Why does everyone hate Zuck?

[JamesBond009]

• People either loved or loved to hate Bill Gates
• People either loved or were awed by Steve Jobs
• People admired Larry, Sergey, Eric, Woznaic, Case, Chambers, etc.
  
• People were mostly neutral to other tech CEOs, too

But in Zuck's case, why people are actually irritated by his presence - his whole personality, demeanor nags us! Why so?

 

[Gutwrench]

I don’t know him nor have I ever met him, but he does have a weasely punchable face. I’ve never had a Facebook account.

‘Dear Mark, this is why I hate you.’ An open letter to Zuckerberg.

Dear Mark,

F*** you. Oh, sorry, were you expecting something politer? Senators might thank for you volunteering to appear in Congress, but you helped Russian propagandists influence an election and exposed the personal data of over a billion people, so I think we're past the point of being grateful.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/open-letter-mark-zuckerberg-congress

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

I am pretty indifferent to him. Why is there no such voting option?

 

[maflynn]

I couldn't care less about him. I don't hate or love him. I'm not sure why there is no option for that in the poll ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[D.T.]

• People either loved or were awed by Steve Jobs
• People admired Larry, Sergey, Eric, Woznaic, Case, Chambers, etc.

There are plenty of anti-Jobs/Page/Brin/Bezos/Ellison people out there, highly public, big personalities, huge incomes, it's a pretty standard equation.

Zuckerberg has the extra issue of his "product" being sort of crap-tacular, his net worth feeling lop-sided, particularly in comparison to - for example - what Google or Apple have done in the technology landscape.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

• People either loved or loved to hate Bill Gates
• People either loved or were awed by Steve Jobs
• People admired Larry, Sergey, Eric, Woznaic, Case, Chambers, etc.
  
• People were mostly neutral to other tech CEOs, too

But in Zuck's case, why people are actually irritated by his presence - his whole personality, demeanor nags us! Why so?

You joined the forum - tech forum - to start a thread to ask about why people may dislike Mark Zuckerberg?

Seriously?

I'm indifferent to him (that option is strangely missing in the voting choices offered), though I don't much care for his product, and have never had a Facebook account.

I don’t know him nor have I ever met him, but he does have a weasely punchable face. I’ve never had a Facebook account.

Great response.

 

[AngerDanger]

I think @D.T. nailed it; he's a proxy for his product. Sure, he's socially awkward and not the most attractive CEO, but if you scrutinize anybody's physicality as severely as people have Zuckerberg's, we'd all look like freaks.

It's no coincidence that negative descriptions of Facebook's CEO tend to mirror criticism of Facebook itself. It's a site that wants more of you; it wants to tell you when so-and-so has pressed the "like" button on a photo you aren't even aware of. It's a site conducive to data-mining (weasely), odd interactions (antisocial), and it keeps updating with little reason as to why (odd looking).

I'm indifferent to Zuckerberg. Facebook has been a great for messaging acquaintances about college assignments, but beyond that, I don't use it.

 

[NT1440]

He operates the second largest private surveillance apparatus on the planet, second to Google, that’s why.

 

[Lioness~]

Facebook is crap, so Zuck sucks too. He made the crap.

 

[eyoungren]

Zuckerberg has the extra issue of his "product" being sort of crap-tacular, his net worth feeling lop-sided, particularly in comparison to - for example - what Google or Apple have done in the technology landscape.

For me, it's his hypocrisy. Your data is his product. To get your data he promises privacy but sells you out to third parties.

Any changes they make to FB are designed to get more of your data while promising you more privacy or that a problem has been fixed.

It's all a sham and a charade but Zuckerberg can't openly admit to that because taking away people's rose-colored glasses would cause them to leave.

It used to be about sharing I understand, but once money got involved and Zuck realized he could monetize it is when this all began to turn.

The additional kick in the head is that Zuck's own privacy on FB is protected while no one on FB can unfriend him.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

For me, it's his hypocrisy. Your data is his product. To get your data he promises privacy but sells you out to third parties.

Any changes they make to FB are designed to get more of your data while promising you more privacy or that a problem has been fixed.

It's all a sham and a charade but Zuckerberg can't openly admit to that because taking away people's rose-colored glasses would cause them to leave.

It used to be about sharing I understand, but once money got involved and Zuck realized he could monetize it is when this all began to turn.

The additional kick in the head is that Zuck's own privacy on FB is protected while no one on FB can unfriend him.

Seriously?

I hadn't known that. Okay: Now, my indifference has turned to dislike.

 

[eyoungren]

Seriously?

I hadn't known that. Okay: Now, my indifference has turned to dislike.

There is always some sort of excuse when they get caught. Some sort of reason for when they have a security breach, etc, etc.

But the reality is that Facebook is data driven. It's free because what you do or share on it is passed along and the people it's passed along to pay Facebook money for it. That can be targeted ads, developers with access to normally private data or just out and out theft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook–Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal

 

[Scepticalscribe]

There is always some sort of excuse when they get caught. Some sort of reason for when they have a security breach, etc, etc.

