That said, whether it's one company or a few that are well-aligned doesn't really matter for the purposes of that book.

but a corporation who only uses land without consideration for it or the local animals that depend upon it, and only cares for profit cannot "own" something that is essentially timeless and really belongs to noone but the universe. Its like ants squabbling over owning mount everest.

And here it is in action:

https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/08/google-threatens-conse...

Anyway, how would you write this without talking a lot about the trend-setters?

Also, it's odd to blame big tech companies for lack of respect for intellectual property, or maybe call it remixing. This is a much larger trend. Consider sampling in rap music, VCR's, Napster, BitTorrent, Scihub.

Most adults understand that there absolutely needs to be clear water between public and private personas and relationship networks.

Trying to mash them altogether has nothing to do with enforcing integrity (something large corporations are hardly ideally qualified to moralise about) and everything to do with the fact that no one at work needs to know that (e.g.) your best friend's daughter is struggling with depression and suicidal thoughts and your best friend is having a really hard time with this.

I would guess that there is not actually any deep philosophical reason. Facebook started out using real names at Harvard just because that's how college face books did it, was very successful, and therefore they believe that people using real names on Facebook (for the most part) is important to their success.

Google certainly thought so when they tried to compete, using Google Plus. They eventually abandoned real names but not without a lot of controversy.

I recently quit Google News for this. Despite my best efforts at customization using the limited controls that it provided, it insisted on feeding me stories for sources I'd turned off (but were obviously preferred by Google News), and not from sources that I'd prioritized. Sure, it'd put some stuff in from the prioritized sources, but there was an obvious pattern of using Google's preferred cadre of media outlets for certain major stories, even when one of my preferred sources had an article on the same story. I would liken trying to customize Google News to herding cats.

I realize I'm creating a filter bubble for myself, but I'm okay with a bubble that doesn't include 'news' from TMZ or who Katie Holmes is dating now.

The secondary sneaky part is sure they let you "block" a channel, but all that means is that that "Channel" can't comment on your videos. WTF? A gigantic site, with arguably thousands of developers and employees, and a simple function such as "block channel's videos" can't be implemented? Oh, and thanks to HTTPS, you can't even write a proxy to fix the incoming HTTP responses to filter stuff out (unless you install CA certs on all your clients), which is impossible for locked-in devices such as ChromeCasts, Rokus, and all other "Smart" viewing devices.

The conspiracy-theorist in me thinks that the whole "HTTPS the whole web" was just a sneaky way of gaining control over how your clients view your content, and not really privacy.

I never heard about #ElsaGate before. There is obviously a pedagogic message in the videos. The main problem seems that leaving the kids unattended watching these videos doesn't work here. Similar to Grimms' Fairy Tales or children stories from Shockheaded Peter. Parents need to read these books to their children in order to give them feedback. I've read some texts by Prof. Dr. Stefan Aufenanger from University of Mainz about this topic.

EDIT: Of course, in order to explain things to kids they need to be in a certain age. The videos seem to be targeted to children in pre-school age.

My opinion is that Mark Zuckerberg absolutely does not have leadership. He has influence, but those are very different. When rank and leadership don't correlate, very bad things happen at some point.

I believe that Facebook the company does have some great leadership, but if anything it is coming from Sheryl Sandberg. Have you ever seen what she can do to a room? It's similar to Obama, or Jobs.

Mark Zuckerberg actually worries me a lot. To know quite a few leaders in tech, I don't think he meets the calibre on the people level, not even a little bit. Bezos, Musk, Sandberg display insane levels of vision and truth in their mission. Zuckerberg always feels to me like someone who is very smart but pushed into a role he was never made to fit, because of context.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think something bad will come out of this situation.

Wow, did he really say that? It would be a pretty dumb thing to say. Society rests on secrets.

If you want do have just one personality what is going to happen is not less phoniness, but more: people will extend their "work" personality to the rest of their life, not the other way around. They will have personal relationships that ressemble the ones they have with their coworkers, and that will be quite horrible.

Also this quote makes mark sound like holden caulfield

Even on a first pass, you have to answer yes. The legal and medical fields exist on a foundation of secrecy. A lawyer that cannot keep secrets is a terrible lawyer and cannot defend his/her client. A doctor that cannot keep secrets is a terrible doctor and will never have patients approach him/her for anything even remotely embarrassing.

In societies that are more accepting of others and focus on inclusion, there isn't as much need for secrets. I never found this in American society for the most part.

Funnily enough one of my non executed ideas to make a better Facebook was to allow multiple personas so you could select work/family/party and have different content appear. Dunno if that would have got anywhere - never figured how to overcome people posting on the existing networks because that's where their friends are.

Zuckerberg doesn't believe in anything other than money and power.

Being a gay in uae, being a jew in ww2 germany were probably secrets that would save lives. To less extreme, hiding ones political views in a population with opposite political view could make lives easier and fairer.

He's not trying to create a world where such people are forcibly outed. He's trying to create a world where such people can out themselves safely.

The basic idea is that if you share enough stories, people will stop being able to convince populations that minority groups are bogeymen.

There are things that only should matter to me: my wealth, health are among some.

Society's views on matters change over time. I dont belueve there will ever be a time where "anything" is ok by everyone.

The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.

Not to speak about all the injustices internet helps bring to light, the diffusion of important knowledge (side effect of bad consumerist habits being on of them), the convergence of the poor and the middle class allowing for a large part of the population to access the same products, education, and social advantages. The path to the disparition of labor work and rise of the nomad lifestyle is also a beautiful evolution of society.

We already have models that preserve privacy out there, TouchID in Apple products doesn't transmit your fingerprints to the cloud but is kept securely on device. They remain on the device (I take Apple at their word when they state this). The next logical step is for Apple to use their knowledge of differential privacy to obscure our data, they already do this to an extent with things like autocomplete, like they explained at a previous WWDC.

I'm optimistic that Apple and Microsoft would be motivated to do this in a way that's compatible with their business models as non-tech savvy users learn the value of privacy. Google and Facebook can be persuaded to make this work as well if the alternative is heavy-handed regulation.