"(T)o say that the individual is culturally constituted has become a truism. . . . We assume, almost without question, that a self belongs to a specific cultural world much as it speaks a native language." James Clifford
Showing posts with label internet companies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet companies. Show all posts
In October 2017, Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, announced
that the company would give $1 billion over the next five years to nonprofit
organizations that help people “adjust to the changing nature of work.”[1]
The digital skills philanthropic venture would essentially help otherwise
unemployed Americans get jobs that require high-tech skills. This would also
enable more people to use the
internet, and thus the company’s products. So a reporter at USA Today can be said to gild the lily a
bit in claiming that the initiative “is a tacit acknowledgement from one of the
world’s most valuable companies that it bears some responsibility for rapid
advances in technology that are radically reshaping industries and eliminating
jobs in the U.S. and around the world.”[2]
I submit that it is highly unlikely that such an acknowledgement ever took
place at Google, given the more likely scenario wherein the company’s
management saw an opportunity to enlarge (and hopefully enrich) its labor pool
and customer base.
In making the announcement from Pittsburgh, Pichai observed,
“One-third of jobs in 2020 will require skills that aren’t common [in 2017]. It’s
a big problem.”[3] Indeed.
He may in fact have been understating it. Giving $10 million to Goodwill’s
Digital Career Accelerator so it could “provide 1 million people with access to
digital skills and career opportunities” does not necessarily mean that 1
million people would become proficient at
such skills, which after all are not easy to master. There is also the matter
of attitude, which can function as a
wedge between digital skills and realized and
sustained career opportunities. Chronic unemployment itself can test and
even twist a person’s attitude, which can also be a factor in a person’s
unemployment in the first place.
Generally speaking, funneling a society’s extant labor force
and the unemployed through a skills-filter, in this case, digital skills,
ignores the innate diversity that exists within any societal labor pool (and
society itself). The heterogeneous nature of people vocationally is happily in
line with the fact that a diversified economy is more stable than one that
privileges a certain sector or even its skill-set.
People with disabilities represented 19% of the U.S. population in 2015—exactly 25 years after the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became a federal law.[1] With computer technology being by then integral to daily life, the matter of accessibility came to the fore under the normative principle of equal, or universal, access. With major tech companies getting behind this banner, one question is whether they did so simply to sell more computers and software—better access translating into more customers. I contend that the stronger the normative claim being made, the greater the exploitation of the underlying conflict of interest.
In 2015, the American computer sector still suffered from “a lack of industry-wide expertise in accessibility development.”[2] So companies including Facebook, Microsoft, and Yahoo put together the Teaching Accessibility program to teach engineers, designers, and researchers how to include accessibility development in their skill-sets. "Increasing awareness and accessibility learning through core education, academic leadership, learning tools, industry initiatives, and partnerships with disability organizations will further enable graduates in relevant disciplines to enter the workforce and begin creating future technologies that are truly inclusive," Eva LaManna, policy manager for AAPD, said in a statement.[3] The premise, according to Larry Goldberg at Yahoo, is that making tech products accessible “is simply the right thing to do.”[4] Of course, doing so would not hurt sales either. This point undercuts the credibility of Goldberg’s normative claim, for it would be naïve to suppose that he and his colleagues would be motivated by “the right thing to do” were it not in the company’s financial interest. In other words, I contend that the normative claim is sheer marketing designed to garner the company reputational capital and at the same time advertise to the disabled.
Although Apple was conspicuously absent, the company had been training its engineers in the development of accessibility features. Indeed, the CEO, Tim Cook, wrote on July 24, 2015, went further than Goldberg in asserting the value of accessibility for everyone. “Accessibility rights are human rights. Celebrating 25yrs of the ADA, we’re humbled to improve lives with our products.”[5] To claim that a right is a human right is of course easy; the assertion may simply be a way of saying that something is very important. That is to say, if you value something highly, one way of expressing this is by asserting that it is a right—in fact, a human right. This implies that the thing that you value should be valued by everyone. He is essentially universalizing his maxim, making it a universal normative law. Obviously, we can wind up with loads of human rights going well beyond sustainability this way. Cook was indeed making a claim that human rights extend beyond needs, and thus are potentially limitless, unless access to computer technology was at the time essential to survival in the interdependent society.
If accessibility was at the time vital to survival, then government may have had an obligation to see to it that every person has access to a computer regardless of wherewithal to pay. This point presupposes that survival itself is a human right. Interestingly, Cook’s assertion that the right to accessibility is a human right can be interpreted as a claim obligating Apple to see to it that every person has access to a computer regardless of ability to pay. Faced with the implication that the company must hand out free computers (and accessibility software) to the poor, Cook might have sought to walk back his statement to something like, “At Apple, we believe it is important that computers be accessible to people with disabilities.” In retrospect, the man’s human-right claim may seem over the top. His conflict of interest may explain why he went so far without taking into consideration the implications.
