"... that helps you achieve your goals, create what you want to see in the world, experience any adventure, be a better friend to those you care about, and grow to become the person you aspire to be. Meta's vision is to bring personal superintelligence to everyone.... This is distinct from others in the industry who believe superintelligence should be directed centrally towards automating all valuable work, and then humanity will live on a dole of its output. At Meta, we believe that people pursuing their individual aspirations is how we have always made progress expanding prosperity, science, health, and culture. This will be increasingly important in the future as well.... Personal devices like glasses that understand our context because they can see what we see, hear what we hear, and interact with us throughout the day will become our primary computing devices.... Meta believes strongly in building personal superintelligence that empowers everyone...."
If you want the "personal" touch, here's the purported person, Mark Zuckerberg, interfacing with the camera to explain how personal the Meta approach to AI is going to be:
"I want to marry someone who allows me to protect feminine energy in a world that is forcing me to be a girl boss because they keep sending Steve to prison. Perhaps I have…"
"Steve" = Steve Bannon. Winters works as a White House correspondent for Steve Bannon’s "War Room."
"What is the social scene like in Maga term two? '‘I think there is more of a diversity of ways that groups enter this movement, so you get a broader… For instance, Maha — it’s more the trad wife, pro-natalist people who are really into that. It all mixes. It’s a bigger tent,' says Winters. There is also a bunch of tech bros in town, but to the disappointment of some in the Maga coalition and some of the young Republicans looking for husbands, they rarely come out...."
Are women today thinking about themselves in terms of "feminine energy"?
I remember when Zuckerberg wanted real people to interact in a virtual space called Metaverse. But people didn't want to go there. The rooms were empty. But 4 years later, what Z is talking about sounds like the solution to the core problem with Metaverse. The rooms are full of interesting people — all there ready to talk to you and full of interesting stories and knowledge all framed around your preferences and tuned to your mood.
Why doesn't the guy who’s been giving money to the school not want to give it anymore? Even if Zuck has turned against DEI efforts within institutions, this is a free-standing school, located in a place where it serves underprivileged children. That sounds like a traditional charity. Why would you cut that off? The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative has given only $100 million to this school over the past 4 years. What's that in the larger scheme of Zuckerberg's wealth? You're just suddenly casting out hundreds of children you've made a show of saving from the "trauma" you attributed to their status as "low-income." I'm sorry, I don't see how closing the school is worth doing.
What is the evidence that the closure of the school represents opposition to the greater DEI agenda? I'm seeing this:
Yes, there was Zelensky, in his traditional wartime outfit, taunted by Trump and Vance for not wearing a suit, but there was also Zuckerberg, more forcibly eschewing the suit:
NEW: Mark Zuckerberg rips off his suit and starts performing in a blue jumpsuit at his wife's 40th birthday party.
What
The billionaire surprised his wife at her birthday party by wearing singer Benson Boone’s jumpsuit that he used during his 2025 Grammy performance of… pic.twitter.com/ompbHIW8mp
ADDED: Did Trump taunt Zelensky about his clothes? I was thinking about what he said when Zelensky first arrived — "Hey, you're all dressed up" — but I see that after Vance went hard on the clothing issue, Trump said: "And I do like your clothing, by the way":
The clip I'm extracting is part of a long discussion of what jujitsu has done for Zuckerberg. He says:
I do think a lot of our society has become very, like, I don't know, I, I don't even know the right word for it, but it's, like, it's kinda, like, neutered or, like, emasculated and.. there's, like, a whole energy in [jujitsu] that I, I think it's, it is very healthy in the right balance. I mean, I think part of the reason, I mean, every one of the things that I enjoy about it is I feel like I can just like express myself.... It's like when you're running a company, people typically don't want to see you being like this ruthless person who's like, just like, I'm just gonna like crush the people I'm competing with.... I think in some ways when people see me competing in the sport, they're like, oh no, that's the real Mark.... It's like, that's the real one.... I think a lot of the corporate world is, is like pretty culturally neutered. And... I grew up, I have three sisters, no brothers, I have three daughters, no sons. So I'm like surrounded by girls and women like my, my whole life....
