Mark Zuckerberg

[Lolita]

He’s Alpha NT, so either LII-N or ILE-N. He’s distant, but terminal (as in finishing projects he takes up), very OCD, and ritualistic about his Ti ideology. He cares a lot about Fe and protects the Fe echo chamber by censoring groups and people who voice against his ideology and dares challenge his precious Fe. He barks about “privacy” and yet he sold everyone’s information. It should be a dead giveaway that he originally thought of creating Facebook as an way to date by broadcast if you’re single, which is seeking Fe. That’s actually very anti-Fi. An Fi valuer like ILI would want privacy and avoid random exposure.

[Rusal]

I read some interviews with him for another thread.

An incredibly Dynamic type so Gamma NT and probably ILI.

If he paired up with his identical he'd be involved in a situation where both partners have similar interests expressed with dynamic/Ni, so no complementary relationship. He dualizes with a Static type.

I wanted to highlight the most glaringly obvious dynamic parts but they're all over so I just selected some


GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Thank you for doing this. You've made so many, it appears, big, new moves, recently, talking about regulation, talking about privacy, talking about new ways of doing the news business. Is the big message from you, right now-- "Facebook gets it. We're going to change?"
MARK ZUCKERBERG: Well, yeah. I think in a lot of ways, over the last few years, we have changed, significantly, how we've run the company. We are, you know, dealing with a lot of major social issues, right, everything from policing harmful content, to protecting the integrity of elections, to making sure that data privacy controls are strong. And the big journey that we've been on, over the last few years, is really getting much more proactive about seeking out where there might be issues and making sure we're investing appropriately to handle them. You know, we now are doing way more on each of those fronts, in order to identify issues that come up and get ahead.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And how do you respond to someone who says, "But wait a second. That's your responsibility. It's your platform. It's your company?"
ZUCKERBERG: Well, I think, broadly, we would say that setting the rules around political advertising is not a company's job, right? I mean, there's been plenty of the rules in the past. It's just that, at this point they're not updated to the modern threats that we face or the modern kinds of nation state trying to interfere in each other's elections. We need new rules, right? It's not, you can't say that an election is just some period before people go to vote. I mean, the kind of information operations that these folks are trying to do now are ongoing, permanently. So I just think that we need new rules on this. Now, at Facebook, we're doing the best that we can on each of these issues. But I think, ideally, you would have standards that you would want all of the major companies to be abiding by.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You're already seeing the FCC push back fairly hard against this, two commissioners, I think, saying, "No, we don't want to get into the business of policing the First Amendment."
ZUCKERBERG: Yeah. I don't think that that's what this is, though, right? I think it's you can say that kind of any regulation around what someone says online is protected. But I think that that's clearly not right today. I mean, we already do have regulations around what you can do, in terms of political advertising. And even without getting into saying, you know, "Okay, here's the type of content. And here's what we're going to define as, you know, hate speech," for example -- I still think it would be a positive step to demand that companies issue transparency reports around, well, here's the amount of content on your service or that is every kind of harmful category. Here's the amount of hate speech. Here's the amount of misinformation. Here's the amount of bullying of children. Because by making that transparent, that puts more pressure on companies in order to be able to manage that. And people, publicly, can see which companies are actually doing a good job and improving and which ones need to do more. I'm actually -- we release our transparency report on how we're proactively finding all of these harmful kinds of content. Today, it's every six months. But I've committed that we're going to get to every quarter. Because I actually think that it's as important -- that kind of a transparency report around content, as the quarterly financial statements that we report. I mean, this is, like, really critical stuff for society. So I don't think that anyone would say that having companies have to be transparent about the amounts of harmful content is any kind of First Amendment issue.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So can you drill down in on it a little more? What do you envision when you see this regulation? Who's doing it? What exactly are they doing?
ZUCKERBERG: Well, it's different things in each category. For policing harmful content, I think it should start with transparency of every major internet service about-- take any-- every single category of harmful content. And I think you should have to, basically, report what the prevalence of that? So what percent of the content on your service is, you know, inciting violence, for example, or hate speech? And then you should have to report how much of that you identified proactively and built systems to go get and be able to manage -- versus how much of it did someone in your community have to tell you about, and you had to deal with it reactively? So that's the first step, is transparency.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Really?
ZUCKERBERG: Yeah. Because well, think about it this way. You know, if you watch a TV station, right, and that's your main one, or you read a couple of newspapers, and those are your main ones, those have certain editorial points of view and consistency. Whereas, if you have 200 friends on social media, you're probably going to be friends with people, even if most of your friends are democrats or republicans or one religion or another religion, you're going to have some friends who aren't. And you're going to be surfaced more content from other sides of debates, too. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't issues. I mean, people can go deep on a community. And that can end up having negative consequences. You know, most things don't, right? I mean, I'm a member of communities for people who like playing a certain computer game or like playing guitars, like I do. And you know, that's not, I think, going to take me down some path to be radicalized on anything. But there are harmful communities. And we need to do a good job of steering people away from those, for sure, and making sure that we're not encouraging filter bubbles and harmful things.

[Amoeba]

I just see LII for zuck. ILIs are much more inquisitive than he is.

[Djangr]

SLI

[hellohellohello]

ILE is good