
Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community - jflowers45
https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/building-global-community/10103508221158471/
======
jdoliner
I find this letter to be deeply cynical. There's a baked in assumption that a
global community is a good thing and that the only possible reason to resist
it is because you're being left behind by its benefits. I don't think that's
true and I certainly don't think it should be assumed a priori. There are
people in this country, and every where in the world, who don't want
globalization. And it's not because they haven't received enough of the
benefits or need to be educated better, they don't want it for real reasons
and, in a Democracy, that should be an acceptable stance. If we're not willing
to accept that stance than we're forcing people into a global community that
matches our vision for the future, not theirs. In other words it's a plot for
world domination of one world view over another. I find it deeply cynical that
instead it masquerades as a virtuous plan to help all man kind.

~~~
nodesocket
You bring up great points, and hit on the miscalculation and hypocrisy of the
left. They seem to think that globalization is a universally good thing, and
if you're against it then you are somehow disconnected, a racist, and a
monster. This a common symptom not just isolated to globalization.

~~~
jbooth
We've brought 3 billion people out of poverty in the last 30 years and haven't
had a major-power war since WWII when we set up all these globalist
institutitions.

I'd say the record holds up pretty well.

~~~
wu-ikkyu
>We've brought 3 billion people out of poverty in the last 30 years and
haven't had a major-power war since WWII when we set up all these globalist
institutitions.

What about the other 3 billion people left behind in poverty? That's more than
what the total global population was when these "globalist institutions" were
set up.

~~~
jbooth
We've gone from 85% of the global population in extreme poverty to 25%.

[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/declining-global-
poverty-...](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/declining-global-poverty-
share-1820-2015)

~~~
wu-ikkyu
Percentages can be highly misleading because they abstract from the hard
reality of absolute numbers. This is especially true when considering the
exponential nature of population growth.

The cited percentage change would be far more encouraging if population was
constant, but it's not.

~~~
Shish2k
There's been a significant decrease in absolute numbers as well as percentage
:)

[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-
extre...](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extreme-
poverty-absolute)

~~~
wu-ikkyu
That graph is more informative. In terms of absolute numbers, extreme poverty
has decreased by about 30% since 1820.

I tried finding a similar graph/data set in regard to "regular" poverty
(rather than "extreme") but couldn't find one. Does anyone have a source for
the change in absolute numbers of regular poverty?

------
anigbrowl
One simple way to improve the quality of news republished on Facebook (albeit
at a possible loss of some revenue) is to pull out the date of publication and
clearly indicate to the person sharing how old the article is. Well-meaning
friends are constantly posting urgent-sounding stories about events that
happened months or years ago because they overlooked the date of publication.

For example, I know a good few people who are opposed to that pipeline being
built in North Dakota right now. Unfortunately they sometimes repost _any_
news story about an oil spill or pipeline failure they come across in the
mistaken assumption that they're seeing because it just happened.

~~~
gydfi
A way I'd prefer: quit letting people share news on facebook.

Heck, let's go back to text-only status updates and I can go back to reading
what my acquaintances are eating. That would be much more pleasant than
today's facebook.

~~~
wilg
How would you like them to share the news?

~~~
m-p-3
In their own words.

~~~
clamprecht
Actually this gave me an interesting thought. The amount of effort required to
"share" or "retweet" something is almost zero - it's a click. On the other
hand, the effort to summarize something in your own words is more. Not a whole
lot more, but enough that many fewer people do it. So I guess the tl;dr here
is: maybe the shares that required more effort could be ranked higher.

Maybe a better summary: "retweets are cheap"

------
minimaxir
Notable functional promise to reduce prevailence of clickbait/fake news:

> Fortunately, there are clear steps we can take to correct these effects. For
> example, we noticed some people share stories based on sensational headlines
> without ever reading the story. In general, if you become less likely to
> share a story after reading it, that's a good sign the headline was
> sensational. If you're more likely to share a story after reading it, that's
> often a sign of good in-depth content. We recently started reducing
> sensationalism in News Feed by taking this into account for pieces of
> content, and going forward signals like this will identify sensational
> publishers as well.

~~~
astrodust
Same thing should hold true for blind upvotes on social sites like this.

~~~
anigbrowl
That fails if you do a first-order implementation because you have no way of
knowing whether the person voting/sharing had already read the article, but
not necessarily shared it at the time of reading. As a simple example, I
subscribe to _The Economist_ and prefer reading the paper version. If I see a
story from there cited by someone else, I don't need to read it again to
recommend it.

Also, depending on the content and source it may be possible to infer the
value or significance of something from the headline alone, eg when one has
specialist domain knowledge and sees a headline one knows to be an accurate
summary of recent developments in that field.

