Ironic?
I think it's interesting that he says this....
"We have come to this realization that a bunch of people sitting in a room in California is not going to be the best way to reflect all the local values that people have around the world."
... from his comfortable campus in California.
Is he feeling guilty?
... or fearing that his little online empire might have cracks in the foundation?

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg: California Has Too Much Influence Over Local Values
By Gabriella Hoffman | April 12, 2017

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently made an interesting observation that will have many people thinking: California shouldn’t determine or define local values. Touching upon his February 2017 Founder’s letter “Building Global Community, ” Zuckerberg said his vision for the platform should be more open-minded, transparent, and multifarious. In an interview with Fast Company, he said the following:

We have come to this realization that a bunch of people sitting in a room in California is not going to be the best way to reflect all the local values that people have around the world. So we need to evolve the systems for collective decision making. It’s an interesting problem. There are certainly going to be a lot more global infrastructure and global enterprises going forward, there just hasn’t been anything at this scale yet.

California–especially Silicon Valley–shouldn’t sway every thing? Imagine that? (I say this as a California native who spent 21+ years growing up and living in the Golden State.) Zuckerberg is right: the incubator for social justice shouldn’t be determining affairs for the rest of the country, let alone the rest of the world. Which is why so many people in Flyover Country rejected Hillary Clinton and voted for Donald Trump in November.

In the Fast Company profile, Zuckerberg also touched upon free speech and click bait –which is well worth the read:

I still believe more strongly than ever that giving the most voice to the most people will be this positive force in society. But the thing is, it’s a work in progress. We talk about wanting to give everyone a voice, but then most people in the world don’t have access to the internet. So if you don’t have the tools to actually share your ideas with everyone, that’s not going to get you very far. We talk about giving people free speech but if they don’t actually, even in a country like the U.S., have the tools to be able to capture a video and share that easily, then there are limits in practice to what you can do. I just view this as a continual thing that every day we can come in and push the line further back on how many people have a voice and how much voice each person has, and we’re going to keep pushing on all of that. It just is this constant work. And at each point, you uncover new issues that you need to solve to get to the next level. Some people will say, oh you tolerate those issues. But the simpler explanation is that the community is evolving. We build new things, that surfaces new issues, we then go deal with those issues, and we keep going. Go back a few years, for example, and we were getting a lot of complaints about click bait. No one wants click bait. But our algorithms at that time were not specifically trained to be able to detect what click bait was. The key was to make tools so the community could tell us what was click bait, and we could factor that into the product. Now it’s not gone a hundred percent but it’s a much smaller problem than it used to be. Today, whether it’s information diversity or misinformation or building common ground, these are the next things that need to get worked on.

Facebook has received criticism for selective bias and targeting of conservatives and Republicans–a claim it’s working on remedying. Yes, there’s bias at times–but that shouldn’t deter conservatives from having an active presence there. The Resurgent’s very own Erick Erickson believes Facebook is a powerful tool our side should be using. (I couldn’t agree more!) Here’s an excerpt from Erick’s May 2016 post on the subject of Facebook’s Conservative Summit from last year:
Share this

I’m glad Facebook reached out. I’m glad Mark Zuckerberg was willing to give us face time. He did not have to. Hell, based on the complaints, he could have merely suppressed the story and few would have ever even known.

Instead, he brings in a bunch of conservatives and a few of them decide they have to grandstand while others even go out of their way to say they won’t go to the meeting and they won’t be pawns and Facebook needs to start spreading the wealth around to have a meaningful conversation. Like hell they do. No conservative should make affirmative action and shakedown demands on a private company. That is essentially what some have tried to do.

Although social media is heavily dominated by the Left and social justice platitudes, Zuckerberg, for example, believes every voice should have a say on his platform–including conservatives and Republicans voices. If we want our values to spread far and wide, we need to step outside our echo chamber and engage intelligently with others. Social media helps us bridge that gap!