He masculinized himself through martial arts — or so he says to Joe Rogan. Later, they will discuss hunting... with bows and arrows. Zuck exults in his discovery of masculinity:
So I think, I don't know, there's, there's something, the the, the kind of masculine energy I think is, is good....
Masculinity is good. There. He's said it. But he must hedge:
And obviously, You know, society has plenty of that, but, but I think corporate culture was really like trying to get away from it. And I do think that there's just something, it's like, I don't know, the, these, all these forms of energy are good. And I think having a culture that like celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits that are really positive.
That goes on my list of things he may have discussed with Trump. Absurdly, this song played in my head:
Back to Zuck:
And that's, that has been, that has been a kind of a positive experience for me. Just like having a thing that I can just like do with my guy friends and... it's just like, we just like beat each other a bit. I dunno. It's, it's good....
Fight Club!
And then, no surprise, Zuckerberg must acknowledge the women who have called for a reshaping corporate culture. He switches into a neutered version of himself and says what every non-jujitsu fiber of his being knows he must say:
It's, I like, I do think that I, if you're a a woman going into a company, it probably feels like it's too masculine. And it's like there isn't enough of the kind of the energy that that, that you may naturally have. And it probably feels like there are all these things that are set up that are biased against you. And that's not good either, because you want, you want women to be able to succeed and and, like, have companies that can unlock all the value from having great people no matter, you know, what their background or gender, you know.
Having mouthed the article of faith — women have a rightful place in corporations and corporations work better when they give women what is owed — Zuckerberg critiques the excesses of feminism:
But, but I think these things can all always go a little far. And I think it's one thing to say we want to be kind of like welcoming and make a good environment for everyone. And I think it's another to basically say that masculinity is bad. And I, I just think we kind of swung culturally to that part of the, the kind of the spectrum where, you know, it's all like, okay, masculinity is toxic. We have to like get rid of it completely. It's, like, no, like it's, both of these things are good, right? It's like you want, like, feminine energy, you want masculine energy. Like I, I think that that's like you're gonna have parts of society that have more of one or the other. I think that that's all good. But, but I do think the corporate culture sort of had swung towards being this somewhat more neutered thing. And I didn't really feel that until I got involved in martial arts, which I think is still a more, much more masculine culture....
Is Zuckerberg truly masculine? He longs for masculinity, but it's a longing that seems to arise from a feeling that there is too much femininity and that femininity is enervating. There's something strange — something Californian — about all this discussion of "energy" and something sad about feeling "surrounded by girls and women like my whole life" and seeking a cure in a fight club. Zuckerberg does have a father — and he seems like a fine man who was entirely present in the family. Maybe Zuckerberg is doing a performance for Joe Rogan (and for Trump). But all that jujitsu training sounds like a lot of work. I'll assume for now that his search for masculinity is sincere. And quite aside from his physique and his psyche, his thoughts on gender energy in the corporate world matter. Some of us might think the workplace should be gender neutral — just treat everyone as an individual! — but he seems to have some woo-woo ideas about the balance of masculine and feminine energy.
In my view, it’s at least pointing in the right direction, in line with my Indigo Blob theory about how the lines between nonpartisan institutions and partisan actors have become blurred. In the B.T. days — Before Trump — journalists who were appointed (or who appointed themselves) as fact-checkers tended to be experienced generalists with a scrupulous reputation for nonpartisanship — a sharp contrast to edgier and less experienced journalists in the Trump era who would later claim to own the disinformation beat. Perhaps because demand for fact-checking was coming overwhelmingly from the left... the journalists who selected into the subfield tended to be especially left of center....
The headline writer has committed to Theory #1, but Roose outlines 2 different theories:
Theory #1: Zuck is a grasping semi-human:
... Meta — a shape-shifting company that has thrown itself at every major tech trend of the last decade... has a fundamental hollowness at its core. It is not quite sure what it is.... But in the meantime, it will adopt whatever values Mr. Zuckerberg thinks it needs to survive
Theory #2: Zuck's heart has come alive:
I’ve spent a lot of time studying the right-wing conversion narratives of disaffected liberals, and Mr. Zuckerberg’s recent arc fills the bill surprisingly well: A wealthy 40-year-old man with a sullied public reputation starts listening to Joe Rogan and develops an interest in mixed martial arts and other hypermasculine hobbies, grows annoyed by the woke left and angry at the mainstream media, rebrands himself as a bad boy, and adopts the label of a “classical liberal” while quietly supporting most of the tenets of MAGA conservatism....
