If Facebook doesn't try to hire more black developers, this proves they're evil, because they must be racists. If they do try to hire more black developers, this also proves they're evil, because now they're exploiting black people to drive down labor costs. Likewise, if Zuckerberg doesn't donate to charity, he is evil because he's selfishly hoarding his wealth; if he does donate, he's evil because he's trying to exploit the underprivileged to enhance his own prestige.
"Friedrich Spee von Langenfeld, a priest who heard the confessions of condemned witches, wrote in 1631 the Cautio Criminalis ('prudence in criminal cases') in which he bitingly described the decision tree for condemning accused witches. If the witch had led an evil and improper life, she was guilty; if she had led a good and proper life, this too was a proof, for witches dissemble and try to appear especially virtuous. After the woman was put in prison: if she was afraid, this proved her guilt; if she was not afraid, this proved her guilt, for witches characteristically pretend innocence and wear a bold front. Or on hearing of a denunciation of witchcraft against her, she might seek flight or remain; if she ran, that proved her guilt; if she remained, the devil had detained her so she could not get away."
If he wants to not seem evil, make the foundation a nonprofit with a clear goal.
Like this, it is a Publicity stunt and tax optimisation scheme which to date has only invested into things which aid Facebook the corporation.
Mind you, the cause might be honourable, and there is nothing evil about enlightened self interest. But since their foundation isn't a nonprofit, this seems not very different to me than if he had created a VC fund.
Point is: everything can be counted as bad or good.
If he does some charity, it's a non-democratic way to give money to the poor, which is frowned upon by many.
If he would give the money to the government, which will spent it in a democratic way, people are also unhappy, because of all the burocracy that eats up money for dumb things.
> they're exploiting black people to drive down labor costs
> he's evil because he's trying to exploit the underprivileged to enhance his own prestige
These are straw men. Serious people aren't criticizing him for things like this. Almost 100% of publicly-known charity is, to some extent, designed to enhance prestige.
As far as "exploiting" black people to drive down labor costs, it's not like they're Chinese factory workers ruining their health. They'd just be coding. There's some probable protectionist criticism related to hiring Africans instead of Americans, but that happens regardless of the wages that foreigners are being paid.
Sadly Zuckerberg himself seems to provide plenty of ammunition for those claims:
- Aggressive disregard of privacy on FB
- Using deception and dirty tactics to make the FB app run continuously on the background of your phone
- Manipulating timeline results
- Manipulating trending topics
- Naming a for-profit arm of the company ".org"
- Publicly attacking net neutrality activists by buying gigantic ads across India
- Calling the Brazilian people to protest in front of the Congress
- Whitewashing his personal for-profit investment company as a "initiative"
Regardless of whether he is or not bad or whatever, he appears extremely arrogant when you take in account some of the actions above, so it is quite understandable that people see him that way. Oh, and the movie.
PS: Some of the actions above are not personally his, but are from the company which he controls completely, so it is quite understandable that people attribute it to him.
I don't care much about Zuckerberg either way, but I'm interested in discussing some of these points in more detail.
> Using deception and dirty tactics to make the FB app run continuously on the background of your phone
Can you provide a link that explains this in more detail?
> Manipulating timeline results
I actually see this as a feature. Somehow Facebook has kept time-on-site and MAU metrics very, very high, so the timeline must be working well for most people.
You can also configure it to a surprisingly granular degree.
> Manipulating trending topics
There was no anti-conservative bias, and any other manipulation could be construed as curation or editing. I hid trending topics with a CSS rule, but if I were using it, I would want it to be curated and edited. I see this as a potential feature if done right.
Anyway, no one is forced to get their news from trending topics.
> Naming a for-profit arm of the company ".org"
.org domains aren't required to be used for non-profits, and the Chan Zuckerberg initiative could certainly be considered a charity.
In the US, non-profit status is a tax designation and has no bearing on how beneficial an organization is. In fact, I'm glad that it's not a non-profit, because it means the money comes from Zuckerberg and not from tax-payers.
> Publicly attacking net neutrality activists by buying gigantic ads across India
Links? I know Facebook was heavily criticized for attempting to undermine net neutrality in India, but I've never seen anything about them attacking activists directly via ads.
(Not that it matters, but it's pretty ironic that an ad company would buy ads in the physical world...)
> Calling the Brazilian people to protest in front of the Congress
This is very reasonable and actually positive (even if it did directly involve his company). Are you for or against internet/communication freedom? The Brazilian people absolutely should have protested the WhatsApp ban, especially because the reasoning for it wasn't made public.
WhatsApp is one of the few apps with excellent encryption, as well.
> Whitewashing his personal for-profit investment company as a "initiative"
Again, for-profit vs. non-profit is a tax designation. The US is structured to allow people to profit from doing good things. Is there a reason people shouldn't benefit from their humanitarian efforts? Should all non-profit employees just be volunteers, in that case?
I can understand taking issue with capitalism and the idea that good deeds must be incentivized with money, but I can't understand taking issue with Zuckerberg operating within a system set up by others.
> he appears extremely arrogant when you take in account some of the actions above, so it is quite understandable that people see him that way
Yeah, but so does Elon Musk a lot of the time, and people worship him. Off the top of my head, Paul Graham, Marc Andreessen, and Jeff Bezos also regularly come off as incredibly arrogant (more arrogant than Zuckerberg, in my view). I think that arrogance might be a pre-requisite for being wildly successful in the US startup world: you have to believe that you are special and will do something that 99% of others fail at.
Also, we're not talking about the domain, we're talking about the name of the subsidiary: it's called "internet.org".
And non-profit isn't just about taxes. You can't take money out of a non-profit into your own pocket. Got it?
Oh, and people don't like when owners of foreign companies try to use them as fodder cannon to promote their own objectives, as in Brazil, no matter what's the upside.
And you don't see Elon Musk using FUD against activists, or doing any of the above.
About the movie, you're still not understanding my post. It doesn't matter if it was fiction or not, people still believe it.
"Almost 100% of publicly-known charity is, to some extent, designed to enhance prestige."
Citation needed.
It is perfectly reasonable to donate publicly in an attempt to get more people to also donate to the cause you believe in. If you believe in a cause then it stands to reason you want more people to donate to it. Private donations are a net negative to the cause. But some people prioritize their privacy over the cause they care about.
"Friedrich Spee von Langenfeld, a priest who heard the confessions of condemned witches, wrote in 1631 the Cautio Criminalis ('prudence in criminal cases') in which he bitingly described the decision tree for condemning accused witches. If the witch had led an evil and improper life, she was guilty; if she had led a good and proper life, this too was a proof, for witches dissemble and try to appear especially virtuous. After the woman was put in prison: if she was afraid, this proved her guilt; if she was not afraid, this proved her guilt, for witches characteristically pretend innocence and wear a bold front. Or on hearing of a denunciation of witchcraft against her, she might seek flight or remain; if she ran, that proved her guilt; if she remained, the devil had detained her so she could not get away."