[jdoliner]

I find this letter to be deeply cynical. There's a baked in assumption that a global community is a good thing and that the only possible reason to resist it is because you're being left behind by its benefits. I don't think that's true and I certainly don't think it should be assumed a priori. There are people in this country, and every where in the world, who don't want globalization. And it's not because they haven't received enough of the benefits or need to be educated better, they don't want it for real reasons and, in a Democracy, that should be an acceptable stance. If we're not willing to accept that stance than we're forcing people into a global community that matches our vision for the future, not theirs. In other words it's a plot for world domination of one world view over another. I find it deeply cynical that instead it masquerades as a virtuous plan to help all man kind.

[aylmao]

So much +1 to this.

I'd like to add a thought too. At the end of the day, this is a centralized system, built by people in a very specific sphere in a single country and thus in a relatively homogeneous culture and world view.

It struck me, fore example, how they had the "change your profile picture" feature for solidarity to the Paris attacks but not for the Beirut ones; even though both were terribly deadly, by the same perpetrating organization, and they happened on consecutive days.

Or how they prompted me to post about the Super Bowl, even though I don't watch or care about American Football, but they ignore other big sporting events.

Facebook is very much anglo-centric and in subtle but important ways amplified by it's massive scale it's imposing a certain world views over others.

[type0]

> At the end of the day, this is a centralized system, built by people in a very specific sphere in a single country and thus in a relatively homogeneous culture and world view.

This mantra that everyone on the web would be happy if we succumb to facebook and let us be manipulated in a way that was never even been imagined by newspapers or television is so sickening. FB isn't a free speech platform as much as it's users like to pretend it, the way it is currently run is harmful to civil and democratic society as well as our digital freedom - freedom of expression and fundamental human rights. The thought policing that is underway is remarkable, I never even imagined that this abomination of a website would grow to that extent.

[mikedouglas]

Are you located in North America? I really doubt Facebook would've rolled out any Super Bowl-specific features to Europe/Asia/Africa/South America.

[bbmario]

I'm in Brazil and i got that message.

[matt4077]

There's a difference between globalisation, the economic term, and what this is about.

Essentially, he's talking about a world where the "in-group" (in terms of "in-group" vs. "out-group") becomes global. I simply cannot find fault with that, because almost by definition, that should greatly diminish risks of violence and war, increase cooperation, increase real freedom (because you'll have many more options for places to live without being the stranger feeling strange) and so on.

I am already part of several global communities whose members have more in common with each other than with the average citizen of their home countries. HN, (my branch of) academia etc.

The criticism that may be harder to dispel is weather such a community is possible: maybe there is some sort basic need for people to create groups, not just for the benefits they get from being on the inside, but also for some sort of satisfaction they get from the knowledge that others are not.

But even if: it seems at least as easy to believe that humans have an innate streak of violence, and it's part of greatness of humanity to have managed to largely stunt that instinct. If there really is a need for outsiders, I doubt that it could be stronger, or that it couldn't be overcome by the same mechanisms.

[metaphorm]

I find the idea of a "global in-group" to be a utopian fantasy. This is like saying "Communism is a great economic system". The ideal of it is great. We don't live in a world of ideals. We live in a world of flawed, frail, and sometimes vicious people.

[nodesocket]

You bring up great points, and hit on the miscalculation and hypocrisy of the left. They seem to think that globalization is a universally good thing, and if you're against it then you are somehow disconnected, a racist, and a monster. This a common symptom not just isolated to globalization.

[jordigh]

Why is this about left or right or the hypocrisy of anyone?

NAFTA was widely criticised by some Mexican leftists (might still be, haven't been following as closely) because it was viewed as being hugely beneficial to foreign interests and to wealthy elites, not to common Mexicans. The same people in favour of women's rights and equality were critical of globalisation.

If this is about US politics, I find it so weird how each issue is exactly left or right and if you know someone's opinion about one issue you must immediately know their opinion about every other issue. How did that country become so polarised?

[aylmao]

More than left vs. right, I tend to find it's about big-money interests vs the masses. NAFTA was criticized by the masses and those who care about the general population, but endorsed by politicians across the entire spectrum who were aligned with business interests.

