
Mark Zuckerberg Believes Only in Mark Zuckerberg - caution
https://www.wired.com/story/mark-zuckerberg-believes-only-in-mark-zuckerberg/
======
carapace
I'm not a Zuckerberg fanboy, but this article seems to me to just be character
assassination.

------
reuben_scratton
That's a truly terrible article.

------
ppod
What has happened to Wired? Zuckerberg goes into the principles behind these
kind of decisions in depth, in his own words, in a conversation with Yuval
Noah Harari that for some reason nobody ever mentions:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Boj9eD0Wug8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Boj9eD0Wug8)

~~~
take_a_breath
Lots of folks don’t have time to watch 60-minute YouTube videos. Can you
explain the principles he cites or give a time stamp?

~~~
ppod
It's difficult to summarise but the last 30 minutes is where they have a
really good argument, starting about here:
[https://youtu.be/Boj9eD0Wug8?t=3981](https://youtu.be/Boj9eD0Wug8?t=3981)

It gets quite philosophical, and hinges on whether people basically come to
lose their own free will if embedded in a powerful algorithmic communication
engine. They disagree with each other and there are definitely weak points in
Zuckerberg's argument, but it is an earnest and principled-sounding defence. I
think he loses the debate overall, but it's easier to attack his position than
propose a coherent alternative.

There is also a part somewhere where Zuckerberg claims that when the platform
takes actions such as marking a claim as untrue and linking to a source, that
conspiracy theorists just use that to double-down and claim that the platform
is trying to suppress their truth.

~~~
take_a_breath
Isn't the fact that his stance is un-summarizable kind of the point?

If he had an actual position or policy, it wouldn't take 30 minutes of clawing
at the edges to express it. This is the entire strategy. The invisible line
can just be moved a little bit every time and we never have to cross it.

------
henriquez
The problem with centralized platforms that allow for mass censorship and
ubiquitous surveillance is that they are never “on your side.” There will
always be pressure to bend the knee to the ruling party, and whether or not
you agree with the politics of the ruling party at a given point in time is
irrelevant. In a long term sense this is a slippery slope into fascism.
Companies like Facebook are responsible to their shareholders, not users, and
certainly not our vague notion of democracy.

~~~
antidaily
Well said. And I think it’s out of his control at this point. Not some mirror
of his core beliefs.

------
eddieoz
Zuckerberg also believes Facebook has privacy as a foundation.

[https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-privacy-
foc...](https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-privacy-focused-
vision-for-social-networking/10156700570096634/)

------
hashberry
The premise of "power" and "domination" seems correct. Though there are other
things he believes in:

\- Mark Zuckerberg believes/believed in China. He read Chinese president Xi
Jinping’s latest book and recommends it to his employees, learned Chinese, and
asked president Xi for a baby name suggestion. [0]

\- Mark Zuckerberg believes in Judaism. He has grown “more religious” after
becoming a father and as a result of the “challenges we’ve been through as a
company.” [1]

\- Mark Zuckerberg believes in Sheryl Sandberg, his Chief Operating Officer
since 2008. Author Shoshana Zuboff called Sandberg "the Typhoid Mary of
surveillance capitalism." [2]

[0] [https://qz.com/1115960/an-idiom-uttered-by-xi-jinping-
perfec...](https://qz.com/1115960/an-idiom-uttered-by-xi-jinping-perfectly-
describes-mark-zuckerbergs-frustrating-china-courtship/)

[1] [https://www.timesofisrael.com/facebooks-zuckerberg-says-
hes-...](https://www.timesofisrael.com/facebooks-zuckerberg-says-hes-more-
religious-since-becoming-a-dad/)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheryl_Sandberg#Criticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheryl_Sandberg#Criticism)

~~~
wavefunction
He asked Xi Jinping to be the godfather of his child despite not knowing
Premier Xi nor having met him.

~~~
neonate
Wow, that's fascinating. That's a political move, like marriage used to be
among royalty.

------
splitrocket
The apple doesn't fall far from the Thiel tree.

~~~
splitrocket
Also, division and hate are good for the bottom line:

[https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-
divisio...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-division-
news-feed-algorithms)

------
throwaway-pol
> Over the past two weeks these questions have taken on a new urgency as
> Facebook employees have for the first time publicly voiced anger and
> frustration with Zuckerberg’s decision to protect Trump’s calls for state
> violence against those who are protesting racist police violence.

I interpreted the statement as describing people who are breaking into stores.

------
sunseb
I live in Europa, so really I don't get what's happening in the US right now,
but this Wired article seems so partial and biased against Trump (and
Zuckerberg).

It's a problem I see more and more in the media: taking side politically.
Remember net neutrality? This was one one of the founding stone of Internet.

Peer pressure, pushing people and platforms, this is what looks like tyranny
to me - not Trump nor Zuckerberg.

And of course I will get downvoted by these same people talking continuously
about diversity of opinions and freedom of speech.

~~~
thatguy0900
News sources have always been biased, though I agree it's gotten much worse
under such a polarizing president. Net neutrality is an entirely different
concept about internet service providers giving equal speeds to all websites,
though, nothing to do with this.

~~~
sunseb
Yes, net neutrality was for Internet providers to just be some kind of pipes
that don't prioritize some websites over others. I think a platform like
Facebook is a bit like that on a higher level. It's about information
distribution, not about being an editor of contents.

------
wrnr
Siva Vaidhyanathan writes only about Mark Zuckerberg:
[https://www.wired.com/author/siva-
vaidhyanathan/](https://www.wired.com/author/siva-vaidhyanathan/)

~~~
take_a_breath
Not only does your own link prove you are wrong, it’s not relevant to the
discussion.

~~~
wrnr
Accuracy is not what I am going for.

