there is kissing Zuckerberg's ass, for the lack of a better
expression (sorry). What's going on there?

~~~
sverhagen
You have to be on Facebook to respond? Selection bias?

------
sjg007
My take:

>A New Private Social Platform Marc doesn't know what it will be but wants to
buy it. He knows that it is a thing.. Well we all do and have been trying to
figure it out. Path was one attempt... maybe it was too early.

> Decentralizing Opportunity Marc could already allow easy "buy it now"
> buttons in Facebook but doesn't for some reason...

>New Forms of Governance This is the wrong question. He should be pushing
democratic ideals world wide.

------
heymartinadams
How about standing up for simple truths and basic facts, for a change?

Facebook’s active complicity in spreading falsehoods is appalling.

------
cityzen
Why don’t we start the decade off right and knock it off with the political
ads on Facebook. Seriously, this guy lacks so much self awareness it blows my
mind.

~~~
DSingularity
It’s called hypocrisy! He pretends to care for decentralization while he
pushes policies which fortify a monopolistic hold on social media. He claims
to care for democracy as he runs a platform which undermines it by putting our
governments for sale to the deepest pocket and most malicious. It’s
disgusting.

------
fergie
Funny the way that he included "Decentralizing Opportunity", and then followed
up by envisioning a scarily centralized future for e-commerce.

Thats a shame because a re-decentralization of the web is one of the things
that really should happen.

True decentralization will happen when anybody can host a functional website
on their mobile phone(s) without depending upon the services of a corporate
behemoth.

~~~
davidy123
This. There are real initiatives to support actual decentralization, not
"decentralization" that means using any service, as long as Facebook owns it.

~~~
ravenstine
Decentralization is just taking the place that blockchain took for a while
before too many people lost faith in it.

~~~
davidy123
Decentralization as a general idea predates blockchain. VRM/personal data
lockers, for example.

------
sremani
Rule of Thumb :

General Predictions from experts/specialists are almost useless.

For decent predictions of the ways of a world, find multi-disciplinary
generalists. They would likely be right, at least directionally.

~~~
lovecg
Do you have any pointers for some recent predictions you thought made sense?

~~~
rapnie
I am very curious for "Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and
Democracy" by Matt Stoller

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/47891654-goliath](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/47891654-goliath)

See also:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21943874](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21943874)

------
gmuslera
Important for which actors?

Early adopters are already using some form of what will become mainstream this
decade. Will came a a lot of new things for early adopters, but only a few
will become mainstream in the next one.

In the same way, intelligence agencies, hackers, and more are already using
things that with a bit of luck general people will become aware this decade
(but will fail to take good measures about it), and new advancements will
become gradually available for both kinds of bad players in the next years,
some that will remain, others that may be override by more prevailing ones.

Besides technology, the divide that I did above will become more important
next decade too. How technology changes us, and what we become caused by it,
is more important than the technology itself. Think in how we went from a
culture of discretion and privacy to one of mindless sharing.

------
xiphias2
,,Today, many important institutions in our society still aren't doing enough
to address the issues younger generations face -- from climate change to
runaway costs of education, housing and healthcare. ''

Maybe there are ways to improve the quality of discussions _within_ Facebook
to help solve these problems. It works for Hacker News, so I don't think it
would be impossible. Of course indirect revenue from oil companies would
decrease somewhat, but a balance should be found.

~~~
fourstar
HN is essentially a hive mind cult. Look at my join date. At some point, you
could dissent with your own opinion. Nowadays it’s downvotes and outrage.

Shields up — ready for the downvotes.

Not a great model for FB to follow. You’ll start getting DMs from people like
“dang” telling you to behave, LOL.

~~~
dang
I'm always curious about claims that HN is degenerating. Where are those
dissenting opinions of which you speak?

I took a look, and didn't find any. I did see several early comments by your
account, including its very first one, that were downvoted. Which comments
were downvoted vs. not seemed consistent with what would get downvoted today,
though today they'd probably get downvoted more—probably because there are
many more readers who can downvote things.

~~~
vl
It’s degenerating in multiple aspects:

Fewer constructive discussions due to aggressive downvoting based not on the
quality of argument, but on the opinion expressed.

More junk on the front page, this is general trend in attention economy, so
somewhat unavoidable.