[jdoliner]

> Why is this about left or right or the hypocrisy of anyone?

Because we have eyes and brains and we use language to describe what's going on. There might be some instances of people who called themselves leftists who opposed something which we're now referring to as a leftist agenda. It's not a perfect black and white classification scheme but the deep link between leftism and globalization is painfully obvious to anyone with a brain. We're polarized because we disagree, deeply, trying to mix up the language used to describe that disagreement isn't going to make us less polarized.

[throwaway729]

But the point is that the tables flipped entirely. Go back to 1990's and you'll find GOP senators decrying Rage Against The Machine as communist radicals for their opposition to NAFTA. A big chunk of the GOP is still pro-free-markets.

If core parts of what "left" and "right" mean are subject to re-definition every 4 years, maybe the polarized tail is wagging the dog.

[edblarney]

No - the tables have not flipped.

There is 'global left/right' and 'local/national left/right' now.

The 'global left' is exemplified by UN.

The 'global right' exemplified by WTO.

Often, the 'global' version of a movement can be in conflict with the 'local' version.

This is seen clearly: 'global leftists' care about migrants - a lot - but immigration can be hurtful to the working class of the host nation. Mass importation unskilled labour = wage suppression, it's just an economic reality. 'Global lefits' might use negative terms such as 'lazy Americans' or whatever - which demonstrates the rift - 'working class' Americans are the 'traditional base' of leftists/labour organizations.

This is most acutely seen in the UK, where the Labour vote has been split - most of UKIP (nationalist) votes came from Labour - who are now more of a 'globalist left' party.

The Tories under May are a more 'traditional right wing' party, whereas the Liberals (i.e. Classical Liberal, which in America would be more akin to 'Libertarian') are kind for the 'pro globalist right wing' party - i.e. trade and business is the most important thing.

'Free Trade' sometimes breaks leftist ideals - because on one hand, it can have directly negative consequences for many workers. On the other hand - it means benefits for the working poor in other nations, and quite a lot of benefits for those who can hold onto their jobs in the host nation (lower prices for goods). Of course, the greatest rewards of globalism to the investing class.

Also - it's usually centre-left activists who care about such issues as 'gentrification'. Well - 'globalization' is a kind of 'gentrification' on a massive scale. The loss of local customs, authentic culture etc. is acute in some places like 'Harlem' - but it's also becoming acute across entire nations - some wealthy, some not.

[throwaway729]

Why do these gymnastics? Why not just say things as they are, instead of adding a bunch of adjectives so that everything can be "a b c d left" and "j k l p right"?

[TheBobinator]

To the upper classes, Globalism means the ability to invest in and control labor and material, internationally, for their own benefit. The objective being if the upper classes in multiple countries have their economic livelihoods intertwined, then stability is improved for all. The upper classes have a motivation to provide security for their progeny, so they tend to erect walls to technological progress and form monopolies and oligopolies. As we all know, the first generation builds the business, second generation runs it, and the third ruins it; this is a constant for small businesses and huge organizations. The best solution that has been found is to produce a system of elite schools and elite jobs where the working class could never hope to enter due to the expense.

Due to this, you end up with conflicting viewpoints between upper classes in different countries being resolved on the back of the market. What the working class see's is a system that, on the outside, looks fair, but once you delve any deeper than the surface, you realize it's a system of men not rules; the IRS tax code, for example, cannot be understood by one person, it can only be understood and executed upon by an organization. That's the point of many laws, and how arbitrage is executed against individuals.

As one example of this; I once interviewed at a company named Catamaran, who's entire existence was based upon taking complex contract terms for prescription drugs and lining them up with insurance plans. We've got a medical industry, insulated completely from anti-trust law, producing a massive economic distortion from being able to do things that in any other industry would be criminal. In the middle of this industry, there's a multi-billion dollar company that does prescription management largely for drugs that are developed to treat symptoms instead of resolve diseases. Thousands of people doing a largely useless paper shuffling job.

