"I'm here today because I believe that we must continue to stand for free expression," he said. "You should be able to say things that other people don't like, but you shouldn't be able to say things that put people in danger."
What kind of a very sad human being must one be when you have almost all the money in the world and continue to do very stupid things with it. In my experience the people who scream and threaten the loudest kinda acknowledge the problems.
I can understand the passion and research for innovation and improvement.
I can understand trying to earn even more money with your research and investment.
I cannot understand that when there is SO much suffering in the world that can relatively easy be solved by throwing a few billion dollars in it that one can justify spending billions in things people do not want.
The man can be the best inhabitant earth has ever known by massively funding research for good clean water, correct waste disposal, clean energy and good food for all of us. Maybe even make a profit of it! But he decides to put his massive resources in virtual reality...
At least spend a fraction of your money to give every poor woman a Divya Washing Machine[1] so that they have more time to do other things, perhaps even improving your stupid Metaverse for you.
When I worked there a few years back, my eyes rolled hard without VR at $22B of CapEx being spent without clearly-established market demand. They should've spent $1B at least on marketing Workplace and that home assistant box, whatever it was called.
Note that she was following her lawyers advice. Not a gag order from Meta. This advice l is standard practice when you have an active litigation against you (everything you say can and will be used against you).
"Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, secured an emergency legal order on the eve of publication preventing her from publicly discussing aspects of the book, and she faces fines of $50,000 (£37,000) each time she breaches the order."
One who understands the power of nondisclosure agreements.
You might find it surprising that an executive signed a long-lasting non-disparagement agreement, but obviously they wouldn't have got the job otherwise. These are a very real problem. Especially the use of NDAs to cover up gross misconduct.
See her testimony last year before the senate judiciary committee: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DAnORfgB8
Go go Streisand effect. This gag order will be great for her book.
She should do a tour of the US with someone asking her questions and she just not responding.
I find it wild that a "justice" system allows something like this to happen. It's absolute joke.
An American system, nevertheless. The same system which attempts to institute similar rules on other nations by various sources of influence.
Can't be american, that's all about the freedom of speech.
Or is that only to protect nazis and the klu klux klan?
It’s those left-wingers and their ‘cancel culture’ that are stopping these oppressed billionaires from speaking freely!
Shadow docket concierge justice for privileged people, normative justice for average people, and prerogative justice for enemies of the privileged.
As Mark Zuckerberg has said in 2017 :
"I'm here today because I believe that we must continue to stand for free expression," he said. "You should be able to say things that other people don't like, but you shouldn't be able to say things that put people in danger."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/facebook-ceo-promote...
What I can’t understand is how she was able to publish the book, but is not able speak publicly about what happened.
Presumably he meant on Facebook, not on Facebook..
Also: "Don't do evil" (Google, ca 2004)
Might buy a second copy. Can always give it away.
Great book, too. Got me to finally delete my Instagram account :)
You can always tell that Zuck continues to maintain and assert his ultimate control over Meta, because only a vindictive child acts like this.
What kind of a very sad human being must one be when you have almost all the money in the world and continue to do very stupid things with it. In my experience the people who scream and threaten the loudest kinda acknowledge the problems.
Like spend $100B on Metaverse and AI without a plan?
I can understand the passion and research for innovation and improvement. I can understand trying to earn even more money with your research and investment.
I cannot understand that when there is SO much suffering in the world that can relatively easy be solved by throwing a few billion dollars in it that one can justify spending billions in things people do not want.
The man can be the best inhabitant earth has ever known by massively funding research for good clean water, correct waste disposal, clean energy and good food for all of us. Maybe even make a profit of it! But he decides to put his massive resources in virtual reality...
At least spend a fraction of your money to give every poor woman a Divya Washing Machine[1] so that they have more time to do other things, perhaps even improving your stupid Metaverse for you.
[1]: https://www.thewashingmachineproject.org/
I still can't comprehend how they managed to blow that much money on what appears to be just a worse version of VR Chat.
When I worked there a few years back, my eyes rolled hard without VR at $22B of CapEx being spent without clearly-established market demand. They should've spent $1B at least on marketing Workplace and that home assistant box, whatever it was called.
At least he's winning in Catan.
More like Monopoly, Catan has too many rules limiting expansion
You need to read the book for the reference. Apparently mark likes to play catan and everyone else looses on purpose…
Note that she was following her lawyers advice. Not a gag order from Meta. This advice l is standard practice when you have an active litigation against you (everything you say can and will be used against you).
Edit: I stand corrected. See comment below.
There is apparently a court order involved:
"Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, secured an emergency legal order on the eve of publication preventing her from publicly discussing aspects of the book, and she faces fines of $50,000 (£37,000) each time she breaches the order."
What kind of Judge approves such a gag order?
One who understands the power of nondisclosure agreements.
You might find it surprising that an executive signed a long-lasting non-disparagement agreement, but obviously they wouldn't have got the job otherwise. These are a very real problem. Especially the use of NDAs to cover up gross misconduct.
(a particularly egregious example: Neil Gaiman!)
I understand that, but the book is out already.
We could do with establishing whether that's covered by the injunction; the article also says that _Hay_ stopped selling it for the same reason.
People are probably too young to remember the "Spycatcher" fiasco: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spycatcher
One that realizes that this cannot backfire in any way. If dad asks to throw a rock at the neighbor, whats the worst that could happen?
Someone with aspirations for higher office.
Apparently Nicholas Gowan of the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (the gag order, not the original ruling) https://securereach.net/digital-world/meta-strives-to-stifle...
Could she give a multi day filibuster live on YouTube and only be fined once?
I'm guessing they'd argue that every "aspect" discussed would be worthy of a 50k 'fine'.
Alas, a GoFundMe campaign would never gain enough traction to make fun of this fine.
Streisand effect is more useful.
Not that any of this matters, these people are too wealthy (and thus powerful) to bring to justice.
This is another great reason to read her (Sarah Wynn-Williams) book Careless People.
Sitting on stage in silence is going to cause a lot more people to talk about it. Congrats to whoever came up with the idea.