One of the telling things is structure of the titles. Few years ago titles
where more informative, now more clickbaity on average.

~~~
dang
The problem is that these perceptions are very much in the eye of the
beholder. As the saying goes, things have always been getting worse.

If anyone can come up with an objective measure for any of this, I'd be
interested. As far as I can tell, though, these perceptions are strongly
affected by the fact that the things that we dislike make a much stronger
impression than the rest of what we see.

From my perspective, the downvoting isn't more aggressive than it used to be,
there isn't more junk on the front page than there used to be (though there
might be more ideologically conflictual material, since society is moving in
that direction), and the titles aren't more baity than they used to be, since
we edit most of the bad ones. I'm biased, though, and conditioned by the
moderation job. The interesting question is whether there's a way to get
beyond such biases.

~~~
keiferski
While I think "degenerating" is a strong word, I do think there is a
noticeable drop in the quality of comments since a decade ago. I don't have
any hard data on this, but I think it's fairly obvious if you dig around in
the archive. There used to be a more academic and countercultural feeling to
commentary, as well.

Maybe some metrics to investigate are: number of words per comment, vocabulary
level of the average comment [1], and so on. While neither of these are solely
indicative of quality, I think they are something to consider.

[1] [http://www.englishprofile.org/wordlists/text-
inspector](http://www.englishprofile.org/wordlists/text-inspector)

~~~
dang
I dig around in the archive a lot, and that's not obvious to me at all. There
was a lot of variance in the past and there's a lot of variance now.

Number of words per comment would be easy enough to measure, but I'm not sure
length is a good indicator of quality—not everyone who goes on at length has
much to say. Your vocabulary link is interesting though—thanks! I've made a
note to look into that.

Edit: since you mentioned "academic", I was thinking of your comment when I
noticed the top two comments in the current Sci-Hub discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22008977](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22008977)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22009107](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22009107)

To me that seems more common than it used to be, and a good sign. But it could
just be sample bias.

Edit 2: here's another, randomly run across today:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012673](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012673).
Not academic, but technical in an unexpected way. There are a lot of
physicians posting to HN.

Edit 3: or check out the top comment of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22025961](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22025961)

Edit 4: and of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21963509](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21963509)

------
firasd
I think the fact that he cites work on a 'private social platform' is
significant. Even if you set aside broader trends in consumer apps and just
look at FB itself, this trend is inevitable given the way statuses--a
prominent part of the Newsfeed--have been in decline for years, while Groups
have been flourishing.

~~~
Swizec
Haven't statuses just switched to instagram stories instead?

------
Jaruzel
Got Facebook blocked, or simply don't want to visit it directly? I run a FB
proxy for public posts:

[https://nofb.pw/?p=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F4%2Fpost...](https://nofb.pw/?p=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F4%2Fposts%2F10111311886191191%2F)

------
danfang
I agree we need a new private social platform. But, I hope it isn't Facebook
that wins that race.

I've been working on a social network that I believe represents "generational
change" \- no ads, no clickbait news, no public profiles. It goes against the
grain of what current social networks are doing.

Check it out at [https://get.thread-app.com](https://get.thread-app.com).

It's still early days, but I would appreciate any feedback!

~~~
kp98
Hey I tried out your app, but I don’t understand how to use it at all, in fact
there’s no information really at all on what it is. Maybe you could consider
making a small tutorial when you first sign up? Also feel free to email me if
you want to talk about it, I’m also working on a social app. Was this built in
react native?

------
sys_64738
Zuck said, "It is important I find ways to get even more of your data and
figure how to monetize it."

------
anonytrary
> By the end of this decade, I expect more institutions will be run by
> millennials and more policies will be set to address these problems with
> longer term outlooks.

He "expects" this? This is trivially true in that it is an unavoidable result
of the human lifecycle. 40 years from now, the boomers won't be in congress or
in jobs -- they'll be dead. The only possible conclusion is that the
millennials will replace them. I don't see why he felt the need to state that
he "expects" this. Everyone who understands that humans die expects this.

> reconstruct all kinds of smaller communities to give us that sense of
> intimacy again.

This is how people _use_ Facebook already. Most of my friends who "use"
Facebook are really just in private groups and chat. Twitter is the go-to
global platform -- it's one big bubble. Facebook is distinguishing itself as
more of a private platform of isolated bubbles. This has already been
happening for the past 10 years.

> Decentralizing Opportunity... If we can make it so anyone can sell products
> through a storefront on Instagram, message and support their customers
> through Messenger, or send money home to another country instantly and at
> low cost through WhatsApp -- that will go a long way towards creating more
> opportunity around the world

Decentralizing Opportunity? Maybe. Centralizing monetary transaction traffic
to Facebook so they reap the equivalent of a VAT on every sale? Definitely.

------
spicyramen
I still don't understand how the one of the most intelligent minds in Silicon
Valley work for Facebook to make sure people click ads. Can they work on real
problems like the ones Bill Gates foundation is working on? No, non-profitable
enough

~~~
Thorrez
Facebook makes money. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative spends money.