By contrast, I work for a tiny forging company, not even 100 people, and one of the products that company manufactures allowed an international automotive company to undercut the competition by enabling their autos to reduce fuel mileage by a substantial percentage and they are currently cleaning the floor with every other manufacturer out there. Similarly, we have other products for the energy industry that have were similarly innovative.

Ultimately, this system generates wage arbitrage as a waste product and wage arbitrage generates the erosion of culture as a byproduct; the upper classes increasingly chase values so abstract and divided from reality that have absolutely nothing to do with delivering real value to society or getting anything done. I make peanuts compared to what I could make working at a place like Catamaran, but on the same token, working at Catamaran, frankly like working at most silicon valley companies, wouldn't be honest or meaningful work. The company I work at right now has an authentic culture; Catamaran was, like most companies, a faceless mass with no culture (except for political correctness and other Marxist\leftist ideals which isn't a culture unto itself) to speak of.

Ultimately, globalism as it is right now is self-destructive; we waste our time running around in circles to provide a few elites job security. Technology, as the atom bomb taught us, is sometimes terrifying, and it's going to happen whether we are ready for it or not. Our best and brightest need to be leading, and society needs to have the freedom to choose its own culture and values. Without that, much like face-book today, you're a train headed on a predefined set of track for a cliff.

[throwaway313]

> the deep link between leftism and globalization is painfully obvious to anyone with a brain.

Wasn't Bernie Sanders both the most leftist and most anti-tpp/nafta candidate? Also Keith Ellison, who's potentially the next DNC chair and was endorsed by both Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer? (and by Bernie Sanders, and by David Duke for that matter)

[jbooth]

We've brought 3 billion people out of poverty in the last 30 years and haven't had a major-power war since WWII when we set up all these globalist institutitions.

I'd say the record holds up pretty well.

[wu-ikkyu]

>We've brought 3 billion people out of poverty in the last 30 years and haven't had a major-power war since WWII when we set up all these globalist institutitions.

What about the other 3 billion people left behind in poverty? That's more than what the total global population was when these "globalist institutions" were set up.

[jbooth]

We've gone from 85% of the global population in extreme poverty to 25%.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/declining-global-poverty-...

[wu-ikkyu]

Percentages can be highly misleading because they abstract from the hard reality of absolute numbers. This is especially true when considering the exponential nature of population growth.

The cited percentage change would be far more encouraging if population was constant, but it's not.

[Shish2k]

There's been a significant decrease in absolute numbers as well as percentage :)

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extre...

[aylmao]

Global cooperation/understanding and globalization are two very different things

[srj]

You're arguing a collective good but many opponents of globalization are looking at it from an individual rather than collective point of view.

[nodesocket]

Here is Peter Thiel talking about Globalization. I have not watch the entire video, but I've seen it mentioned for good points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_3r49XXRw4

[imglorp]

It's more specifically globalization of personal data warehousing and mining, for sale to advertisers and governments. Of course they're promoting adoption in any clothing they can drape it, and of course they're working on universal connectivity. Google came to the same conclusions and is doing the same.

[Spooky23]

That's a flip -- NAFTA was supported by all of the establishment players except Labor.

The republicans loved it because they got to get rid of unions in the north and protect against unionization drives in the South (where we previously outsourced to).

The democrats liked it because their backers, particularly farmers saw it as a boon to agriculture.

It was, and it fucked American, Canadian and Mexican working class people. Millions of Mexicans didn't decide to walk across the desert for kicks. They did that because NAFTA flooded their market with cheap subsidized corn that vaporized the rural agricultural economy in Mexico, just like it did in the US.

Now the republicans have been eaten from the inside out by the true believers of their AstroTurf tea party movement. So they make a lot of noise about being against it now.

[metaphorm]

you seem to be confusing neo-liberalism with "the left".

[aylmao]

Which is both incredibly ironic, but kind of distressing to consider this confusion might be widespread.

The left has historically always been about social justice, egalitarianism and opposition to social inequality, while Neoliberalism as far right as it gets.

[tomlock]

The post above says the reasons of not enough benefits is typically offered as an explanation - so using a broad brush to say the left accuses people of being disconnected and racist contradicts that point.