For one thing, he may have been seeking to tout Apple’s record on accessibility. This is, after all, why Apple had not joined the training initiative. At the time, the iOS operating system included features like voice over, “speak screen,” dictation, zoom, and support for Braille displays.[6] To the extent that Apple had a sustainable competitive edge in accessibility, Cook had a huge financial incentive to make as bold a claim as possible. In business terms, a strategic competitive advantage should be highlighted in marketing so the potentially high profitability is more likely to be realized.
Interestingly, the marketing dimension itself undercuts the message in more than one way. First, the self-interest belies the claim of humility, and possibly even the claim of wanting foremost to improve lives. Given the manager’s fiduciary duty to the stockholders, his primary motive is to increase profits. Second, readers of Cook’s claim that accessibility is a human right can justifiably doubt the validity of the claim itself because Cook had a vested commercial interest in making the claim. That is, greater accessibility means more people are using computers, and thus are potential new customers of Apple products. Cook had the motive, therefore, to make the claim even if doesn’t believe it to be true, and to beg off any inconvenient implications such as the obligation to give away computers to people unable to afford them. In terms of Kant’s ethics, that Cook’s maxim cannot be universalized without internal contradiction (i.e., everyone should have a computer, but only if they can afford it) renders the claim unethical. In other words, it would unethical for Cook to have made the claim then refuse to give away computers.
In short, public statements by CEOs should not be taken at face value because more is probably behind the assertions than meets the eye. I suspect that the general public is naïve concerning such statements; we are too willing to assume that persons of high stature societally—and this includes CEOs of large companies—are good natured, for we don’t have access to the discussions that go on inside corporations. We are not familiar with how business managers think, and what motivates them. We suppose them to be like us, and we do not tend to carefully craft our utterances to manipulate other people in a self-aggrandizing way. So we take a statement such as Cook’s at face value. He claimed that computer-accessibility rights are human rights, and thus every person has a just claim regardless of ability to pay, and yet he clearly did not mean to suggest that, for Apple would then be obligated, and that would not be in line with the bottom line.
It is difficult enough diagnosing a dysfunctional culture in
a large corporation—imaging having a large American city as a de facto patient. Not that I had any
idea what treatment could possibly cure a social-psychological disease when I
was in San Francisco. I, like so many other new-comers there, temporary or
permanent, got the sense after only a few weeks that something was very wrong
in the way people were interacting there. As a corporate man in his late
twenties from L.A. remarked after just ten days in the city, “The people here
are very rude.” As he described the
particular behavior pattern, I was stunned; it matched what had taken a month
for me to discern. This began my curiosity as to the dysfunctional culture
undergirding the wholesale lack of manners, and, more particularly, how it is
that a distinct mentality or value-set and behavioral trait can show up in so
many individuals.
What lies beneath the clouds is not necessarily visible from above. (Jeff Chiu of AP)
By 2015, software engineers at internet-based companies such
as Google and Facebook had been moving to San Francisco and commuting to work
in Silicon Valley for years. The “techies” were widening the economic
inequality in the city, which, along with the related hike in rents, was
causing tension—even anger—on the street. This sort of explanation is at root
political in nature. While I do not doubt its validity, it does not do justice
to the social-psychological dimension at the individual and interpersonal
levels. In other words, I would like to provide some finer brush strokes to
finish this picture of a modern American city in the grips of a pathogen.
By 2014, San Francisco had “become the hype- and capital-fueled
epicentre of America's technology industry, which has traditionally centred on
the string of suburban cities known as Silicon Valley 40 miles to the south. In
2011, Mayor Ed Lee [had] introduced tax breaks for Twitter and several other
tech companies to encourage them to settle in and revitalise the downtown San
Francisco neighbourhood South of Market, or Soma.”[1]
Three years later, the city’s unemployment rate was just 4.8 percent, while
California’s was 8.3 percent. In 2013, job growth in San Francisco County was
the highest of any county in the States.
