Slashdot Mirror


The Expensive Education of Mark Zuckerberg and Silicon Valley (nytimes.com)

Kara Swisher, writing for The New York Times: I kept pressing Mr. Zuckerberg on how he personally felt about the damage his creation had done. [Editor's note: Ms. Swisher is referring to her recent interview with Mark Zuckerberg.] Was he beginning to understand the power that he held, and that the world that he controlled was not such a rosy place? Facebook was "probably," he admitted, "too focused on just the positives and not focused enough on some of the negatives." Fair enough. But it was impossible to get him to acknowledge any personal pain as both the creator and the destroyer. "I mean, my emotion is feeling a deep sense of responsibility to try to fix the problem," said Mr. Zuckerberg. "In running a company, if you want to be innovative and advance things forward, I think you have to be willing to get some things wrong. But I don't think it is acceptable to get the same things wrong over and over again."

It was a classic Silicon Valley engineer's roll-up-your-sleeves answer, which leaves many cold when it comes to, say, the manipulation of democracy. Fending off bad actors like the Russians has been and will be increasingly expensive; it may even be impossible. But Facebook could have done much more than it did, and it certainly needs to do more than it's doing. Mr. Zuckerberg is now trying to fend off talk in Washington of regulating his company like the thing he once told me it was: a utility. He has also spent the last month meeting over dinners with a range of academic experts on free speech, propaganda and more to try to understand where to go from here. Call it the education of Mark Zuckerberg and Silicon Valley, but on the world's dime. How much that has -- and will -- cost is probably immeasurable.

30 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All facebook is doing is letting stupid people be stupid.
    This just exposes how dumb the average person is and how stupidly they make decisions on who to vote for.
    Also, it was never proven that the Russians have had *any* impact on the outcome of the election.
    So what damage are we talking about exactly?
    What damage has facebook done?
    Conspiracy nuts have always existed. Racists have always existed. Election propaganda has always existed.
    Remember when the president of Mexico told americans not to vote for Trump?
    Why isn't he arrested for election hacking?

    1. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would Russia or some other country *LIKE* to influence an election in the U.S.? Would they *TRY* to influence an election? Absolutely, yes.

      But did they? No.

      Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than Donald Trump. That's some pretty lousy and incompetent "interfering in an election". And Trump only won due to a fluke in our electoral system that neither the Russians, nor anyone else, predicted.

      The whole "Russia hacked our election" is complete bullshit, being pushed by a bunch of sore losers who can't admit the truth -- Democrats would have won in a landslide if they hadn't chosen the worst candidate in the history of the Democratic party.

    2. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      a fluke in our electoral system

      It's not a fluke. It's deliberate design. The system is intentionally biased against large states. Rhode Island has two senators, for example. All the deliberate rounding errors, from the distribution of representatives to the structure of the electoral college, have this same bias. The superhuman wisdom of our founders is why NY and CA don't yet have tyrannical control over this country.

    3. Re:Stupid by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seems to me you wouldn't pass your own proposed "emotional/mental stability testing" and you wouldn't be allowed to vote.

    4. Re:Stupid by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Electoral college would function like that if electoral college votes were proportional. Our current system gives the most leverage to the states that are large, but not firmly controlled by either party.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    5. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      a fluke in our electoral system

      It's not a fluke. It's deliberate design. The system is intentionally biased against large states. Rhode Island has two senators, for example. All the deliberate rounding errors, from the distribution of representatives to the structure of the electoral college, have this same bias. The superhuman wisdom of our founders is why NY and CA don't yet have tyrannical control over this country.

      It's not about large states, it's about culture, specifically urban/city culture vs. rural/farm culture. Nations are built on their ability to produce as much food as possible with the fewest people, as it then frees up people to focus on other things like building Facebook. If votes were proportional to individuals, then eventually as the wealth of the nation increases the backbone of every nation, it's agrarian sector, would get it's voice diminished more and more. This is how nations fall, when the balance of power between the urban class and the rural class falls out.

      The system is designed to continue to give a voice to the important but ever diminishing minority of the rural class, and that major cities like LA and New York, who's life and culture are very different than the mid-West breadbasket, cannot completely dominate the nation's political structure.

  2. In other words... by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

    Or a Billion Dollars.

    Or gets called out for doing something they believe and would rather no one knew.

    Or gets called out for doing something they would never ever accept if it were done to them.

    Mark, welcome to the real real world, where you can indeed lose everything, and have no one else to blame but yourself. You are not too big to fail.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  3. If not for Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The world would not know the deep state exists, and needs to be extinguished with all due haste. The George Clooneys and the Hillary Clinton child sex rings, and demonic worship, needed to be exposed. We are safer. Stronger. Trump is the light. Worship his light.

  4. Force by JBMcB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is anyone forcing you to use Facebook? Is using Facebook required to accomplish any task or job? Are there not alternatives to Facebook?