Microsoft makes money. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation spends money.

It's a bit strange to compare Mark Zuckerberg's money making organization to
Bill Gate's money spending organization.

~~~
mlurp
I don't have any love for Microsoft, but they at least have a handful of
objectively useful products that probably make the world a little better.

Pretty much all the research I've heard about social media indicates that it
makes the world worse. So I think it is relevant.

~~~
quelltext
That's interesting. I just don't think there has been any research into
holistically evaluating social networks. AFAIK studies mostly focus on small
parts often with the premise to find something negative (e.g. effect of seeing
other feeds with success stories).

Obviously a lot of people do in fact derive pleasure and some other benefits
or they wouldn't keep using it.

~~~
saberience
"Obviously a lot of people do in fact derive pleasure and some other benefits
or they wouldn't keep using it."

That doesn't follow at all. When I used to use Facebook it was based on an
addictive compulsion but each time I used I realized it made my mood worse. My
life got better when I stopped using the platform.

------
mlang23
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmXACRrzLMA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmXACRrzLMA)
(Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye...)

------
ddmma
As your mind will become another peripheral to cloud systems, I think in the
next decade, is more important to regain yourself from the social media fake
virtualizations and balance with true life experiences.

------
ptah
so he's focusing on low hanging fruit for 10 years. i take it this is his
retirement announcement? if not, why not focus on real challenges like climate
change

------
buboard
when did an industry decentralize historically? the tendency is towards
centralization. The only thing that can counter centralization is ubiquitous
encryption

~~~
dredmorbius
Almost always: industries or activities which were once only viable in a
single (or small number) of instances, but which, given increases in net total
capabilities, but no inherent efficiencies of scale, require replicated
instances rather than a centrally-controlled monopoly.

Even here, if there's a space for centralised control, it's possible that
either some single entity will gain effective unitary control or impose a
control overlay.

High-mass products, which ship poorly, products which are very highly
localised (culture, custom), "high-touch" (1:1 or 1:(small-n) activities, on-
site services, specifically-tailored activities, rapid spoilage, tend to be
amongst these.

Examples which come to mind of each:

\- High mass: concrete, dairy, and water. Shipping costs rapidly eat into
profits, though water can move efficiently for hundreds, possibly as much as
1,000km, via aqueducts and pipelines.

\- Localised: culture, including to an extent the film industry (at least at
the national level), which contrasts with video's otherwise extreme
ephemerality, and hence centralisation. Teaching is probably the ultimate,
with the failures of ed-tech reinforcing this yet again. The gold-standard in
teaching remains 1:1 tutoring, for complex reasons. Most personal-care
services, ranging from medical to beauty, therapy, and training. Activities
proscribed by widely-varying local regulation also tend toward geographical
dispersion.

\- Most of the trades -- plumbing, electrical, HVAC, landscaping, on-sight
equipment maintenance, auto repair, and the like, all spawn from the fact that
it's cheaper to provide local expertise and capability than to move the
equipment to a centralised facility. The more specialised equipment is, the
more likely service is to be centralised, and some transport equipment
(aircraft, ships) sees centralised servicing based on both mobility and
complexity.

\- The degree to which spoilage is no longer a pressing concern is impressive:
cold-chains and air freight mean that fresh fruits, vegetables, and flowers
now move globally, though local produce remains viable. Freshly-cooked meals
remain a holdout, with even in-city delivery limited to a few standbyes:
pizza, Chinese takeaway, and the Alameda-Weehawken Burrito Tunnel.
([https://idlewords.com/2007/04/the_alameda_weehawken_burrito_...](https://idlewords.com/2007/04/the_alameda_weehawken_burrito_tunnel.htm)).

In most other cases, the supposed freedom from location afforded by technology
and ephemeralisation actually _strongly favours_ centralisation. Almost
anything related to mass culture (film, music, video games, and some books, as
well as clothing and fashion) tends _extremely_ toward centralisation.

Look around you at the "small shops" in your neighbourhood, town, or suburb.
Those are the serivces which have resisted centralisation, though almost all
have some strongly centralised elements.

~~~
buboard
good points, but as they say, the internet doesn't weigh anything

~~~
dredmorbius
Regulation, language, and firewalls might have effects.

