14 Years of Mark Zuckerberg Saying Sorry, Not Sorry (washingtonpost.com) 131
Do you trust Mark Zuckerberg? The Washington Post: From the moment the Facebook founder entered the public eye in 2003 for creating a Harvard student hot-or-not rating site, he's been apologizing. So we collected this abbreviated history of his public mea culpas. It reads like a record on repeat. Zuckerberg, who made "move fast and break things" his slogan, says sorry for being naive, and then promises solutions such as privacy "controls," "transparency" and better policy "enforcement." And then he promises it again the next time. You can track his sorries in orange and promises in blue in the timeline by The Washington Post. Mark Zuckerberg, in an interview with CNN Business on Tuesday: Zuckerberg resisted growing calls for changes to Facebook's C-suite, reiterated Facebook's potential as a force for good, and pushed back at some of the unrelenting critical coverage of his company after a year of negative headlines about fake news, election meddling and privacy concerns.
"A lot of the criticism around the biggest issues has been fair, but I do think that if we are going to be real, there is this bigger picture as well, which is that we have a different world view than some of the folks who are covering us," Zuckerberg told CNN Business' Laurie Segall at Facebook's headquarters in Menlo Park, California. "There are big issues, and I'm not trying to say that there aren't," he said. "But I do think that sometimes, you can get the flavor from some of the coverage that that's all there is, and I don't think that that's right either."
"A lot of the criticism around the biggest issues has been fair, but I do think that if we are going to be real, there is this bigger picture as well, which is that we have a different world view than some of the folks who are covering us," Zuckerberg told CNN Business' Laurie Segall at Facebook's headquarters in Menlo Park, California. "There are big issues, and I'm not trying to say that there aren't," he said. "But I do think that sometimes, you can get the flavor from some of the coverage that that's all there is, and I don't think that that's right either."
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
She's a Democrat, so by definition she's on the right.
Re:Seems that the Left... (Score:5, Insightful)
You do know the biggest chunk of funding for left candidates comes via PAC support from billionaires (just like 'right' candidates)? Even alleged "don't take PAC money" and "grassroots" themed candidates like Beto were actually aided by millions in billionaire backed PAC money that paid for things like "voting report cards" in carefully selected districts and official sounding notices with absentee ballot forms sent to districts likely to vote against with the catch being that sending in the form disqualifies you to vote on election day and means your vote likely won't be counted.
But hey, if you really think the ends justify the means and these are honest practices, by all means keeping on voting for those R's and D's! Keep on supporting publicizing a handful of absolute quack candidates as strawmen of what an alternative would look like. And most definitely keep supporting the same people who conspired to keep the only experienced politician with a proven track record of integrity out of the game.
Re: (Score:1)
And most definitely keep supporting the same people who conspired to keep the only experienced politician with a proven track record of integrity out of the game.
What politician?
Re:Seems that the Left... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bernie Sanders, whether you actually agree with his policies or not is beside the point. The man has been consistent and on point with his positions for decades despite pissing into the wind for however long it took for political winds to change. That is called integrity.
That is a pretty stark contrast to your typical politician who jumps on board when the right combination of public support and corporate donors comes around. That is exactly the opposite of integrity.
A magical combination of actually having experience AND not acting like a career politician... Trump had one of those and got elected, Bernie Sanders is the only one I know of at the federal level and certainly the only one in the Senate who has both in the US.
Liz Warren is too (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true (Score:2)
Now, Clinton Democrats (Schumer, Pelosi, etc) get about 50-55% of their money from corporate PACs. But since when are the Clinton Democrats "the left"? They don't support single payer healthcare, they _do_ support the 8 wars we're fighting and they voted to cut federal and state funding to colleges. How is th
Re: (Score:2)
The old fashioned term for that is Limousine Liberals.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever see the movie 5 million years to earth aka Quarter Mass And The Pit ?
It's that whole member of the hive recognition / elimination of non hive members protocol in action.
Re: (Score:2)
Half wit.
