Whoah, hold on, I don't think anyone is saying this is easy or there aren't risks for Zuckerberg. However to say he shouldn't stand up against tyranny and abuse of government power because he has responsibility to parties x, y and z is exactly the line of thinking that allows totalitarian governments to thrive. Government power is not absolute, that power is derived from the people. No one person can stand up to the government, but the government can't fight everyone, and if Google, Facebook, et al stood up to them and signed some light on this issue it would not be so easily papered over by the spooks.
Beyond that, in terms of public surveillance, Zuckerberg has real power in this sphere. You could even argue that he has more power than any individual has ever had. Certainly there is no bigger global database of personal information than Facebook.
It doesn't matter if Arrington is being a hypocrite. It doesn't matter if I'm being a hypocrite. Zuckerberg, and indeed all technologists should stand up on this issue. If we love what computers can do, we owe it to the world to fight so that they don't become the Orwellian tool of control that totalitarian regimes have always dreamed of. We can't put the genie back in the bottle—data is going to be out there—but we can force the government to be more transparent. We can stand up and say that a handful of isolated terrorist attacks is not justification to ratchet up governmental power to something a thousand times more terrifying than any homicidal extremist ever could be. This is fundamentally one of the most important issues of our time, certainly far more important than the fate of any one company.
Risking one’s own well being to help the community is basically a definition of an altruistic behaviour. Nobody and i mean NOBODY can reach and keep the position of CEO of big international corporation by exhibiting altruistic tendencies. The environment is too competitive and it promotes egoism and punishes altruism. (BTW, The same reasoning stand for political leadership too). So, I don’t think we can really expect this call to be heard…
Okay, let's not call on powerful people to do the right thing then. I mean they were the ones with the ambition to influence the world, so it's pointless to even ask them to have some morals.
Properties of the world can still be problems to be solved. Gravity is a problem solved by rockets. What is the solution to the gravity of human avarice?
I'd say it is basic game theory and statistics.
If we have population of individuals who exhibit three types of behaviour:
A - altruistic (1% of population)
E - egoistic (1% ...)
N - Normal (randomly A or B 98% of population)
Let's them play a game where E - type has muuuuch better chances to win....
It is obvious that the proportion of E - types in the winner population will grow during the tournament.
This explain the current state of world affaires: Usually 'Supreme Leader' is the "biggest bastard of them all"...
It's basic extrapolating-without-data is what it is. You have a theory, well, let's call it a hypothesis ("a person who reaches CEO level is someone who will not behave altruistically"). You even have a simple model which mostly agrees with the hypothesis (not completely, I'll note) and which relies on several more untested hypotheses. Both the hypothesis and the model predict certain things about the world. You can check! Are those predictions borne out in reality? (˙˙˙ʎʃʃɐǝɹ ʇoᴎ :ɹǝʍsu∀)
Dan Carlin (more known for his Hardcore History podcast), also does a show called "Common Sense" and has been a political journalist for ~20 years. With this show, he seems to be fairly non-partison, railing against any side of the aisle that lies on hypocrisy (Left, Right, Libertarian, it doesn't matter, he tries to push at the "logic" or underlying issues and relates them to past political fallouts or successes).
Could a Martin Luther King Jr. even exist today? Could an activist "rise" pulling together masses for protests with the amount of surveilance and data scored on people (this is from 2011). It speaks to the issue of whether or not any individual could in this day and age lead such a large-scale movement, and when/how they would be curtailed nearly immediately due to infiltration and "dirt" that is so easily obtained, etc.
Also of note:
http://dancarlin.com/dccart/index.php?main_page=product_musi...Description: Another news story highlighting the growing "wealth gap" between the rich and poor in the USA has Dan discussing countermeasures. What if the rich and powerful made fixing that imbalance a priority?
I can't recall if the subject I am speaking to is the above, or below episode (probably below, his show notes are not linked to his site).
Dan Carlin goes into a very pessimistic (and somewhat realistic) description of why money in politics can only be solved by money, in politics. How if HE were to change policies, he would need (or wish to) see a cabal of billionaires. Ready to back actual reformists, and immediately cut them out of any re-elections if they are not holding to the reformist promises made (the below Ep). A political contract per se, with the most "good intentioned" billionaires. He also notes, this is rather unrealistic, as ones "good intentions" can be diametrically opposed to another (simplisitic example, The Koch brothers and Soros).
I'm not describing it well, but his premise is that you only change the top-levels by voting out the House/Senate that change their tune once in office, thus you need the consequences of uber-rich who can, and have the ability, to oust them in a semi-quick (election cycle) function.
Pretty sure its the below Ep.
http://dancarlin.com/dccart/index.php?main_page=product_musi...Description: The only way Americans can change federal government policy is by voting for new political candidates. But what if those candidates ignore the positions they ran on once elected? Also: the implementation Gordian knot.
I wonder if we will have a Bill Gates type billionaire who dedicates the power of his/her mind to reforming politics in such a fashion. I use Bill Gates as an example, re: his ruthless and intelligent business acumen, turning towards solving philanthropical concerns. That "moving of the cannons" would be stellar (searching is broken for older articles, their was a fantastic Reuters, or FT on Bill Gates when he stepped down from MS to turn towards philanthropic causes, and (paraphrasing), "it will be of awe to see the change his business mind, fundamental efficiencies in solving problems, will do for the world of [disease, whatever].")
I also think its silly to assume that though a billionaire has immense power/influence/'stability" to withstand more pressures by the government, this is still the US government which can bring down countries, much less a rascally tech billionaire.
(I am on meds for post-surgey, apologies if this is rambling or incoherent).
It's not too hard to draw a line between using information your company collects for business purposes and government surveillance.
Also, it's worth noting that one of the key features that helped Facebook take off was much better privacy controls than anything that existed at the time.
Beyond that, in terms of public surveillance, Zuckerberg has real power in this sphere. You could even argue that he has more power than any individual has ever had. Certainly there is no bigger global database of personal information than Facebook.
It doesn't matter if Arrington is being a hypocrite. It doesn't matter if I'm being a hypocrite. Zuckerberg, and indeed all technologists should stand up on this issue. If we love what computers can do, we owe it to the world to fight so that they don't become the Orwellian tool of control that totalitarian regimes have always dreamed of. We can't put the genie back in the bottle—data is going to be out there—but we can force the government to be more transparent. We can stand up and say that a handful of isolated terrorist attacks is not justification to ratchet up governmental power to something a thousand times more terrifying than any homicidal extremist ever could be. This is fundamentally one of the most important issues of our time, certainly far more important than the fate of any one company.