A Zuck Quote
“Facebook’s mission and what we really focus on is giving everyone the power to share all of the things that they care about,” Zuckerberg, recipient of the first-ever Axel Springer Award for outstanding entrepreneur personality, told the media company’s CEO, Mathias Döpfner, in an interview in Berlin on Thursday.
“What they’re thinking about, what they’re experiencing on a day-to-day basis, and the idea is that everyone has the power to share those things, then that makes the world more understanding, it helps people stay closer to the people who they love, all these good things that we value,” gushed Zuckerberg.
"Makes the world more understanding" --- He might want to return to Harvard to take some writing classes because I don't know what that 4th grade phrase means.
Facebook accelerates communication and the diffusion of ideas and slant within networks. Individuals who are part of my network can see what I post to FB and react to it. In the past, this occurred through face to face meetings or telephone. Now it occurs through a multiplier effect. You don't have to be a good game theorist to see that there are multiple equilibria here.
A bad Equilibrium --- go back and read Glaeser's political economy of hatred --- Glaeser would posit that entrepreneurs use FB to accelerate the diffusion of falsities that make scapegoats of certain groups. For example, if you can "blame the Jews" for a particular problem then FB solves a co-ordination device as like minded people will quickly access the same information and be aware that their peers are accessing the same information. This can lead to convergence to a "hatred equilibrium" which is re-enforced by the existence of Facebook as individuals do not seek out independent news signals. In this case, those who seek their 15 minutes of fame may then commit an atrocity and film it and post it to earn the praise of this "social network".
Does Zuckerberg ever engage on recognizing that there is a "dark side" of social capital? There is a sociology literature on this. There can be benefits for society of not allowing a "mob mentality" break out. Facebook's "acceleration" does not allow for a cooling off period and thus may raise the risk of violence.
For some NBER research on the benefits of a cooling off period for peace and safety read this about urban teenagers.
A Good Equilibrium --- If Facebook allows optimists to meet on the Internet and allows people scattered across the world to co-ordinate on solving a social "wicked problem" then of course FB is a force for social good. If there is a person in a rural place who has never met another gay person, then FB can play a key role in facilitating interaction and community. Of course this matters and is very valuable. FB can contribute to "World Peace" if it promotes bridging social capital and reduces mutual mistrust of strangers. But is that happening? I doubt it.
Facebook is like a virtual city but it is a city where you choose who you will interact with. There is less randomness to interaction on FB than in Cambridge, MA. Just like real cities, virtual city living has its benefits and its costs. Cities have police and regulations to limit the social costs of activities. What "laws" will the city of Facebook introduce? It is a for profit firm claiming that it is a force for "social good". Do those two objective conflict or are they in beautiful harmony?