~~~
privong
> That fails if you do a first-order implementation because you have no way of
> knowing whether the person voting/sharing had already read the article, but
> not necessarily shared it at the time of reading.

It might still hold for a large group of people, though, and be valid in a
statistical sense? Which is what they're really after.

~~~
anigbrowl
It could definitely help as long as it's appropriately weighted rather than
being a binary choice. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

------
beloch
"How do we help people build a safe community that prevents harm, helps during
crises and rebuilds afterwards in a world where anyone across the world can
affect us?"

For one, give people using your site some basic privacy so their own
governments can't use your site to target political enemies.

~~~
angry-hacker
Paying the fair amount of taxes wouldn't hurt either.

Yes, it's not illegal to do those crazy tax schemes, but it sure is unethical.

I believe he truly, in his own powerful bubble, thinks that he does good to
the world and sincerely doesn't understand he is big part of the people
rejecting globalization.

------
sova
To me this all sounds like "Hey I'm sorry that fake news took over my website
and seemed to slide things into a horrendous direction for a while, so let me
blame the audience for their inaction rather than redesign my service around
truth, honesty, and verifiability of information."

------
koolba
Is there a special filter or manual curation process for the comments at the
bottom of Zuckerberg's posts?

From my skimming through the first 30-40 comments, they're uniformly positive.
I find it hard to believe that any internet forum open to public commentary
would have that many positive responses.

~~~
ryanwhitney
"Zuckerberg relies on a team of at least 12 people to delete harassing
comments and spam from his page while an additional team manages his
communications and writes his posts and speeches, Bloomberg reports."

[http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/18/14314872/mark-
zuckerberg-p...](http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/18/14314872/mark-zuckerberg-
personal-facebook-page-comments-team)

~~~
throwawasiudy
holy shit wtf

------
mi100hael
I also just read a BBC article[1] that includes an interview with Zuck
regarding this piece, and I can't help but think "they still don't get it."
There are valid concerns regarding globalism that have gone largely ignored by
(usually liberal) politicians. Those who raise issues like manufacturing jobs
moving abroad[2] or violence from a sudden influx of refugees[3][4] have been
labeled racist, bigoted, and ignorant. Connecting the world's population and
facilitating the sharing of information and perspectives worldwide is
laudable, but in a democracy you can't simply ignore that many people believe
a move towards globalization and specifically opening national borders to
foreign goods and people is not a decision that should be so cavalier.

[1]
[http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38998884](http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38998884)

[2] [http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/caterpillar-moving-
jo...](http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/caterpillar-moving-joliet-
production-lines-to-mexico/article_3f54e2be-3e3a-5062-87c5-754cae03dccf.html)

[3] [https://www.rt.com/news/373853-sweden-no-go-zones-
gangs/](https://www.rt.com/news/373853-sweden-no-go-zones-gangs/)