[technotony]

I don't think that's fair at all, he openly acknowledges the idea that "There are questions about whether we can make a global community that works for everyone". I think he's outlining a vision, aligned with the arrow of history, whereby people come together through technology in greater connection and harmony. I hope we one day all realize that we are one humanity, and from that we can get to greater world peace. Of course we should be discussing how to get to that place, but it's totally reasonable for him to outline his vision/hopes to do that - that's the first part of any sensible discussion.

[jdoliner]

Yes, but he completely bypasses the question of whether or not it's sane to try to make a global community that works for everyone or whether it's better to stick to smaller localized communities. He acknowledges that there might be difficulties but doesn't acknowledge the possibility that the concept of a global community might be inherently flawed and evil.

[programmarchy]

Agree. Forced fraternity is not liberty. I want decentralized, local decision making for my community. Globalization of state power takes things in the other direction.

[wu-ikkyu]

>I want decentralized, local decision making for my community. Globalization of state power takes things in the other direction.

I think we both agree that a centralized global hierarchy of power is impractical.

But what about a modular decentralized network of local and non local communities across the globe working together in symbiosis?

[edblarney]

"But what about a modular decentralized network of local and non local communities across the globe working together in symbiosis?"

Zuck is working against that.

'Sovereign nations, interacting and trading with one another with mutual respect and fraternity' is practically the motto of for example the UKIP party in the UK - but it's denigrated by most globalist types.

Most globalists want more power to the UN, more power to the EU, more power even to at the Federal level of the US, more power to globally governing entities.

They are usually good people, who think that they know better than the common person.

Here is a good example of a voice for staunch globalism: Jean Claude Junker, President of the EU Commission:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Juncker

You can read quite a lot from his quotes - they are quite authoritarian and in many ways totally anti-democratic.

[nosuchthing]

   a modular decentralized network of local and non local 
  communities across the globe working together in symbiosis?

Okay, but how?

[wu-ikkyu]

Look at the FOSS community, they're already doing it.

The biggest barriers to scaling up are not technical but social (i.e. IP laws, legacy spaghetti tax and trade codes, prejudices).

[davidivadavid]

I wonder if someone's working on something based on that: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic-...

[a13n]

Then can't those people just not participate in the global community? Nobody forces you to use technology or Facebook, just log off.

[jdoliner]

Global community means community that spans the globe, Zuckerberg isn't talking about Facebook here he's talking about society. The only way to not participate in the global community is to leave the planet or withdraw from community altogether.

[edblarney]

Participating locally is the best way to participate globally.

[zakk]

Not so easy, when your friends are on Facebook, often the only feasible way of advertising your business is on Facebook, if you are an artist everyone will ask for a FB page, many services integrate with Facebook.

[tomlock]

Could you help me understand what those real anti-globalization reasons, that don't include receiving enough of the benefits, are?

[lkozma]

Not the OP, but I guess an argument against globalisation could be made (and has been made by many) from the perspective of better robustness/resilience of a less centralized/less interconnected system, avoidance of single points of failure, maintaining higher diversity of opinions, etc. etc.

[jdoliner]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone is a good place to start.

The basic finding of the studies detailed in that book are that globalization, and particularly multiculturalism within communities have very negative effects on the happiness and community participation of those involved. Diversity and multiculturalism are generally considered axiomatically good by the left and these studies were done by leftist to prove that value. They found exactly the opposite, and they've been replicated many times, again by leftists, hoping to find a different result but to no avail.

[throwaway729]

Putnam's book has always seemed hilarious to me -- all of the obvious blunders are evidenced in the title alone.

As if it's impossible to have "social intercourse" in a bowling alley without paying a league $20 and blocking out your Tuesday nights.

You can see the same fallacy at work when greek organizations bemoan the "death of socialization" on campuses where frat/sorority membership goes into decline. But of course, people somehow (got knows how! /s) manage to have social lives, volunteer and give back, etc. without paying Alpha Omega Inc. a few grand a year.

