| ▲ | zeptonaut22 21 hours ago |
| Mark Zuckerburg's superpower is being like Jack Sparrow at the beginning of Pirates of the Caribbean: he steps off one boat just as it's sinking onto another, and he has the humility to not really give a damn which ship he's on. (I say "humility" even as someone frustrated by his net impact on society.) I think on the How I Built This Instagram episode the Instagram founder said that Zuck was basically reading the data from Facebook's interactions and saw that the demographics and sharing tendencies of Facebook users meant that it was in a death spiral: people were moving interactions to private channels, reducing the available "friend" content. IMO, the causal factor here is that people became wary of public oversharing and the result was FB pivoting away from "social network" (OG Facebook) to "social media" (2010-2015 FB) and eventually just "media" (Instagram, Reels). Looking back at what I posted on FB in 2008-2012 is like observing an alien from another planet: it was a completely different platform. |
|
| ▲ | BeFlatXIII 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > people were moving interactions to private channels, reducing the available "friend" content. IMO, the causal factor here is that people became wary of public oversharing and the result was FB pivoting away from "social network" (OG Facebook) to "social media" (2010-2015 FB) and eventually just "media" (Instagram, Reels). Adding to that, the people who kept posting as if nothing changed typically were extremely low-value posters. Political ranters, zero-commentary meme reposts, etc… |
| |
| ▲ | hinkley 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Like a large room full of people talking until an event starts, and that moment when half the crowd has realized that someone has gone on stage while the other half has gotten sucked into an argument/discussion and forgotten why we were all here in the first place. | | |
| ▲ | sillyfluke 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Hilariously, this is kind of how I felt reading the comments here. I thought every commet would start of by saying this is such a pathetic superficial ploy for the trial in question that it's idiotic to respond to it in earnest outside of a courtroom. But then obviously the comment would go on to explain why that's the case. Whatever sort of business Facebook, Insta, TikTok and Twitter are called now, it's pretty clear they co-evolved into it near identically by watching the others' product. If fb isn't social media, then neither are the rest. If fb is a purple cow then so are the others. The point is they were called "social media" at the time FB purchased Insta. If Zuck is going to show a graph illustrating how force fed cows in a cage were unable to walk by themselves as time progressed, then someone should put up a graph tracking the number of Whatsapp groups that were created as time went by. If that number was going up, what is left to talk about for fuck's sake. |
| |
| ▲ | DyslexicAtheist 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >> people who kept posting as if nothing changed typically were extremely low-value posters absolutely not, ... these were (and are) always there. instead it was Facebook management decisions choosing to amplify exactly this. Let's not blame a minority of (misguided) content creators for the shortcomings of Zuck and his sycophant senior managers. | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | As anti-Zuck as I am, I argue this is simply human nature. I've seen the same effect all across internet interactions, from Gamefaqs to 4 chan to Tumblr to Tiktok. controversial content will simply draw in more discussion (i.e. flamewars) than any other kind of contnet. sad content, happy content, funny content; it all falls to rage bait. The only blame on Facebook's end is a failure to moderate and mitigate it. But at that point you ask if that would have simply pointed the controversy to the moderators (something also commonly seen). | | |
| ▲ | nopelynopington 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sadly true. I saw the same thing happen in real-time as Imgur transitioned from being image hosting for Reddit to an independent network. It went from people posting silly memes and cute dogs to angry political stuff dominating the front page every day. | | |
| ▲ | DrScientist 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think you under estimate how much of the angry political stuff is driven by paid for content by people with an agenda - and companies like Meta have just taken the money. Sure in the end it sweeps up indviduals but money and professional narrative shapers are often behind these things. There are a cadre of highly competance professionals in the advertising/PR area that were massively enabled by the tools that Meta et al provided ( for money ) - suddenly you could run campaigns that were highly effective, relatively cheap, and almost invisible. This has been ruthlessly exploited by people and organisations with more money that morals. Goverments have in part been asleep at the wheel, but also too keen to use such tools for their own ends. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | lenerdenator 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Mark Zuckerburg's superpower is being like Jack Sparrow at the beginning of Pirates of the Caribbean: he steps off one boat just as it's sinking onto another, and he has the humility to not really give a damn which ship he's on. (I say "humility" even as someone frustrated by his net impact on society.) That's like saying a tapeworm is humble because it doesn't care which colon it's sitting in. The tapeworm lacks the faculties to care about the colon. It just needs nourishment. Same with Zuck. You can't blame the worm, because it's got no concept of reality beyond the things needed to serve its survival. Zuck, as a human, can only do that by very likely having a serious personality disorder. |