The boldface headings are mine. I'd like to think that was obvious, but I know some readers don't even realize that indented material is quotation.
Mr. Zuckerberg has long been a pragmatist who has gone where the political winds have blown. He has flip-flopped on how much political content should be shown to Facebook and Instagram users, previously saying social networks should be about fun, relatable content from family and friends but then on Tuesday saying Meta would show more personalized political content....
Mr. Zuckerberg was never comfortable with the involvement of outside fact-checkers, academics or researchers in his company, one of the executives said. He now sees many of the steps taken after the 2016 election as a mistake... two executives said.... Those who have known Mr. Zuckerberg for decades describe him as a natural libertarian, who enjoyed reading books extolling free expression and the free market system after he dropped out of Harvard to start Facebook in 2004....
I'd like to think that the idea of freedom of speech won out in the marketplace of ideas, but I can understand how the speech controllers gravitate toward the idea that Zuckerberg was always a right-winger and he's just regressing after faking aspirations to higher values.
"The fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the U.S...."
Mark Zuckerberg explains in this video posted today:
"What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with differing ideas...."
ADDED: Meta is moving its "trust and safety" and "content moderations" teams out of California and into Texas, where there is "less concern about [their] bias."
AND: Zuckerberg says his company needs to ally with the U.S. government in order to be able to fight the censorship that is coming from foreign governments. It's been "difficult over the past 4 years," because "even the U.S. government has pushed for censorship." "By going after us and other American companies, it has emboldened other governments to go even further. But now, we have the opportunity to restore free expression and I am excited to take it."
This is great! I hope it goes well. I wish I new more about how much of this emerged from recent hobnobbing with Musk and Trump at Mar-a-Lago, but I can see Zuckerberg is smart not to talk about that. His criticism of the Biden administration and response to Trump is plain enough.
"... at his philanthropy that could be perceived as partisan, and he has tamped down employee activism at Meta said [friends, advisers, and executives], who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to do so or did not want to jeopardize their relationships with Mr. Zuckerberg.... 'The political environment, I think I didn’t have much sophistication around, and I think I just fundamentally misdiagnosed the problem,' Mr. Zuckerberg said during a recent interview at a live podcast event in San Francisco. Last month, Mr. Zuckerberg publicly expressed regret around some of his political activity in a letter to Congress. He said that in 2021, the Biden administration 'pressured' Meta into censoring more Covid-19 content than Mr. Zuckerberg felt comfortable with. And he said he would not repeat the contributions he made in 2020 to support electoral infrastructure because the gifts made him appear not 'neutral.' Mr. Zuckerberg’s evolution has drawn comparatively little attention compared to that of tech titans like Elon Musk... But it is also reflective of a larger shift in Silicon Valley, where chief executives have grown frustrated with contentious social issues. Their response has largely been to back away from it."
Musk openly supports Trump. Maybe Zuckerberg secretly supports Trump. Wouldn't that look the same as being "done with politics"? There are certainly advantages to hiding one's support for Trump. And we're told he's had 2 one-on-one phone calls with Trump in the last few months.
"... to say something so obviously untrue.... Mr. Zuckerberg's phrasing... avoids any overt concession that the efforts to influence the company actually caused Meta to suppress speech. The closest the letter comes to admitting causation is Mr. Zuckerberg's assertion that he told his teams at the time that 'we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any Administration in either direction -- and we're ready to push back if something like this happens again.' This sounds like bold defiance. But 'if something like that happens again' suggests that Meta didn't push back when it happened before -- a backhanded admission that government pressure caused Meta to 'compromise.'... Mr. Zuckerberg's caution about causation speaks volumes about his fears (or those of his lawyers) that, if the truth were out, Meta would be legally vulnerable."
