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."
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.
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.