| |
| ▲ | tibbar 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A reference to Larry Ellison as a lawnmower, perhaps? [0] > Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphising Larry Ellison. You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about Oracle. — Brian Cantrill (https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=33m1s) [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15886728 | | |
| ▲ | edmundsauto 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Generally this is relevant advice for thinking about important people. We know little about them, almost all of it is projection that reflects more of my perspective than any reality of the object’s psychology. Humans love to think we know why someone behaves the way they do. We love to diagnose disorders in strangers based on a very very tiny bit of information. It is best to treat the decisions as black boxes, or else we are just projecting. I think it’s called the fundamental attribution bias? | | |
| ▲ | soraminazuki 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, the takeaway from that talk isn't that we shouldn't judge Ellison's intentions. Quite the opposite, actually. Bryan Cantrill states that Ellison's motives are simple. It's only about money and no other human emotions are involved. There are so many quotes indicating this: "What you think of Oracle is even truer than you think it is. There has been no entity in human history with less complexity or nuance to it than Oracle." "This company is very straightforward in its defense. It's about one man, his alter ego, and what he wants to inflict upon humanity! That's it!" "If you were to about ask Oracle, 'Oracle what are you about? Larry, what are you about? Why Oracle? Tell me about Oracle.' 'Make money.' ' Okay, yeah yeah I get it.' 'Make money. Make money. Make money. That's what we do. Make money.'" "The lawn mower can't have empathy!" | |
| ▲ | lenerdenator 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Idk. When you own 98% of Lanai, have a net worth equivalent to the annual gross product of a mid-sized American metropolitan area, and still feel the need to lay off thousands of people to increase your net worth at age 80, that's not a very, very tiny bit of information. That's a person being presented with the knowledge that his choices will have a very clear set of consequences for society and proceeding with them anyways. Know the "if you press the button, you'll become a millionaire, but someone you don't know will die" thought experiment? Larry has, multiple times, been told that if he presses the button, he'll get millions of dollars at the extreme expense of people he doesn't know, and done it. I think it's fair to say that at least one person has died from it; mass layoffs result in one additional suicide per 4200 male employees and one per 7100 female employees [0] [0]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2... | | |
| ▲ | lotsofpulp 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Projecting people from sudden loss of income is the responsibility of government, not individual businesses. |
| |
| ▲ | lotsofpulp 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Humans feel better “knowing” something than not knowing something (might be called ego or something). |
|
| |
| ▲ | bitpush 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > That's like saying a tapeworm is humble because it doesn't care which colon it's sitting in. A more VC speak of this is "Strong ideas loosely held" | |
| ▲ | noisy_boy 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The tapeworm lacks the faculties to care about the colon. It just needs nourishment. Same with Zuck. You can't blame the worm, because it's got no concept of reality beyond the things needed to serve its survival. Zuck, as a human, can only do that by very likely having a serious personality disorder. Isn't that behavior massively rewarded in the current system of VC-driven capitalism as a general rule? Such founders/companies leach off the society, leave it worse and are given huge valuations and riches. Infact the incentives mean we will see more of such people rise to the top in a ever-worsening feedback cycle until the society puts some checks on them. Which is a extra difficult in this deliberately fragmented environment. Same old loop we can't break out of. | |
| ▲ | egypturnash 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
| ▲ | pipes 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It was just never clear who I was sharing with. At least on a private chat there's a list of users and that's it. |
| |
| ▲ | RajT88 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That was intentional. I recall testing this out every time there was a new "oops, we're sorry, we reset your privacy settings to default -- AGAIN". The privacy settings were carefully designed to have vague wording that how they worked on the surface wasn't how they really worked. Each and every one of them which had a different functionality than what the wording suggested on its surface resulted in you sharing to a much wider audience than you thought you were. I recall carefully testing it out with a burner account which my main was not friends with, and it consistently taking 2-3 tries to get the privacy settings back to where I wanted them to be. I would take those days over what Facebook is today - which is to say, useless. The only thing I use it for is groups, which have the good sense to only be about the thing you want to learn about when you look at the group. Still though - it is sad that FB Groups killed off small web forums. | | |
