
Mark Zuckerberg should try living in the real world - tdurden
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/07/mark-zuckerberg-should-try-living-in-real-world-facebook
======
Overtonwindow
I think Mark has a hidden agenda, and it will be sometime before we all figure
it out. As for my personal opinion, I do not trust him, and I am deeply
suspicious of everything he says and does.

~~~
vtange
Doesn't everyone have their own hidden agenda? It's funny how most of the time
people assume these things are nefarious, when each and every one of us see
something positive coming out of our own agendas being achieved.

I too read his lines and watch his moves closely, because he has the potential
to affect things substantially towards things that go against my own agenda,
not because of some universal distrust of people in high places. A little
distrust is healthy, but to do so unconditionally risks forcing people like
Mark or anyone for that matter becoming the monster you fear they can be.

~~~
nylonstrung
The difference is the public figure of Zuck we see, enthusiastically posting
selfies of eating chili dogs in red states and attending black churches is
pretty at odds with the character we know from other stuff like his Harvard
chatlogs. Not to mention he has done a bunch of things which coincidentally
make him more relatable including spontaneously renouncing his athiesm without
any clear reason

Either he has changed in massive massive ways to the point he genuinely has
love for middle America and can relate to them or (more likely) there is a big
dissonance between the persona he is putting on and the real Zuck

------
occultgravity
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuck: Just ask

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don't know why.

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb fucks

Source:[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg)

------
bastawhiz
I don't really understand the point of this article. The only conclusion this
draws is that Mark Zuckerberg (and Eric Schmidt, apparently) are naive. Does
this matter? Does a billionaire's understanding of the world really affect
anyone at all?

This feels mostly like a personal attack. The author asserts that Zuckerberg
doesn't know what a community is, but doesn't explain this further. Nor does
he present any real reasoning beyond "my interpretation of this message is
that he doesn't know what a community is." Is the point that we should abandon
technology? That technology can't augment human interaction or provide a
platform for discourse? I can't see any other proposition by the author. The
cheap shot at Schmidt at the end implies, to me, that we shouldn't have a
networked world where communication is universal and free. The author implies
that we _do_ live in "a comprehensively networked world," and that Schmidt's
hypothesis has fallen flat. Does anyone actually believe that communication is
a solved problem? Hell, we can't even agree on whether OSS projects should use
chat rooms or not.

> There is also, I am sorry to say, a less charitable explanation. It is that
> he has concluded that what is wrong with the world – all the fanaticism,
> cruelty, warfare, myopia and xenophobia – is because some parts of the world
> are not yet on Facebook. If only they were all part of that mythical “global
> community” then everything would be OK.

I think that's a very reductive way of reading Zuckerberg's comments.
Certainly, he is writing from a very privileged position atop his piles of
cash. But I think it's silly to assert that "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,"
translates to, "if we're all part of a global community, everything would be
OK." Of course everything wouldn't be okay! But it's certainly better than
nothing, I'd think.

Let Zuck go on his little The Simple Life experiment and let's worry about, I
don't know, net neutrality being destroyed or whatever.

~~~
ItendToDisagree
How do you square this question: _Does a billionaire 's understanding of the
world really affect anyone at all?_

With this later comment?

 _Let Zuck go on his little The Simple Life experiment and let 's worry about,
I don't know, net neutrality being destroyed or whatever._

Honestly how? There is a "billionaire" currently tearing apart net neutrality
because he doesn't know about (or care about) the internet other than as a way
to make money and to bully people.

------
deepnet
Hilariously along these lines is "When Seinfeld met Zuckerberg".

The world weary Jerry is counterpoint to Mark's fresh faced idealism.

The bit about staff prepping Jerry not to mention Marc's 'broken arm' had me
in stitches.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mkR3BkuKCI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mkR3BkuKCI)

Seinfeld : "You and I showing up would ruin everything he likes about that
community."..."Your goal was to take the social experience and put it online;
my goal was to take the actual human social experience and get away from
that."

Zuckerberg : "Get away ?"

Seinfeld : "I would like to eliminate the entire social experience."

------
RichardHeart
One need not be a billionaire to have no idea at all what is going on in other
peoples lives. To live in a bubble is more the rule than the exception.

Although I suggest everyone delete facebook, let's be fair to Zuckerberg. If
the people on facebook were better, facebook would be better. Much of the
problems of facebook come from the problems of the people on it. Sadly
facebook seems to amplify these problems by optimizing for time on site,
making hidden decisions about what you see and what you don't, etc.

A billionaire trying to make the world a better place is usually better than
those that could care less. I know that there's surely exceptions (perhaps
putin, koch brothers, etc.) It's not the status of billionaire that's
important per say, but the quality of their charitable endeavors.

"Connecting" the world is just a tactic, a means to an end, advocating for
better ends is superior. Sometimes people take the power you give them and do
worse. Technology on its own can be used for good and bad, you must advertise
hard for the good if you want the good.

In the end, I think if the world deleted facebook, it would be far better off
than any charitable deployment of funds the facebook founder could make.

------
danderino
Who actually thinks those statements reflect Zuckerberg's real views?

Its just PR talk.

