Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg: Tim Cook is 'Extremely Glib' (fastcompany.com)
A week after Apple CEO Cook said "some well-crafted regulation is necessary " in light of the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal and that Apple was better off than Facebook because it doesn't sell user data to advertisers, Facebook's CEO has struck back. In an interview published on Monday, he said: "You know, I find that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you, to be extremely glib. And not at all aligned with the truth. The reality here is that if you want to build a service that helps connect everyone in the world, then there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay. And therefore, as with a lot of media, having an advertising-supported model is the only rational model that can support building this service to reach people . . . I don't at all think that means that we don't care about people. To the contrary, I think it's important that we don't all get Stockholm syndrome, and let the companies that work hard to charge you more convince you that they actually care more about you. Because that sounds ridiculous to me."
LOL - who is /. going to pick in this fight - they hate them both but have to pick a side.
"I have developed a keen sense of human 'caring' and am able to reproduce this chemical response from my human thought-gland with near 35% accuracy. if required, I may also express a limited concoction of saline liquid from my entirely human eyeball which is in no way casually impeded by my nictating membrane." --Mark Zuckerberg, addressing a McDonalds cashier trying to dissuade Mark from pocketing a McFlurry.
Good people go to bed earlier.
That is All
More like glibc.
Now I trust Facebook. Completely altruistic...
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
Sorry I don’t understand his point. This has nothing to do with the absolute value of the direct payments made by the customer. This is about selling their data. Zuckerberg is trying to confuse the issues, and I find it really problematic.
if "Extremely glib" means "is a total asshole".
Tim, Mark, this is not a pissing match in a schoolyard. This is about the breach of the trust of an entire country's populace in a grievous way. Neither Apple nor Facebook has treated its customers or others well in the past. Rather than two little kids crying, 'We're better than...' or 'We told them so...', we need two adults saying 'This is the situation. These are our faults. This is why we're vulnerable. This is what we're going to do.'
Apple and Facebook are both soulless corporations with real, breathing people behind, inside, and in front of them, and everyone of them are being hurt in a myriad of ways. Neither one has great records of behavior. Facebook's sins are simply more recent and raw. I don't need to go into details.
BOTH have a huge responsibility to the public that go beyond excuses, stock prices, or personal ego. Denying that responsibility is why we're in this mess. Live up to that responsibility, huh?
Too much to ask, I'm certain. This is why I ditched MS and EA products a long time ago and have never personally paid for Apple or Facebook products with either cash nor my personal data.
Apropos captcha: syndrome
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Facebook's business model is selling your information to advertisers and giving you some services. The problem is we do not know what and how much is sold, so we as individuals do not know the actual cost of Facebook's services, so we cannot make informed decisions if we are getting a deal or not.
Apples business model is to build products and sell them. They tend to sell their products at a premium, and refuse to get into a race to the bottom with their competitors. Apple has a history of being very insidious in the industry by pushing technology that we may not need or even want and make it common place, and more or less forcing people into paying for premium product in cases where they cannot afford it and will need to suffer, or go without and be at a disadvantage.
Now that being said, you have a way out of Apples services. You do not need Apples products you can go with other companies products which some are just as good if not better. While there are some Apple only protocols they normally have a good enough open protocol so if you are out the ecosystem you are not completely left out.
Facebook services is based on the idea that it has nearly all the people on it. So while they are competitors to Facebook, you are left at a disadvantage to the others. But is the disadvantage worth it... We do not know.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Tim Cook *is* extremely glib. His politicization of Apple is bunk, his leadership has been less than stellar, in my opinion. It doesn't make him wrong about this. I don't think he's insane. Whereas, Zuckerberg needs help, that kid is just not well. An attitude like this is only going to expedite the grave digging he's been engaged in for himself since he *started* Facebook. Did he honestly think he'd get away with any of this indefinitely? Does he so lack any kind of moral rectitude that he can't see what all the fuss is about? There are words for that, clinical ones.
Good farmers care about their livestock, but at the end of the day still bring their animals to market.