| ▲ | hinkley 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | All decisions based on numbers and vibes. | |
| ▲ | Apocryphon 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | To be fair, the demise of the major BBS hosts / platforms + Reddit and then Discord was what killed off small web fora. | |
| ▲ | wolpoli 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I remember Facebook group - somewhere in the early 2010s, the group feature disappeared. Years later, group appeared again and I had to re-apply to get back into the group. Perhaps group was killed to boost public sharing. |
| |
| ▲ | zeptonaut22 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Definitely true, but back in the day that was sort of the fun of it -- similar to putting up an AOL Instant Messenger away message, it was just... a blast of a funny thought to the people that you knew. Over time, that network got stale and it included "people you sort of used to know", and then it included your grandma and uncle and rest of the world. There are few things that are at the intersection of the Venn diagram of "things I want to share with all of those people", especially as I get older. |
|
|
| ▲ | Ntrails 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > the causal factor here is that people became wary of public oversharing Instead of chatting shit in a "public" area (rip wall to wall) limited to just my uni friends, there were suddenly home friends, relatives etc reading. And obviously it only got worse with algorithms pushing dross and hiding the zeitgeist from you.
Growth and monetisation drove that shift imo |
|
| ▲ | MarceliusK 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Looking at old FB posts feels like reading an internet time capsule from a version of myself that barely exists |
|
| ▲ | billy99k 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Now it's 99% AI generated click bate. |
| |
| ▲ | qingcharles 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | I always see comments like this, but I rarely have this problem myself, though I see it on others' accounts. Even my Facebook feed shows me lots of legitimately useful posts. Sure, updates from friends and family are a much lower fraction than they were, but I'm actually OK with what I see. |
|
|
| ▲ | grandempire 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Zuckerbeg’s super power is actually operating a giant tech company successfully, executing on multi-year visions, and just barely turning 40. |
| |
| ▲ | calimariae 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You might manage the same if you’re rich enough to hire top-tier advisors. Let’s not kid ourselves—OG Facebook wasn’t a tech marvel or even particularly original. It just landed in the right place at the right time and snowballed from there. | | |
| ▲ | grandempire 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | I know too many rich people to know this isn’t true. > hire top-tier advisors The circle of top-tier leaders who know how to manage giant tech companies is a tiny circle with Zuck being one of them. In fact that’s what the board of directors did - they used their money to hire Zuck to run their company. | | |
| ▲ | jasonfarnon 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | "In fact that’s what the board of directors did - they used their money to hire Zuck to run their company." doesn't he still have voting control of the stock? | | |
| ▲ | grandempire 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You’re right - but the example stands. The CEO is a professional advisor hired to make the rich people money. | | |
| ▲ | Hasu 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | This makes no sense in Zuckerberg's case: he was never hired by the board and they've never had a chance to fire him. Investors can sell the stock if they don't like what he does, but that is not a "professional advisor" relationship. It's mostly a cult of personality relationship, and you're deep in it with your belief that Zuckerberg is an unusually capable operator. | | |
| ▲ | StopDisinfo910 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Independently on what you think of Zuckerberg as a human being, on the basis of acquisitions alone, he can be judged as an insanely effective CEO. The way Meta managed the shift from Facebook to Instagram is impressive from a strategic point of view. Heck, Meta literally controls the world most popular chat application. I never liked social media, spent most of the past fifteen years avoiding them as much I could while maintaining just enough presence to stay reachable and a Meta application still remain my most used one. Let's not forget that Google, for all their billions, utterly failed to significantly attack Meta market. | |
| ▲ | grandempire 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > This makes no sense in Zuckerberg's case: I already agreed with the correction - he has voting control. What is still incorrect is imagining that billions of dollars gets you advisors who know how to run a company - and those people aren't just high level executives already running companies. > you're deep in it with your belief that Zuckerberg is an unusually capable operator. The burden is on you to show a successful CEO for over a decade is actually an idiot. | | |
