Good damage control by Zuckerberg, but notice that his comment says nothing substantial about why Free Basics _isn't_ similar to colonialism.
It is absolutely about growth and user acquisition. They are using their capital to subsidize and lock in a monstrous market. Is that bad? There are reasonable arguments on both sides.
But Facebook is not a charity. Facebook is not a social cause.
If it were, Zuckerberg would have sold his shares and reinvested the cash back into Facebook when announcing his plan to donate $45bn. There's a reason billionaires invest their money in charitable funds, and not all of it for tax reasons. There are some things markets just aren't great at solving.
Sort of. I mean it sounds lovely but he is just saying words. Do people really pay attention to PR and if so how would this comment influence what anyone is feeling?
He is emitting positive signals but they are weak. Where is the substance behind these (cheap) words? IMHO Zuckerberg would have to actually DO something extraordinarily profound to come across as a sincere human being.
I am not trying to imply he is evil but all his actions fail to make me believe that he is a well meaning guy.
The vast majority of comments is indeed positive. Could be that most of those who don't support him just don't dignify his post with a comment, though.
Most of the time when people have negative response to something they refrain from leaving an internet comment, thats why everyone loves internet comments /s
> But Facebook is not a charity. Facebook is not a social cause. If it were, Zuckerberg would have sold his shares and reinvested the cash back into Facebook when announcing his plan to donate $45bn.
Could you elaborate on your reasoning for this? I've reread this a handful of times and haven't been able to figure out the rationale for such a move under those conditions.
Sure. Zuck realized he wanted to do a lot of good with his money. If he thought that Facebook was the best way to have an impact, then he'd simply donate his shares back to the company, which would give them ~$45bn in capital to reinvest in their mission.
He didn't do that. Which means, as the person with the single greatest understanding of Facebook, he thought he could have a more positive impact on humanity by putting that money elsewhere.
This doesn't mean Facebook doesn't do good things. This doesn't mean Facebook isn't a great company. His actions merely show that, for some objectives, he thinks other organizations can have a better impact.
Or maybe it's just that throwing more money at Facebook won't make it any faster or better at doing good. It's quite possible the Zuck really does think Facebook is the best way to have an impact, but more money won't increase the impact. So, having more money than ability to deploy in a single entity, he's branching out into others.
You implied that billionaires donate to charities because markets aren't great at solving such a problem, even though charities are market institutions.
The history of the BEIC is long and varied, but it actually ran into financial difficulty repeatedly and had to be bailed out by the British government, and was always vastly smaller and less profitable than the Dutch equivalent. The VOC did something like 5 times the amount of trade the BEIC did, at their respective peaks.
(Incidentally, one of the many bailouts of the BEIC company took the form of the Tea Act of 1773. American's probably know it better as the trigger for the Boston Tea Party, and one of many steps on the road to revolution. And you thought Occupy Wall Street was upset about corporate bailouts...)
It's an investment. India is an emerging market, and those folks' purchasing power can only increase. It is truly a great strategy, because his company will be the one collecting data on what they like and what they don't before they're even able to buy stuff. That is a sure way to beat your competition.
India's growth rate is a fairly consistent 6-7% and the growth rate of the upper class (read: anyone > 1/2 US poverty level) is probably significantly higher.
Zuckerberg is running a long game here.
Furthermore, anyplace where Facebook isn't huge is a place where a competitor can grow. Note how Whatsapp spread from India/Africa to the rest of the world.
And why exactly do you think Facebook is offering this service? (And, furthermore, why exactly do you think they are offering this service with access only to Facebook and Facebook approved sites, rather than to the Internet at large)?
[On edit: I seem to be getting a lot of downvotes on this post, yet no actual answers to the question]
> Early on in my thinking about our mission, I traveled to India and was inspired by the humanity, spirit and values of the people. It solidified my understanding that when all people have the power to share their experiences, the entire world will make progress.
This is a great example of how virtue signalling can be a great way of promoting your brand to young progressives.