At the same time, “(m)any long-time San Francisco residents”
worried “not only about being forced out of the city they love, but also that
their city [was] being changed for the worse.” Critics were saying that San
Francisco's “communities of alternative culture, ethnic or otherwise” were being
“turned into playgrounds for rich people.”[2]
According to Ted Gullickson, director of the San Francisco Tenants Union, the Castro,
the proverbial “gay mecca,” was more homeowner and much straighter, much whiter
and much more conservative."[3]
If the city’s soul was “its social and economic diversity and status as a
refuge for those outside the mainstream,” then the city was indeed losing its
soul.[4]
I concur, though for a reason—one much deeper than the socio-economic shifts
and the resulting tensions. I submit that enough of the city’s people, most
notably those who are under 35 or so, had lost, or more likely never had
manners. More serious than this euphemism implies, people comprising a major
segment in the city’s population were assuming a mentality that could be
labelled, The Zuckerberg Syndrome. The underlying pathology is psychological at
root.
San Francisco was indeed ground-zero in the American trend
of increasing economic inequality, and the social mores were starting to burst
at the seams. The “influx of so many young, rich tech workers [was] causing
significant tensions. Starting in mid-2011, rents and house prices began to
soar. Eviction rates soon followed as property speculators sought to cash in by
flipping rent-controlled apartment buildings into flats to sell.”[5]
No-fault evictions “displaced nearly 1,400 renters in 2013. About a third of
those evictions were under California's Ellis Act, which allows landlords to
evict tenants and sell their apartments.”[6]
Ellis Act evictions increased by 170% from 2010 to 2013, according to a City
study.[7]
The ability to essentially bid up the rents that pushed long-time residents out
was increasing tensions—even turning the city into “an angry city,” according
to one retired man there.
The long-time resident told me that the rising number of
vocal confrontations between strangers, such as the ones I had I had witnessed just
hours earlier between two middle-aged drivers in a parking lot and two young
adults on a sidewalk were a function of the widening gap between the haves and
have nots in the city. That Facebook, Google, Apple and other tech companies
located in the string of “silicon valley” cities in the south area of the bay were
commuting about 35,000 techies each workday between their high-rent residences
in “the City” and the companies in Silicon Valley was undoubtedly stoking the
fire. Just the sight of the sleek white, double-decker buses stirred jealousy
and resentment on the street and most probably a sense of superiority, even
snobbery, inside the luxury vehicles.
According to Nietzsche, resentment pertains to the weak. As
for the strong, self-confidence rather than arrogance is the hallmark
characteristic. The onlookers can thus be reckoned as “herd animals” and the
bussed kids as “new birds of prey,” whose presumed superiority is in fact a
hypertrophic instinctual urge to dominate. In other words, both are weak—which
may explain part of the jealousy. In contrast, the strong are saturated with
the self-confidence that is innate to strength rather than a need to be
superior. Put another way, strength and its overflowing power are content in
themselves, hence the strong do not view the weak as evil (whereas the weak
view the strong as such). The strong seek to win a race, for instance, rather
than focus on the onlookers, whereas the weak a race cannot resist the urge to
be cruel both to the strong up ahead and to the onlookers.
I contend that the aggression being inflicted on a daily
basis in San Francisco during its second wave of techies—the first being during
the “dot.com” heady days of the 1990s—extended beyond the attention-getting vocal
spats and “nudges” between strangers in public places. I do not believe, however, that widening
economic inequality is a strong enough force to trigger specific incidents of
aggression, whether passive or active. The underlying cultural change was
considerably more subtle even as it was stark on the individual and
interpersonal levels.
I further contend that a cultural trait has no “collective”
basis as an entity beyond the minds and behaviors of individual human beings.
Arrogance, for instance, can spread through a number of agreements, whether
tacitly or consciously made, between two or three people at a time, that a
given attitude, value, or specific behavior is good rather than bad; hence it
is permissible rather than to be shamed. One person “tells” another that being
rude in a certain way is cool, and the other person in turn “tells” a few of
his friends. Soon, a high enough percentage of people in that segment of the
population are being rude on a regular basis in a particular waythat is
thus distinctive.
Having been in the social sciences for some time, I was
curious to study how a cultural trait metastasizes—how it is that so many
people could be rude in so precisely the same way—so I informally interviewed a
number of long-time and new residents alike, of various ages and trades.
Detecting a common refrain, I narrowed my focus to young adults between the
ages of 21 and 35—the Millennial Generation. It was not long before a distinct
pattern involving a certain mentality and a distinct behavior-pattern emerged,
which people not infected typically identified as being unique to San Francisco
though at the same time being the leading edge of a broader trend then going on
in American society. I turn now to my data, obtained through observation and a
series of interviews consistent with Clifford Geertz’s method of
participant-observant, or époche.
