Self absorbed doosher, enter the āZuckā.
Sorry, Cory, but why is this news??? Zuck has certainly lucked out and has earned every penny of it. It will be news when he starts spending it with a real effort to do something to improve life on this ābig-ball-of-goopā we call Earth. Otherwise, itās just more ārich-hateā, which has become all too common on the net!
Iād be a lot more worried about the wanna-be āHitlerā whoās sitting in the PM chair in London right nowā¦that could get really scaryā¦ Nuff said!
If heās willing to spend $100MM+ to buy a bunch of land and, in the service of his view of privacy, that land remains undeveloped, Iām not going to lose a lot of sleep over it.
Whatās cool is that he just gained $1B diminishing our privacy. Win win!
Well, to balance things out, austerity has also become all too common everywhere. No matter how much hate is directed toward the rich they are in no danger of actually starving. The powerful have always been targets for criticism, as they should be. Mark Zuckerberg has made enormous sums by taxing peopleās social interactions, stifling free-discussion and enforcing double standards on nudity.
This is the guy who told me that all my friends gave him their email and password, and I should too if I want to keep in touch with my friends! I really canāt feel sorry for him at all, especially because his goals are mostly aligned with the tory / ukip types. If he wanted to improve the world he could campaign to raise the minimum wage instead of offering less-capable internet to the developing world.
Unthinking adoration towards and kneejerk protection of Masters of Capital from these not-even-cruel words (that theyll never read) is far more tiring to read.
ā'nuff saidā.
He got ripped off; it costs me nothing to avoid Facebook.
Sweet doublethink, bro
And to āIād be a lot more worried about the wanna-be āHitlerā whoās sitting in the PM chair in London right nowā¦that could get really scaryā¦ Nuff said!ā
- Annoyance with one person in this world does not preclude concern for another
- We at least feel as if we can do more avoiding Zuck than we can about an elected politician (especially considering how many of us are not UK residents.)
- Sometimes mocking is simply done when we can not actively do anything about a particular situation. Why so much concern? Why bring up other situations that can not be fixed easily either? No solutions are being offered in any case, but we at least are not of the pretense that we are ādoing somethingā.
What is your definition of āearned?ā Did he do billions of dollars worth of actual work? Really?
Guess you donāt have any family that only use Facebook. I do. If I want to electronically communicate with my:
- mother
- grandmother
- daughter
- brother
- uncle and his wife
- their kids
My option is: Facebook. Itās that or the phone (which is a different kind of communication and problem) since none of them even live in the same state as me. Iāve killed my Facebook account two or three times and always come back after a month or so because it is the only means of contacting certain people online (by their choice).
Yes, I was happy to, but then again, I relied on my partnerās account, and I was effectively forced to re-open mine temporarily to coordinate the wedding, which I kept quiet but Facebook decided to push on others, who thought I had deleted them, leading to the mostly dormant account getting reactivated. Damnit. 
Nobody hates the rich, they just need to give up their ridiculous amounts of money.
Thatās me, too. Itās my primary method of communicating with my family. Also, I work on the Internet, which includes social engagement. Soā¦kind of stuck with it.
I went and read the prior post about Zuckerberg āflipping outā over his sisterās post. I couldnāt find the flip out in the articles Boing Boing linked to, just a Buzzfeed article narrating an exchange between Randi and a Vox editor. Did I miss epic rageface somewhere in there?
To me, this article is not about envy or resentment of the richā¦ itās about the type of world we want. Itās making the case that the right to privacy is something that most humans (even Mark Zuckerberg) want - at least to one degree or anotherā¦
I donāt equate privacy with secrecyā¦ I equate privacy with respect for the right to decide who I wish to know information about me, and who I donāt. Full stop.
I make that decision every dayā¦ lots of times a day, in fact. Typically by weighing the benefit of disclosure against the risks. Where I assess the benefits outweigh the risksā¦ thatās data about me that Iām happy to share. When I assess the oppositeā¦ that the person asking for my social security number, home phone, date of birth and passwords to my user accounts is more likely to use that data to hurt me than use it for good, Iām inclined to say ānone of your business.ā
I think that having that right is foundational to being human, to living in a free society, to being spontaneous, and yesā¦ even to being transparent. So when I interact with a system that is expressly designed to deprive me of that fundamental rightā¦ that purposely tricks me into thinking Iām safe when the truth is Iām not, that lulls me into ceding to someone else the right to decide who receives my data so that they can make more money based on granting that accessā¦ thatās when I think weāve let āthemā get away with too much of our personal freedoms.
Facebook, Google, Twitterā¦ apps that sit on my phone and report where I am at all times (even when theyāre turned off!) so that someone I never even imagined had any ability to know where I go or who Iām with can build massive databases about meā¦ those bother me. The thought that the government is spending billions to encourage us to add our genetic information to the data thatās in those databases without letting me have a say in how my data is usedā¦ that bothers me even more.
And if people really knew whatās going on there, I think theyād be bothered a lot tooā¦
The irony isā¦ that if these folks cared about people enough to give others the respect that they themselves demand to decide who sees their information and for what purposes, then they could probably make more money than what they can today AND relieve the concerns being expressed about privacy AND be enabling the value of the information to be way more usefulā¦ The reason they donāt is not a lack of technology - I know that first hand. Rather it is because the people holding the data think theyāre likely to make more money by depriving all but a very few billionaires and political leaders of this right.
In the wake of that, I believe the world suffers ā particularly in healthcare and advancing medical research ā because the whole system gets totally screwed up with data silos and carving off important pieces of data āto protect its secrecyā when as the subject of that data, weāre a whole lot more interested in being sure that the people who will use it for things we care about have it faster, and the people who can only hurt us with it, will have a whole lot harder time getting hold of it.
Sorry for the long rambleā¦ this just struck home, and I think is really important to the way our society functions 10 years from nowā¦!
I have the same problem. Iām solid, while most of them are gases. One is plasma, but Iām pretty sure heās adopted.
Is there some rule you have in mind here, or is it just some kind of ad-hoc general vague idea?