Re: (Score:2)
Half wit.
Dude you'd have a great future as a spell checker if the position hadn't been automated away decades ago.
If that's the best you can manage in the way of an intellectual put down, then you need get some new dialog strings off the server.
Try these
$name$ is a rethugliclan
$name$ will hate it when Mueller puts everyone in jail
Ha $name$ Orange Man will start a nuclear war with Korea
Ha $name$ Orange Man will destroy the economy
If you really want to hurt me, you can lay blame on me and my generation for not doing o
Re: (Score:1)
The only two differences are that there's been fifteen or twenty five years of attrition at the top of the universities so the whackjob
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
... is starting to eat their own.
Well... They're less fatty and chewy than the Right.
Zuck is not the left (Score:1, Insightful)
Zuck is a member of the ruling class. He's not one of our own. He and the left might occasionally see eye to eye on social issues, but where it matters (economics) he's as far right as any member of the American ruling class.
On a side note, the left does not eat it's own, but we don't have Reagan's 11th commandment. That's because our goal is to make the world a better place. The right, OTOH, have a different purpose. T
Re: (Score:1)
As with the rest of your vapid output, this is complete bullshit.
Re:Zuck is not the left (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the problems today is that the right and left talk past each other.
For example, I very much want the world to be a better place. I spend a considerable amount of my time doing unpaid work to that end.
What I do not want, however, is for the government to be in charge of those efforts. I believe that power corrupts, and there is so much power centralized in government that anything they touch becomes inefficient at best. Yes, we need government, but outsourcing all our efforts to that institution to improve the world leads not to a better world, in my opinion.
This isn't to say that many on the right, as well as the left, are simply taking advantage of the same corrupt power structures. But at least on the right, there is some chance of a reduction of the scope and scale of The Machine. On the left, I don't believe that there is any.
Oh, and by the way: It was Governor Amazon Cuomo and Mayor "Let the taxpayers pay the" Bill de Blasio who shelled out the $3B for Amazon. I suspect that both would be rather offended to be called "the right".
Sorry, I'm not speaking past you, (Score:4, Insightful)
When you speak "right" and "left" what you do personally doesn't matter. You're talking about politics and how the government is run. It's all well and good that you do good things. Keep it up. But your actions don't happen in a vacuum, and your good deeds are dwarfed by the horrors that are routinely committed in your name by your government.
As for the government taking over your efforts to do good, I'm sorry, but the government needs to be in charge of those things. That doesn't mean you can't work in parallel with the government, but ask yourself this: When in the entire history of human civilization has personal charity been enough to solve systemic problems in a society?
Again, the good you do isn't worthless, but it gets drowned out by the evil done in your name. It's like trying to pay for retirement by skipping a cup of coffee in the morning when you make $2 bucks an hour. You need a broader solution. And going by history those solutions have always come from government.
Lastly the trouble with trying to live in a world of "small government" is that the ruling class just won't let you do that. If you don't build power structures to improve your life and the lives of your community others will. Well, except without the "community" part.
Re: (Score:1)
> but ask yourself this: When in the entire history of human civilization has personal charity been enough to solve systemic problems in a society?
If I consider the reverse of your question - "When ... has *government* been enough to solve systemic problems in a society?" - I also get 0.
However, when I ask myself, "When ... has government been enough to *cause* systemic problems in a society?", I get a list as long as my leg, including genocides, famines, and world wars.
I think I'll stay with personal r
No, that is not correct (Score:2)
The only thing that came out of increased social consciousness is LGBTQ rights. Given that a not i
Re:Zuck is not the left (Score:4, Insightful)
The stated and acted goal of the right in America has always been to remove governmental obstacles from the path between where we're at now and where we could be. Historically that has included both regulation and deregulation, with an emphasis on the latter. It's all predicated on the idea, more or less borne out by history, that people who are empowered to be responsible for their own well-being in ways both big and small will generally create prosperity by themselves without a Dear Leader to guide them along.