A company selling hardware and services to high paying (overpriced) clients, at it's peek, with declining software and hardware standards... or a platform designed to stalk every hillbilly in sight for profit. Uhmm...
Love this!
You know, I find that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you, to be extremely glib.
He can find it glib all he wants but that doesn't make it wrong.
The reality here is that if you want to build a service that helps connect everyone in the world, then there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay.
And there are obviously many more who can. Delivering a service under false or misleading pretenses is something I find reprehensible. Facebook isn't an honest broker of data about people and they have a long history of treating their users in a manner that could reasonably be described as contemptuous.
And therefore, as with a lot of media, having an advertising-supported model is the only rational model that can support building this service to reach people
Which is demonstrably nonsense. It's one way to reach a lot of people but it is not even close to the only way. Apple sells tens of millions of devices each year so obviously they are reaching a very large audience and aren't relying on advertising to do it. Amazon gets only a tiny fraction of their revenue from advertising - they actually sell the stuff people want. Advertising is fine and useful but to pretend that it is the only way to reach a large audience is just ridiculous.
Because "an advertising supported model" = hoovering up all of your Facebook data (sex race religion political preference, education job etc), all of the web pages with imbedded like buttons you visit, not only your contact list but all your phone calls and times and messages, all your friends data, data from people not even on the service but mined and tagged into thier database, and more - then selling it to the highest bidder, second highest bidder, heck we let anyone scrape what they want using our interface and we don't do anything about it because $$$.
they would have removed their Facebook page. But apparently apple likes being Facebooks product.
The problem, Mr. Zuckerberg, isn't that you want to connect everyone in the world. It's that you want to connect everyone in the world whether they want to be connected or not.
Facebook is the real world human centipede, and Zuckerberg is the made doctor who wants to create it.
The issue isn't an advertising model. Virtually everyone with a Facebook account understands that. The issue at hand is the incredibly pervasive data harvesting even for users who don't have accounts, lack of transparency to users, and then selling it to the highest bidder. If you do not understand that this is the problem at hand, then kindly take your billions and let someone else handle running your company - or at least your PR department.
Warm regards,
Voyager529
That quote alone says it all about Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. Anyone trusting Facebook is a fool.
The cost of orivudii g the service is low, otherwise Zuckerberg wouldn't be a fucking billionaire. Cunt.
but nobody's complaining about your targeted advertising. What we _are_ complaining about is your practice of selling questionable data to equally questionable third parties.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
...then there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay. And therefore, as with a lot of media, having an advertising-supported model is the only rational model that can support building this service to reach people...
I can afford to pay. I doubt that FB make more than $10/year by selling me out, and would easily pay $10/year for the utility of FB if they excluded me from all sell-out activity.
Just tell us the price and give us the option.
Narrowly, on this one point, he's not wrong.
Broadcast networks didn't care less about viewers just because they were paid by the advertisers and not the viewers, for example.
Nor do I think my cable company cares deeply for me just because they charge me a lot for Internet access ...
I totally trust Facebook to sell my little girls Facebook posts to some dodgy Russians in St Petersberg, and then blame her for not turning off the feature (labelled 'data platform level adjustment', to it's 'frembly' setting, as per line 40023 of version 44 of the Privacy EULA).
I'm sure the Russians have no ill intentions, which is why they paid $800,000 to run the survey. I totally trust everyone is totally nice here.
Did you, by any chance, also give them the Facebook data for the US troops they attacked in Syria? Perhaps the location data too? Their messages to their loved ones? You did, didn't you Zuck. You sold them messaging and picture and video data too didn't you.
Apple's argument is that you deserve privacy, but only if you can afford it. Notice how they don't sell any low cost computers or phones? I agree that Facebook and Google should be HEAVILY regulated to ensure end user privacy is respected but lets not pretend that Apple's business model of selling a brand image to wealthy people is something we should be emulating.
That selling user data is how facebook makes their bread and butter. They're in it for the profit, not some altruistic sentiment about connecting people. The corporation acts in its own enlightened self interest, not yours. There is no incentive to protect your data.
