
Mark Zuckerberg Is Totally Out of His Depth - smacktoward
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-12/mark-zuckerberg-is-totally-out-of-his-depth
======
kevmo
I have thought a lot about this over the years, in particular because I went
to high school with Dustin Moskovitz, who was Mark's roommate and cofounder at
Facebook. Dustin and I are only the barest of acquaintances at this point, so
nothing I say should be construed as inside information.

Mark started Facebook when he was 18. Being the CEO of Facebook is the only
real job he's ever had, and it's been a rocket ship since Day 1. Kudos to his
brilliance, but it doesn't change the fact that this is literally his first
job.

It's a very unique situation he is in - running a company that took over 1/6th
of the world being the only job you've ever had. Perhaps that does deserve
some sympathy.

But you learn from being exposed to a variety of situations. You develop
tremendously more perspective by getting out and doing different things. You
are forced to consider things you never would have considered if you had not
moved onto something new. It gives you a much deeper view of how most of
society works.

If this were a mom-and-pop grocery shop, it wouldn't matter so much if the
boss had been doing it since 18. There are other competitors who can step in
if you suddenly start selling all of your customers' purchase information to
the local banks and real estate agents.

That isn't the situation with Facebook, though. They are too powerful at this
point. The author of this article is correct in saying it would be best for
society if someone more civically minded were running the company.

------
hn_throwaway_99
While I agree Zuckerberg is out of his depth, I think there is some magical
thinking in this article that there are just a cadre of imminently well
qualified people waiting in the wings who could save the day if only given the
chance.

These people, by and large, don't exist. I may think Zuckerberg has some
issues, but I don't think there is some hidden group of folks who could do
much better of a job than he could.

~~~
stantaylor
That was my thought, too. The problems aren't personal, they're structural and
regulatory.

------
deegles
Assuming that there is a more intelligent, more capable person available is
the _optimistic_ outlook. What if the reality is that the current crop of CEOs
_are_ the best-equipped people available to deal with this problem and it's
not enough?

~~~
bachbach
That was my point too. If such people can be found then by all means this is a
testable proposition. I had another idea though.

Give these journalists what they ask for and attach betting markets to news
articles as bets on media bullshit - then we'll see what happens next. I'm
sure it will be illuminating.

The bets could come in many forms from "Is X true?" where X is measurable to
more complex bets like "If X then Y result" where Y objectively measurable.
This incentive will balance against the clickbait incentive of journalists and
the bookmaker will make more money if more people accept the terms of the bet
- so the third party has an incentive to resolve for good quality
propositions. Sports bookmakers already slice up complex scenarios into
betting proposals so I'm sure this can be accomplished in a way reasonable to
all partisans.

------
jakelarkin
Mark is 34. Sure must feel good to be all pedantic about his maturity, but
that's not actually the problem. The problem is that the CEO of Facebook or
Twitter, whoever it is, is in a Catch-22, they can't solve the
disinformation/hate-speech/trolling problem without massively increasing costs
on moderation, decimating some growth/engagement metrics and in the process
destroying a ton of "shareholder value". If they don't solve the content
problems, the platform will slowly die anyway as users start to flee the
toxicity. So we're all hanging on as these guys try to awkwardly walk some
impossible to find line between the two paths. The last FB earnings were a
step in that direction but barely an inch, and things will get much worse.

~~~
squarefoot
You're spot on. And I would add that if and when they finally succeed in
removing Zuckerberg from the throne (I'm convinced they're working on that;
bad press is step 1) just to make space for another king, Facebook won't
change a dime because making it better would make it also less profitable, so
it's just a matter of taking away his seat for someone else in exchange for X
(votes?).

------
mdekkers
Looking past these "issues" with Zuckerberg & Facebook, Jack whatever &
Twitter, and the whole "social media" space in general, I find it totally
hilarious (in a deeply tragic sense) that we as the "enlightened west" have
been collectively blowing our trumpets about "free speech" ever since the
start of the Cold War - free speech always having been rolled out as one of
the arguments of our social and moral superiority over the "enemy".

That was all great for exactly as long as the People in Power had the direct
and indirect means to control this "free speech". Now we have the technical
means to allow anybody anywhere to exercise their free speech in a manner that
is actually meaningful, we are all freaking out and looking for ways to shut
them the fuck up, as soon as fucking possible.

Appears to me that free speech is fine, as long as you are sticking to the
rules about what is acceptable speech, which is deeply hypocritical, if you
ask me.

~~~
sjg007
I guess it is a slippery slope on a path towards someone yelling "fire" in a
theater when no such threat exists and as a society we determined that that is
not acceptable. It would have something to do with intent to mislead, harm or
knowingly distort some truth. We see "truthiness" and its damaging negative
effects on society. Also "free speech" in the constitutional sense is to
protect you from government prosecution but it has limits. It is not a license
to say anything you want in any context anywhere. Society imposes editorial
control through law and order. And by order I mean through organized groups of
individuals.