The same thing has happened writ large is society -- to the extent that you can find "decline" in the data, it's more than explained by a growth of new forms of involvement that 20 year old metrics don't properly capture (e.g., if you ignore hacker spaces, maker communities, online mentoring communities, and open source development, HN looks pretty desolate as far as "social intercourse" and volunteering go. But of course anyone who knows WTF they're talking about will roll their eyes if you use the lack of posts about Boy Scouts as an indicator of the social decline of HN's front page).

> and these studies were done by leftist to prove that value. They found exactly the opposite, and they've been replicated many times, again by leftists, hoping to find a different result but to no avail.

1. The studies discussed by Putnam doesn't demonstrate any of this, and these aren't even Putnam's core claims.

He demonizes VIDEO GAMES and women working more than multi-culturalism.

2. To the extent that Putnam does present evidence for his claims (which isn't nearly often enough), there's been no shortage of evidence-based refutation. The wikipedia article even has a "criticism" section, which outlines the main arguments.

Basically, if Putnam's data is to be believed, open source developers (and thousands of other people who are doing something other than volunteering with out-dated orgs) are politically disengaged and insular loners who give nothing back to society.

[mikedouglas]

If your hypothesis was correct, shouldn't these lily-white small towns in Pennsylvania and West Virginia be paragons of social connectedness and happiness, instead of the epicenter of the opioid epidemic?

The problem with jumping to the conclusion that "multiculturalism is bad" is that it seeds the idea that people who don't lookalike can't peacefully co-exist. Personally, I feel a far greater sense of community here in Silicon Valley than I did in the homogenous suburb I grew up in.

[tomlock]

You wouldn't classify community participation and happiness as benefits?

[schoen]

I guess one possibility is if you think there's something very good or important about your society, culture, or economy, that you don't want to see change. Globalization means all sorts of pressures to change. People elsewhere who become aware of some aspect of your ways that upsets them may start political campaigns against it, or people in your own community may become interested in moving elsewhere or adopting values or practices that are unfamiliar or previously disfavored in your community. Let's think of a few possible complaints:

"I want my indigenous community to keep speaking our language and practising our religion, but outsiders want us to stop."

"I want to keep having a local community based on farming, but outsiders are tempting our children to move away."

"I want to have the skills I grew up with stay economically relevant, but connecting to the wider economy is making it hard to compete because outsiders are selling similar things cheaper, and making us want new things we don't have an easy way to trade for."

"I want to keep my family learning the things that I think are important but outsiders are trying to teach them skills that are more relevant to a different way of life or set of professions, and trying to teach them a new set of tastes and cravings."

"I want to keep hunting baby seals/whaling/participating in blood sports/practising female circumcision/using corporal punishment on my children/performing animal sacrifices, but outsiders think that's backwards and barbaric and want to stigmatize or outlaw it."

"I want my children to stay in my religion, but other people are trying to evangelize them or deconvert them or expose them to media that mocks or argues against my religion."

"Attracting the attention of outsiders for how great our culture or land is brings all kinds of problems, like tourists who behave badly and inappropriately, or are violent to us, or want to move here and drive up land prices, or want to increase the level of economic activity or bring in extractive industries, or different governments fighting wars over our territory."

"I think my people have an important connection to our land, in a way that we don't have to other places and other people don't have to this place, for example because we know how and why the places here are holy, and that connection or awareness means it's important that we live here and that other people don't."

"My people aren't really that good at interacting with outsiders; our culture or education means that others take advantage of us easily by proposing bargains that aren't really good deals for us, and we don't know how to cope with the disruptions of rapid change, and we tend to get addicted to the drugs that other people bring us that we don't have a prior history with."

"These people say they like and care about us, but then they want to change everything about how we live!"

"My language is stigmatized as a 'dialect' and is useless anywhere else outside of my community. When other people come here they all want us to speak French/Chinese/Russian/English, yet when I go elsewhere people laugh at my attempts to use my own language. This asymmetry makes me feel cheated."

"My community has values I think are really important, like the way we think about family, but now that we're seeing all of these contrary examples in foreign media, people seem less sure of the importance of those values and less willing to act on them. The foreign media don't even always directly engage with our values; they may just subtly suggest that they're just not a big deal."