A significant proportion of the young adults, most of whom
were far away from their parents, appeared to feel free to treat other people
their age and even much older not only with a lack of respect, but also with
blatant rudeness tantamount to brazen passive aggression—and without any sense of shame. Typically on
meeting someone new, for example, the delayed-adolescents would quickly size
him or her up. Is this person on my level? Can I expect to get something out of
him or her? If the answers are negative, the interest, albeit self-centered, in
the other person quickly turns to a dismissiveness and dismissal. Even in the
middle of a sentence, the other person can be hit with a rude turning-away
without warning. Such rudeness is so blatant and severe it can be counted as
passive aggression. The anger manifests not only in the turning-around and
walking away, but also when the person merely turns around and ignores the
other person, even while that person is asking, “Why are you ignoring me?” or
“Why are you being so rude to me?” I witnessed an older woman asking a 25
year-old(ish) man both questions, after she had approached him to ask him about
a noise audible in the patio of the coffee-shop/bar, with the boy continuing to
stare off to the side as if she were not there.
At a coffee shop, I myself asked a similar guy an innocuous
question only to get a curt answer. Strangely, on his way out, he said goodbye
to each of the two guys he had also
met briefly and who were then talking with me. Saying “goodbye” twice made it
especially obvious that he was ignoring me. Why would a stranger make such an
effort on something so trivial as saying goodbye, especially considering that
he knew none of us and the question I had asked had not been offensive? More
than the rudeness, I felt aggression.
The presumption itself that such anger can be unleashed on an innocent stranger
is itself a problem, particularly when it becomes part of a culture (i.e.,
widely understood to be acceptable rather than blameworthy). Put another way,
why did the guy feel such a strong urge to reject a stranger whom he would be unlikely
to encounter again (especially given his curt reply to my question)?
When I had been a student at Yale and a member of the Yale
Political Union, the chairman of the “party” thereof that I had recently joined
asked me to change my plans on the upcoming Friday night so I could attend a
social party in the bell tower where the new members would be “tapped” to enter
the secret society that the party owned. In actuality, he wanted me to attend so
his three friends, who were the only ones tapped, could have the pleasure of
seeing other members turned down, or rejected. In other words, the pleasure of
selecting and being selected was not enough psychologically. The same
phenomenon would be part of the epidemic to hit San Francisco decades later.
At a group for speaking French in
San Francisco, a middle-aged New Yorker described to me (in English) another
manifestation of the angry city.
“People are blunt in New York,” the Lebanese man of around
50 admitted. “That bluntness can be rude, sure, but here there is also passive
aggression.”
“Have others from New York noticed the same thing?” I asked.
“Yes. Several others living here now have told me they had
noticed it. In New York, people will tell you to your face what they think; the
people here say one thing to your face and another to your back.”
In other
words, the passive aggression could manifest as duplicitous betrayal too.
Moreover, the level of such aggression in San Francisco was not the case in
other cities where a person might expect it, on account of overcrowding for
instance.
In terms of dating or just “hooking up” to have sex, the
following scenario—a true story which I verified from both parties—may have
been paradigmatic in San Francisco in the Millennial Generation. A 28 year-old
guy who worked at the time for Sacs Fifth Avenue met a 35 year old woman in a
bar and the two clicked. After kissing, he persuaded her to change her plans
the following evening so she could go out on a date with him. They met after
work at another bar, and sat in the patio in the sunshine. She figured they would
go out for dinner and then perhaps to a bar or to his or her place, so she was
surprised when he informed her he would have to leave in an hour to attend a
departing co-worker’s get-together at another bar. Seeing her mood quickly
sour, he made a not-so-subtle reference to her looking older in the light, and
that he should not have kissed her. He did not even feel any obligation to
carry through with the date, even though he knew she had re-arranged her
schedule to accommodate his desire to go out the next night. Thinking on her
feet, she quickly called the guy she was to go out with later to tell him that
she would be able to make it after all. She told me she had a good time on the
second date—the first time she had had two dates on the same evening—and she
got laid to boot! Neither the man nor women were teckies, so the phenomenon was
not, or at least no longer, techie-specific; rather, it had spread through the
Millennial Generation.
Certainly in San Francisco’s iconic gay “community,” the
guys (generally speaking) were “always on the lookout for the next best thing.”[8]
From that standpoint, dismissiveness toward any guy not in the running for the
next time is a foregone conclusion. Zuckerberg’s innate sense of superiority
could easily translate into a presumed entitlement to not only ignore
interested guys eliminated from being “the next best thing,” but also get
pleasure from inflicting pain so those guys feel
they are being rejected.
“I hit on this guy at the Edge [a bar in the Castro] but he
blew me off,” a gay guy recounted to me.
“Did you say something insulting?” I asked.
“No, I complimented him. So when was leaving the bar and
passed me and two other guys who had talked with him—the three of us were
talking—he went out of his way to say good-bye to each of the other two.”
