
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative scientists: FB’s practices ‘antithetical’ to mission - aspenmayer
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/06/chan-zuckerberg-initiative-open-letter-trump/
======
RodgerTheGreat
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative's mission is to shelter most of Zuck's wealth
from taxation while ensuring that he and his wife retain as much control over
it as possible. Facebook's negative externalities are orthogonal to this
mission.

~~~
rmrfstar
Zuckerberg net worth: ~$78b.

Mean US neurosurgeon annual income: ~$600k

So Zuckerberg is worth 130K neurosurgeon-years. Neurosurgeons are the highest
compensated surgery specialty [1].

In the US there are a total of 50k surgeons of any type [2].

Does anyone think that Zuckerberg created, with his own hands, >=3x the annual
economic output of all US surgeons?

[1] [https://medium.com/nomad-health/complete-list-of-average-
doc...](https://medium.com/nomad-health/complete-list-of-average-doctor-
salaries-by-specialty-e2bbbc0a6186)

[2] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/209424/us-number-of-
acti...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/209424/us-number-of-active-
physicians-by-specialty-area/)

~~~
weareconvo
Every single question of that form is impossible to answer with mere words.
Luckily, people CAN answer it through aggregate choice, so we don't have to
worry about it.

...but since I feel like taking the bait, something like 9 trillion people use
Facebook for at least 36 hours a day, while at MOST 4 people ever even need to
consult a neurosurgeon per YEAR. So he's clearly the winner there.

~~~
stanfordkid
I think there is a different way of looking at it: how replaceable is he and
what he has built?

The truth is -- most of Facebook's value comes from network effects, not the
actual technology itself. If Mark Zuckerberg never existed, it is highly
likely some other platform would have been created -- the knowledge and
skillset he has is not that rare. many other platforms existed before Facebook
to let you post pictures and chat with friends.

------
tropheusduboisi
I'm a scientist that benefits from this money. I'm not a Zuck fan, but I don't
like strict policing of speech so I'm alright Zuck's move here. Moderate
scientists keep quiet in academia for their own good.

~~~
boplicity
The problem doesn't have anything to do with policing speech. The problem is
the intentional propagation and promotion of inflammatory speech. It is one
thing to allow hate speech, it is another to increase it's prominence because
it is "more engaging." Facebook does just that.

~~~
whatshisface
The newspaper + money + printing costs system has done that for generations.
If you want engaging information to stop being spread more than less-engaging
information, then you're going to have to come up with a way to stop more
engaging newspapers from printing more copies than less-engaging ones.

~~~
dannyr
There is a big difference between a newspaper and Facebook (with over a
billion users) spreading misinformation.

This is like comparing a match stick to jet fuel.

~~~
dmix
As long as you never click on a comments button or scroll down on any page,
which is basically what Facebook is in reverse.

The comment sections on NYT (apparently the "good" paper) is one of the worst
places on the internet. Yet I'm totally okay with it existing because I
understand stupid people exist, no matter how much (highly selective)
censorship we allow to exist.

Not to mention the serious decline in quality of actual NYT content which
seems to select heavily for this commenting audience. I've been reading them
for well over a decade and the decline is obvious and full of misinformation
daily. There's no winning this fight through letting some random minimum wage
moderator FB or Twitter hires, with zero appeals process, or any transparency,
and obvious biases, deleting a few articles or comments that offend the type
of people who live in the bay area or whatever American city they hire in.

~~~
dannyr
Except that Facebook use algorithms to promote posts to its billion users.

------
aspenmayer
For those who have trouble with the link:

[https://archive.st/archive/2020/6/www.washingtonpost.com/hwg...](https://archive.st/archive/2020/6/www.washingtonpost.com/hwg9/www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/06/chan-
zuckerberg-initiative-open-letter-trump/index.html)

Original title was too long. It was:

Scientists funded by Zuckerberg sent him a letter calling Facebook’s practices
‘antithetical’ to his philanthropic mission

------
jeffreyrogers
There are also a lot of people who think the way media companies are acting
(in terms of censoring/suppressing speech they don't agree with) is horrifying
but are afraid to speak out against it because they fear the social or
economic consequences of doing so.

~~~
aspenmayer
Can you use your money as speech to short their stock? How else can you
meaningfully joust with a multinational megacorp on an individual level?

Why do you feel that it’s censorship or speech suppression as opposed to
exercising their own right as a company to set and enforce their own Terms of
Service? How would you change the current system? How would you enforce your
changes? How would your changes apply to overseas firms, if that is even
technically or legally possible?

~~~
jeffreyrogers
> Can you use your money as speech to short their stock?

I don't think that would have any effect.

> Why do you feel that it’s censorship or speech suppression

Because they are removing or not allowing speech that doesn't fit certain
criteria. That is basically the definition of censorship or suppression. Of
course, it's not illegal, but a definition of right and wrong based on
legality is fairly impoverished in my opinion.

As for how I would change the current system, I'm not really sure. The problem
could be solved by a change in culture, which I think is preferable to a legal
solution, but the solution will have to be legal since I don't see our culture
changing anytime soon. The most straightforward thing to do would be to treat
sites like twitter/facebook as public spaces and so allow any sort of speech
that isn't illegal.

------
dannykwells
Have any returned the money yet?

Until then, well, its just more words.

~~~
JamisonM
What is wrong with more words?

Putting your name to something like this is certainly endangering future
funding, that seems like more than just "words".