    No?

    Then WHO CARES.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Force by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Never had a job offer where you're supposed to send your resume through Facebook? Or seen companies offer certain deal only via Facebook, or only accept logins by Facebook (or Twitter, yeah, great alternative)?

      If you don't use it, you really start to notice such things...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Force by ole_timer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      sounds like a job offer to turn down

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    3. Re:Force by JBMcB · · Score: 4, Informative

      Never had a job offer where you're supposed to send your resume through Facebook?

      Yes. I've never had to submit my resume through Facebook. Always through email. I don't know anyone who has had to submit their resume through Facebook.

      Or seen companies offer certain deal only via Facebook, or only accept logins by Facebook (or Twitter, yeah, great alternative)?

      I've never seen Facebook only deals. I've seen email offers that are duplicated on Facebook, but never the other way around.

      Every website I've seen that has had the option to log in using Facebook (or Twitter, or Google) has also had the option to create a local account, which is what I do.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    4. Re:Force by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      sounds like a job offer to turn down

      That, sir, is a statement made from a position of privilege. Plenty of people need a job, any job, so that they do not become homeless. It's easy to say "well, they should have saved some money" but the corollary is that plenty of people have never made enough money to save any significant amount, nor do they have family or friends who can and/or will help them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Re:They have something in common by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's more that they keep fucking up and that everyone else has to foot the bill for their blunders.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. working as intended by cats-paw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ultimately that's the problem.

    Facebook is a data harvesting engine designed for maximum privacy violation.

    It is designed to make money off the flow of information regardless of whether it is "true" or not.

    There is far too much information to censor it reliably, and censorship carries it's own set of problems.

    About the best they can do is go after fake accounts who's whole purpose is to relay false infomation. But that will be an arms race and FB will be behind most of the time.

    Ultimately, they will make decisions based on the money they are making and will do whatever is legal. He's only worried about reputation as it directly affects the bottom line, which can be a little difficult to gauge.

    --
    Absolute statements are never true
  7. Educate the People? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sounds like a people problem if Russia's campaign is credited for so easily enhancing the divisive environment created by our bipartisan political system. Most important part of education is learning how to educate yourself. Obviously a majority did not do that; now they are all credited as victims regardless. MERRICA!

  8. Re:Notice how Russia... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't you love it when everything's back to normal? Us old folks who remember the good ol' days of the 70s and 80s were kinda miffed at those newfangled enemies. The only boogeyman that could hold a candle to the Russians were the terrorists, and they were kinda bland. Faceless, nameless, not something you could point at. The Russians were different. You knew where they were, you didn't have to wage war with them and lose young guys, but the cold war kept the military industrial complex well funded. Perfect war, great for the economy and nobody has to die.

    Far better than that war with the terrorists where people actually get killed.

    Plus, the Russians never sent anyone to our country, neither to blow shit up nor as refugees. They even made sure that everyone stayed where they belonged.

    Yes, I long for our old, beloved enemies. It's good to see that they're coming back in style.

    Could we phase out those other ones, those terrorists? I mean, we don't really need them now anymore, now that the Russians want to play again, and they get kinda pesky. Plus, they're SO completely nuts that our government doesn't have to pretend to be the good guys with them. That's something the Russians always managed to do really well for us.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. muh feels by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But it was impossible to get him to acknowledge any personal pain as both the creator and the destroyer.

    I'm no Zuckerberg fan, but sheesh.

    He's actually on your side politically, and he's saying that he wants to address your concerns, but you are in a tizzy because he won't say the "right" things about how he feels and he won't emote the way you want him to??

    1. Re:muh feels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, people are in a tizzy because that sack of shit Zuckerberg is making stupid mistakes for which he isn't the one paying the price ... and I don't mean his loss of fucking stock value for his overvalued company.

      It's not his fucking personal information he's leaking.

      I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire, and I'm sure as hell not going to accept him saying "yeah, we're an invasive company who is violating everyone's privacy and helping foreign agents to influence elections, so we'll try harder next time".

      No, sorry, Facebook should have been thinking of this shit before they became a problem.

      Zuckerfuck fiercely defends his own privacy, while treating ours like a commodity. As such, anybody in the employ of Facebook should be doxxed, hacked, and abused ... along with their entire fucking families. The higher up the food chain, even more so.

      They've given up any right for us to give a fuck about their privacy. So publish every goddamned bit of information about them .. their banking information, where their children go to school, their phone numbers ... everything.

      In this case, turnabout is definitely fair play.

    2. Re:muh feels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Funny how this had been going on for literal years, everyone knew about it and everyone was ok with it.

      Then one person wrote an article about how a company MIGHT have used it to help get Trump get elected, now its a complete shit show for Facebook?

      Meanwhile, Donna Brazile says the DNC rigged their primary and no one gives a shit. People are upset that Facebook "might" have been used to help elect Trump, but actual election rigging is perfectly ok.