“He really wanted you to know he was ignoring you,” I observed.
“For some reason, the guy felt the need to put a lot of emotional energy into
making sure you would be hurt. It’s not like he had reason to think he would
run into you again. What I wonder is where all that anger is coming from—seems
sadistic to me.”
A few weeks after I had spoken to guy who was so blatantly
and intentionally ignored, I
submitted the scenario to a San Francisco native—a women in her mid-20s dressed
in “gothic” black. Her explanation uncovered a mentality utterly foreign to me.
“The guy being hit on was probably pissed that the guy he
didn’t want hitting on him ruined his social image so he took it out on him.”
“You mean he was punishing the other guy?”
“Yes,” she replied, “the guy might have decided the other
guy ruined an otherwise perfect day, so he should pay for it.”
“I’ve never heard of such a thing!” I exclaimed. “It must be
something going on in your generation.”
“Being able to get stuff instantly with apps has changed
personalities,” she added.
“You mean into spoiled brats?”
“Yes,” she said.
Visibly excited about teaching an older guy so ignorant of
her generation, she told me that to let a friend know that the person seducing
him or her in a bar, for instance, is not good enough for him or her, simply
put a hand on the friend’s lap as if the friends were in a relationship. That gesture
sends the signal not only to the seducee, but also the seducer, that the latter
is not good enough in the opinion of the friend. I was struck by the sheer
brazen disregard for the seducer’s feelings.
The message must have been getting around enough young men
and women in the city that it is fine to insult anyone who is presumably lower, of no future use. Treating other
people as if they were throw-away “objects,” which involves deeming them as unworthy
of even common courtesy, intimates sadism, or at the very least a subterranean
current of pent-up anger. From where, I wondered like a scientist trying to
find mass in space to account for indications of gravity far away, did the
anger behind the passive aggression come?
My theory highlights the cultural role of internet
companies, their respective founders, and employees, with near-proximity
intermingling spreading the dysfunctional attitude through the generation. The
sheer number of “techies” who had moved to the city and worked in “the mostly
white, male-dominated, monied monoculture of the tech industry”[9]
was sufficient to have a major impact on San Francisco’s social mores and
dominant attitude, especially considering the impact of the preexisting
“laid-back” culture sewn by the hippies decades earlier.
A colleague of mine from Detroit Michigan reported to me after
reading this essay that he had begun to see some of the same behaviors since
techies had begun to move there in significant numbers. Although “like some
hippies [the techies had] the same sense of social mission to transform the
world for the better with technology,” this abstract idealism to be practiced
on people at a social and geographic distance was dwarfed closer to home, as in
social gatherings, for example, by what Nietzsche describes as the brain
sickness of the weak who are too weak to resist their urge to dominate others.
In more modern terms, the sordid flu is of malignant narcissism mixed with a
presumptuous entitlement that justifies rudeness, even passive aggression,
without any shame. Rudeness can be so severe that it becomes passive aggression.
As such, it can remain undiagnosed as something real. Hence, my colleague’s feedback is significant.
Speaking with two retired men in San Francisco, I detected
an alternative hypothesis.
“They are threatened by the older generations,” one of the
men said, “so they lash out at us.”
“Why do they feel threatened?” I asked, skeptically.
“Because we’re straight-shooters. They use passive
aggression because they are insecure.”
“But why are they so angry at us?” I asked, straining to
understand something I had no intuitive sense of.
“We have put them in a tight spot. Not enough jobs. A
[federal] debt of over $17 trillion—money we spent on ourselves that they will
have to repay.”
“So it goes well beyond not respecting their elders.”
“Yes, and it is a recent phenomenon.”
The office cultures in Silicon Valley may have served as
incubators. A climate of arrogance would either have come from the top or been
tacitly tolerated. One techie told me that the people at Facebook do not
respect the users.
“Does that come from Zuckerberg himself?” I asked.
“Yes.”
“I’m not surprised,” I replied, “considering how he treated
the two guys at Harvard who were working on a social network there.”
“That’s right,” the teckie confirmed.
“I’ve studied organizational culture,” I said as a sort of
debriefing. “It would not surprise me at all that Zuckerberg’s attitude toward
other people—his manipulations and sense of superiority—as in that
psychological experiment on Facebook’s users—defines the company’s culture,
which in turn forms the values, attitude, and conduct of the employees.”
