Careless People: The Facebook Tell-All on Zuckerberg, Sandberg and Cozying Up to Authoritarian Regimes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I finished this book and really enjoyed it. It made me double down on never joining Facebook again, even to keep up with family who are on it.

I am not a Facebook person and never have been but I am also aware of tons of misses in this book. I would not base a decision on Facebook usage on this.

Interesting. I would, so I am curious if you see any connection between the protest events in Myanmar, facebook and if/how Facebook contributes to autocracy and the polarization of politics. I think there is a pretty direct connection, and felt the book laid those out well in the final chapters. Maybe I am missing something, so I would love to know your perspective on what was wrong about the authors thoughts.

FB/Meta do a lot wrong but this book isn’t factual. Two wrongs don’t make a right perhaps.

Ok- Macmillan is standing behind it and Meta is attacking the author for going against their NDA, not attacking the veracity of the book. That said, I am open to hearing about these issues, but if you can’t point to specifics, then just saying it “isn’t factual” makes your case pretty weak.

Because this is the place to do it? Not so much.

[Anonymous]

I mean, it seems pretty factual. Facebook uses aggregated user data to predict what ads and articles are most likely to sway people over to the people who are paying them the most money. They don’t do much to police for untruths from their advertisers or to keep users safe from being swayed by people who are paying them to influence public opinion. So, in short, no thanks. Really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I finished this book and really enjoyed it. It made me double down on never joining Facebook again, even to keep up with family who are on it.

I am not a Facebook person and never have been but I am also aware of tons of misses in this book. I would not base a decision on Facebook usage on this.

Interesting. I would, so I am curious if you see any connection between the protest events in Myanmar, facebook and if/how Facebook contributes to autocracy and the polarization of politics. I think there is a pretty direct connection, and felt the book laid those out well in the final chapters. Maybe I am missing something, so I would love to know your perspective on what was wrong about the authors thoughts.

FB/Meta do a lot wrong but this book isn’t factual. Two wrongs don’t make a right perhaps.

Ok- Macmillan is standing behind it and Meta is attacking the author for going against their NDA, not attacking the veracity of the book. That said, I am open to hearing about these issues, but if you can’t point to specifics, then just saying it “isn’t factual” makes your case pretty weak.

Because this is the place to do it? Not so much.

NP.

Translation: You’ve got nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I finished this book and really enjoyed it. It made me double down on never joining Facebook again, even to keep up with family who are on it.

I am not a Facebook person and never have been but I am also aware of tons of misses in this book. I would not base a decision on Facebook usage on this.

Interesting. I would, so I am curious if you see any connection between the protest events in Myanmar, facebook and if/how Facebook contributes to autocracy and the polarization of politics. I think there is a pretty direct connection, and felt the book laid those out well in the final chapters. Maybe I am missing something, so I would love to know your perspective on what was wrong about the authors thoughts.

FB/Meta do a lot wrong but this book isn’t factual. Two wrongs don’t make a right perhaps.

Dumb "public affairs" firm bot doing PR clean-up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I finished this book and really enjoyed it. It made me double down on never joining Facebook again, even to keep up with family who are on it.

I am not a Facebook person and never have been but I am also aware of tons of misses in this book. I would not base a decision on Facebook usage on this.

Interesting. I would, so I am curious if you see any connection between the protest events in Myanmar, facebook and if/how Facebook contributes to autocracy and the polarization of politics. I think there is a pretty direct connection, and felt the book laid those out well in the final chapters. Maybe I am missing something, so I would love to know your perspective on what was wrong about the authors thoughts.

FB/Meta do a lot wrong but this book isn’t factual. Two wrongs don’t make a right perhaps.

You’re terrible at this. I need you to be a higher quality troll since you’re squatting here and arguing (poorly) in favor of sociopaths who don’t give a shit about destroying public reliance on shared verifiable reality so that they can get a bit more money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I finished this book and really enjoyed it. It made me double down on never joining Facebook again, even to keep up with family who are on it.

I am not a Facebook person and never have been but I am also aware of tons of misses in this book. I would not base a decision on Facebook usage on this.

Interesting. I would, so I am curious if you see any connection between the protest events in Myanmar, facebook and if/how Facebook contributes to autocracy and the polarization of politics. I think there is a pretty direct connection, and felt the book laid those out well in the final chapters. Maybe I am missing something, so I would love to know your perspective on what was wrong about the authors thoughts.