He's just trying to connect everyone in the world out of the goodness of his heart, is he? His motives are purely altruistic, right?
So why isn't facebook a non-profit then?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Check out the wording in the supposed "interview".
Who uses the phrase "aligned with the truth" in conversation? Or "glib" in the meaning of insincere and shallow... in conversation?
That quote looks less like an interview response, and more like a carefully crafted press release.
Other phrases and uncommon construction abound, such as "I don't at all think...", I could expect that in written text that was edited and corrected, but not casually said. "And therefore, as with a lot of media..." is also weird.
Does he really talk like that?
... To the contrary, I think it's important that we don't all get Stockholm syndrome, and let the companies that work hard to charge you more convince you that they actually care more about you. Because that sounds ridiculous to me."
The problem with this argument is that it represents a certain degree of hypocrisy; Zuckerberg is implying that services which take your money are only in it to get more of your money. But as the ads on Facebook become more pervasive, it's very clear that Facebook is likewise interested in the same progression... they're just getting there by a different path, that's all. Further, The Zuck is trying to throw out a red herring to sidestep the entire conversation about privacy, and about the collection, sale and leaks of user data, both public and private.
On the other hand, it's clearly in Cook's best interest to "kick 'em while they're down," as Apple has attempted more than once to make their own forays into social media, because they're highly interested in all of that juicy (and profitable) user data, as well... but they -- and likewise Google -- have been somewhat stymied by the competitive and highly entrenched offerings available from Facebook.
So really, who do we put more of our trust in? The mega-company which sells us cool toys at huge markups, and attempts to collect tons of data through those toys about our music/movie/television/gaming/reading/etc habits, in order to attempt to market more digital stuff to us that we'll probably like? Or the mega-company which attempts to connect us online to every single person, place, company or activity that we've ever had any contact with in our life, and which aggregates all of that into tons of data, in order to sell it en-mass to other mega-companies... so that they can attempt to market stuff to us that we'll probably like?
I'm not even kidding... that's actually a tough call.
Cook should win in a landslide.
Apple - for all their problems with "walled gardens" and even the fact they do mine your privacy - has revenue streams where you aren't the product.
Zuck has NOTHING other than squeezing every last bit of privacy out of you until you're dead. And then he'll violate your corpse.
Look at it this way:
Apple is a corrupt construction company.
Facebook is a fucking meth dealer.
Apple is very, very much a marketing company. They just chose to imprison you in the walled garden. So they don't "sell your data", they just sell tickets to the advertisers to come see you.
"Dumb fucks", when asked in an interview why people gave FB so much information voluntarily?*
Pot, meet kettle.
*Zuck has since said he really didn't mean it. Honestly. Probably meant to say "Stupid c&nts".
DaveyJJ
I think that guy misspelled it:
"having an advertising-supported model is the only rational model that can support building this service to rich people . . ."
There, FTFY.
Tim Cook may be gay but at least he's still a human. Zuckerbot has a pretty good skinsuit, but he's still so uncanny it's unnerving.
If Mark Zuckberg cared about the users of Facebook, he'd give us a way to report misconduct/misconduct by the company's Community Standards. Homophobes report innocent LGBT posts, and homophobic third-world censors block the users, and there's no way to appeal or even to report problems to the company. The whole system empowers bullying and harassment, and there's no way to address the problem because of the wall Zuck has built around the company to protect it from outside feedback.
When you say things like:
Without realizing that advertisers won't pay to advertise to people with no money it sort of makes you sound like an idiot.
How do you make it through life with all of those tin foil hats on? Doesn't it make it hard to walk?
Zuckerberg uses our data to incessantly nag us into buying things we probably shouldn't, or straight up gives away / sells our data without telling us to who, for how much, or for what use. Users have no good way of getting this data back or having it deleted.