This raises the thorny question of whether the authorities
at the area’s social-media companies bore any responsibility in having spawned
or at least condoned the mentality of self-centered arrogance, rather than
trying to eradicate it. In other words, did the companies’ respective
managements fail in their corporate social responsibility? Can we hold them
blameworthy if they were blind to the brain sickness, being infected
themselves? Can we hold Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter, responsible, given
how he answered a question on CNBC television in June 2015 regarding whether he
would serve as CEO on an interim or permanent basis beginning in July? “I’m not
going to answer that question because it’s not what I’m focused on,” he said.[10]
It would not take much for his employees, and those of other internet companies
in the Bay Area to ignore questions from tourists on the street, or from
strangers in a bar or coffee shop by merely thinking, “it’s not what I’m
focused on.” Indeed, such dismissive arrogance is perfectly in line with
walking away from a conversation unilaterally is a social context without even
bothering with “excuse me.”
It is perhaps no coincidence that HIV was spreading most at
the time in millennial generation. Why bother wearing a condom to protect the
other person if he is not what is being focused on? Why be concerned with the
interests of a person who is not worthy of respect anyway? Rather than simply
being self-centeredness, passive aggression is also involved.
The distinctive pattern of the cultural dysfunction includes
an absence of any sense of responsibility in following through when doing so is
no longer of interest, even if other people are relying on the follow through. The
pattern I discerned goes something like this: Jim does Susan a favor by
rearranging his schedule to buy her a ticket to a rock concert, and Susan fails
to meet as agreed to pick up the ticket because she feels like doing something
else with another friend.
Lawrence Ferlinghetti, who had “put the city on the world’s
counter-cultural map by publishing the work of Beat poets such as Allen
Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac, described a “soulless group of people,” a “new
breed” of men and women too busy with iPhones to “be here” in the moment.” The
new breed can indeed be characterized as soulless in the sense that shame does
not touch them. I am not referring here to a mere lack of social skills and
even a selfish desire to use people for a person’s own ends; rather, the sheer
presumptuousness of the arrogant dismissiveness of people deemed lower or
beneath is striking in the pathology. I suspect it may be distinctly American,
with San Francisco being the epicenter of the socio-psychological earthquake.
The pathogen may have been so associated with the Millennial
Generation because it was sealing itself off from the other generations. A
sixty year-old man, for example, would hardly continue to put up with such
blatant disrespect as that which is laced with passive aggression. Abject
humiliation can only result in social distance. In the film, Social Network, Mark Zuckerberg is
depicted as treating a distinguished lawyer with blatant, unashamed disdain at
a meeting. Zuckerberg is looking out the window while the elder man is
speaking.
“Mr. Zuckerberg, do I have your full attention?” the lawyer
asks.
“No,” Zuckerberg replies.
“Do you think I deserve it?”
Zuckerberg again says no. Adding insult to injury, he goes
on to ask whether he adequately answered the lawyer's “condescending question.”
It is telling regarding American society that Zuckerberg’s
fortune and social-media technology have been so lionized, and yet the prospect
of his values, attitude, and conduct coming to define an entire generation
somehow escaped attention, at least as of 2015. That a founder of a company can
come to define its organizational culture is nothing new; that similar founders
would be drawn to the sector, such that the organizational cultures have family
resemblances, and gain sufficient traction to spread throughout a generation is
more astonishing.
Can one person's persona infiltrate an entire societal system, viewed here as a network?
(Justin Sullivan/Getty)
As for the sources of the passive-aggression element, I’m
not going to attempt to psychoanalyze Zuckerberg or Dorsey. I can posit,
however, that the internet companies may be one source. “According to
TINYpulse's poll of 5,000 engineers and developers, tech workers are less happy
than workers in other sectors in every key category. For example, only 36% of
tech workers say they see opportunity for professional growth, compared to 50%
of other workers. . . . ‘There's widespread workplace dissatisfaction in the
tech space, and it's undermining the happiness and engagement of these
employees,’ the survey concludes.”[11]
The anger may be from the unhappiness, especially if the ease and convenience
of smart phones create unrealistic expectations of instant gratification.
With its infusions of young techies, San
Francisco came to serve as the incubator enabling the transmission of the social-media
companies’ organizational cultures, including the angst, to the generation through
intermingling. The City on the Hill overlooking the
Pacific Ocean and a chilly bay had begun in the quest for the golden idol as
gold hunters headed west. That the same city would be heir to so many techie
dollars, and emerge as the leading edge of the descent of American civility,
surpassing even the brashness of New York City, is perhaps not much of a
surprise. The stunning development is instead the new strain itself, of a virus
that oozes the putrid brownish arrogance of conceit tinged with subtle, yet
very real anger manifesting as inconsiderateness so severe that it can be
classified as passive aggression. In short, passive aggression as a raging
epidemic in interpersonal relations even among strangers may have taken off in the
not so “laid back” chilly city by the bay.
