“I want to respond to Marc Andreessen's comments about India”

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102645335962321

by coloneltcb • 10 years ago

67 65 10 years ago

facebook.com

dfine• 10 years ago

Context: http://www.fastcompany.com/3056581/fast-feed/marc-andreessen...

kaonashi• 10 years ago

Is there a technical reason to limit the content provided, or is it all for commercial exploitation?

gearoidoc2• 10 years ago

Its to create an impression within India that the internet == Facebook.

tyre5• 10 years ago

Good damage control by Zuckerberg, but notice that his comment says nothing substantial about why Free Basics _isn't_ similar to colonialism.

It is absolutely about growth and user acquisition. They are using their capital to subsidize and lock in a monstrous market. Is that bad? There are reasonable arguments on both sides.

But Facebook is not a charity. Facebook is not a social cause.

If it were, Zuckerberg would have sold his shares and reinvested the cash back into Facebook when announcing his plan to donate $45bn. There's a reason billionaires invest their money in charitable funds, and not all of it for tax reasons. There are some things markets just aren't great at solving.

mliker• 10 years ago

lock in a monstrous market so that they can what? advertise to poor people who can barely afford clean water and food? yeah, great strategy...

Chinjut• 10 years ago

And why exactly do you think Facebook is offering this service? (And, furthermore, why exactly do you think they are offering this service with access only to Facebook and Facebook approved sites, rather than to the Internet at large)?

[On edit: I seem to be getting a lot of downvotes on this post, yet no actual answers to the question]

stfnppv• 10 years ago

It's an investment. India is an emerging market, and those folks' purchasing power can only increase. It is truly a great strategy, because his company will be the one collecting data on what they like and what they don't before they're even able to buy stuff. That is a sure way to beat your competition.

yummyfajitas• 10 years ago

India's growth rate is a fairly consistent 6-7% and the growth rate of the upper class (read: anyone > 1/2 US poverty level) is probably significantly higher.

Zuckerberg is running a long game here.

Furthermore, anyplace where Facebook isn't huge is a place where a competitor can grow. Note how Whatsapp spread from India/Africa to the rest of the world.

oneloop• 10 years ago

You're the same kind of people that would tell Zuckerberg "Why do you want teenagers? What are you going to do, advertise to them? They have no money"

Don't be ridiculous.

lokedhs2• 10 years ago

I can tell you've never been to India.

What do you really think the world looks like? Do you honesty think that most Indians can't afford food?

zeeshanm• 10 years ago

To be clear and fair, Free Basics is the East India Company of our day.

neximo4• 10 years ago

You're kidding? Nothing like

Lazare2• 10 years ago

That seems like the sort of thing you might say if you had no clue what the East India Company was or did.

vezzy-fnord2• 10 years ago

Charities are part of a market process. "For-profit firm" and "market" are not synonymous.

tyre5• 10 years ago

I don't understand your first sentence. The second one is true, did my comment confuse the two?

A market is a group of people. A for-profit firm provides good or services (value) to individuals in a market in exchange for money.

cJ0th2• 10 years ago

Good damage control by Zuckerberg

Sort of. I mean it sounds lovely but he is just saying words. Do people really pay attention to PR and if so how would this comment influence what anyone is feeling?

He is emitting positive signals but they are weak. Where is the substance behind these (cheap) words? IMHO Zuckerberg would have to actually DO something extraordinarily profound to come across as a sincere human being.

I am not trying to imply he is evil but all his actions fail to make me believe that he is a well meaning guy.

tyre5• 10 years ago

Read the comments. Most people eat this stuff up. Companies do PR because it works.

hkmurakami• 10 years ago

But Facebook is not a charity. Facebook is not a social cause. If it were, Zuckerberg would have sold his shares and reinvested the cash back into Facebook when announcing his plan to donate $45bn.

Could you elaborate on your reasoning for this? I've reread this a handful of times and haven't been able to figure out the rationale for such a move under those conditions.

tyre5• 10 years ago

Sure. Zuck realized he wanted to do a lot of good with his money. If he thought that Facebook was the best way to have an impact, then he'd simply donate his shares back to the company, which would give them ~$45bn in capital to reinvest in their mission.

He didn't do that. Which means, as the person with the single greatest understanding of Facebook, he thought he could have a more positive impact on humanity by putting that money elsewhere.