The left rejects this view. The left believes that people are not capable of being responsible for themselves and will always be victimized by something, unless the white knight of government rides in to help. This is an echo of the belief in the divine ordination of kings, the feudal system, and slavery. It's probably hardwired in everybody. There's a Darwinian explanation for it too. Premodern societies of humans in places like Papua New Guinea are very territorial. A few hundred yards up or down the river and you're on someone else's turf. Live like that for a few hundred thousand years and the notion of strongmen and warlords to keep your turf yours can arise quite naturally. Individual liberty is what's new, what's radical. And given the baggage of the human mind, it's hard to carry through. It requires continuous mental effort to suppress the instinct to relinquish responsibility to a strongman who promises to take care of it all for you. That's what the left is. It's not radical, it's an atavism.
Re: (Score:1)
The goal of the left is not to knock everyone down a peg, it's to create a better place for those that aren't billionaires. It's incredibly ironic that the right seems to think that government can do no good and that corporations can do no harm. The government at least nominally is there for the good of the people and everyone has a vote on how to control it. Corporations exist only for the good of the share holders and often only for the good of there own management and no one that isn't incredibly rich
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Zuck is not the left (Score:5, Insightful)
It's interesting, with Republicans you've quoted what they said. With democrats you referred to what they did. Why didn't you refer to what those Republicans actually did?
The left believes that people cannot be trusted (Score:3)
Sad thing is if you ever got you're way you'd be eaten alive by the right. Entrenched wealth and power is too much for anyone or anything besides a powerful central government to stand up to. As for that powerful central government, you use democracy and education to keep it in line. Beats the hell out of an aristocracy if you ask me. But maybe I'd change my tun
Re: (Score:1)
The left believes that people cannot be trusted with overwhelming power. The left believes in regulation.
Congratulations. A glaring contradiction only two sentences in. Regulation is overwhelming power in the way it's wielded by the American government.
Some examples:
Got a puddle on your land...wetland...can't plow it over without the feds arresting you.
Want unpasteurized cheese...too bad.
Want to run for public office? Hell, want to just get together with a group of like-minded citizens to run an issue add for a local election? Well...fill out a bunch of paperwork, make sure it's all in order, and still be su
Two words: Vagina Lottery (Score:2)
I want a world where that isn't the case. Where everybody, regardless of who's cooch they pop out of doesn't just get a vague possibility of a good life but gets the actual thing itself. And I don't see any reason why, in 2018, we can
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"The left rejects this view. The left believes that people are not capable of being responsible for themselves and will always be victimized by something, unless the white knight of government rides in to help. This is an echo of the belief in the divine ordination of kings, the feudal system, and slavery. It's probably hardwired in everybody. "
May i remind you that it's the right that voted for a populist gorilla to lead their country.
Everything you blame on the left is being executed by the right as we sp
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Orangutans don't flaunt their silvery hair, now do they? :)
And besides, i wasn't talking about what he does.
I was talking about which people are attracted to his image. Turns out he's loved by the right-wing religious conservative folk.
His Strong Leader characteristics have so much effect on these people they are willing to look away when he acts completely against their beliefs.
It is incredible, but above all outright scary, to see the manipulation taking place in front of your eyes and see how the followe
Re: (Score:2)
Occasional Cortex is the left ? Well if they want her they are welcome to her.
The left squabble over how best to improve the world.
Yeah no. The left squabbles over how to best impose their will on everyone else.
The right squabbles over what kind of ammo to use when you try it.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you're not really that clueless (Score:2)
Seriously, if you were projecting any brighter you'd burn through your screen..
Re: (Score:2)
The left have fought tirelessly to do the opposite, just ask any member of the LGBTQ.
Well IIRC Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, so many levels of irony there.