[4] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/05/germany-
crisis...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/05/germany-crisis-
cologne-new-years-eve-sex-attacks)

~~~
aylmao
As much as this sounds as a defence of people who want to build walls, I have
to agree with it to some degree. I don't agree with the "violence from a
sudden influx of refugees" claim, but here's an interesting anecdote on the
issue.

When NAFTA was originally signed in 1994, with the intention of opening
borders to big businesses, there were some unfortunate side effects.

A lot of Mexican farmers used to operate in smaller scales. Many worked on
communal lands that grew food in smaller scale.

Now, fast forward to NAFTA. Part of the deal phased out tariffs that were
protecting and helping these small farmers keep in place. With the market
open, American corn started flooding Mexico, bringing many of these millions
of small farmers out of business or severely hurting their economic prospects.

What was left for them to do? Mexico didn't have a supply of alternative jobs
for all these people, so illegal migration to the United States picked up.
Lots of illegal immigrants didn't move to the US because things are just
"better" there; they were willing to leave their home land, their families,
cross a desert, risk not only decoration but their lives and move into an
unknown country that speaks another language because they were desperate. They
didn't have a choice, since they lost their land and source of income. It was,
and still is, a big risk and sacrifice.

That's largely why we saw that 20 year hump in Mexicans coming illegally into
the United States (Mexican migration to the US has been falling these last few
years though).

It's interesting, because now the US wants to close their borders. Effectively
the consequence of this development is that big food corporations greatly
benefited from the open borders, but the average person did not.

This is not black and white, about opening borders always, or having nothing
go through. Globalization and open borders needs to be to the interest of the
people, and it's not always good. Building physical walls is incredibly stupid
and childish, but there do need to be some hurdles in place so the big fish
doesn't eat the small, specifically, so the big corporation doesn't destroy
local economies all of a sudden.

A few interesting reads.

[http://www.npr.org/2013/12/26/257255787/wave-of-illegal-
immi...](http://www.npr.org/2013/12/26/257255787/wave-of-illegal-immigrants-
gains-speed-after-nafta)

[http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/10/11/globalization-
an...](http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/10/11/globalization-and-nafta-
caused-migration-from-mexico/)

------
6stringmerc
> _For the past decade, Facebook has focused on connecting friends and
> families._

Look, I get it and I think for a while it actually worked. Mostly because the
User base was, offhandedly speaking, more responsible with how they used the
Communication Tool of Facebook. When the internet was "difficult" and not as
instant as turning on a TV, look, there was a threshold of participation that
resulted in Selection Bias of sorts.

Let's take an extreme example of another type of Tool, that when placed in the
"Wrong" hands - so to speak - can wreak a lot of havoc: A Firearm. In the
hands of a Responsible Person, a Firearm is a Tool, though it can also be a
Weapon if so intended. It has pretty limited scope, but it's useful and can be
controlled.

Put the Firearm in the hand of an Irresponsible Person and the outcomes will
likely be "Unpleasant" to put it lightly. Irresponsibility takes many forms -
sometimes it's a case of Emotional Stress (relationship break up), Financial
Catastrophe (debt), Desperation (drug addiction). Humans are very much
unrefined and uncivilized as much as we'd like to promote a different image.

I mean, when I think about BIG PROBLEMS it's stuff that Facebook isn't really
the right tool for the job. You know, things like water. I just checked, and
the UN posits:

> _783 million people do not have access to clean water and almost 2.5 billion
> do not have access to adequate sanitation._

It might seem like I'm moving the goalposts here, but it's actually kind of a
way of twisting your attention around a little.

My impression is that Facebook, in the past two years, has been one of the
most divisive, family and friendship havoc wreaking wastelands and, like it or
not, a behemoth with only a vestigial relationship to Zuck's latest missive.
I've seen far too many posts time and time again about people noticing their
lives are happier and more positive by either vastly reducing or altogether
eliminating participation in Facebook.

It's hard to bring the world together when providing the forum for it to tear
itself apart. Right? Maybe that essay is still in the works.

------
mvp
Just imagine a Chinese, Russian or Indian company head writes such a post.

It's talking about building global communities, so anybody or everybody could
or should have such an ambition.

Does that give one a sense of unease thinking about it?

If that is the case then maybe global community in that sense may not be a
popular or good idea.

In this context, I'd like to draw your attention to how developing countries
viewed technologies and ideas from the developed countries until a couple of
decades ago. They've copied them first and then moulded them to their specific
needs.

But technologies and ideas of the last decade or so cannot be copied and
moulded, instead the ideas subsume them. There's no Facebook like thing in
India. They use Facebook. There's no Google like thing in India. They use
Google. This is ok as long as it's affecting only a small slice of their
experience. However that slice has been growing and becoming more important
every passing day. More people are becoming more concerned.

That concern is a lot like the sense of unease I alluded to earlier.

------
metaphorm
where to even begin?

> Zuck: How do we help people build supportive communities that strengthen
> traditional institutions in a world where membership in these institutions
> is declining?

what is meant by "traditional institutions"? Maybe the problem is that
"traditional institutions" (which are what, exactly? churches?) are not
addressing people's real concerns and have become irrelevant.

> Zuck: How do we help people build a safe community that prevents harm, helps
> during crises and rebuilds afterwards in a world where anyone across the
> world can affect us?

it sounds like he's talking about responding to terrorist attacks. this is
such vague language that it can be interpreted to mean anything at all. sounds
like he's practicing writing campaign rhetoric. Zuck wants to run for
president?

> Zuck: How do we help people build an informed community that exposes us to
> new ideas and builds common understanding in a world where every person has
> a voice?

I hope he's sincere about this. Facebook has proved itself to be one of the
greatest disseminators of propaganda, distortions, clickbait, manipulative
media, and many varieties of malicious (as in privacy violating) advertising
and data-mining. I somehow doubt we're going to see a real reversal of policy
on this subject from Facebook. Maybe I'm just cynical and jaded but being a
vehicle for disinformation and invasive advertising has made Facebook a lot of
money.

------
kisstheblade
"For the past decade, Facebook has focused on connecting friends and
families." \--> you have been focused on selling ads, not changing the world.
People would still be "connected" to each other without facebook because of
the technology we have now (built buy normal engineers doing incremental
improvements without "change the world" god complexes).

------
cawcaw
Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Surveillance

------
scholia
More comments are at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13663737](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13663737)

~~~
ihuman
[Deleted by user]

~~~
grzm
The two mods don't see everything. If you're aware of an issue like this, you
can contact them via the Contact link in the footer. They're generally very
responsive.

------
dkn
As long as that global community is all in Facebook.

------
eplanit
This smacks of Zuckerberg 2020.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/zucke...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/zuckerberg-2020/513689/)

------
return0
Did he just proclaim the Facebook Global Government?