"We used to have lots of jobs here but at some point they all seemed to disappear. I don't even understand exactly how, but it must have to do with the larger economy. People are telling me that I have an opportunity to move somewhere else and find lots of work, but I was happier with how it was before when I didn't have to move elsewhere to find work."

"It feels like outsiders are manufacturing ethnic conflicts in my community and trying to divide us. In the past, we didn't have conflicts along the lines we do now."

[unprepare]

so.. NIMBYism?

[megalomanu]

Yes. And has the right of peoples to self-determination became an old idea?

[Spooky23]

It helps that globalization is helpful to the fortunes of Zuck and his business.

Call me an asshole, but I'm a nationalist. The amazing advances in Asia and Africa's standard of living have hurt my countrymen... why should I be ok with that?

[a13n]

Isn't Hacker News a global community? How can you say such a thing while clearly participating and getting value out of a global community?

[jdoliner]

No, HN is a small community of people who share a narrow set of interests. Although that set of interests is broadening and I think HN is worse for it. While the community does include people from all over the globe and thus is in a literal sense global. It's not global in the sense of attempting to include and cater to everyone. If there are people who don't see much value or enjoy HN much the HN staff doesn't seem to have much interest in changing their minds.

[bdueicnenbshesh]

At least for me, participation in HN is voluntary.

[krapp]

Hacker News really doesn't have the scale to be considered a global community in the sense that's being described, and it harbors a culture which self-selects against general purpose content in order to prevent itself from becoming that global community.

The "global" version of Hacker News would just be a text only Reddit.

[throwaway729]

This is an incredibly confusing post.

> I find this letter to be deeply cynical... I find it deeply cynical that instead it masquerades as a virtuous plan to help all man kind.

As a matter of fact, this letter is hopeful, not cynical.

It's certainly hoping for something that you don't want, but that's entirely beside the point. No detached native English reader would objectively describe the tone of this piece as "cynical".

Additionally, "masquerade" implies deceit. Do you have any evidence that there aren't Zuckerberg's sincerely held beliefs?

> There's a baked in assumption that a global community is a good thing and that the only possible reason to resist it is because you're being left behind by its benefits

In what sense is this baked in?

On the contrary, the first couple paragraphs are devoted to motivating the global scale of what Zuckerberg perceives as humanity's most pressing challenges -- "...ending terrorism, fighting climate change, and preventing pandemics...".

Zuckerberg isn't saying "we need global cooperation because it's an inherent good." He's identifying concrete problems facing humanity, and suggesting reasons why international cooperation is necessary to tackle those concrete problems.

A substantive response to Zuckerberg would like-wise address these concrete problems and discuss how his proposed solutions are ineffective or counter-productive, rather than rejecting the letter carte blanc in broad rhetorical strokes.

Again, you're free to disagree with Zuckerberg, but calling these "baked in assumptions" is a mis-comprehension.

> I don't think that's true and I certainly don't think it should be assumed a priori.

OK, fair enough!

> There are people in this country, and every where in the world, who don't want globalization. And it's not because they haven't received enough of the benefits or need to be educated better, they don't want it for real reasons and, in a Democracy, that should be an acceptable stance.

Where does Zuckerberg state otherwise?

> If we're not willing to accept that stance than we're forcing people into a global community that matches our vision for the future, not theirs.

Zuckerberg disagrees with you. He's stating that disagreement in a public forum.

Critically, he's NOT suggesting that you shouldn't be allowed to have your opinion! He's just suggesting that your opinion is wrong and that we ought to go a different direction instead.

Existence of opposing political wills working publicly in good faith toward their goals (opposing or otherwise) is a foundation of democracy.

You're effectively suggesting that someone is anti-democractic because they openly oppose your policy agenda. Which is a deeply flawed argument.

> In other words it's a plot for world domination of one world view over another.

All political projects are plots for domination. Even liberty-minded political projects aim to dominate opposing political forces in order to make room for their libertarian projects. Distribution of power is the whole point of politics.