------
elorant
I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. There is no indication that Zuckerberg
wants to change anything about how Facebook operates or that he has regrets
for how things have turned out. On the contrary it seems he has no respect for
human rights and doesn't give two shits about privacy, except his own of
course. I can understand that running a multibillion corporation turns you
into an unsocial prick but the problem with Zuckerberg isn't how he behaves
towards those who are close to him (see Jobs) but how he treats society. For
him everyone is just an audience for an advertisement. Just last week we read
that he wanted access to bank accounts. There's obviously no such thing as
remorse for him, everything is up for sale.

~~~
jacobjacob
He said during the Congressional hearing that he would take measures
substantially impacting FB's profitability, and a few months later
profitability fell (in a very surprising manner). If this is not evidence that
has prosocial motivations -- what is?

------
holtalanm
As much as I agree that what we currently have at the head of most big tech
companies may be ill-equipped to handle the current task at hand regarding the
political minefield that big tech has stepped into, I really believe that they
are, simultaneously, probably the best-equipped people that can be found.

I mean, to say they are not the right people for the job is one thing. I'm
saying that there probably _isn't_ a right person for the job of internet
censorship. What we need is to increase education regarding critical thinking
so people don't take literally everything they read on the internet at face
value.

~~~
pnathan
I doubt that we'll ever have a New Internet Citizen; we have to presume
current levels of cupidity/ignorance.

------
gfodor
You can loathe the actions of these companies and also think it would be
hilariously worse if typical 'leadership' were tasked with solving these very
obviously novel, unprecedented, and truly challenging problems.

A good first step would be to get rid of the perverse incentives these
companies have to manipulate and surveil their users due to their business
models. I don't think these problems can be solved as long as the way these
companies survive is by charging for the ability to manipulate people's views
and actions.

~~~
mizay7
Agree in principle. But in practice, what is the alternative business model
you propose?

Also, changing the business model away from surveillance capitalism, in my
eyes, is not a first step but a massive and complicated (though perhaps very
necessary) end goal.

~~~
gfodor
Yeah I didn't mean to imply this first step would be easy or result in the
survival of these companies. To me it probably looks like the government
stepping in, either threatening legislation or imposing it immediately that
forces companies to transition off these business models if they meet some
criteria which defines them as a public forum of a certain scale. (Of course
this is full of potential negative unintended consequences, like cementing
their dominance, so my guess is things will end up worse before they get
better if this happens.)

Hopefully companies do this on their own accord before we get there. A model
where a subset of users pay for the services would be a healthier model. This
would likely result in a major loss of market cap and head count for these
companies, but I'd imagine it would be sustainable in terms of keeping the
services available and would enable these companies to charter a positive
future for their users without having a conflict of interest.

------
pnathan
A bit of nerd-hate there, eh? Financial types must really hate that nerds have
taken over 1/2 of the stock exchange.

There's a solid argument past the flamebait though. When your company becomes
the _de facto_ public commons, a _forum_ , and isn't, de facto, just a private
brick and mortar shop(the usual concept of a private space that you can
arbitrarily ban people from) anymore, what is the appropriate response? That
requires some education in history, political science, philosophy, etc.

~~~
Digit-Al
I agree. I have long said that they have a very difficult problem. The trouble
is that too many people just say "oh they should do something about it"
without having even close to enough knowledge to see what a hugely
insurmountable problem it actually is to 'do something about it'.

When you consider the vast amount of words, pictures, and videos that are
posted constantly, to check everything for 'bad' content would take a huge
army of people working 24/7.

And then of course, people don't realise that checking everything means some
stranger going through all their posts and making a decision as to whether to
allow it or delete it.

And with these sites reaching so many jurisdictions, whose model of decency
and legality do you use to decide what should be censored?

And finally we have the looming issue of 'Truth'. Who decides it? Truth can be
a slippery thing in some cases. It is not always easy to ferret it out. Hell,
if there was a law that journals could only publish established truth, every
newspaper in every country would have to shut down immediately.

~~~
pnathan
Oh, it's a terribly difficult issue, requiring a deep education in the
humanities.

------
oppositelock
That article reeks of bitterness, hatred, and wealth envy. Really, it's not
worth reading. The content is irrelevant, it's an incoherent rant against rich
nerds.

~~~
smhost
This thread is very defensive.

Being angry at the hubris of zuckerberg and other tech bros is completely
appropriate and justified. When rich nerds try to solve large complex problems
from within the algorithmic confines of their solipsism, they inevitably run
into the endless irregularities of the real world until the only option they
have left is to destroy every irrelgularity with force or implode because they
can't.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
Referring to any successful male technologist as "tech bros" is just
condescending on the face of it and really weakens your argument.

People (rightfully) don't go around referring to Sheryl Sandberg and Meg
Whitman as "tech broads".

~~~
smhost
from what i read, facebook was literally a frat house until they brought in a
grown up to clean up their graffiti and beer cans, so i think the term is
appropriate here.

------
tux1968
Who is the correct person to trust with censorship?

------
Digit-Al
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

They had a utopian vision, but like all those before them they failed to take
into account that there are a lot of 'bad actors' out there, to be polite
about it.

------
_vertigo
>As their fictional mom, I’d like to offer some advice. Retire, step aside.
Maybe find a new hobby. Ask someone smarter and more educated, thoughtful, and
civic-minded to decide on the future of your companies.

Trash. Really, who is the author to speak so condescendingly? I don't look up
to these "tech bros" any more than she does, but this just reads like the
results of a writing exercise rather than what someone would actually think or
believe...

------
dvfjsdhgfv
> Ask someone smarter and more educated, thoughtful, and civic-minded to
> decide on the future of your companies.

This would basically mean admitting failure. I can't imagine any of the guys
mentioned in the article to be ready for that. They are looking for answers
and solutions, but they want to be the ones solving the problem, and won't
hand their power over to anyone else.

------
bachbach
The people on Capitol Hill are situated at the correct depth?

Isn't it nice to have some positive news for a change!