This doesn't mean Facebook doesn't do good things. This doesn't mean Facebook isn't a great company. His actions merely show that, for some objectives, he thinks other organizations can have a better impact.

xorblurb• 10 years ago

There is utterly no content in this reponse.

( edit: s/this/there/ )

strictnein• 10 years ago

Andreessen's apology earlier today:

https://twitter.com/pngmarca/status/697490886037368832

lhnz2• 10 years ago

Early on in my thinking about our mission, I traveled to India and was inspired by the humanity, spirit and values of the people. It solidified my understanding that when all people have the power to share their experiences, the entire world will make progress.

This is a great example of how virtue signalling can be a great way of promoting your brand to young progressives.

In 2016, what better example of 'humanity', 'spirit' and the 'values of people' is there than the inspirational social network, Facebook?

ashark2• 10 years ago

This is a great example of how virtue signalling can be a great way of promoting your brand to young progressives.

I'm not up on, ah, promoting one's brand by way of virtue signaling, but is this a great example? It reads like something out of a bad college application essay.

lhnz2• 10 years ago

'Great example' as in representative, not as in exemplary.

I find attempts to financially capitalise on looking Good gross and wanted to draw attention to it. Zuckerberg does it quite often but he's not the only one.

tn134• 10 years ago

Marc was ill informed just like many in west. A lot of people think that India was economically better off under an oppressive colonial rule.

Facts: - India's rate of growth under Britain was 1% and basically stagnant. - India's rate of growth under Socialist policies was 3% (Racists people often refer to his a Hindu rate of growth implying Hinduism is responsible for the poverty though the term was not coined initially for that purpose) - India's rate of growth post half hearted economic liberalization has been around 6% or more.

mdw• 10 years ago

This post would do better to provide citations for these facts (is this 1% growth for nearly 200 years?), and what was the original purpose for the term 'Hindu' rate of growth?

Also, why brand 'many in the west' as ill informed - was that nessisary?

ajain153• 10 years ago

Originally - derogatory term that implies that India, a majority Hindu country, is full of people who are too content with their standards of living and are too lazy to work towards a higher standard of growth. Often used as a contrasting term with South Korea's "Miracle on the Han River"

tn134• 10 years ago

You can always look this information yourself by couple of google searches.

Many in west is a perfectly valid use of phrase. Deep Hinduphobia causes a lot of (even liberal) westerners to look down on Hindus and India in general.

For example Benedict Evans displayed his ignorance using the phrase "Hindu Rate" of growth in reply to that infamous tweet. This is both Hinduphobic and racist in my opinion.

Original background of "Hindu rate of growth".

Independent India followed Soviet Styled socialist policies (should I say Bernie Sander styled). India could not grow under such policies not matter what government did. An economist Prof. Raj Krishna concluded that this was India's destiny to remain poor linking it with Hindu concept of Karma. He was not joking. Marx and Weber have serious influence on India's leftist academia (which is almost all academia). Marx dismissed Hindus as barberic because they worshiped trees and monkeys. Where as Weber argued that Hindus and Buddhists can not achieve prosperity through industrialization and capitalism because according to him they lacked individualism. Prof. Raj Krishna's phrase originated there.

Research by a Belgian Paul Bairoch has collected data about India and China's economy since 1700s. Both China and India contributed to world GDP 24% and 33% respectively which fell to 20% in 1800.

Here is the link with details : http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns/s_gurumurthy/Boss-re...

riteshkpr• 10 years ago

Comparing the rate of growth of an independent country vs colony is not really required. Having/Being a colony is not justified, whatever be the growth. An independent country where natives freely decide how to run themselves is far more important than any metric.

When people say "xyz was ill informed" - thats BS. Marc should educate himself before he opens his mouth. He can make an ill informed investment decision but if he makes a comment that hurts a nations sentiments then there's no way to justify it.

tn134• 10 years ago

You are right. But very often people in west do not want to acknowledge poor Indian Hindus as even people let alone natives who can govern themselves. This might sound like a stretch but look at the propaganda that is trying to revive now discredited Aryan Invasion theory.

douche2• 10 years ago

Outside of a bare handful of places in the world before 100 years ago, 1% was wild, extravagant growth for a pre-industrial economy.

metaphorm• 10 years ago

isn't the real point that India was delayed in being able to industrialize their economy due to exploitation by British colonial rule?

tn134• 10 years ago

Happy to MZ coming forward to apologize and clarify, I would have imagined he would have stayed out of it.