Generally, though, that's my point: infotech tends strongly to monopoly.

------
ErikAugust
If Mark is ID number 4, are the first three test accounts?

------
awb
> I don't think private companies should be making so many important decisions
> that touch on fundamental democratic values.

> One way to address this is through regulation.

> I've called for new regulation in these areas and over the next decade I
> hope we get clearer rules for the internet.

Surprising to hear a near-monopoly call for regulation.

> Another and perhaps even better way to address this is by establishing new
> ways for communities to govern themselves. An example of independent
> governance is the Oversight Board we're creating.

Oh I see, self-regulation is the answer.

~~~
JohnFen
> Surprising to hear a near-monopoly advocate for regulation.

Not really. When a company reaches a certain level of dominance, government
regulation is a good thing because it increases the cost of entry to the
market, so it acts as a kind of moat for the established players.

~~~
hinkley
Especially if they can get any of the rules to be as byzantine as their
current internal processes.

------
artemisyna
The number of people in this thread that apparently know the secret, nefarious
intentions that Zuckerberg truly has is...

Well, not surprising, given that this is the internet and Hacker News. :)

~~~
rapnie
Well, this is a thread speculating about the future decade, reflecting on a
guy's insights who has a dubious track record, by intelligent people that are
in the loop of current tech trends.

~~~
Kiro
An AI could easily have generated this thread.

------
ykevinator
Why does he think he's a thought leader?

------
sytelus
So AI didn't make it to Zuck's 5 most important things for the next decade
(but small businesses and VR did)!

Huh?

~~~
Auslaender
I'm more worried that he didn't even mention the word "privacy".

------
jeromebaek
Wow! I’m impressed. He sounds like an adult now. He actually has nuanced
opinions. What a world we live in.

------
jimbob45
Question: would VR be adopted en masse if it dropped permanently in price by
70% tomorrow?

~~~
krapp
No. VR is probably destined to remain a niche interface. There just aren't
enough potential applications which would benefit from VR, or which would be
improved with VR. It won't be adopted en masse because there will never be
that great a demand for it.

Although if the price went down, what demand there was would probably be met.
I definitely don't want to pay $400 or more for something that should just be
a peripheral.

~~~
scabarott
Anyone who's seen clips of an NFL or NBA game on a VR headset knows that this
is the future. Unfortunately we are not there yet and development seems to
have really cooled down recently. In fact we might have another VR winter on
hand until someone makes a new breakthrough and re-awakens all the hype and
interest. But I don't think it's too far-fetched to say that sometime within
my lifetime VR could easily become the main delivery medium of entertainment,
replacing TV sets, movie screens and gaming consoles for most households

~~~
K0SM0S
Even beyond entertainment, when working hours in an office, I'd rather look at
a beach or fantasy landscape with a nice ambient sound than a dull wall with
rain under a greyish light outside. I'd likely spend most of my time in VR
just because it's nicer.

Life-like VR fundamentally holds the promise of being one more great social
equalizer if you can essentially simulate material wealth (objects, locations)
like a video game, even just the visual part of it. E.g. IKEA is all over such
research, with good reason.

Most people also don't realize that in terms of communication, any non-
physical interaction (so excluding sex and hugs) would be just as good in VR
as in reality, thereby making face-to-face meetings the norm anew (like before
any form of distant communication existed, save for mail). That's bound to be
a healthy change, a welcome improvement from text, audio and even video.

It's just a little bit too early indeed, and probably headed for a (shorter)
winter I agree. Come 2030ish we should have much more decent options to move
forward (from current specs you'd estimate a 10x at least to reach
'acceptable' capabilities, and more like 100x if you seek visually life-like
sim, i.e. ~250px per arc minute at 100Hz or more over at least 180° field of
view).

------
bitxbit
It read like something an advanced AI would write in the not too distant
future.

------
neiman
It scares me when he talks about "Decentralizing Opportunity"...

------
surround
Decentralized opportunity... centralized on Facebook’s apps?

------
mgh2
I wish I could downvote this self-promoting post

------
tenebrisalietum
I feel like Mark is speaking in code here.

Generational change: Boomers and political reposts are making younger, more
desirable demographics not want to use my platform.

A New Private Social Platform: Making everyone in the world talk in the same
space is damaging user engagement

Decentralizing Opportunity: Selling stuff and moving money on Facebook. Mark
wants to be a bank.

The Next Computing Platform: Mark wants to be your next remote access client
for your job.

New Forms of Governance: How much do I pay and to who for regulatory capture
so competitors can't arise?