In 2016, what better example of 'humanity', 'spirit' and the 'values of people' is there than the inspirational social network, Facebook?
> This is a great example of how virtue signalling can be a great way of promoting your brand to young progressives.
I'm not up on, ah, promoting one's brand by way of virtue signaling, but is this a great example? It reads like something out of a bad college application essay.
'Great example' as in representative, not as in exemplary.
I find attempts to financially capitalise on looking Good gross and wanted to draw attention to it. Zuckerberg does it quite often but he's not the only one.
Whats flabbergasting is that Benedict Evans completely got away even though the things he said were waaaaaaaay more offensive than Andreessen (Using a derogatory phrase and being utterly aware of the context behind it). This kind of ignorance is dangerous coming from kingmakers of the valley
Does anyone else find these "Sorry for badmouthing x, I'm a huge fan of x" apologies offensively artificial? Is there any reason to effuse about the people you insulted beyond trying to look like you care about them? Both Zuck and pmarca went on about how amazing India is, and both of them came across as bullshitting.
Genuine question: Did Zuckerberg badmouth India? If so, I missed it. I thought he was just trying to distance himself from Andreessen's tweet. If so, I don't see how this is an instance of a ""Sorry for badmouthing x, I'm a huge fan of x" apology.
Zuck didn't, but his post is FB firefighting. When a company's most high-profile investor and board member starts a fire, the CEO puts it out. Whether or not you want to call it an apology is immaterial to the substance of my point: that kind of language comes across as incredibly insincere and patronizing.
Hmm. I think I see what you're getting at. It sounds like you're saying that you're put off by the tone of the apology itself, and not so much the quick reversal, which is what I had thought you were focusing on. Is that right? If so, how do you think it could have been improved? I personally found the comment (or apology, or whatever we should be calling it) pretty sincere sounding.
(By the way: I had forgotten that Andreessen was a board member and large investor. Thanks for reminding me.)
Just ditch the "I'm such a fan of India's amazing culture and people" bit. No you bloody well aren't. Has Mark Zuckerberg ever publicly written or said anything praising India's culture or people that wasn't part of facebook PR? He might like India, he might admire its culture and its people, but it's ever so slightly suspicious that the only time he mentions this fact is when he's doing damage control.
It reads like it was written by a crisis management team, and it probably was. Apologies are most effective when they both are and are perceived as being sincere. It's fine to say pmarca stuck his foot in his mouth, it's fine to say that his expressed views are not those of facebook, and it's fine to say that facebook sincerely believes that offering a limited version of the Internet to poor people, for free, will be a great emancipator. But I think it would be a more effective apology if it came across as heartfelt, and that means leaving out what really sounds like self-serving praise for India.
I think what really bugged me is that it came across as something a politician would say. It was insincere and designed to offend as few people as possible. Which I find offensive, because it's not how real people talk. It's like the audience is being talked down to.
Marc was ill informed just like many in west. A lot of people think that India was economically better off under an oppressive colonial rule.
Facts:
- India's rate of growth under Britain was 1% and basically stagnant.
- India's rate of growth under Socialist policies was 3% (Racists people often refer to his a Hindu rate of growth implying Hinduism is responsible for the poverty though the term was not coined initially for that purpose)
- India's rate of growth post half hearted economic liberalization has been around 6% or more.
Comparing the rate of growth of an independent country vs colony is not really required.
Having/Being a colony is not justified, whatever be the growth. An independent country where natives freely decide how to run themselves is far more important than any metric.
When people say "xyz was ill informed" - thats BS. Marc should educate himself before he opens his mouth. He can make an ill informed investment decision but if he makes a comment that hurts a nations sentiments then there's no way to justify it.
You are right. But very often people in west do not want to acknowledge poor Indian Hindus as even people let alone natives who can govern themselves. This might sound like a stretch but look at the propaganda that is trying to revive now discredited Aryan Invasion theory.