But the reality is that Facebook is data driven. It's free because what you do or share on it is passed along and the people it's passed along to pay Facebook money for it. That can be targeted ads, developers with access to normally private data or just out and out theft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook–Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal

The model sounds loathsome. And perfectly horrible.

I have never understood the attraction of Facebook, and have steered well away from it.

The privacy issues are obviously a major matter of concern; of equal concern has been the clear indifference of someone such as Zuckerberg to the need to address these concerns.

But, as you so clearly point out, the fact that this can all be monetised (and vast sums of money and obscene profits made from it) and that data sells means that there is little incentive on him and his ilk to address these concerns.

The Cambridge Analytica data scandal should serve as a wake up call.

And, to the OP, who has bizarrely opened an account on this site solely to discuss the popularity of Mark Zuckerberg - the reasoning behind this still baffles me - and, more telling still, has not returned to comment or remark on the thread, I'd like to add that your list of choices do not include "dislike" (as they did not include "indifferent"). An omission that perhaps could (or should) be rectified.

 

[eyoungren]

The model sounds loathsome. And perfectly horrible.

I have never understood the attraction of Facebook, and have steered well away from it.

The privacy issues are obviously a major matter of concern; of equal concern has been the clear indifference of someone such as Zuckerberg to the need to address these concerns.

But, as you so clearly point out, the fact that this can all be monetised (and vast sums of money and obscene profits made from it) and that data sells means that there is little incentive on him and his ilk to address these concerns.

The Cambridge Analytica data scandal should serve as a wake up call.

And, to the OP, who has bizarrely opened an account on this site solely to discuss the popularity of Mark Zuckerberg - the reasoning behind this still baffles me - and, more telling still, has not returned to comment or remark on the thread, I'd like to add that your list of choices do not include "dislike" (as they did not include "indifferent"). An omission that perhaps could (or should) be rectified.

Cambridge Analytica is a tempest in a teacup compared to the latest: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/technology/facebook-hack-data-breach.html

That said, I was a Facebook user up until early 2017. I joined because a friend asked me to and I stayed because it was a way to communicate and share with others I knew or had known and with family.

I left because the election of 2016 caused people to form camps and it was becoming nothing but an echo chamber. You heard only what you wanted to hear from your camp.

Some 'friends' also made the choice that because their wall (where you interact with them) was theirs no one could express a dissenting opinion or say anything that was contrary to their beliefs. I objected to that.

So, rather than be alienated from my family's viewpoints and alienating them from mine I just chose to leave. My account was deleted entirely by early 2017 but I had long before used a browser plugin to strip all my content off.

Finally, there was more than once where FB tried to redefine the user agreement so that anything you uploaded became Facebook's property.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Cambridge Analytica is a tempest in a teacup compared to the latest: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/technology/facebook-hack-data-breach.html

That said, I was a Facebook user up until early 2017. I joined because a friend asked me to and I stayed because it was a way to communicate and share with others I knew or had known and with family.

I left because the election of 2016 caused people to form camps and it was becoming nothing but an echo chamber. You heard only what you wanted to hear from your camp.

Some 'friends' also made the choice that because their wall (where you interact with them) was theirs no one could express a dissenting opinion or say anything that was contrary to their beliefs. I objected to that.

So, rather than be alienated from my family's viewpoints and alienating them from mine I just chose to leave. My account was deleted entirely by early 2017 but I had long before used a browser plugin to strip all my content off.

Finally, there was more than once where FB tried to redefine the user agreement so that anything you uploaded became Facebook's property.

In your shoes, I expect that I would have done something similar.

Colleagues of mine observing a recent election on behalf of the EU (in central America) were requested to open a FB account; I confess that I would have quibbled with this instruction.

By all means, let the observation mission have its own FB account - that is its job, it needs to let the world know via a modern social media platform, (not just traditional media) what it is doing and why it is doing this - but it not require that individual observers possess one, too.

 

[Mousse]

I'm ambivalent. On one side, I really hate Facebook and by extension, it's creator. OTOH, I find it hard to hate anyone so strikingly similar to Lt. Cmd Data.
There were hundreds of meme comparing the two back when the Senate grilled Zuck.

 

[pika2000]

In many emerging markets, where the society's critical thinking have not matured yet for the digital age, Facebook is pushing their platform hard with free access, partnering with carriers, and so on, to the point that majority of the people in the region think Facebook is the internet. Considering Facebook is rive with fake accounts spreading hate and extremism, the people in those markets become easily influenced through the social media, and they are being exploited heavily by politicians, extremists, etc. Facebook knows this, and the fake accounts are obvious, but turned a blind eye because those generates "engagement," and that is "good" for Facebook's own stats.

Zuck's ignorance and snobbish "silicon-valley" attitude on this issue is what makes me dislike him. There's just seemingly zero ethics in the company.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I'm ambivalent. On one side, I really hate Facebook and by extension, it's creator. OTOH, I find it hard to hate anyone so strikingly similar to Lt. Cmd Data.
There were hundreds of meme comparing the two back when the Senate grilled Zuck.