Cook uses cheap poor foreign laborers to manufacture Apple phones and other tech, locks people into Apple tech, uses IP protections to control competition, takes a massive cut of all software sales, charges ridiculous prices for minor hardware/software upgrades, forces people into upgrading using battery throttling that he doesn't tell customers about, and stashes hundreds of billions in tax havens. In other words, Apple uses the work of poor people and every shady business practice he can muster to create a massive transference of wealth upwards from the many customers to the few shareholders / executives / high level developers.
Both companies are awful.
Fuck you Mark
iCloud is optional. And their ability to push specialized single-device build would show up as a new OS version, and I have to approve each update. Now, I could easily be fooled by Apple, cause how would I know? But at some point I have to trust someone, even if that someone is the signers of my Linux distro.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
media says you're the new trump
If they can't afford to pay for the service, they can't afford to buy products, so how are they worth anything to advertisers?
There are never only two opinions on a subject. Now if you believe there are only two sides to any issue, that is brainwashing.
Twinstiq, game news
Isn't Tim Cook the CEO of the same company that intentionally throttled down the performance of nearly every older version of their phone, without being transparent and telling their users or giving them a way to opt out, with the obvious result that customers would get rid of their perfectly good existing phones and replace them unnecessarily with new $850 replacements? I think so.
Slashdot's user fees are exorbitant, and God only knows what they do with your personal information. And then they disallow "offensive words",, and prevent you from linking to controversial websites. This place is run by a bunch of fascists.,
God bless 'em.
Does that statement actually reflect Apple's position then: they don't care about you if you're not paying? Might explain iTunes (which anyone can get for free.)
"This service" is in reference to Facebook, who's only real purpose was to farm plebs for data to be sold to the highest bidder, state actors and propagandists getting first dibs, of course. It is plain to see that "the only rational model that can support building this service" is one where Zuck gets rich by conning normal people into letting him mine their personal lives and phones for details that can be neatly packaged into sellable dossiers filled with SEXINT, kompromat, or whatever you want to call it.
If it's not aligned with the truth, then I would love to hear him make an argument for that, and I don't see Zuckerberg making any sort of convincing attempt here. And 100.0% of my experience (if you don't count Facebook) is that someone who isn't financially accountable, simply doesn't act accountable. And so far, I haven't seen anything that suggests that Facebook is a bizarrely anomalous exception to this otherwise well-confirmed rule.
Email is extremely cheap, and if this guy thinks he does a better job (or even as good of a job) of connecting people than email, then he is completely, irredeemably delusional.
I hate being on Apple's "side" (are there really sides here?), because their products have been so awful for the last decade or so, but at least they're legitimate even if clumsy and distasteful. People are able to use them for gain. Facebook, OTOH, offers nothing.
Cook should be careful about asking for "well crafted regulation" though. If we ever start really regulating IT, one of the first, most basic things we would do would be to outlaw malware, where malware is defined as anything that runs on someone's own computer but is intended to work directly against the owner's interests. That means no more mandatory use of Apple's store for acquiring software, for example. Wall gardens would be totally illegal in any sensibly regulated computer culture. I would expect companies like Apple, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft to lobby strenuously against even the most basic, fundamental, no-brainer regulation.
OTOH, maybe that would actually make Apple's handheld PCs attractive, so who knows, it could increase their sales.
Merely calling an argument "glib" basically means "your response was concise yet devastating, and I am unhappy about it." An actual glib response should be answered by addressing the oversimplification.
Marky Zuck then goes on to call "fake news" on the fact that Facebook's users are its product. They're an advertising platform, they sell their users' viewing time to advertisers, this isn't a secret.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Kids... you're both just... just awful.
-- Family Guy
If Facebook wanted to connect everyone in the world without cost, they would have connected everyone in the world without cost. But that isn't what they wanted, and that isn't what they did. They wanted to to obtain everyone's private data and sell it to whoever would pay and did it with a Trojan horse by pretending to connect everyone in the world.
Hey Zuck! I want to get a list of everyone in Elk Grove, California who is going to be on vacation in June. Do I need to actually send them the advertising, or can I just pay for the list with bitcoin, and do you sell bolt-cutters?
