You don't have to like the man but, I think it's pretty clear that running any global social media company is miserable and filled with impossible decisions + people who will hate you no matter what choices you make.
It sounds like many social media CEOs would agree that it's like getting punched in the stomach every day
I had that for a while, thought it was bad till one day the giant boot got taken off and discovered it was hiding a rotten diseased foot. Now I dream about the good times when there was a boot on that foot.
What argument? I don't know why he does it. But I don't envy the role and I'm saying I think that his 'feels like getting punched in the stomach' statement is probably a true statement about what his role feels like.
I’m not really sure if I agree with this argument against Facebook. It’s true that Facebook had a part in this, but the same can be said for any kind of media for any given historical conflict.
A few years before these genocides, western media were praising Facebook for its role in the uprisings in the Middle East. It was seen as a force for good, allowing people to self organise against dictatorial regimes.
Hell, back in the day the printing press pretty much brought down all of the power structures at the time, because suddenly people had more free access to information.
I think there are some pretty meaningful differences here where Facebook has been repeatedly made aware of these problems prior to the fact and has consistently responded in the exact same manner by refusing to take any meaningful action and only trying to solve things in so much as it is a PR problem for them.
It wasn’t even indifference, they actively undercut and mislead all of the supposed checks and balances they assured everyone were enough both internally and externally. When confronted they have lied to their internal teams, they have lied to lawmakers, they have lied to investors. It is always the same response. There is no room left to leave this as a “mistake that fell through the cracks”.
It’s a pattern of behaviour that now spans many years and many incidents. All it has shown is that they appear both incapable and unwilling of reform and should be treated as such.
Yes, but evil people started cutting the internet and the show had to continue (more restricted) on other stages. They learned nothing from Cambridge Analityca scandal.
It's different because nobody is in charge of snail mail which is merely a technology. Internet platforms have designs, incentives and people in charge for each aspect of their operation. They can chose what to amplify or not. It's been a convenient excuse of internet platforms to characterize themselves as generic technologies that nobody is responsible for or has ownership of, which isn't true.
The equivalent to snail mail is something like https, smtp or ssl, not FB.
He's too busy attending private gladiator-like fights (which the article mentions, btw). I know the FB pay is pretty damn good, but I guess it still sucks to see your CEO doing that while your job with the company might be on the line.