The latest round of the left helping, LGBTQ has made them a protected class with the right to demand people abandon their religious convictions and the right to force their sexuality onto pre pubescent children. Nothing like your 6 year old having story hour with the drag queens. No wonder they react with fear when the political wind changes. The more astute realize they have been used as shock troops by people that rea
Re: (Score:2)
And despite what you think of the right, you're so far off on their goals it's sad. There are the free market types (Ron Paul) that simply don't want the government involved, and others along the conservative spectrum that might think those things are nice to have, but not
Re: (Score:2)
So 'never'? Eh, not a bad approximation of the truth.
Do not track me! (Score:2)
People still won't care. (Score:4, Insightful)
Plenty of people openly admit to not caring about privacy, because they don't think anything bad is going to happen because of all the shit they post on facebook.
Re:People still won't care. (Score:4, Interesting)
True. And, they may be right!! See also, "I want to invest in the housing market in 2008". If enough people do a dumb thing, the government sometimes makes it not dumb retroactively.
Re: (Score:2)
True. And, they may be right!! See also, "I want to invest in the housing market in 2008". If enough people do a dumb thing, the government sometimes makes it not dumb retroactively.
Even without government involvement, if, for example, every single job applicant for a position you're trying to fill has posted videos of themselves doing crazy, stupid or illegal things on Facebook, then you have to ignore that, or hire no one. There's a notion of "radical transparency" that says that if we can see all the details of everyone's lives, we'll realize that everyone is a screwup at least some of the time and stop paying attention to those screwups.
That said, I don't post my own stupid mist
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, radical transparency may work. But it'll be a generational thing. Maybe in 40-50 years it won't matter. Meanwhile, I'll also not post stupid shit online. My grandkids can benefit from radical transparency as free-riders.
I don't care about privacy (Score:2)
Privacy violation is a symptom of the disease of oligarchy. There are better places to attack our oligharch's abuses than Facebook.
Do you trust Mark Zuckerberg? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
And why should we?
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
Cuck: 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
Re: (Score:2)
"Trust no one." --The X-Files
I don't trust any member of the ruling class (Score:3, Insightful)
We need to realize that past a certain point money isn't money anymore. It's power. And by allowing the 1% to have that much wealth we've given them the bulk of the power in this world. We've made them an aristocracy. Kings and Queens. This is one of the reasons why we had a top tax bracket of 90%. That power has to go somewhere. Ignoring that is naive to the point of madness.
It's not a problem unless here is the solution! (Score:2)
Rather surprising to see a bit of insight on Slashdot with an appropriate mod. However, if there is no solution, then it isn't actually a problem, but rather it's just part of the universe as it is. You sort of hint that taxes are key, so let me throw in my suggested solution approach:
Pro-freedom anti-greedom taxation.
The basic idea is a progressive tax on corporate profits, but not on the size of the profits. The tax rate would increase based on market share. If a company controls too much market share, th
I guess that depends on which problem (Score:2)
Problem B) is the real problem, e.g. that America has a ruling class and that we haven't been taking steps to reign them in (e.g. we let AT&T buy up all the old companies we spent so much effort splitting them up into).
The solution there is more Democracy. Automatic voter regi
Re: (Score:2)
I sort of think we're more in agreement than your tone indicates. However, I have to disagree with you about how well the anti-monopoly laws are working these days. Giant corporate cancers that are "too big too fail" is only one aspect of the pro-greedom taxation system. I don't even regard Facebook as "powerful" or profitable. More like "extremely harmful" and driven to be ever more so by delusional stock prices.
Let me word it differently. The game of business is being rigged by the least ethical gamblers
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe he wants The Zuck's NYC employees....
Old News (Score:3, Informative)
Mod article down (Score:1)
Why would he spend time on privacy? (Score:2)
Facebook does not care about your privacy. (Score:4, Informative)
They sell your privacy, piecemeal.
Case in point: you can no longer see how other people view your profile. The "view as..." option quietly disappeared.
Expect everything you post to be public, whether through your accident, Facebook's ineptness, or Facebook's greed.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure that feature was an attack vector for collecting information from profiles. So while it could be used to check up on the level of information that was displayed, it could also be used to extract information from random peoples profiles. Relevant article:
https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
so... ineptness in this case. But greed in many others.
