I NEVER thought I shall say this, so deep breath here we go:

[G+_George Kozi]

I NEVER thought I shall say this, so.... deep breath.... here we go:

 

Well done Mark Zuckerberg ! I wish Google or Larry Page or Sergey Brin   would have done this. They didn't.

 

An "overseas" user.

 

Originally shared by Max Huijgen

 

Facebook CEO mad at US govt for alienating non-US customers

 Mark Zuckerberg understands how harmful the NSA revelations are for a global business. Not spying on Americans won't help Facebook clients who come from all over the world. Refreshing view.

 

Zuckerberg said after the news broke about Prism, the government surveillance program that targets major internet companies: "The government response was, 'Oh don't worry we are not spying on any Americans.' Oh wonderful that's really helpful to companies that are trying to serve people around the world and that's really going to inspire confidence in American internet companies."

 

"I thought that was really bad," he said and he was right. It's a pity we rarely hear the tech industry and especially the global companies like Google and Microsoft defending their overseas customers. 

 

If cloud and social media companies want to keep our business, they should show responsibility for our data irrespective of the nationality of their clients. Patriotism is misplaced in a global company.

 

Did you contemplate moving to f.i. European companies because of the "open hunt" on the data of non-Americans?

[G+_George Kozi]

yeah... because that's what matters...

[G+_Jim T]

The grammar is a meme. Google "all your base are belong to us"

[G+_Philip O'Connell]

Not normally a fan of Zuck, but he deserves credit or pointing this out. All the other companies only give a damn if americans are the victims, but if it is just the rest of the world they couldn't care less.

[G+_Jeff Stevens]

The thing about this comment is that Zuckerberg seems unhappy that the US spying is undermining his business overseas. He didn't respond "Why are you saying on innocent people?", he complained that it hurt his business.

 

It's not unlike his initiative to bring Internet to poorer people in the world. While it is a laudable goal, one has to wonder if the real objective is bringing them Internet...or bringing them Facebook.

[G+_scott colbert]

John F it's about as obscure as your idiocy.

[G+_Jim T]

Ease up guys. People don't magically know things. The grammar is worthy of comment, that's why it became a meme in the first place.

[G+_Jim T]

Jeff Stevens , the crafting of the statement is interesting. The "Spying on innocent people" line leads to the old "if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear" arguments and other related rubbish and distractions. But saying it this way he's bringing an angle that cuts across moral rationalisations to consequences, which even ardent right winger's are supposed to care about. Do you think it worked? Are there other ways of saying it?

[G+_Jeff Stevens]

The "if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear" argument is so bankrupt that I can't think it's a weakness in my argument.  The biggest problem is that the "you've got nothing to fear" is predicated on the spying agency being trustworthy.  The NSA has already shown it's not trustworthy because it doesn't follow the Constitution or its own internal rules.  

[G+_Jim T]

Jeff Stevens I agree it's a bankrupt argument. But nevertheless a lot of people still, even now, hide behind that kind of defence as a moral standpoint (also, "think of the children"). It's unlikely that such people could be reached by more of the same argument - it's not that the argument is weak morally or logically, it's just possibly ineffectual against some people. I think Zuck shows another valid tactic to try to reach those people who think civil liberties are abstractions that don't affect anyone who's not a terrorist or a trouble maker. This could be an attempt to show how such civil liberties do affect even big businesses.

[G+_Jeff Stevens]

Yeah, I know they do, but even as a practical matter, I can destroy that argument pretty effectively.  

 

He might be saying that, yes.  But years of experience with Facebook's interest in expansion at the cost of privacy and user experience leans me toward him wanting to expand Facebook, not stand up for privacy or Internet access.

[G+_Aldo Merino]

What are we supposed to be giving Zuckerberg credit for here? For saying "[That] was really bad"? ...like, that's it? It's a bit hard to tell from the original citation which bit is Zuckerberg's and which bit is the author's.

 

I agree with the general notion, though I don't doubt Page and Brin, along with many other techies, agree with it, whether they say it publicly or not. The revelations have certainly done them no favors. I would also certainly give the Google guys the benefit of the doubt rather than, say, Zuckerberg, who has proven himself to be a fairly dubious person when it comes to matters of privacy or principle.

[G+_Jeff Stevens]

John F I can't regard the comments here as "vicious attacks".  They were rude comments, sure.

[G+_George Kozi]

I shall now lock this.