Maybe I'm too much of a pessimist/cynic, but while I certainly love that Zuck is doing things like this, I hope he's not just trying to butter Nigeria up to the free basics anti-open-internet bullshit that he tried to pull on India.
Nigeria and Africa are definitely the next big frontiers for the internet, and I honestly doubt that whatever facebook's got planned is mutually beneficial enough. Though if FB decides to establish and maintain a persistent, competent power company in Nigeria, it might actually be worth it, NEPA is shit.
I can't stand this mentality. Why do people think that because someone is a shareholder/CEO in a company, all their deeds from that point on are purely self-interest?
Same shit happened when he pledged 99% of his stock charitable causes. Everyone was up in arms about how the organization was an LLC instead of a charity, claiming he did it purely for the tax benefits, despite that being bullshit.
I guess at the end of the day, once you are a billionaire for creating a successful company, everything you do is based entirely on greed. I'm sure we can come up with a self-interest reason Bill Gates is spending hundreds of millions eradicating malaria too.
Why do people think that because someone is a shareholder/CEO in a company, all their deeds from that point on are purely self-interest?
Depends on the CEO and company. The behavior of a company reflects the behavior of its CEO. Microsoft and Facebook both have a a history of bad behavior.
"bad" is relative. The CEO's of the tobacco companies had a history of knowingly killing people. Microsoft was aggressively anti-competitive, Facebook was (and still is) very much opposed to privacy on the Internet.
A company is many cogs. The fact that Bill Gates was anti-competitive doesn't make him, the individual, a bad person. That's very clear from the work he's doing now. So assuming that all decisions stem from greed, from anyone, is a silly assumption.
Whether Bill Gates is a good or bad person is only a relevant question to himself and maybe some close acquaintances.
For the rest of us, the relevant point is predicting their behavior, and in that context, the phrase certainly applies. As long as he's CEO and the largest shareholder, Facebook's actions are Zuckerberg's decision and responsibility.
> I can't stand this mentality. Why do people think that because someone is a shareholder/CEO in a company, all their deeds from that point on are purely self-interest?
That's not exactly it, but I would like if you could show me an example of a CEO doing something publicly which would go against the interest of their company.
That's a false dichotomy. A CEO can do something that isn't motivated by benefiting the company without it being something that goes against the interest of the company.
I fail to see where throwanem "clearly [implies] that in the context of [the] story, Mark Zuckerberg does what's best for Facebook". If anything throwanem is making an generalization of Mark Zuckerberg/Facebook based on the context of their previous actions.
Many people assume since they are usually motivated by their self-interest others are too.
The fact is, getting what I want and giving others what they want are usually not mutually exclusive. And anytime there is a conflict, there is usually an acceptable compromise.
i don't think you're pessimist/cynic enough. How are people forgetting
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.
It's all about information gathering and providing a walled garden intranet for control.
Does Mark's motivation matter to this kid? Probably not. He will likely make at least thousands of dollars, and perhaps much more, because of this mention. Internet.org, the service you referred to as "bullshit," was attempting to give hundreds of millions of impoverished people a way to communicate with the world that they don't currently have.
Neither Mark Zuckerberg nor Facebook owe you, the people of Nigeria and India, or anyone else, anything. This kind of reaction to the philanthropic efforts of wealthy people and corporations will only serve to discourage such efforts in the future.
I have some sympathy for your position, and I'm against the banning of Internet.org, but your reply is ineffective because it misses the arguments against the service.
Even something given with no ulterior motive can have destructive effects on the recipient society, since it eliminates potential competition, while often not providing a better good or service. How many future ISPs offering cheap open internet access will not even appear?
Just think about the hundreds of other talented Nigerian children who built even better games and who are now crushed because Mark picked out this specific kid instead of them (I can guarantee you that there are other more worthy candidates).
Whenever there is a news story about a single random unknown person doing something cool, it's never about the person.
Mark would probably throw the kid under a bus if it would help Facebook.
Facebook's transparent attempt to own the internet in Africa is scary, distasteful, but strangely tinged with inevitability due to Mark Zuckerberg's unstoppable hunger and relentless competence. I hope Africa is as savvy as the West (has belatedly become) to his self-serving PR stunts, and gives him an almighty neo-colonial kick in the butt.
Comparing a company to a colonial empire is a bit silly unless you're talking about the East India Company. I don't believe Facebook has its own warships yet.
English East India Company, Austrian East India Company, Danish East India Company, Dutch East India Company, French East India Company, Portuguese East India Company, Swedish East India Company, Hudson Bay Company, United Fruit Company, Danish West India Company, Dutch West India Company, French West India Company, Swedish West India Company, Royal African Company, etc.
I'm not judging if they were good or bad, but there were (and still are) far too many.
who needs warships when you can destroy a country economically electronic payment-systems sanctions?
I think the East India Company comparison is entirely reasonable, if not right now, soon. And it won't need anything so vulgar as actual physical force, but its tools of war will be just as effective.
I would say Africa is yet to tap the potential of its people in Africa. Nigerians and other west Africans have been making huge inroads in the US and UK for decades now
Agreed. That's the central tenant of Andela [1]. I just got back from Kenya and was blown away by how talented the engineers were. Going to Nigeria next month and can't wait to compare and see what Zuck was seeing.
Nigeria and Africa are definitely the next big frontiers for the internet, and I honestly doubt that whatever facebook's got planned is mutually beneficial enough. Though if FB decides to establish and maintain a persistent, competent power company in Nigeria, it might actually be worth it, NEPA is shit.