Conservatives shouldn’t be afraid to have a presence on any of the popular social media platforms–whether it be Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. It’s good to see Zuckerberg recognizing the importance of social media hubs stepping outside of the Silicon Valley Bubble. What say you?

http://theresurgent.com/facebo...e-over-local-values/

As he's grown older, perhaps a little wisdom has creeped in.

Apparently he is still hunting and doing the outdoors.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

Here’s an excerpt from Erick’s May 2016 post on the subject of Facebook’s Conservative Summit from last year:
... Conservatives shouldn’t be afraid to have a presence on any of the popular social media platforms–whether it be Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. It’s good to see Zuckerberg recognizing the importance of social media hubs stepping outside of the Silicon Valley Bubble. What say you?

1) They make money from the traffic, and from the tracking cookies they put on the people who would come to read it. I will not support that organization.

2) It's pretty clear that, given the non-concept of privacy most folks have, that whatever you put up on social media can get tracked back to you, your address, and your family.

3) The 'social justice' warriors who disagree, don't respect rules. So if they feel offended, what are the limits to their responses?

4) The audiences that frequent those establishments are not known for intellectual receptivity.

So, yeah, going on TwitFaceGramPage to bring enlightenment to the savages? Not only no, but Hell No.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

Here’s an excerpt from Erick’s May 2016 post on the subject of Facebook’s Conservative Summit from last year:
... Conservatives shouldn’t be afraid to have a presence on any of the popular social media platforms–whether it be Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. It’s good to see Zuckerberg recognizing the importance of social media hubs stepping outside of the Silicon Valley Bubble. What say you?

1) They make money from the traffic, and from the tracking cookies they put on the people who would come to read it. I will not support that organization.

2) It's pretty clear that, given the non-concept of privacy most folks have, that whatever you put up on social media can get tracked back to you, your address, and your family.

3) The 'social justice' warriors who disagree, don't respect rules. So if they feel offended, what are the limits to their responses?

4) The audiences that frequent those establishments are not known for intellectual receptivity.

So, yeah, going on TwitFaceGramPage to bring enlightenment to the savages? Not only no, but Hell No.

If you don't embrace those establishments then what? Young people don't read newspapers; not in NYC, California, or Little Rock Arkansas. Trump was elected in large part due to social media. I see more conservative things of FB then liberal because that is who my friends are. The whole idea that everyone on social media is a leftist is pure nonsense.

"I'll take 'No Shit, Sherlock' for 500, Alex!"

quote:

Originally posted by SigJacket:
As he's grown older, perhaps a little wisdom has creeped in.

Apparently he is still hunting and doing the outdoors.

Maybe he is saying what he knows will appease conservatives, but he will continue on his leftist way, uninterrupted.

I guess I read that differently.

quote:

We have come to this realization that a bunch of people sitting in a room in California is not going to be the best way to reflect all the local values that people have around the world. So we need to evolve the systems for collective decision making. It’s an interesting problem. There are certainly going to be a lot more global infrastructure and global enterprises going forward, there just hasn’t been anything at this scale yet.

That sounds more globalist than conservative to me. Sounds to me like he's saying California is too local. So the third world should have a say in what goes on here?

quote:

1) They make money from the traffic, and from the tracking cookies they put on the people who would come to read it. I will not support that organization.

2) It's pretty clear that, given the non-concept of privacy most folks have, that whatever you put up on social media can get tracked back to you, your address, and your family.

3) The 'social justice' warriors who disagree, don't respect rules. So if they feel offended, what are the limits to their responses?

You summed up why I don't Facebook. I have found my on-line home here on Sigforum.

It's a data-mining operation, the best in the world... with people volunteering personal, private information, every day.
They sell it. (In the aggregate, of course. )... and they are making money hand over fist.

On my recent trip to California my immediate family and I were treated to a personal tour of Facebook. It is an unbelievable campus. It's like Disneyland... they even call it 'Zuckerworld'. Everything is free to employees, and guests. But... like Disneyland, it's an imaginary world that's not as pure and clean and beautiful as the veneer.

quote:

it's an imaginary world that's not as pure and clean and beautiful as the veneer.