~~~
denom
As Lessig said, the code is law. Given facebook's role, undoubtedly they will
(and do) play a role in governance.

~~~
return0
Facebook could upend the world order if they built elections into their
platform. I mean who 's gonna delegitimize a government elected online by
massive audience? People would create new countries

~~~
JBReefer
I really don't believe that's realistic, and if you think that it's possible I
would encourage you to broaden your social groups. The idea of a private
company holding an election to choose my representatives is completely
unacceptable - much less the concept that it would be global and not tied to
the places I care about.

People go to war over that kind of thing.

------
equalarrow
I'm still tryig to figure out how to process all this.

My first thought is, communities do not need facebook to form/grow. They never
have.

However, even in light of the Arab Spring and other social uprisings around
the world, I still can't buy into anything Zuck says.

I just can't reconcile in my head how the most detailed online advertising
machine can ever 'help create' any real or longstanding community.

Real communities are based on real people with real interactions. Granted, I
know there are discussions and groups on fb (my wife is part of a group that
meets up every few mos in the 'real world'). But i also see how mich time
people spend with their faces plowed into their devices, ignoring the real
world going on around them.

I'm not saying fb or twitter aren't powerful tools to organize with. I am
saying that I put little to no faith into them as stewards of global community
building. Their motives are not altruistic and I'm sure if their ad market
dropped out next week, we would not see any of these types of posts from Zuck.

And regarding the fake news bit, what's to do about that? People found massive
audiences in their system and deliberately posted lies to sway opinions. To
me, that's a complete failure of the benefit of fb ('connecting' the world)
and why I just don't believe anything that comes out of there.

I been on campus numerous times and have quite a number of friends that work
there, so it's not like I don't get fb and how they make their money. I really
do. But, are these really the types of companies we want to build? You can
probably say this about a lot of tech companies nowadays, but when it's free,
you're the product.. This is not good for the global community long term.

------
perseusprime11
This comes from a guy who literally built a wall around his house and tried to
evict people from his estate in Hawaii.

------
mmel
It is one of the very few publically shared items on Facebook that I'm allowed
to read without an account.

~~~
spicyj
I work at Facebook. Can you provide another example link for something that's
"public" but you can't access? Most public content is accessible without an
account.

~~~
jquast
doesn't the modal "sign up for facebook" that cannot be dismissed take
somewhere between 50 and 80% of your screen space? I'm talking of these
"public posts" your users chose to share.

Or is this just my large font preference for vision impaired? Either way, it
leaves very little room for text, sometimes none at all.