Lt-Cmdr Data - for all that he was an android - was clearly governed by firm ethical principles and - despite his protestations - seemed to have some strange sort of empathy with living creatures.

I doubt such principles govern the conduct and aspirations of Mr Zuckerberg. Indeed, he strikes me as the sort of arrogant, entitled individual who believes himself above such petty constraining and constricting concerns such as civic responsibility, ethics, and rule of law considerations.

 

[arkitect]

In many emerging markets, where the society's critical thinking have not matured yet for the digital age, Facebook is pushing their platform hard with free access, partnering with carriers, and so on, to the point that majority of the people in the region think Facebook is the internet. Considering Facebook is rive with fake accounts spreading hate and extremism, the people in those markets become easily influenced through the social media, and they are being exploited heavily by politicians, extremists, etc. Facebook knows this, and the fake accounts are obvious, but turned a blind eye because those generates "engagement," and that is "good" for Facebook's own stats.

Zuck's ignorance and snobbish "silicon-valley" attitude on this issue is what makes me dislike him. There's just seemingly zero ethics in the company.

Excellent answer.

Also, see WhatsApp in how "social media" has been abused and led to lynch mobs in India…
The co-founder Brian Acton also walked away from WhatsApp/Facebook.
But Zuckerberg seems to be the proverbial duck off of which's back the water just rolls…


Edit:
Reminiscent of the way tobacco companies shrugged off the West and went full on into the developing world. Making profits out of uneducated users and lax health laws.
[doublepost=1539714551][/doublepost]

I'm ambivalent. On one side, I really hate Facebook and by extension, it's creator. OTOH, I find it hard to hate anyone so strikingly similar to Lt. Cmd Data.
There were hundreds of meme comparing the two back when the Senate grilled Zuck.

Surely the pic on the left has been 'shopped.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Excellent answer.

Also, see WhatsApp in how "social media" has been abused and led to lynch mobs in India…
The co-founder Brian Acton also walked away from WhatsApp/Facebook.
But Zuckerberg seems to be the proverbial duck off of which's back the water just rolls…


Edit:
Reminiscent of the way tobacco companies shrugged off the West and went full on into the developing world. Making profits out of uneducated users and lax health laws.
[doublepost=1539714551][/doublepost]
Surely the pic on the left has been 'shopped.

I would imagine that some sort of EU regulation might make an appearance at some stage to address deficiencies in such matters; (we need not discuss just where the writ of such regulation might run), but, your point stands: better (unregulated) opportunities probably exist among the less developed regions of the world for whom social media is a passionate fact of life and an absolute necessity.

 

[Apple fanboy]

• People either loved or loved to hate Bill Gates
• People either loved or were awed by Steve Jobs
• People admired Larry, Sergey, Eric, Woznaic, Case, Chambers, etc.
  
• People were mostly neutral to other tech CEOs, too

But in Zuck's case, why people are actually irritated by his presence - his whole personality, demeanor nags us! Why so?

Where is the I’m not really bothered either way by him? Don’t love him. Don’t hate him. In fact before this thread I don’t think I’ve ever thought about him.

 

[Mousse]

Lt-Cmdr Data - for all that he was an android - was clearly governed by firm ethical principles and - despite his protestations - seemed to have some strange sort of empathy with living creatures.

I doubt such principles govern the conduct and aspirations of Mr Zuckerberg. Indeed, he strikes me as the sort of arrogant, entitled individual who believes himself above such petty constraining and constricting concerns such as civic responsibility, ethics, and rule of law considerations.

So he's more like Lore, except without emotions. Now I have no qualms about hating him.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

So he's more like Lore, except without emotions. Now I have no qualms about hating him.

Ah yes, Lore; that is a far better analogy than poor Data ever would have been.

 

[rafark]

particularly in comparison to - for example - what Google or Apple have done in the technology landscape.

Wait, what? One of the reasons people bought smartphones was Facebook. Simply put, without Facebook, the iPhone would be just a small niche product. Facebook made people of all ages and backgrounds want to have an internet connection. like it or not, Facebook has changed people's lifes as much as -if not more than- Google or Apple.

 

[eyoungren]

Wait, what? One of the reasons people bought smartphones was Facebook. Simply put, without Facebook, the iPhone would be just a small niche product. Facebook made people of all ages and backgrounds want to have an internet connection. like it or not, Facebook has changed people's lifes as much as -if not more than- Google or Apple.

Wait yourself…

I bought my first smartphone in May 2009 because I wanted a smartphone. It wasn't an iPhone and I wasn't on Facebook at the time. I simply wanted to be able to email and browse the internet outside of my home.

Facebook didn't even come into the picture for me until November 2009 and that was driven solely by a friend pleading for me to join - not because I wanted Facebook on my phone. And when I did get it I dealt with it on my laptop. I didn't integrate it into my phone until 2011.

Maybe I am in the minority (again) but nope, FB was never the reason I wanted a smartphone.