Schmark Zuckerberg
Any CEO that cleans up his own dog's scat is good by me
I honestly sat for 10 seconds trying to figure out why he cared about Gnome or GLib. That capitalization really broke me. https://developer.gnome.org/gl...
Being an asshole, both of them, is not mutually exclusive.
Do we care that two people who don't care for us, are having a lover's quarrel?
No, it doesn't. At some point (I think it was in the late 1980s though I didn't really notice until the 1990s when the software got more ubiquitous) you realize that technological advances have made it so that a tinfoil hat weighs less than your hair, and also less than any other hat.
There's simply no reason not to be encrypting the fuck out of everything, unless your computer is older than than a 80386/68020/etc. If you've upgraded your hardware since the mid-1980s, then you should be ready to upgrade the rest of your tech to a level appropriate for use with the Internet.
And the big news of 2005-2013 was that what used to be considered "paranoid" turned out to be actually common sense. All those crazy ideas for how someone might theoretically attacking you -- turns out they're actually doing it! But while we had the means to resist it, we had talked ourselves into not doing so. Hopefully, post-Snowden, though, we're no longer going to all the extra trouble to remain insecure.
that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you,
No no no Zucky boy, that's not the argument. We know you most assuredly care about us... but only to the extent that we are the product. Don't pretend you don't know the quote. Reframing the issue like you tried to do isn't going to earn you any points here. You care about users, but you care a LOT more about customers.
What you do is connect people.... to advertisers.
It is a poor farmer who slaughters his sheep when he has no market for the meat and wool.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Facebook can't even release VR displays without keeping a 24x7 connection to Facebook alive whether they are even being used or not.
Facebook engages in massive cross-site tracking across a significant proportion of websites across the world whether you're a "customer" or not.
Facebook continually creeps out its own users by being better at finding our "other" girlfriends than our existing ones.
Every privacy policy starts out by saying how seriously they respect and care about you and your privacy. Then proceed to enumerate every possible way in which you should expect to be fucked with and 0wn3d. Facebook's privacy policies and behavior are among the most egregious I have ever seen.
What MZ doesn't appreciate is nobody gives a shit about what comes out of his mouth. His army of PR turd polishers are just pouring fuel on the fire. We all know he thinks his users are "dumb fucks". We know where his $$$ comes from. Every time MZ opens his mouth the hole he is standing in gets another foot deeper.
--
#DeleteFacebook
rm -rf AS32934
...So, they're both wrong.
Hahahahahahahaahaha!
+5 Funny
"I find that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you, to be extremely glib"
It's not that you can't, Zuck, it's that you DON'T.
"Tim you are extremely glib."
Zuckerberg cares about YOU, not the money--that's why he's a multi-billionaire!
I'm there for family and a few friends, if they leave I most certainly would too.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, do you mean they aren't an ad company themselves? Or do you actually think they dont advertise?
You really can't figure this out? Look at the financial statements. Apple does not make a significant percentage of their revenue from advertisements. Advertising to them is a cost center, not a source of significant profit. Compare to Google and Facebook which make virtually all of their revenue by selling advertising space. Facebook doesn't make money advertising Facebook - they make money selling ad space to other companies.
Fleecing people so a bunch of suits can hold hands & sing Kum ba yah is a perfectly valid business model.
"You know, I find that argument, " I think he is the second person that I know of begin a sentence with that, and I always find that dis-ingenue.
There's no dichotomy here. Slashdot doesn't hate apple but rather the arrogance of the fanboi. Only a few simpletons persist in arguing that apple products are great products in and of themselves. Likewise, Slashdotters are of a ilk that uses social media but also has a deeper appreciation of the insidious privacy invasion at work.
Thus Apples stance is admirable even to haters. What might taint it is that Apple isn't pure as the driven snow either, despite fanboi exaggeration.