------
kangnkodos
Facebook buys Oculus. Zuckerberg predicts that VR will be the next big thing
in the 20's. Shocking.

------
jes5199
I say AR yes, but glasses no

------
sunstone
So, The Road Ahead redux.

------
unnouinceput
Another one who doesn't know how calendar works. There is no year zero Marky
darling

------
archivist1
so... Facebook wants to acquire Stripe.

~~~
malydok
I thought he meant Libra.

------
subpixel
This strikes me as mainly a lot of malarkey from a person who will happily
earn more billions in coming years trough the monetized distraction of a
another final generation.

But I’m dumbfounded by the private network reference. Zuck sees people trying
to circumvent oppressive regimes as some sort of emerging market opportunity?
Or does he think you and I would pay to use “FB Private” if they promised to
turn off everything about normal Facebook’s current business model?

~~~
netsharc
> This strikes me as mainly a lot of malarkey

Hear hear. "Holy shit, I got rich, I must be smart! It's a new decade, let me
write something I think sounds smart and publish it."

------
newscracker
What a bunch of crock! It seems like it’d always remain too much to ask for
Mark to understand things and look at the big picture for the good of
everyone. IMO, this post yet again makes a good case for breaking up the
company.

Most of this post is about how Facebook is looking for new ways to make money,
and just a few sentences about large problems like diseases or poverty.

He carelessly uses words like “private” and “decentralized” in dishonest
senses to mean that:

a) Facebook (the company) will provide you these solutions and misname them as
private and decentralized

b) Facebook (the company) will still run on ads and profiling users.

Augmented and virtual reality — yet another way for Facebook to surveil
people.

Asking for regulations as if he wants it. What he has wanted from the time
Facebook has come under scrutiny by lawmakers is regulatory capture...getting
laws passed in a way that prevents competitors from even trying, while
Facebook can continue to claim that it’s doing its best with “independent”
boards and committees and escape penalties and punishments.

Anyone wanting something better for the future can only hope that Mark
Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg get out of running Facebook the company in any
manner by 2030, if we go by wishlists by decades.

~~~
jliptzin
Or just stop using Facebook and its products.

~~~
puranjay
They're invaluable for democracy. Right now, there are a number of anti
government, pro democracy protests taking place in my country. All of them are
being organized and spread via Instagram and WhatsApp

~~~
JohnJamesRambo
Why could those not be on Signal and be actually safe due to real end-to-end
encryption and no spying from Facebook?

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2018/09/27/facebook-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2018/09/27/facebook-
is-committed-to-whatsapp-encryption-but-could-bypass-it-too/#295b029a3efe)

~~~
SquishyPanda23
Presumably because Signal doesn't have the install base to make that
realistic.

I do hope that the people taking real risks are doing their most sensitive
communication on something better like Signal.

But for mass reach using another tool seems necessary as of now.

------
sibeliuss
tyrant

------
greenie_beans
WOOF!

------
rdiddly
A little irksome to be told that climate change is an issue "younger
generations face." Like I'll be dead soon so it doesn't matter to me. Is that
what you're telling me? Well all right then, I'll sell that bicycle I keep
laboriously pedaling and start partying with gasoline! Don't worry, you guys
got this!

No but the funny part is, since the climate _has already changed,_ that
actually means I'm currently dead.

------
lokl
I prefer this list of what's important:
[https://www.gatesfoundation.org](https://www.gatesfoundation.org). It has
things like kids not dying from diarrhea.

~~~
hyperbovine
Normative vs. positive.

~~~
thedudeabides5
Not really, more “products and services that facebook offers” vs “various
diseases we are trying to obliterate”

------
Nextgrid
Can't see this article as connections to malicious domains like facebook.com
are blocked on my network - anyone has the full text on a PasteBin or
something?

~~~
LeoPanthera
Claiming that facebook.com is "malicious" doesn't serve to make a point, it
just makes you look reactionary.

~~~
derision
Anecdotal, and not the GP, but one of the interview questions I ask is "If you
could uninvent one technology, what would it be and why?"

Many of the answers are the same: Facebook. At least for developers, Facebook
is generally seen as a net negative for the world in it's current form.

------
numbsafari
> As long as our governments are seen as legitimate...

> Another perhaps better way ... is the new Oversight Board we are creating...

Zuck wants to use FB to continue to delegitimize democratic governments so he
can replace them with FB itself.

Zuck is a fascist.

~~~
dang
Maybe so, but olease don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.

------
kats
Mark Zuckerberg is much more thoughtful than he's given credit for.