News flash: Dark patterns harm accessability, but you knew that. Good work.

~~~
spicyj
Yes, I agree that the "Sign Up for Facebook" box is annoying. That's not my
wheelhouse and not something I'm likely to have success changing. If, however,
public content gives a forced login dialog, that sounds more like a bug that I
can fix.

------
bootload
"In times like these, the most important thing we at Facebook can do is
develop the social infrastructure to give people the power to build a global
community that works for all of ^us^."

'Us' includes: Three letter agencies, marketeers and other data gathering
companies.

------
gallerdude
Not sure if I should like that Zuck supports globilization or dislike how out
of touch he seems. (At least he thinks he's trying?)

------
kapauldo
Facebook has a "mission"? What a joke. Their mission is to make a fortune on
fake news. Masking this in nobility is absurd.

------
badmadrad
Mark Zuckerberg: Building a Global Hivemind

------
cryoshon
>are we building the world we all want?

the rich are building the world they all want. everyone else is struggling to
survive that world. so, no. we aren't building the world "we all want" because
many of us want different things, and have different means to gain them. i'll
note that facebook isn't intentionally blocking or supporting this dynamic...
and i'll also note that they could have answered their own question by looking
at their data set. but this is public relations, where facts are slim and the
opinion of the actual public doesn't much matter.

>How do we help people build supportive communities that strengthen
traditional institutions in a world where membership in these institutions is
declining?

non-starter; facebook is anathema to traditional institutions because it
localizes power within itself instead of relying on them... and this has been
the goal of facebook all along. put differently: honest answers to this
question cannot include facebook as part of the solution without actively
subverting the "traditional institutions". furthermore, in the US at least,
the institutions are hollowed out anyway.

>How do we help people build a safe community that prevents harm, helps during
crises and rebuilds afterwards in a world where anyone across the world can
affect us?

also a non-starter; facebook is a social network and software platform, not an
army of robotic guards. "preventing harm" will be conflated with "enforcing
stability" when they are prompted by groups with more power (governments).

>How do we help people build an informed community that exposes us to new
ideas and builds common understanding in a world where every person has a
voice?

don't let people use facebook unless they have a college degree or higher.
you'll see university classes fill suddenly. more seriously: facebook is a
filter bubble by design, and cares absolutely nothing about the reach of
people's voices... and it's tiring to hear otherwise.

>How do we help people build a civically-engaged community in a world where
participation in voting sometimes includes less than half our population?

by doing something that facebook won't do: taking a stand and promoting groups
pushing social change forward. they already know that this is a line they
won't ever cross. we all know that they won't cross that line. facebook is a
large institution, which by default sides with other large established powers
rather than the public. i will also note that "civic engagement" is a
dogwhistle for the disempowered members of the public doing something to
improve their own standing, typically in opposition to (and rarely, in
cooperation with) the established powers. they don't even genuinely want to
improve civic engagement, because civic engagement leads to them being
obsolete.

>How do we help people build an inclusive community that reflects our
collective values and common humanity from local to global levels, spanning
cultures, nations and regions in a world with few examples of global
communities?

what if we don't have common values, and what if we don't want inclusive
communities? what if those of us who follow the western liberal tradition want
nothing to do with those who live in contradiction to it and despise it? some
cultural chasms can't be rectified... and i can definitively say that facebook
won't change that.

in summary: leaving the construction of a global community to facebook is a
surefire way to make sure that the "global community" is neutered and ripe for
profit extraction. i guess this comes off as a very negative post, but come
on-- think about who benefits if people worldwide jump on the zuck train and
think about things in the way he's encouraging here. does anyone really think
that facebook is actually interested in doing anything other than making
money?

------
duracel
Its very hard to see facebook raising in my expectations.

I'm really against facebooks spying, hiding and deleting people's account
culture.

Also forcing people in these small ghettos gives to me strong claustrophobia
feelings.

Also calling users "Dumb f.." is really low..

Nope Mark, cannot see this happening.

------
jdoliner
Copying over my comment from the other thread that sparked some interesting
debate:

I find this letter to be deeply cynical. There's a baked in assumption that a
global community is a good thing and that the only possible reason to resist
it is because you're being left behind by its benefits. I don't think that's
true and I certainly don't think it should be assumed a priori. There are
people in this country, and every where in the world, who don't want
globalization. And it's not because they haven't received enough of the
benefits or need to be educated better, they don't want it for real reasons
and, in a Democracy, that should be an acceptable stance. If we're not willing
to accept that stance than we're forcing people into a global community that
matches our vision for the future, not theirs. In other words it's a plot for
world domination of one world view over another. I find it deeply cynical that
instead it masquerades as a virtuous plan to help all man kind.

~~~
lazaroclapp
What are those "real reasons"? And are they against globalization in the
abstract or against specific models of global institutions? I find being
against globalization in the abstract very strange, because it takes arbitrary
historical divisions of human-kind and tries to set them in stone. A global
human community almost always seems like a more natural positive future than a
fragmented system of hostile parties defined by birth location and operating
in anarchy. Maybe I am lacking some context or some value system that the
anti-globalist have and which might have its merits, and if so I would love to
hear the argument, but to me the idea of "this person is more valuable or
interesting to me because it was born my neighbor than anyone born a hundred
miles away" seems to lack some ethical foundation. Let alone the same argument
defined by religion or race, instead of plain location.

~~~
rfrank
> Maybe I am lacking some context or some value system that the anti-globalist
> have and which might have its merits, and if so I would love to hear the
> argument, but to me the idea of "this person is more valuable or interesting
> to me because it was born my neighbor than anyone born a hundred miles away"
> seems to lack some ethical foundation.

Why? People care more about what happens around them. I care more about
housing issues in the Bay Area than I do the same problem in New York. I care
more about Oakland crime rates than Chicago crime rates. People care more
about things that directly impact them and those close to them. If people see
their hometowns and communities falling apart when the main industry moves
overseas, and only receive second-order benefits like slightly reduced price
of good a few years later, what incentive do they have to support globalism?

~~~
lazaroclapp
Their children's having better opportunities as wealth created by their
countries participation in globalized trade creates chances for improved
education, scientific advancement and new industries?