      When you meet Trump supporters that don't agree with you and you can't figure it out, the above is a big hint for you.

  10. All process arguments are insincere by davide+marney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...including this one. The NY Times never complained when FB "manipulated" the election of Barak Obama in 2012 by letting the DNC volunteers send their friend graph to a vote analysis service which then recommended get-out-the-Democrat-vote messages back. Back then FB was hailed to high heaven as this digital force of nature and Republicans were clueless against the onslaught of the hip, digital natives.

    And look where we are now. The hypocrisy just abounds.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    1. Re:All process arguments are insincere by RenderSeven · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fact checker: Bethania Palma. The far left failed journalist that rushed to MSNBC's Malcom Nance's defense when he called on ISIS to bomb Trump properties. She called the tweet 'poorly worded' and reworded it to 'prove' he never meant that. Because ISIS was actually backing Trump.

      Yes, Bethania Palma, bastion of factualness and objectivity, and the reason not to trust Snopes all that much anymore with politics.

  11. Re:Notice how Russia... by DCFusor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In short - we'd make up an enemy if required to keep the status quo in power.
    I think HL Mencken had something to say about it:
    "Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."
    Yep, that describes our (and most other) governments. Russia's done the same using us as the boogyman, North Korea...maybe it's why we don't like looking in the mirror much. It's the oldest trick in the book - hey, look, a bear is even more attention-getting than hey, look, a squirrel.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  12. What's Facebook? by tgibson · · Score: 2

    That's what my grandkids will ask. Their user base will just get older. Their platform isn't compelling or even interesting to the younger generations.

  13. Re: They have something in common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah Trump sure is going down! Oh wait, I have been hearing that daily since the day he announced running, so I wonâ(TM)t hold my breath. This article is absurd, Facebook did not threaten democracy. Facebook is for fucking idiots to share Kim Kardashian news and selfies, a few thousand dollars in dumb Russian troll posts did not change any votes. If Hillary and her billion dollar campaign could not beat 100k in laughable Russian ads, she deserved to lose.

  14. What should he say? by imperious_rex · · Score: 2

    So Zuck doesn't say what you want him to say. And what exactly do you want him to say? Do you want Zuck to suddenly fall to his knees and cry profusely, confess his wrong doing, and to repent? Maybe even slit a wrist or two to demonstrate contrition? Jeezus H. Christ, what the f**k do you want him to say??? He's the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company, not some four year old who faces a spanking if he doesn't admit wrongdoing, so expect him to behave accordingly. Grow the f**k up Swisher.

  15. Oh Look by sexconker · · Score: 2

    Oh look, it's the NYT crying about the Russians again!

    F A K E
    N E W S

  16. Exactly by huckamania · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is no one in a tizzy about all of the many carefully planned protests for illegal immigration? That's 12 million unregistered foreign agents currently in country, actively demonstrating for governmental action. Mueller would call it a conspiracy and start issuing subpoenas, if they were Russians and helped the current narrative that Hillary should have won.

    Go back a little further and notice no one complained when the Soviets were sending millions to fund the anti-Vietnam war effort. The Soviets sent more money to the US left during the Vietnam war then they did to the Viet-Cong. Not a whataboutism, just trying to educate.

    The press has more to blame for 2016 by giving Donald so much screen time and then declaring Hillary the victor when the votes hadn't even been cast. Their certainty in a landslide probably did more to suppress the vote than anything else.

    Too much hypocrisy in all of this. Too much irony as well, but it is bitter. Hillary lost twice by not understanding the process. She lost to Barrack in her first Presidential nomination run by not realizing how delegates get counted, which she fixed in the stupidest possible way in her second run. Then she lost to Donald because she couldn't grasp how the electoral college works.

  17. The Great Firewall of Facebook by hsthompson69 · · Score: 2

    Looks like Facebook needs to learn a little bit from China, who has done a bang up job of filtering offensive content in their country. I hear North Korea has a pretty good handle on locking down "problematic" content from the hoi polloi.

    Those decrying the free speech rights of russian trolls might want to think about babies and bathwater for a while.

  18. "Russians" have meddled for DECADES by mi · · Score: 2

    Fending off bad actors like the Russians

    The "Russians" needed fending off for decades. The stoked America's racial strife, and sponsored the "peace" movement. Yes, the butchers of Budapest and Prague, the destroyers of Afghanistan were arguing for "peace" and the American Left where lapping it all up! Quite possibly, these efforts cost us victory in Vietnam — the war was no less justified than the earlier Korean one, but met much higher internal opposition...

    Only back then the same NYTimes — and all the rest of the Left-thinking Americans — mocked any attempts at the fending off as "Red scare" and denounced it as "evil McCarthyism". And now the same people are trying to convince us, the President is illegitimate, because his son once met with a Russian lawyer.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.