An apt description of California, in general.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

Zuckerberg, for example, believes every voice should have a say on his platform–including conservatives and Republicans voices. If we want our values to spread far and wide, we need to step outside our echo chamber and engage intelligently with others.

What I heard was good til the very end which I left above. I took the above as, if we are not open to conservatives and they dont show up on the platform, we cant convince them.

I have re-engaged in social media recently. It is the new TV. I dont get to decide how people communicate, the market does. I wont be left behind. 2020 is quickly approaching, its a brave new world.

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
I guess I read that differently.

quote:

We have come to this realization that a bunch of people sitting in a room in California is not going to be the best way to reflect all the local values that people have around the world. So we need to evolve the systems for collective decision making. It’s an interesting problem. There are certainly going to be a lot more global infrastructure and global enterprises going forward, there just hasn’t been anything at this scale yet.

That sounds more globalist than conservative to me. Sounds to me like he's saying California is too local. So the third world should have a say in what goes on here?

that was my take as well, he is alluding to cultural relativism and trying to paint silicon valley as ethnocentric.

quote:

Originally posted by ScorpionBoy:

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
I guess I read that differently.

quote:

We have come to this realization that a bunch of people sitting in a room in California is not going to be the best way to reflect all the local values that people have around the world. So we need to evolve the systems for collective decision making. It’s an interesting problem. There are certainly going to be a lot more global infrastructure and global enterprises going forward, there just hasn’t been anything at this scale yet.

That sounds more globalist than conservative to me. Sounds to me like he's saying California is too local. So the third world should have a say in what goes on here?

that was my take as well, he is alluding to cultural relativism and trying to paint silicon valley as ethnocentric.

Same here. You can accept that other people have different values from your own without believing in those different values. Zuckerberg knows there's a bunch of money to be made from letting people have their voices heard, and if they don't feel comfortable doing that on Facebook, he's not going to get that money.

Also, remember that he wants to be the one to provide internet to those places that don't currently have it. This is about expanding markets more than expanding his mind.

quote:

So we need to evolve the systems for collective decision making. It’s an interesting problem.

As Para said in another thread... that's the crux of it: individualism vs. collectivism.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
The core of the difference between the leftofus and the rest of us is this- Collectivism vs Individualism. This is the core.

In Collectivism, the controlling entities of the State (the government, public schools and the press) are permitted to manipulate the members of its body as it sees fit. This philosophy which we've seen so clearly in this nation for many years now is the antithesis of Liberty. Their behavior, by definition, is anti-American.

Instagoogletwatface.

Uber-Left Google’s Major Move – Flooding the Right with Cash

April 18, 2017 by Seton Motley

Google is almost inarguably the dominant company on the Left. So ensconced are they in the highest of high Left political circles, they basically owned and operated the Barack Obama Administration.

Google and the administration were an incestuous staff revolving door. And Obama, Inc. was an eight-year Pez dispenser of Google-crony policies. Whatever Google wanted – Google got. And Google continues its complete subjugation of the post-Obama Left-Democrats.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump ran against Obama, Inc. – and won. And has set about doing what he said he would do – undoing lots and lots of Obama, Inc. policies. Including the raft of cronyism Google received.

Which has the Left-Democrats and their fellow travelers in the media – freaking out. At Google’s behest, of course. Speaking of the media, how dominant of…everything is Google? They and their Silicon Valley cohorts are paradigm shifting the entirety of the media – even further Left. As sportswriter Jason Whitlock just astutely observed:

“The entire media has moved far left. The media used to cater to New York, the hub for traditional liberal values. Journalists used to be obsessed with working at a New York magazine or newspaper or TV network. Now the entire industry is obsessed with going viral and how words will be received via social media.

“Who determines this? San Francisco/Silicon Valley, the hub for revolutionary, far-left extremism, the home base for Twitter and Facebook. Twitter and Facebook’s employee base is from the area. New York and San Francisco are distinctly different. San Francisco is driving the American media, not New York.

