[iwi885123jdkak]

"allegedly" Unless you can prove it, or you have the genuine reputation to be taken for your word (good luck with that), it means nothing.

And It really amazes me how some people take articles like this at face-value, believing anything they say. If they said "this" person said "this" thing, as-long as they hate him, they'll instantly jump on believing and ridiculing.

[arkitaip]

It doesn't help that zuckerberg reputation is absolute dog shit. We are talking about a man that many considers is a threat to democracy. It wouldn't be out of character for him to be petty and vindictive.

[smilespray]

I wonder how many of the higher-level execs and board members of Facebook consider him a liability. They absolutely should.

[whitepaint]

Yeah, absolutely. For every stupid decision he made (buying Instagram, Whatsapp, Oculus etc.), making the company worth almost $1 Trillion, yeah, he's a horrible CEO. As a stockholder, I just hate him.

[dmantis]

Pablo Escobar was pretty good at making money too.

Nobody here talk about money making, there are things more important in life. Like, you know, not running drug traffic or mass espionage.

[reilly3000]

One can be a both good capitalist and a threat to democracy.

[fuzzfactor]

I agree that capitalism and democracy have nothing to do with each other.

But I still think a capitalist who is a threat to US democracy is not a good capitalist.

Not good for democracy, not good for other capitalists and/or entrepreneurs, not good for the capital itself, and not good enough for me.

[ergocoder]

> We are talking about a man that many considers is a threat to democracy.

People who say this are a higher threat to democracy, tbh.

[whitepaint]

> a man that many considers a threat to democracy

Oh Jesus Christ talk about over-exaggerations.

[eznzt]

Who considers him a threat to democracy? Journalists who are tired of not being able to control the narrative anymore? Or the left who are tired of their lapdogs, the mass media, not being able to control the narrative anymore?

[kordlessagain]

I think that Tim Cook is telling the truth and that he has genuine reputation:

> Tim Cook calls out Facebook's business model, says it leads to 'violence,' 'polarization'

This statement seems to stand on its own, without a need for "proof". If the business model itself leads to this, the conclusion is that the internal conversations about protecting that model also lead to violence and/or polarized thinking. If we look at the alleged occurrence, we can then draw a conclusion without the need for "reputation". There's also the manifesto.

[mensetmanusman]

People lead to violence, FB is an internet tool. E.g. in Myanmar FB is used to plan genocide, in Germany, they didn’t need FB 90 years ago to do the same.

[mint2]

It’s pretty in character with zuckerburg so that’s probably why, and the public moves of the two companies align with that part of the article. I’ll agree with you that the quote wasn’t sourced as well as it should be, but it’s hard to fault people when they are told a duck quacked and take it at face value. When someone does something in line with their reputation, people accept a lower burden of proof. If he comes out and denies it, then that’s another thing or if it was a material statement for a binding decision then it would also need more proof.

[Someone]

The article in the WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-meets-apple-in-clash-o...) says “according to people familiar with the exchange”, not “allegedly”.

That means the WSJ is convinced he said it.

[falcolas]

Yes, that’s what the article said.

> Behind closed doors, Zuckerberg allegedly wanted to bring Apple down a peg, supposedly telling his team "we need to inflict pain" to the iPhone maker.

As for the headline... well, it’s a decade past time to acknowledge that clickbait headlines are the norm. It’s how they get people to read the article, where they can make money from ads. The headlines will always be clickbait until this changes.

[smilespray]

We're likely in for the long haul. Clickbait-y titles have existed since the invention of the printing press.

[uniqueid]

  or you have the genuine reputation to be taken 
  for your word (good luck with that)

I agree with the sentiment to a large extent, but it's also a question of probability. The original source is the Wall Street Journal, which means there's at least a non-zero probability that stories with 'alleged' and 'anonymous' in them are true :)

Traditionally, a big publication would vet stories like this. Maybe someone who knows more about journalism than I do could weigh in re: the state of editors and fact-checking in 2021. Given that publications today expect their writers to churn out story after story, the vetting process has probably gone downhill.

[ergocoder]

> which means there's at least a non-zero probability

I am thinking this is a very low bar for anything.

If we want to be technical, according to Quantum physics, doesn't anything have non-zero probability? :P

[stadia42]

> If they said "this" person said "this" thing, as-long as they hate him, they'll instantly jump on believing and ridiculing.

This is such a perfect observation! My very intelligent and well-educated friends, most of them successful engineers in the Silicon Valley, behave exactly as you described. And it's not at all limited to the current political divisions in the US.

Why would seemingly smart people trust random posts on internet, as long as those posts confirm what they want to hear?

[john2010]

> It really amazes me how some people take articles like this at face-value, b

Unbelievable but true. Very sad indeed.