Don't get me wrong, we are failing many of those communities. But is not a
failure to stop globalization, it is a failure to share the gains of
globalization more broadly with those most affected by its negatives. We can
do both. Is not either let them starve or stop global trade, both can be
prevented. Besides, a lot of those industries that keep being brought up as
examples of victims of globalization only ever got to be as significant as
they were due to globalization: consider the American manufacturing industry,
which greatly increased in significance after WW2 mostly due to the demand for
its production in war-ravaged Europe. Or the American agricultural industry,
where people complain about Mexican workers "stealing" jobs, while ignoring
that Mexico consumes $17.7 billion of that agricultural production from U.S.
exports.

~~~
rfrank
That's not reality though. Their schools are failing, opiate addiction is
rising, and opportunity is drying up. We are failing essentially all of those
communities. Global corporations have no incentive to share the gains of their
decisions with the communities they damage. Pressure to make them do so will
likely just quicken the pace of automation, not suddenly make people care
about the plight of the middle America. We can do both, but if the history of
globalization is any indicator, we won't.

~~~
lazaroclapp
Fair enough, but you really consider isolationism, trade barriers and anti-
immigrant rhetoric either significantly more feasible than or preferable to
trying to improve wealth and opportunity distribution? Do you think forcing
companies to bring manufacturing to the U.S. and fire foreign workers will
result in anything else than automation, loss of foreign markets for U.S.
companies and even further poverty for these communities, absent any other
measure or the political will to help them? It seems to me just as hard to
assist them under nationalism as under globalism, and globalism still has at
the least the potential of doing better. For my part my current view is that I
should try to both champion globalism and try to make it do better in whatever
small sphere of influence I have.

~~~
rfrank
Yes, I think trade barriers are both more feasible and preferable. I perceive
automation as a constant, it's happening no matter what. Enforcing a border
adjustment tax is easier than trying to remove every international tax
loophole a la the double Irish. How is reshoring not trying to improve wealth
and opportunity distribution, just with the benefactor being Americans and not
the factory town in SEA or Central/South America? How does it not "have the
potential to do better"? Someone keeping or re-gaining a job in their field is
better. Those people contributing to their cities and towns in the form of
taxes and other spending makes them better. I work in electronics
manufacturing, and people are generally pretty excited about the potential
changes.

~~~
lazaroclapp
You assume the rest of the world will remain open to you as you slam the door
in their faces. At best you might end up in a situation where you don't have
to compete with Shenzhen in your local market, but where all other markets are
closed to you and open to them. Except now you won't even have access to
collaborating with Shenzhen and other significant electronics hubs. I think
you underestimate how much wealth moves into the U.S. _because_ of
globalization and has since the early 20th century. Now, you can argue that
you won't go completely closed, but I think you will lose out in proportion to
how much you close things, specially if you do it to the point that other
countries find themselves needing to retaliate with their own trade barriers
and alternative trade treaties, and even more so if at the same time you are
also restricting flow of talent into the U.S.

~~~
rfrank
> Now, you can argue that you won't go completely closed but I think you will
> lose out in proportion to how much you close things, specially if you do it
> to the point that other countries find themselves needing to retaliate with
> their own trade barriers and alternative trade treaties...

I agree with you the most here, and think it's true that unless a trade policy
of that nature is implemented very carefully it could easily cause more harm
than good. On the other hand, I think concerns about a complete walling off of
collaboration/trade, or US manufacturers suddenly becoming unaware of
international markets are overstated.

Manufacturers who have stayed alive already compete aggressively on price,
which for them is more about materials management, relationships with
suppliers (NXP, Samtec, Maxim, whoever), and process optimization. Component
cost varies pretty dramatically by region, and how effectively a US based shop
can navigate that is a big determining factor in how competitive they are with
China/Mexico/etc.

From that perspective, most of the burden of something like a border
adjustment tax is primarily on their customers, especially if they only do mid
or low volume / high complexity runs (think medical/telecom/some consumer
stuff). High volume / low complexity isn't something most US shops are geared
for these days [1], so manufacturing will likely remain overseas and see a
price increase in line with whatever policy change occurs. That probably won't
hold true for high volume / high complexity (smartphones, etc) where cost of
total assembly is higher. That seems to align with all the chatter about
Foxconn, Samsung, Sharp, Toyota, etc. investing in US operations. [2][3]

The risks you mention are absolutely real, and my biggest hope at this stage
is that any proposed changes are drafted and discussed openly, and given ample
time for public review and comment.

1\. [http://www.assemblymag.com/articles/83764-managing-high-
mix-...](http://www.assemblymag.com/articles/83764-managing-high-mix-low-
volume-assembly)

2\. [https://www.macrumors.com/2017/02/08/sharp-lead-
on-7-billion...](https://www.macrumors.com/2017/02/08/sharp-lead-on-7-billion-
plant/)

3\. [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/12/business/trump-asia-
aliba...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/12/business/trump-asia-alibaba-
foxconn-samsung.html)

------
throwawasiudy
My god it sounds like the philosophical ideals of somebody plucked straight
from the Star Trek universe. Are silicon valley billionaires really this
detached from reality?

The reason globalization is coming to a screeching halt is that human cultures
vary so much. It's slowly going away, but in general for a belief to truly die
off; everyone that believes in it needs to be dead. This gives us around 70
years before the walls really start coming down. That's assuming hate and
prejudice are globally snuffed from the ears of the young and impressionable
yesterday.

Sounds like he thinks a globally ideal society is possible and not that far
away. Sounds like he needs to visit a country locked in civil war for the last
50 years for a week or two.

The "developed" world is quickly approaching utopia, but the other 4 billion
people are rapidly being left behind. It's a tragedy that a double digit
percentage of the human population is starving to death while I sit here in my
heated and air conditioned house with ten foot ceilings, more rooms than
people in it, nearly free electricity, running water of any temperature,
instant access to any information I want through the internet, and more
vehicles than people living here.

He needs to take a look at Bill Gates who's a lot older and wiser than Zuck
appears to be. Bill has gained immense respect from me in recent years even
though I'm still not a fan of Microsoft. He's doing things that will truly
make a difference that nobody else wants to pay for. We make such a hero out
of somebody that runs into a burning building to save one person. Bill Gates
is bank rolling malaria vaccines that might save 400,000 lives a year. What
does that make him? A saint at the least.

Zuck should go back to building his internet satellites, that's a lot better
use of his billions than some kind of fairy land curated "safe space" for
SJW's to hang out in.