1 Zoe
Corbyn, “Is
San Francisco Losing Its Soul?” The
Guardian, February 23, 2014. All of the quotes, except those from my interviews,
that are in this essay come from this article.
The European Court of Justice, the E.U. Supreme Court, ruled
on May 13, 2014 that Google must defer to the right of users to have links
about themselves deleted. Google’s management had sought to obviate any
obligation to act on such requests. The
New York Times points out that the decision indicates “that such companies
must operate in a fundamentally different way than they do in the United
States.”[1]
The ring of fundamentality has implications for the international strategies of
internet companies and affords us a better look at how business plays out in
society differently in different societies.
Depending on the impact of cultural differences between a
given company’s home and host markets impact the management of the company as a
whole, either a global (i.e., one-size-fits-all) or multidomestic (culture-specific
managements) international-business strategy is optimal. Although it might seem
that a “market-making” function like providing a search engine or social-media
medium would naturally fit the global approach to international strategy, the
impact of differing societal values bearing on relevant rights and obligations
can render the multi-domestic approach superior. The ECJ’s decision may push
Google’s management further in this direction—the root cause being the
differing power and attitude toward business in the E.U. and U.S.
Mina Andreeva, a spokesperson for the E.U. Government’s
executive branch, noted that the court’s decision switches the obligation from
users to the internet companies like Google and Facebook to prove that
user-data is still needed to be kept online. “Today, it’s up to consumers to
prove this, but this is not very easy or effective,” she said. “We have
reversed the burden of proof.”[2]
Put another way, consumers face the uphill battle in the U.S. whereas managers
do in the E.U. This difference reflects a basic, or fundamental, difference
societally in terms of how much business is valued in society.
Put in terms of a theorem, the more societal values reflect
or value the values that are held in the business sector, the more likely it is
that societal institutions place obligations on customers (or the general
public) and rights on companies. The case of Google suggests that the E.U. and
U.S. societies differ fundamentally in
the extent to which business values have stature as societal values.
Between 1956 and 2005, fifteen-hundred (indoor) shopping malls popped up across America. Then through 2013 at least, none had been built since 2006. The interstate highway system helped usher in the mammoth malls like Mall of America in Minnesota and Woodfield Mall in Illinois; the cold climes made the indoor expanses of warm air particularly alluring during the long winters. The two landmarks among malls would likely fare better than most in staving off even their own respective stores’ cannibalistic online-sales charms at least for a while, absent an upward-revision on global warming forecasts flashing relentlessly on smartphones, tablets, and laptops. The leap from the pedestrian innovations at Selfridge’s department store in early twentieth-century London to Amazon’s Cyber Monday during the 2010s, a silver century later, would seem to be all about the computer revolution digitizing distance that had once been viewed in terms of social class and then gradually succumbing to closer physical distance, as in Selfridge’s accommodating store.[1]
Even as housewives on a budget joyfully discovered that bargains could be found even in a service-oriented department store without being thrown out just for browsing, aristocratic women returned to the store to purchase fine gloves or perfume astutely advised by a polite, attentive clerk—an antiquated idyllic image of “shopping” a century later in a world saturated by Walmart’s “warehouse” (or barn) mega-department/grocery stores.[2] Indeed, the king himself requested a private showing of Selfridge’s out of curiosity regarding the new thing known as “shopping” and to show himself to be a man of the people (of various social classes). Few people a century later would pause to ask whether the foray of online purchases would make the term shopping obsolete.[3]
Moreover, the sliding eclipse of the hackneyed American mall harkens back to the truism hardly remembered amid all the technological distractions that the world of yesterday is not nearly as everlasting as implicitly promised in its hay-day.
In the last quarter of the twentieth century, the display of Christmas decorations before Thanksgiving, earlier and earlier each year, attested to change in progress. The relative insignificance of this fixation would come to hide the "macro" or "meta" change concerning the mall itself in the first two decades of the next century.
While the little mall marketers scamper about, scrambling to do the twentieth-century department store one better in terms of a “one stop experience” by highlighting entertainment on top of the “same old, same old” heterogeneous product types being under one roof, no one hardly bothers to imagine the mall itself (not to mention the acutely structured department store) as being of another era—a world already gone—a bygone time somehow vicariously still with us—as if the artifice were a squashed bug mistaking its flinching movements for still being alive. The temporal illusion lies in the extremely slow “squashing” noise of register-less electronic sales. As the niggardly management of Target can attest, the silent killers can be the most devastating, even if the extent of the cyber fingerprints are only fully visible in retrospect.