Disparaging politics is fine, of course, but it's a confusing thing to do when you're taking the opposing side of a political battle...

[aylmao]

I have a few things to say about your post, but I thought I'd comment just on one.

Let's recap. OP says:

>> They don't want it for real reasons and, in a Democracy, that should be an acceptable stance. If we're not willing to accept that stance than we're forcing people into a global community that matches our vision for the future, not theirs.

So you say.

> Existence of opposing political wills working publicly in good faith toward their goals (opposing or otherwise) is a foundation of democracy. You're effectively suggesting that someone is anti-democractic because they openly oppose your policy agenda. Which is a deeply flawed argument.

But if his/her agenda is Democracy, then yes, someone who opposes this agenda comes off as anti-democratic no? OP does seem to be in line with the Democratic ideal since autonomy and sovereignty is a big part of democracy, which is in line with your own comment!

So OP is saying "hey, some people oppose this. Democracy is about allowing differing views, so forcing this is not democratic". To which you are saying, "Well, that's flawed, because democracy is about allowing differing views". See where I'm getting at?

Just thought I'd point this out this little oxymoron to you since it seems like you tripped a bit in your logic and confused arguments. Happens to everyone, but worth pointing out so you keep it in mind for the future!

[throwaway729]

> But if his/her agenda is Democracy... So OP is saying "hey, some people oppose this.

Where does Zuckerberg oppose democracy in this post? Show me the specific line where he makes a concrete and definitive statement that he opposes democracy.

If Zuckerberg were arguing against democracy, or if the parent gave a concrete argument that this is an effect of his advocacy, then I would have all the sympathy in the world for the argument you're making. But parent doesn't make that argument, and I'm pretty damn sure Zuckerberg didn't explicitly condone anti-democratic viewpoints in this post.

> Democracy is about allowing differing views, so forcing this is not democratic"

Democracies are a form of government.

The whole point of government is applying force.

The point of democracy is that we come to a consensus about when and how to apply that force via voting.

But the application of force itself is extremely democratic. Without it, government -- and by extension, democracy -- does not exist.

Now, if Zuckerberg were arguing that we should apply that force to prevent you from expressing your opinion or obtaining democratic consensus about something, that's one thing. But again, I don't think he's saying any of that...

> Just thought I'd point this out this little oxymoron to you since it seems like you tripped a bit in your logic and confused arguments

I interpreted Zuckerberg's words on face value. You seem to be reading a hell of a lot between the lines. And maybe that's fair. But you have to actually make that argument. Otherwise you're preaching to the choir and anyone who doesn't already agree with you is left confused and incredulous.

Because, at face value, Zuckerberg is NOT arguing against either democracy OR against free speech rights. If you want to argue that he is sympathetic to authoritarianism or opposed to free speech, then make that argument. But don't condescend as if these things are obvious when the actual text were discussing emphatically doesn't argue against either democracy or free speech.

If you can point to the specific line in this post where he explicitly advocates either of those things, I'll extend my sincerest apologies. Otherwise, you're drawing extremely wild inferences out of thin air, and taking a condescending tone when people call into question your rather conspiratorial priors.

> Happens to everyone

Indeed...

[amorphid]

Any tips for reading up on how different communities can learn to coexist peacefully? I sometimes wonder if different groups go to war because the individuals on either side don't have effective tools for demanding peaceful alternatives from their leaders.

[edblarney]

"Any tips for reading up on how different communities can learn to coexist peacefully?"

A) Balance of power (roughly equal in strength)

B) Mutual dependence (trade)

C) Some degree of truthfulness and transparency (i.e. freedom of information, speech, free press, institutions with integrity)

Nations co-exist peacefully in a dynamic equilibrium. When that equilibrium is shifted (one weak, one strong i.e. power vacuum) - this creates conflict.

This is why 'peacekeeping' as envisioned by the UN largely failed. A bunch of lightly-armed 'blue helmets' effectively does nothing to remedy the underlying causes driving conflict.

[number6]

Democracy, Globalism, sovereignty. Pick Two. Most Countrys Pick the latter two nowadays