In 2021, senior administration officials "repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content," Zuckerberg wrote in a letter to the House Judiciary Committee.
This included censoring "humor and satire," he added, noting that officials "expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn't agree."
"I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it," Zuckerberg wrote.
Meta wouldn't make the same decision today and would "push back" if presented with such a scenario again, he added.
"But look, as an American, it's, like, hard not to get emotional about that spirit and that fight. And I think that's why a lot of people like the guy."
Said Mark Zuckerberg, who's not endorsing anyone this time around.
Mark Zuckerberg says that it’s "hard not to get emotional" about the spirit Trump showed getting up and pumping his fist with the American flag behind him after being shot. He says it’s "one of the most badass things I've ever seen."
If you don't want to spend much money/time on apocalypse, death is a simple Plan B.
But Mark Zuckerberg seems to be spending $270 million — chump change, for him — on a place he's got to fortify somehow. Even if he can get to it, how does he prevent other people from barging in... or his servants from rising up and slaughtering him for dinner?
And it's a better answer to the question of what to "love and hate about Threads" than anything in the article, which suggests we ought to love Threads because it's easy to get on it via your Instagram account (which millions did without realizing that they can't delete their Threads account without deleting their Instagram account).
Anyway, for me, the key thing to like (or "love") would be good, readable writing (and part of readability is the absence of visual clutter). But Threads won't let me look at it as a web page, and I won't accept the app without seeing that it's something I want. It's what people used to call a pig in a poke. Or, in some countries, a cat in a bag. At least with Twitter, I can see the pig/cat.
But let's think about that comment (in the post title). It states the "lesser of 2 evils" principle. I understand that in an election, but is this a lesser-of-2-evils situation? We don't need to choose one or the other. We can reject both.
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle writes: "For the lesser evil can be seen in comparison with the greater evil as a good, since this lesser evil is preferable to the greater one, and whatever preferable is good". The modern formulation was popularized by Thomas à Kempis' devotional bookThe Imitation of Christ written in early 15th century.In part IV of his Ethics, Spinoza states the following maxim:
Proposition 65: "According to the guidance of reason, of two things which are good, we shall follow the greater good, and of two evils, follow the less."
I'm sure these wise men all realized that there are circumstances where you can choose neither. For example, I abstained in the last election, and I endorse abstention as an option and argue with those who say you're doing something wrong if you refuse to vote.
I get diverted into the Wikipedia article "False dilemma." The best thing about that article is this cool poster from 1910:
ADDED: I'm just noticing that the scales held aloft by the Chief Justice embody the principle of the lesser of 2 evils. There are just 2 options, and the weightier one ought to win.
AND: At least the Justice is considering legal arguments as the 2 options and choosing between the entities who are the parties in the lawsuit. By contrast, in the WaPo commenter's formulation, the 2 options are 2 human beings — Zuckerberg and Musk. We're not expected to understand the substance of what we'd be getting if we chose Threads or Twitter. That's too hard and too sober for us, the social media people, who gravitate toward decisions that are personified and inflated with scary, emotive insinuations of evil.
I usually read Twitter as a website, along with most of my other on-line reading, including Facebook. I like to move around when I'm getting ideas for articles to read, not be trapped in the company's stifling, controlling environment.
It's not surprising for Threads to begin with massive downloading if there's no other way even to glance at it. I don't think the NYT article answers my question, but I bailed halfway in and just googled it.
Currently you can access Threads only via the iOS or Android apps. There is no desktop version at this stage, and Meta could not say when it might make one available.
This is an article in the NYT, and I'm annoyed at myself for spending the time to try to understand what is going on. These 2 showboats want our attention, and now I'm checking to see just how old, tall, and heavy each of them is and what that means in a "cage match."
Ugh. I don't like thinking about either of these men's bodies, but now I know Musk is 6'1.5" and Zuckerberg is only 5'7". Zuckerberg weighs 155 and Musk is anywhere from 30 to 70 pounds heavier, so he's something like 2 weight classes higher than Zuckerberg. Musk is 12 years older, and maybe Musk is less in shape:
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
पोस्ट्स