But it should be recognized that "if you aren't paying for the product, you are the product". Sure you get facebook for "free". But it's not free is it? Apple hardware's baseline cost is higher than other brand's entry level prices. But they don't make (as much) money on the backend of your personal data, they do have a phenomenal security record even including lapses, and moreover they rarely make rush-to-market mistakes that lead people to ignore security up front in getting the product out the door. THey have a very wholistic view, and remarkable a corporate philosopy of excellence not just dominance, so they view their moves with that lens.
With younger generations the sell out of privacy isn't considered as negative as it is to older generations. Part of that is custom but a lot of it wisdom. Tattoos and vaping seem cool too when you are young too. Like those it remains to be seen if either foregoing private data control or heavy vaping will be a transient phenomena or new normal. I'd bet there's a backlash on both eventually, along with a tinge of regret. But really who knows. Maybe private data isn't going to be important. Maybe coating my lungs with PEG and VOCs won't give me palsy and emphysema when I'm 60.
Personally, apple and linux are my preferred tools. I use apple as a persistent platform that I can reliable count on across decades to be nearly trouble free hardware, exquisitely maintained firmware, and very very few surprises in the operating system. Since my time has value, the cost of apple's ecosystem is a actually a huge savings of both time and money. On the otherhand when I need raw computation/$$ I buy linux machines, use them then salvage them. Trying to maintain a cheap linux machine over time isn't worth the cost in effort or risks in patching a cobweb of bolted together libraries. I periodically just nuke all my installed packages and rebuilt for my current projects. I find that any given package manager system only has a lifetime of few years before there's something better to learn anew for what ever distro is right for the job (currently I'm in love with anaconda and Linux mint).
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-google-information-nsa-iphone-android-data-personal-2016-2
Why doesn't anyone ask Zuck why he thinks his users are "dumb fucks" for trusting him?
Five of my family members talked about Facebook and posted on Facebook constantly during Easter. When I pointed out what was going on recently with FB, they laughed at me and went back to flipping through pictures. I think Zuck could murder someone in a crowded room, bathe in their blood, and people would still use FB.
Knowing who would pay would be extremely valuable to FB.... The incentives would not be good.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
Apple's customers are also its users. Facebook's customers are their advertisers.
Notice how he avoids making that explicit?
Zuck's the one being glib.
Just sell the personal data...hey Mark.
...commenting on the soaring eagle:
I had a fb account when they started, visited their office one day, had a guy show me what they can see on my profile, went out and immediately deleted my fb account, never looked back and told everyone to GTFO of fb because the brazenness Zuckerberg has and keeps rising to new hights is unrivaled.
This guy is a vulture feasting on the human vulnerability to share pictures and interact with loved ones and friends online,
in return for unparalleled surveillance, well hidden between the lines in the EULA or T&Cs, being worth billions to the SEO pile of crap.
Each time he gets caught with his hands in the cookie jar, he gets away with it because the governments that should regulate the privacy rape orgy fb is and remains are just to busy drinking the lobby kool aid with a thumbs up on it or as shown recently, happily benefit from the data fb also sells to them to "improve democracy"
On the other hand, I bought a macbook air 2011 which is still working great and still receives security updates from apple, only recently put in a new battery and love it to bits.
Glib? They guy who created and runs Facebook is calling someone else glib? The company that invented the monetization of trendiness, insecurity, vanity and narcissism?
I wish we could still use the "c" word (in the sense that the Brits use it) 'cause that's really the best word to describe this tool. Douche is still allowed, though, right? We can call him a douche, can't we?
(BTW, I had to look up the definition of glib because it's been so long since I heard it used. Here's dictionary.com's primary definition: readily fluent, often thoughtlessly, superficially, or insincerely so)
Call me a geek, but whenever I see the word "glib", I always think "glibc".
He didn't say that FB cares about people, he just said that the level of "care" a provider shows its users, is not at all connected to whether or not the provider charges users directly.
The only "care" the user or the provider need to show is that which is spelled out in the ToS.
Beyond that, Apple cares that people keep buying, and FB cares that people keep connecting. How is this a problem?
I'd rather pay money for a service than be used by one for free.
http://www.newser.com/story/25...