The post is a clever implementation of the clickbait technique with a sole aim of bringing more startup CEOs and executives to visit Slab’s website and discover their product in the process. The arguments presented in the article are weak and show no proof of actual trust erosion as a result of Zuckerberg’s writing style, only a set of arbitrary conclusions on how certain words and phrases may appear to some people. This hardly belongs on HN.
Did whoever write this read some article where words from the Federal Reserve were over-analyzed (e.g. "patience") and think that this model also applies to Zuckerberg's Facebook posts? Because it doesn't. There are almost no real world ramifications from the words he writes on Facebook except for articles like this and movement of FB stock price.<p>I also don't understand the direct contradiction between the ideas between #1 and #2 in this article. How does this get past editing, like I'm supposed to forget you just told me in #1 that Zuckerberg shifts blame and then in #2 there's a highlighted quote where he accepts blame?<p>I hate Facebook either way, but Mark Zuckerberg has nothing to do with it. You're missing the boat if you equate Facebook and Zuckerberg and think that by attacking Mark Zuckerberg you're somehow fighting against the bad aspects of Facebook. Sure, Mark Zuckerberg embodies Facebook in many ways. But if he were to be ousted, I don't care if you brought Gandhi back from the dead and made him CEO of Facebook, Facebook will still be terrible. The platform and how people relate to other people on it will still be, net, detrimental to society.
Every time I read or hear something he has to say, I keep thinking to myself: “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means”<p>He’s simply disconnected from the world. Still stuck in 2007 with his goals for Facebook and how he wants it to change the world. It has changed the world, but a lot of of the change isn’t pretty.
Does anyone actually still read Facebook's PR blog posts responding to the latest crisis? I can't think of a more pointless exercise.<p>What I actually look forward to reading after every Facebook crisis is the former Facebook employees on Twitter who rush to their defense every time.<p>This one made me lol irl:<p><a href="https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1091099413366403072" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1091099413366403072</a>
I like the article but the writer really shouldn't blame the <i>false dilemma</i> on classicists. Rhetoric is a different subject entirely. However, pointing out that when the reader picks up on the trope they lose faith in the writer, that was spot on.
God it frustrates me when Zuckerberg/Facebook/Twitter attack "gate-keepers" like they aren't ones.<p>What do you call determining what appears in a feed? Even if they're using an algorithm trained on user data, they're still selecting who to highlight and what matters.
Re: #3, what exactly is inherently wrong with changing priorities when something happens to warrant them changing?<p>If my primary focus for the year was "get into shape", and then my house burns down, should my primary focus for the year <i>not</i> shift to "find a new home"?
Yes, it’s the writing style that’s the problem. Maybe if Mark Zuckerberg changed his writing style, everything would be okay, and we wouldn’t notice so many problems.
Sorry this is just an old person riffing on the way people younger than him talk. I'd downvote if I could, but HN doesn't let me have nice things.
Wasn't he getting coached to make himself less awkward in social situations and to come off less sociopathic? I vaguely remember reading an article a few years ago about him recognizing this personal shortcoming and seeking help (good for him!) I hope he got a refund.