WP is owned by Bezos, Do we trust Bezos? (Score:3)
Re:WP is owned by Bezos, Do we trust Bezos? (Score:5, Insightful)
First, the WP seems to have a lot of voices from both the liberal and conservative side (e..g. George Will.) Second, you think the fact that Zuckerburg doesn't care about privacy is in dispute??? I have a large amount of beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
To the first point, a balance of opinions between two particular zany polarities doesn't mean it's unbiased in other important ways. I meant more particularly the bias toward Amazon's interests, corporate interests, Bezos' interests.
Second: That's completely beside the point. When WP oversamples a bunch of Facebook-negative stuff into a hitpiece, I think it's important to know why are they interested in manipulating public opinion and to whose gain.
Re: (Score:2)
Zuckerburg cares a great deal about privacy. In fact, his billions depend on your information remaining as private as possible, known only to you and Facebook.
He must have been pissed when he found out Cambridge Analytica had been stealing from him.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... (Score:2)
Depends, what do I get to thrust him into?
The problem Facebook has is (Score:5, Interesting)
The real niche I see for them are private family web sites so to speak for keeping in touch and grand kids pictures. Everything else is just fluff that is trying hard to pose as having value so Facebook can continue to mine and sell private personal and business information to any one willing to buy it.
The best thing Zuck could do right now! Is sell and take cash and head in to the hills laughing all the way.
But then I have never had a social media account, well at least on any of the normal(useless) consumer sites so maybe I am completely out of touch.
Just my 2 cents
The question is, is the advertising effective (Score:2)
Facebook could probably survive a blow like that (Youtube did) but it would hurt. OTOH I haven't seen that happen. They've still got plenty of Advertisers. It helps that you give Facebook _way_ more personal information. Even if t
"They have had a great ride" - lol (Score:2)
I love how people in the /. echo chamber post articles like this, seemingly blissfully unaware that Facebook's revenue in the most recent quarter (yes, the one with all the negative coverage) showed double-digit growth, just like every quarter has since they became public.
Unless some external factor occurs like anti-trust causing a breakup, Facebook is going to be the next trillion dollar company, and will be so within the next 12-18 months.
Re: (Score:2)
Hope you had a Great T-Day
"Different world view" (Score:3)
"A lot of the criticism around the biggest issues has been fair, but I do think that if we are going to be real, there is this bigger picture as well, which is that we have a different world view than some of the folks who are covering us,"
My world view: I have a right to privacy and to control my own information
Zuckerberg's world view: I will do my utmost to monetize you even if you do not have a Facebook account
FFS... (Score:1)
...Zuckerberg has clearly embraced neoliberal corporate culture just like everyone else in Silicon Valley. They have all the empathy and moral responsibility of psychopaths, so of course they say sorry and show remorse and promise to mend their ways... every time they're caught out. Stop whining that they're liars and regulate them with the law. That's why we have a legal system.
Information Psyops Hand Delivered (Score:2)
I would like to see Zuck and company do a few things differently. I'd like to see changes to who can buy ads and target people. All political ads need to come to an end on that site; if its not something tangible, no ads. The news-feed needs to go.
Facebook is not a place for news. I've never seen a productive political conversation on there. There is absolutely no reason foreign governments should be able to target individuals one by one on this level. Facebook needs to go back to serving up pic
see also Wired (Score:2)
Wired ran a similar story in April: Why Zuckerberg's 14-Year Apology Tour Hasn't Fixed Facebook [wired.com]
In 2003, one year before Facebook was founded, a website called Facemash began nonconsensually scraping pictures of students at Harvard from the school's intranet and asking users to rate their hotness. Obviously, it caused an outcry. The website's developer quickly proffered an apology. "I hope you understand, this is not how I meant for things to go, and I apologize for any harm done as a result of my neglect to consider how quickly the site would spread and its consequences thereafter," wrote a young Mark Zuckerberg. "I definitely see how my intentions could be seen in the wrong light."
Re: (Score:2)