“You have young, microwaved millionaires and billionaires reshaping the American media in a way that reflects San Francisco values. This is a major story the mainstream media ignore. San Francisco hacked the media. Frisco-inspired clickbait is the real fake news.”

Whitlock doesn’t mention Google by name – but he eminently gets their game.

Google has long given lots and lots of coin to lots and lots of Democrats and Leftist outfits. But this is money chasing ideas – dog bites man. The Democrats and the Left were already where Google wanted them – Google’s massive money just prioritized and amplified the Left-Democrats’ efforts on Google’s behalf.

But Google isn’t stupid. They can read the writing on the political wall. And increasingly, that penmanship – belongs to Republicans and the Right.

Thanks to national trends – and the magic of gerrymandering – the House of Representatives looks to be in Republican hands for a generation. And shorter-term, the already-Republican-majority Senate – looks to be getting much more Republican in 2018. Throw in the Republican Trump Administration – and all of Google’s work greasing the Left-Democrats is looking like much ado about increasingly little.

Which is why – nearly a decade ago – Google started greasing the Right-Republicans. And this is where the ideological lines not only blur – they warp and distort. This is man-bites-dog.

This isn’t money chasing ideas – where Google funds people with whom they already agree. This is Google hoping their coin – will shift Right-Republican thinking and actions in their Leftist direction.

Sadly, to varying degrees – it is working. And perhaps the bizarre-est example of this – is California Republican Congressman Darrel Issa. And that bizarre-ness – is embodied in Issa’s patent policy disconnect.

Issa is a private-sector-made multi-millionaire – the richest member of Congress. And he made his millions – thanks to patents, and the protections patents afforded his products: “Issa made most of his fortune in the 1990s while leading Directed Electronics Inc., a Vista-based manufacturer of vehicle antitheft devices that he created. His is the voice of the Viper car alarm system, which warns, ‘Please step away from the car.’”

Issa developed effective, attractive new ways to protect your automobile – and then patented them. Which protected his ideas from thieves. Which is only fair – they’re his ideas, he alone should profit from them. And profit he eminently did.

But now, as a Congressman, Issa is bizarrely leading the charge to undermine the patent protections that rightly made him his uber-millions: “Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA), a member of the House Judiciary Committee and the Chair of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, struck a defiant tone this morning speaking at the National Press Club. Issa, speaking at Patents in Theory and Practice: Implications for Reform, sponsored by the Technology Policy Institute, explained in no uncertain terms that the patent litigation reforms contained in the Innovation Act will not be watered down, period.”

What does the Innovation Act do? Nigh nothing good: “The Innovation Act is fundamental transformation of the constitutionally-protected patent process, that doesn’t go through the Constitutional amendment process. All under the (intentional or accidental) false flags of ‘litigation reform’ – to deal with ‘patent trolls.’ But ‘patent trolls’ are almost always nothing more than people with patents – defending them against patent thieves. The patent holders usually have to sue to do that, and this ‘litigation reform’ makes it exponentially more difficult for them to do so.”

Why on Earth would patent-multi-millionaire Issa want to do this? Enter Google.

Google is a gigantic thief of all things intellectual property – including patents. It’s why they emplaced as the head of Obama’s Patent and Trademark Office – their very own Michelle Lee. And Google will benefit mightily – should Issa and his Congressional cohorts make it exponentially easier for them to steal said patents.

Not only is Issa pushing Google-crony patent theft legislation – he is the lead advocate of the Trump Administration keeping Google’s Lee in place at the Patent Office. Or even more bizarrely – wanting Trump to promote her to head up the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. An office created by the Obama Administration – and thus far headed up by three consecutive Google exes. Now Issa is pushing for a fourth – in a Trump Administration. That ran on undoing Obama.

Why is Issa engaged in all of this anti-Right-Republican bizarreness? Perhaps it’s this: Google’s newly-formed parent company – is Alphabet. Issa’s #1 top contributor in the 2016 cycle? Alphabet. Issa’s #1 top contributor in pre-Alphabet 2014? Google. Issa’s #2 contributor in 2012? Bet you’ll never guess – oh wait, you did. It was Google.