~~~
dwaltrip
Change occurs in bursts and spurts. Perhaps we are seeing some backlash to the
current wave of globalism. But do you really think the fundamental forces that
push us towards globalism will stop?

As barriers to communication and travel continue to diminish over time,
cultural diffusion will naturally increase, leading toward the major
differences being smoothed over. We will become well acquainted.

Eventually, we will reach some point of "globalism saturation". But it seems
to me that, currently, there is plenty of opportunity for continued melding of
cultures and people groups. This is a natural process that is unfolding, an
emergent dynamic resulting from our social nature and changing technological
context.

We've barely begun, especially when considering future tech advances that will
further reduce many of the artificial, anachronistic barriers between people
groups. Most large differences in culture are just accidents of history and
distance, not fixed, immovable characteristics.

Of course, we shouldn't blindly proceed. New, important concerns will spring
up as the world gets smaller. Surveillance is one obvious example. There will
be many more, and we will have to remain vigilant.

------
brilliantcode
Reading this article, one does raise questions about Facebook's past practices
which in my opinion, is becoming very aggressive and contradicting. I don't
think I need to call them out in particular, just look at all opinion pieces
on various analysis of Facebook's numbers with a google search.

I think the HN community have discussed at great lengths and even Veritasium's
video have talked about some of the things they like to do when Wall Street is
watching.

So my question is, _why_? Why show one side to the world and the other a very
different treatment one that must appease Wall Street?

I get that public companies are on the line when it comes to Wall Street but
if a company that is supposedly almost as valuable as Google but unable to
print cash like Google, does it not make sense that Facebook will be overly
aggressive and downright questionable when it comes to strategies to maximize
it's user base which it heavily relies on for it's current valuation?

This is the vibe I'm getting whenever I read something Mark writes. No
credibility that matches my standards which other tech giant easily passes.

Just take a look at TWTR. Investors are signaling they are increasingly
anxious to see more cash and sooner. TWTR looks like the first to go and as
global risk premium increases so do the continued viability of FB against cash
rich giants like Google & Microsoft.

I'm going to do some research on FB and see if there's any shorting
opportunities. If TWTR can crash and burn, there's nothing stopping FB which
operates on the same business model of building an audience first before
seriously monetizing it.

I'd love it if somebody could offer more insights or even correct me, but I
can't shake the feeling, Facebook is in serious trouble as reflected in their
strange policies recently, especially around Fake News and trying to enter an
attricious battle in China.