| ▲ | ashoeafoot 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | People like him exist a turtles nest full, but there is only one social network effect to rodeo . |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Apocryphon 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In recent years, operating it successfully despite burning through billions for their metaverse boondoggle, sure | | |
| ▲ | grandempire 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Should they be holding cash instead? | | |
| ▲ | Apocryphon 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Works for Apple. And other companies seem to be able to do R&D, even at a loss, without burning through billions. | | |
| ▲ | grandempire 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Did you forget that apple also has an AR/VR product and doesn’t report that portion of their R&D separately so we don’t know how much it costs? | | |
| ▲ | Apocryphon 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Cool so even if they burned through $45 billion as Meta did with VR, they still have $53.77 billion on hand as of December | | |
| ▲ | grandempire 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | So you just want Meta to carry more cash - the concern wasn't actually about metaverse? | | |
| ▲ | Apocryphon 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don’t want Meta to do anything. All I want to do is mock the idea that Zuckerberg has been some sort of exemplary CEO the last few years in the face of the Metaverse project being such a resounding dud- what’s the punchline, billions spent to add feet to the avatars? Not to mention how he’s allowed his actual site to go fallow, between the Feed being inundated with AI slop and Reels being an imitation of Instagram Shorts being an imitation of TikTok and Snapchat shorts and Vine. | | |
| ▲ | grandempire 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | > what’s the punchline, billions spent to add feet to the avatars? I think the metaverse imagery you are referring to was about 10 years ago. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Aeolun 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Maybe he’s just good at not rocking the boat too much? I’m fairly certain these things mostly keep moving without any input. | | |
| ▲ | vineyardmike 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | The boat is constantly rocking though, and it's actually incredible how he's kept the boat afloat and increasingly profitable. You can despise their impact on society, but he's an incredible example of a very successful CEO. Political investigations, anti-trust, terrible media and brand image. GDPR. DMA. Etc. A literal genocide associated with their product. The shift from desktop to mobile, and the continued evolution of the distribution channel - eg. the "Anti-tracking" requirement on apple devices. The shift from text posts to images, to stories, to short-form video. From broadcast to DMs and groups. The shift from "social" media to celebrity and influencer followings, to a feed entirely algorithmic. The shift in advertisement formats, the shift across what gets advertised (eg. apps didn't exist at all when Facebook started, now they track ad-click-to-install rates through ML models). | | |
| ▲ | Aeolun 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I suppose I just don’t find any of those things very admirable? The fact that their product is associated with so much bad shit and still alive is a terrible thing for society. I just cannot reasonably call someone that led all that a ‘good CEO’, because they represent nothing that I’d like a CEO to be, regardless of what Wall Street things. I’d also argue that it just means that Facebook was very successful at following all the trends and purchasing what they couldn’t replicate. | | |
| ▲ | grandempire 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > associated with so much bad shit Reputation vs harm ethics. > I’d also argue that it just means that Facebook was very successful at following all the trends Yeah foreseeing and executing on those trends is the hard part. | |
| ▲ | lazide 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The CEO is captain of their ship. Saying ‘I hate their ship, and that it hasn’t sunk’ doesn’t mean they are a bad CEO. If anything, it means they might be an even better CEO because it’s still doing well, running around rampaging, despite all the hate. After all - who is the better pirate? The one who is hated and infamous (and still alive pirating), or the one no one has ever heard of? |
| |
| ▲ | someusername321 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I get your point about what he has accomplished. But at the same time, right after saying he's an incredible example of a very successful CEO, you acknowledge "a literal genocide associated with their product." I really wish we could shift how we define success for these CEOs. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | addicted 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Superpower is one way to phrase it. Another is illegally using Facebook’s monopoly and data to crush or buy potential competitors. I think the olds used to call that anti-trust. |
|
| ▲ | jncfhnb 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The word you’re looking for is sociopathy |