Those ill informed comments from Marc who is otherwise libertarian were disparaging.

phatfish• 10 years ago

Yup, must be a LOT of money at stake.

davesque2• 10 years ago

Whether or not there are darker reasons for Andreessen's statement, it really confuses me why people in such prominent positions don't stop and spend some time considering how comments like his might be interpreted. Zuckerberg's response is not surprising in any way and also conspicuously lacks any direct comments about Free Basics.

tyre5• 10 years ago

Because "people in such prominent positions" are people too. They make mistakes. They say stupid things about subjects they don't understand. They sometimes don't empathize or realize how something might sound to someone in a position that they (the speaker) has never been in.

Remember, these Valley idols share almost all of their DNA with the rest of us.

davesque2• 10 years ago

Yes, but I, an average nobody, know that basically no one will notice the things I say in most cases. Therefore, I feel a lot less cautious about spouting off online (whether or not this is wise). Someone in his situation has to be thinking differently and, if they're not, maybe they need a reality check like this.

drzaiusapelord• 10 years ago

it really confuses me why people in such prominent positions don't stop and spend some time considering how comments like his might be interpreted.

A lot of these types of people, if not all of them, are pretty much surrounded by 'yes men' and asskissers 24/7. I think there's a big problem with the wealthy and social disconnect. Its probably unsolvable.

redthrowaway3• 10 years ago

Does anyone else find these "Sorry for badmouthing x, I'm a huge fan of x" apologies offensively artificial? Is there any reason to effuse about the people you insulted beyond trying to look like you care about them? Both Zuck and pmarca went on about how amazing India is, and both of them came across as bullshitting.

pdabbadabba2• 10 years ago

Genuine question: Did Zuckerberg badmouth India? If so, I missed it. I thought he was just trying to distance himself from Andreessen's tweet. If so, I don't see how this is an instance of a ""Sorry for badmouthing x, I'm a huge fan of x" apology.

gearoidoc2• 10 years ago

Think he may have been referring to Andreessens back down.

redthrowaway3• 10 years ago

Zuck didn't, but his post is FB firefighting. When a company's most high-profile investor and board member starts a fire, the CEO puts it out. Whether or not you want to call it an apology is immaterial to the substance of my point: that kind of language comes across as incredibly insincere and patronizing.

obulpathi• 10 years ago

Marc Andreessen's comments showed the true color of the Facebook.

newman314• 10 years ago

I found it flabbergasting when I first saw marca's tweet yesterday.

Ill-informed tweet indeed from someone that should have known better or better yet not said anything.

sg47• 10 years ago

I wonder what Marc Andreessen thinks about blacks and slavery.

pj_mukh• 10 years ago

If I wanted to give Marc Andreessen the benefit of the doubt he may have been referring to the time in the 80's when India was closed off to foreign investment (and not British anti-colonialism).

Even as an Indian though, I don't know if the closing of investments was due to "anti-colonialism" or just a general socialist, USSR-like policy?

ajain153• 10 years ago

His later tweets seemed to suggest that he was going for the latter, so it might have been a wrong choice of words for him BUT his partner in crime Benedict Evans said something even worse and then seemed to be justifying his comments for the rest of the evening

josh_carterPDX• 10 years ago

I liked that Marc took responsibility for what he said. I don't like that his apology included that he spoke about something he was not properly educated about. In the long run it's not going to do anything to diminish his career, but it will cause others to second guess things he speaks about in the future and there will be a cloud that hangs over him as a result. Hope he bounces back. Sucks when you put your foot in your mouth.

ajain153• 10 years ago

Whats flabbergasting is that Benedict Evans completely got away even though the things he said were waaaaaaaay more offensive than Andreessen (Using a derogatory phrase and being utterly aware of the context behind it). This kind of ignorance is dangerous coming from kingmakers of the valley

horsecaptin• 10 years ago

India, under the Raj was being plundered. PLUNDERED. Here, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4

ddw• 10 years ago

Why does it say "Kevin Rose and n others like this."

I don't have FB so I'm not logged in. Does FB have a list of "celebrity" users that it highlights when they like a post?

lokedhs2• 10 years ago

Zuckerberg could easily dispel any doubts by simply not including Facebook in the free basics offering.

The fact that he doesn't tells me more about his motives than anything he says.

known• 10 years ago

"Power will go to the hands of rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low caliber and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in political squabbles" --Winston Churchill

Andreessen repeated the above quote in his lingo.

“I want to respond to Marc Andreessen's comments about India”

Related Stories