Why would FB keep doing what they were doing 10 years ago if they have money
printing machine like Google Adwords? I don't think they'll figure it out in
time.

~~~
onewaystreet
Facebook's business today is completely different from what it was 10 years
ago. Mobile ads now account for 80% of its total ad revenue (on total revenue
of $27.64 billion). A lot of people questioned if Facebook could make _any_
money from mobile when it went public.

~~~
brilliantcode
Interesting but yet unclear how much of a dent this really puts against
Google's monopoly. I'm not even sure if mobile ads is sustainble, just as the
desktop's invasion of AdBlock, I feel like it's not a solid revenue model
going forward.

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2016/11/25/does-
faceb...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2016/11/25/does-facebook-
generate-over-half-its-revenue-from-fake-news/#73aaaa512f33)

It also seems like they don't make it clear where these revenues are coming
from.

Apart from large brands, I wonder how effective FB ad campaigns are. How do
you measure ROI and attribute it to FB ad campaigns?

I feel like this is Nielsen ratings all over again on a dwindling platform.
Inaccessible to rest but large brands with money to splash around. Google
Adwords seem more comprehensive and diversified. $4.5 USD per FB user is
ridiculous in my opinion. FB users aren't looking at Ads unless they are
forced to. Google users _want_ highly relevant ads. This discrepancy explains
the CTR between the two...yet FB is considered right up there with Google...it
just doesn't make sense.

------
Neliquat
Interesting that the original submission was deleted after universally bad
comments.

------
edblarney
Sorry for the somewhat cynical post - but this kind of soft corporate
propaganda deserves at least some skeptical challenge.

"On our journey to connect the world"

\+ By which he means 'take over the world'

"Our greatest challenges also need global responses -- like ending terrorism,
fighting climate change, and preventing pandemics. "

\+ Virtue signalling and false altruism, associating his brand with highly
moral causes with which Facebook has no material connection.

"Progress now requires humanity coming together not just as cities or nations,
but also as a global community"

\+ By 'coming together' he means turning the world into a globalized,
culturally secularized and homogenized suburb as like the faux-facades and
fake architecture of the building he is standing right in front of. Rhetorical
question: Why does the Silicon Valley not have 'it's own' kind of identifiable
architecture? Because the answer to that question is telling.

On this point, we can forgive him a little. Ironically, the soft message of
'diversity' from these folks - often hails from a positive motivation (i.e.
'equality and inclusion') - but it ultimately implies 'diversity of skin tone
and of last names', but otherwise a total homogenization of cultural norms,
values and ideas. Even language, local customs, laws, food and architecture.

When the entire world live across the street from a Starbucks, drives a Honda,
and communicates in a manner sanctified by the thought-monitors at Facebook -
I'd argue the world will be _less diverse_ , less resilient, less interesting
- and less human - place to live.

"Yet now, across the world there are people left behind by globalization"

\+ Wonders the man who has personal wealth equivalent to entire African
nations.

"withdrawing from global connection."

\+ I'd argue some are withdrawing from your imposed social order of
homogenized 'Utopia', for what _they_ see as regaining some degree of self
identity, self expression, and dignity.

" In times like these, the most important thing we at Facebook can do is
develop the social infrastructure to give people the power to build a global
community that works for all of us. "

\+ A serious degree of assumption: most of the people in the world have a very
different view of what 'works' than the global elite - who's values he shares.
What happens when people are 'given a voice' and they want something
completely different than your specific vision of cohesion?

Without getting into 'pro' or 'anti' European Union arguments - if it were put
to a popular referendum - the EU would fail immediately because people in just
a few key nations would vote against it. In France, anti-EU sentiment runs at
60% - a full 10% points higher than in the UK before Brexit (though this
doesn't necessarily imply they would vote to leave - its's a pretty negative
sign). It's almost 50% in Germany. And it's growing.

The people of France voted against the treaty of Rome - and yet it was enacted
by their government. Ditto in Netherlands and Ireland.

Ironically - it's through Facebook and social media that people are voicing
their antagonism towards many globalist causes, that seem to be 'out of touch'
with the will of citizens.

I'm not making an argument for or against anything - I'm pointing out that
many of these 'let's come together' globalist voices have personal views which
are totally inconsistent with most others - and they seem to be keen on
projecting those views in an authoritative manner.

"How do we help people build supportive communities that strengthen
traditional institutions"

\+ By turning off Facebook, and turning on to life?

I like Mark Zuckerberg, and having nothing against Facebook, but I wish they
would stop with this rubbish and let people be - and accept that 'the true
will of the people' in many ways will be inconsistent with that of the leaders
of such globalist institutions.

------
tardo99
Facebook: Jumping the shark since 2017.

------
bambax
Would Mr. Zuckerberg please stand up?

