Slashdot Mirror
14 Years of Mark Zuckerberg Saying Sorry, Not Sorry (washingtonpost.com)
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."
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.
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.
You're nuts. The stated goal of the left is to knock everyone down a peg. Bernie Sanders opining on the beauty of bread lines and AOC's word salad about the middle class not existing anymore are but one example of that.
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.
their business model is not sustainable over the long term, but they have had a great ride. Even though some would argue Facebook and the other consumer social media sites are not absolute necessities and as individuals and businesses figure that out they are in deep trouble.
;)
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
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.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
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.
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?
SJW n. One who posts facts.