FB/Meta do a lot wrong but this book isn’t factual. Two wrongs don’t make a right perhaps.

Okay but it's still wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right doesn't dismiss one wrong either. What is not factual?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I finished this book and really enjoyed it. It made me double down on never joining Facebook again, even to keep up with family who are on it.

I am not a Facebook person and never have been but I am also aware of tons of misses in this book. I would not base a decision on Facebook usage on this.

Interesting. I would, so I am curious if you see any connection between the protest events in Myanmar, facebook and if/how Facebook contributes to autocracy and the polarization of politics. I think there is a pretty direct connection, and felt the book laid those out well in the final chapters. Maybe I am missing something, so I would love to know your perspective on what was wrong about the authors thoughts.

FB/Meta do a lot wrong but this book isn’t factual. Two wrongs don’t make a right perhaps.

Dumb "public affairs" firm bot doing PR clean-up.

+1 their post has made me dig in more on the “FB people are the devil” view of the Meta crew than anything.

[Anonymous]

I couldn't help but focus on the juicy parts. But the depth of the explanations of FB's role in Myanmar and China make it clear that the author was definitely on the inside. I believe her.

[Anonymous]

The book is extremely detailed. Worth the read . No wonder Meta put a gag order in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I’m about 1/3 of the way through and once again, I’m reminded that a lot of people who appear smart and successful really just have confidence.

Like who?

I'm not the PP, but I was struck by that too. The author talks about Harvard grad Joel Kaplan constantly asking his team very basic questions about the countries they were working in (like where they were located). But now he's like number 2 at Meta/Facebook--it's not because he was the smartest or most hardworking in the room...

That guy won the Sears Prize at Harvard Law after doing a stint in the Marines.

In fact, I think he won it both years. So, the person with the best GPA at Harvard Law for 2 years isn’t smart or hardworking.

Have you read "1L"? The place is notorious for cheaters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I’m about 1/3 of the way through and once again, I’m reminded that a lot of people who appear smart and successful really just have confidence.

Like who?

I'm not the PP, but I was struck by that too. The author talks about Harvard grad Joel Kaplan constantly asking his team very basic questions about the countries they were working in (like where they were located). But now he's like number 2 at Meta/Facebook--it's not because he was the smartest or most hardworking in the room...

That guy won the Sears Prize at Harvard Law after doing a stint in the Marines.

In fact, I think he won it both years. So, the person with the best GPA at Harvard Law for 2 years isn’t smart or hardworking.

Have you read "1L"? The place is notorious for cheaters.

The guy must have cheated at Harvard undergrad, on the LSATs and on every test for 4 semesters all to help Scott Turrow sell books 18 years before.

[Anonymous]

I’m reading this now, about a third of the way through. There’s one scene where they’re on a work trip and she calls out someone for setting up Zuckerberg to win a board game. I cannot imagine causing a scene like that and expecting to take the private jet back.

[Anonymous]

Amazon is selling hardcover for $23 and Kindle is $16.00, audio is free for new membership. Obviously, billionaires have no loyalty when it comes to making money for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amazon is selling hardcover for $23 and Kindle is $16.00, audio is free for new membership. Obviously, billionaires have no loyalty when it comes to making money for themselves.

She's nowhere near the level of money as them. FB subsidized a nanny for her because she couldn't afford it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I’m about 1/3 of the way through and once again, I’m reminded that a lot of people who appear smart and successful really just have confidence.

Like who?

I'm not the PP, but I was struck by that too. The author talks about Harvard grad Joel Kaplan constantly asking his team very basic questions about the countries they were working in (like where they were located). But now he's like number 2 at Meta/Facebook--it's not because he was the smartest or most hardworking in the room...

That guy won the Sears Prize at Harvard Law after doing a stint in the Marines.

In fact, I think he won it both years. So, the person with the best GPA at Harvard Law for 2 years isn’t smart or hardworking.

Have you read "1L"? The place is notorious for cheaters.

The guy must have cheated at Harvard undergrad, on the LSATs and on every test for 4 semesters all to help Scott Turrow sell books 18 years before.

A note 1L is now 48 years old!