Google has been uber-funding Issa – from just about the very moment they decided to start funding Right-Republicans.

And it’s paying off handsomely. Issa is almost certainly the biggest Right-Republican advocate of Google’s Leftist policies.

Here’s hoping very few other Right-Republicans fall prey to the Contribution Poisoning to which Issa seems so eminently susceptible.

http://www.redstate.com/setonm...flooding-right-cash/

interesting article about the tactic change but not really anything new in the world of politics. Everyone has been trying to grease the wheels of politicians forever on all sides of the aisles.

May 26, 2017
Zuckerberg calls for guaranteed income; write him for your first check
By Ed Straker

Harvard Law School has a new graduate! I'm proud to say that my newest fellow alumnus is none other than Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg. Now, Zuckerberg, of course, never attended Harvard Law School. In fact, he was a dropout from Harvard College. But because he is wealthy, and liberal, that makes him eminently qualified for a Harvard Law degree!

In a speech at Harvard, Zuckerberg (whose name, translated from the original German, means "Mr. Sugar Mountain"), called for everyone to have a guaranteed basic income! He points out that not everyone has the financial freedom (like he did) to become an entrepreneur. So he wants to give everyone a guaranteed income so people can have freedom to find "meaningful" things to do with their lives.

What his speech misses entirely, of course, is that not everyone is emotionally and intellectually positioned to become entrepreneurs. In fact, most people are not suited to being entrepreneurs, preferring well-defined jobs without the stress of having to figure out unique problems and to compete against others.

Zuckerberg talks about having the "freedom" to seek out meaning. He says not a word about how taking this money from taxpayers to pay others would rob them of some of their freedom. How many companies would not be started because of higher taxes required to pay a guaranteed income? That thought never occurs to Zuckerberg. What of the lower standard of living of those who have to pay these crushing taxes? That never occurs to Zuckerberg either; he is too obscenely rich to relate to it. What about the massive inflation that would result from millions of people suddenly having higher incomes? No thought to that either. Did Zuckerberg drop out of Harvard before got a chance to take Economics 101?

Zuckerberg says that "Today we have a level of wealth inequality that hurts everyone." He adds that society rewards people who are successful way too much. To Zuckerberg, when a person takes risks and makes money, that is "society" rewarding him. Regardless, it sounds like Zuckerberg feels upset having so much more money than the average person. He must stay awake at night feeling guilty about the many billions of dollars he has in the bank. Perhaps he intends to bankroll the guaranteed basic income himself, and rather than being a typical liberal hypocrite, perhaps he plans to reduce his life savings to approximate those of an average American. That's why I encourage you to write Zuckerberg and start asking for your guaranteed income.

By the way, if you have the stomach to watch this excerpt from Zuckerberg's speech at Harvard, you can see that the applause for Zuckerberg is positively anemic. I wonder why.



Could it be that class-based appeals don't have the same emotional impact on Harvard graduate as separatist gender, race, sexual orientation, and Islamist polemics do?

http://www.americanthinker.com...our_first_check.html

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Ironic?
I think it's interesting that he says this....
"We have come to this realization that a bunch of people sitting in a room in California is not going to be the best way to reflect all the local values that people have around the world."
... from his comfortable campus in California.
Is he feeling guilty?
... or fearing that his little online empire might have cracks in the foundation?....

One of my students last year was on Zuckerberg's "security detail", the student offered me free martial arts training. (and prob half of those in my surroundings work for Apple/Google/Facebook).

You guys got it all wrong... CA is "progressive" and "forward thinking" and "fill in BS here"

That's why the homeless problem has exploded and they are no longer the 5th largest economy; all due to their "progressive" policies...

If you want to hear about the "fun" that's going on in CA in general and LA specifically listen to The Adam Carolla Show podcast. Firearms aren't discussed much but other wrong headed policies are for sure.

This guest was on Tucker last night. He echoes some of the same observations from OP's article, albeit from the context of the downfall of ESPN. He nails it pretty well.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/544...478001#sp=show-clips