What I was most struck by in the conversation is that Zuck is actually doing some of the things Cowen advocates - policy experimentation, taking on long-term projects with uncertain payoffs, etc. at CZI.
I'm a huge fan of Patrick Collison and know that Stripe is also doing tons of experimentation and product innovation, but I was struck by how much less like an academic Zuck sounded. I don't know if it's a good or bad thing, but Cowen and Collison seem to focus on what everyone should be doing, while Zuck's focus is on what he, personally, can get done (again, caveat being that Collison is simply so well-read that he comes off as an academic, while I'm aware that in reality he's doing a ton himself as well).
> What I was most struck by in the conversation is that Zuck is actually doing some of the things Cowen advocates - policy experimentation, taking on long-term projects with uncertain payoffs, etc. at CZI.
I'm a big admirer of what Mark is doing with CZI (which is part of why Cowen/I agreed to the interview). Stripe is still a private company, but maybe I'll be able to intervene more directly over time. If I do, having CZI as precedent will be very helpful.
I don't want to sound like I am trolling or something. However, I find it hard to take anything Mark Zuckerberg does seriously. For that matter, I am so biased that I have no interest in these interviews at all (maybe to your detriment).
How do you see this? You say that you are an admirer of CZI. In my experience with obnoxious CEO types, they are happy to be philantrophic or "build" things when it suits them, and only then. Do you think it's a net positive? Wouldn't someone else (like Gates or even Buffet) be a better leader for these initiatives? I'm sure that if Mark did not get so successful with FB, it would have been the WA founders, otherwise someone else yet again.
Sorry if this is a steriotypical reaction, but I am sorry; I just can't trust something from camp Zuck.
If you went back 25 years, Bill Gates was considered by many (if not most) the "obnoxious CEO", but you're now using him as an example of "someone else I'd take seriously".
Interesting point, although I hesitate to see this as an effective counterpoint. People change, perceptions of people change, and those who were once maligned can become beloved, while those who were once beloved can become maligned. Bill Gates has followed the maligned to beloved arch over the last 25 years - it's easy for me to see how Mark could follow this same trajectory given that he's relatively early in his career.
I wouldn't call Gates "beloved", at least not in all circles. I consider his work with his foundation as basically table stakes in society for someone who has made his fortune from illegal, anti-competitive practices that damaged an entire industry.
Beyond that, while I'll certainly admit that government has a ton of problems, I'm not sure that the best model for funding -- for example -- research into various diseases is to put decisions under the control of rich people in the private sector, no matter how "reformed" and generous they seem. Or that super-rich people deserve to have praised philanthropic legacies because they managed to game the system during some point in their lives at the expense of income inequality and unfair markets.
Granted, Gates doing good with his money is orders of magnitude better than him sitting on it doing nothing, but I don't think he deserves all the praise he's been getting, given his background.
It's a tough thing you're hitting on - definitely something I wrestle with personally with respect to people who follow career arcs similar to Gates'. Personally, I don't believe the ends ever justify the means, although in admiring Gates today for the work he does I don't feel that I'm doing that nor excusing him for his past. Would I ever look to young Gates as a role model? No. Gates of today, yes. I imagine I could think of Zuckerberg the same way one day if he has a long enough career.
Yeah, good points. With regards to having a praised philanthropic legacy at odds with massive wealth accumulation earlier in a career at the expense of income inequality and unfair markets - I don't see those as needing to be mutually exclusive. I personally don't see one's legacy as a singular thing, there can be good parts and bad parts (whatever one's definition of "good" and "bad" are), some worth admiring and some worth detesting. Gates has done things on both sides over the course of a career, I'm hopeful that Zuckerberg will model himself more after Gates over a similar length of time.
Mark my words: Zuckerberg will be remembered not for Facebook but for the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative. Thirty years from now, people will talk about how he gave $100 million to the government to try out education policies and they zeroed it out and how US education needed the CZI to fix it. We'll be talking about how Zuckerberg SF General has premier care because of Mark Zuckerberg's kindness.
Bill Gates's transformation is not unique. It is a general pattern. Does the word Carnegie bring to mind Pinkerton union-busters? Or a brilliant university? Does Washington bring to mind a revolutionary hero or a slave-keeper? History will look kindly on Mark Zuckerberg.
I agree. Billionaire-class philanthropy seems like it could be a societal anti-pattern these days; even if it isn’t, there are certainly problematic instances. A healthy amount of skepticism of billionaire-class philanthropy therefore seems warranted.
Moreover, given the repeated problems Facebook has caused, the repeated apologies Zuckerberg has offered with little demonstration of true repentance, skepticism of him specifically also seems warranted. The best thing he could do to help humanity would be to mitigate Facebook’s various negative impacts on our societies.
Zuckerberg has fooled us many times. However much he’s right about wanting to encourage societal progress, he’s actively contributed to its decline in much of the world—to the point that Facebook has now clearly has been an instrument of genocide (in Bangladesh).
Just because he’s a rich and a successful startup founder who’s conducted an interview where he says the right things (contrast with his Georgetown speech) doesn’t obviate him from criticism or skepticism.
Thanks for responding - just wanted to emphasize that I did not mean to minimize anything that you're doing, or the importance of your approach (I'm a huge fan of Stripe, as well as your work with Cowen on progress). I just thought it was interesting to highlight that Zuck is actually doing a whole lot of stuff.
I'm a huge fan of Patrick Collison and know that Stripe is also doing tons of experimentation and product innovation, but I was struck by how much less like an academic Zuck sounded. I don't know if it's a good or bad thing, but Cowen and Collison seem to focus on what everyone should be doing, while Zuck's focus is on what he, personally, can get done (again, caveat being that Collison is simply so well-read that he comes off as an academic, while I'm aware that in reality he's doing a ton himself as well).