This post would do better to provide citations for these facts (is this 1% growth for nearly 200 years?), and what was the original purpose for the term 'Hindu' rate of growth?
Also, why brand 'many in the west' as ill informed - was that nessisary?
You can always look this information yourself by couple of google searches.
Many in west is a perfectly valid use of phrase. Deep Hinduphobia causes a lot of (even liberal) westerners to look down on Hindus and India in general.
For example Benedict Evans displayed his ignorance using the phrase "Hindu Rate" of growth in reply to that infamous tweet. This is both Hinduphobic and racist in my opinion.
Original background of "Hindu rate of growth".
Independent India followed Soviet Styled socialist policies (should I say Bernie Sander styled). India could not grow under such policies not matter what government did. An economist Prof. Raj Krishna concluded that this was India's destiny to remain poor linking it with Hindu concept of Karma. He was not joking. Marx and Weber have serious influence on India's leftist academia (which is almost all academia). Marx dismissed Hindus as barberic because they worshiped trees and monkeys. Where as Weber argued that Hindus and Buddhists can not achieve prosperity through industrialization and capitalism because according to him they lacked individualism. Prof. Raj Krishna's phrase originated there.
Research by a Belgian Paul Bairoch has collected data about India and China's economy since 1700s. Both China and India contributed to world GDP 24% and 33% respectively which fell to 20% in 1800.
Originally - derogatory term that implies that India, a majority Hindu country, is full of people who are too content with their standards of living and are too lazy to work towards a higher standard of growth. Often used as a contrasting term with South Korea's "Miracle on the Han River"
I liked that Marc took responsibility for what he said. I don't like that his apology included that he spoke about something he was not properly educated about. In the long run it's not going to do anything to diminish his career, but it will cause others to second guess things he speaks about in the future and there will be a cloud that hangs over him as a result. Hope he bounces back. Sucks when you put your foot in your mouth.
Whether or not there are darker reasons for Andreessen's statement, it really confuses me why people in such prominent positions don't stop and spend some time considering how comments like his might be interpreted. Zuckerberg's response is not surprising in any way and also conspicuously lacks any direct comments about Free Basics.
>it really confuses me why people in such prominent positions don't stop and spend some time considering how comments like his might be interpreted.
A lot of these types of people, if not all of them, are pretty much surrounded by 'yes men' and asskissers 24/7. I think there's a big problem with the wealthy and social disconnect. Its probably unsolvable.
Because "people in such prominent positions" are people too. They make mistakes. They say stupid things about subjects they don't understand. They sometimes don't empathize or realize how something might sound to someone in a position that they (the speaker) has never been in.
Remember, these Valley idols share almost all of their DNA with the rest of us.
Yes, but I, an average nobody, know that basically no one will notice the things I say in most cases. Therefore, I feel a lot less cautious about spouting off online (whether or not this is wise). Someone in his situation has to be thinking differently and, if they're not, maybe they need a reality check like this.
"Power will go to the hands of rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low caliber and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in political squabbles" --Winston Churchill
If I wanted to give Marc Andreessen the benefit of the doubt he may have been referring to the time in the 80's when India was closed off to foreign investment (and not British anti-colonialism).
Even as an Indian though, I don't know if the closing of investments was due to "anti-colonialism" or just a general socialist, USSR-like policy?
His later tweets seemed to suggest that he was going for the latter, so it might have been a wrong choice of words for him BUT his partner in crime Benedict Evans said something even worse and then seemed to be justifying his comments for the rest of the evening
It is absolutely about growth and user acquisition. They are using their capital to subsidize and lock in a monstrous market. Is that bad? There are reasonable arguments on both sides.
But Facebook is not a charity. Facebook is not a social cause.
If it were, Zuckerberg would have sold his shares and reinvested the cash back into Facebook when announcing his plan to donate $45bn. There's a reason billionaires invest their money in charitable funds, and not all of it for tax reasons. There are some things markets just aren't great at solving.