Amid the wrecking balls eating up memories left and right, the twenty-first century stood wide open for the technological imagination to form. Amid all the excitement, it is no wonder that people who came of age at the mall will look around one day, as if suddenly awakened by nothing in particular, to find that the ‘70s show has indeed gone off air due to low ratings.
[1] Rejecting the “premium” vs. “cost leadership” business strategies, Selfridge used sales-items to draw in business from cost-conscious consumers (not “guests,” as in the artful lie played out on Target’s stage by functionaries whose superiority over the dictionary gives their stores a rather odious odor). Unlike the managers at Walmart and Target a century later, Selfridge did not view the continued presence of refined yet simple sales clerks as mutually exclusive with extending the product-lines “down” to lower priced items (supplemented by relatively broad sales).
[2] While at a Walmart store to buy underwear, I noticed a few plastic bags containing product had been open. An employee was then passing by me so I asked if she knew about it. “How else are customers going to be able to try them on unless they open the bags?” she replied. The sales associate had no doubt concerning her “knowledge” of retail. Had I pointed out trying on underwear violates OHSA regulations, the employee would in all likelihood have dismissed my “opinion” in favor of her own “knowledge.” Doubtless a European aristocrat would not return to such a store again.
[3] To the extent that “shopping” includes browsing, being able to “google search” a product may mean that searching is already replacing shopping; by implication, going to a “brick and mortar” store to purchase or merely pick up the product does not involve shopping. Yet how hard old ghosts fall; it is as people use terms generally without bothering to verify that the respective meanings still apply. In other words, we may speak without thinking more often than we suppose. In fact, some of the herd animals may succumb in weakness to their urge to “push” their meaning as a weapon of sorts. A young assistant store manager at Target once corrected me in demanding I acknowledge that I’m a guest rather than a customer. The cocktail of ignorance, arrogance, and the primal urge to dominate is as toxic and dangerous as it is ubiquitous in American business of the 2010s (not to mention American society).
On the day of its IPO, Facebook issued at $38 and went to a high of $45 before returning to near its issue price (closing at $38.23). On the next trading day, the price fell to about $34 in the early afternoon. This represents about 10% off the issue price. The Huffington Post headlined “Stock Plummets,” which must have been irresistible to anyone who had bought the stock. The Huff was using the $45 high as its benchmark, from which the $34 price represents a 25% drop. As if that were a plummeting, using the 10% off figure would have made the self-aggrandizing headline too obvious. At the very least, the headline detracts from the credibility of the Huffington Post.
“Google’s popularity was built on its ability to help people find just the right Web pages. Then came the social Web, led by Facebook.”[1] Then came the “fledgling Google Plus social network,” the content of which Google then included among other search results at its search engine. The idea, ostensibly, is to “personalize” internet searches.[2] In addition to expertise on a given topic, relevant comments and even pictures posted at Google’s social network may be listed, especially if from a friend. The added utility is debatable, however, particularly as content from other social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter is more in demand, according to Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Land. I question the relevance of even that content to a search on Google, given my searches up to now, though of course it is possible that someone’s post on X could be helpful if information on X is otherwise hard to come by. At the very least, Google ought to make it very easy for users to turn off the feature while at the search site.
According to TheNew York Times, “When Michael Arrington, the editor of the popular Web site TechCrunch, told his bosses at AOL that he was forming a venture capital company to finance some of the technology start-ups that his site wrote about, they did not fire him or ask for his resignation. Instead, . . . they invested about $10 million in his fund.”[1] Tim Armstrong, AOL’s chief executive, issued the following statement when CrunchFund was announced: “TechCrunch is a different property and they have different standards. We have a traditional understanding of journalism with the exception of TechCrunch, which is different but is transparent about it.”[2] As for Michael Arrington, Arianna Huffington claimed that he would have no influence on coverage—that there would be, in effect, a Chinese wall between TechCrunch’s news site and venture-capital firm. However earlier on the same day, Arrington stated, “I am TechCrunch and TechCrunch is me.”[3]
The New York Times has an interesting piece on the ethics involved in providing a social media service for the public. The article describes how “(t)wo days after using Flickr to display photos of police officers from Egypt’s feared state security force, Hossam el-Hamalawy watched in disbelief as they vanished, one by one, from the popular social networking site, which he had been using since 2008. ‘I thought I was being hacked,’ said Mr. el-Hamalawy, a prominent Egyptian blogger and human rights activist who had uploaded the headshots of the police from CDs found by activists early this month at the State Security Police headquarters in Nasr City. He later learned . . . that the photos had been removed because he did not take the images himself, a violation of the site’s . . . rules. ‘That is totally ludicrous,’ he said. ‘Flickr is full of accounts with photos that people did not take themselves.’”
