Google wants to organize the world's information. Elon wants to go to Mars, reduce carbon emissions, save lives and increase efficiency with self-driving cars. Zuckerberg wants more users and for us to sit in VR pods like zombies.

> Zuckerberg wants more users and for us to sit in VR pods like zombies.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/parmyolson/files/2016/02/1271...

He just looks so happy with his zombie army.

My gosh, that is terrifying.

Holy shit

Wait, so, Google controlling your access to information on the internet via "the front page" doesn't bother you. Facebook controlling your access to information inside of a website you have to visit and log in to, does bother you.

Google has 7 products with 1 billion users, as explained in this article titled "Google has 7 products with 1 billion users." http://www.popsci.com/google-has-7-products-with-1-billion-u...

You realize that "organize the world's information" translates into "control the world's information", right? Just like "provide internet to everyone" translates into "control everyone's internet."

Google wants you to keep coming back so it can sell advertising. Facebook want's you to stay so it can sell advertising. Musk wants your eyes free to watch advertising while the car drives itself. Advertising wins every time.

I need to find a gif from this scene in Flash Gordon 1980:

http://www.thiel-a-vision.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/fla...

Perhaps more apt:

http://api.ning.com/files/bFPh39OVQGutOnwuJRXsBubBr1Jq6O1mbb...

Google wants to flood us with information like zombies.

Elon wants us to sit in our cars and spaceships like zombies.

Everything sounds bad if you tack on "like zombies" as an empty insult at the end.

This is an extremely narrow view - Musk just elicits pathos to an extreme degree because that is the inherent nature of his products. If you seriously don't think social media has brought positive effects to the world and the human condition, you are naive and set in viewing the world through the lens of black and white.

Bear in mind that this might still be Mr Zuckerberg's "Paypal Phase"; making his fortune by means of a generally-reviled yet enormously-used service to enable him to personally pivot to Great Human Projects once he casts it off.

Mr Musk wasn't known for wanting to save humanity in that phase of his life.

Except his net worth far exceeds that which is required to move from PayPal phase to Great Human Projects phase. I think you're giving him way too much credit.

He wants to spread a platform across the globe that "connects" people by isolating them in front of their screens/VR goggles. That's the grand vision in a nutshell.

Musk made $165M from Paypal.

Google tells me Zuck's current net worth is $35B.

Sure, this might be inexact, but the latter number is about 200 times larger than the first.

Ooh, that 'might' is huuuuuuge.

I don't know where people get the idea that "flying cars" is a more noble achievement than "140 characters".

All these narratives you're repeating--you probably picked it up from some news article or tweet--is just another way people package their own agenda. What you're saying is equivalent to saying police is much more important than scientists. The truth is both are important and it's foolish to say one is more important than another.

Basically you're comparing apples to oranges and saying oranges are bad because the guy who sells apples started a well packaged propaganda to sell more apple and you believe it word for word.

I can't even imagine where anyone would get the idea that saving lives and the environment is more noble than 140 characters. Hard to fathom.

Strange to equate 140 characters to "scientists," but what do I know.

The HN crowd tends toward anti-socialites who don't see the value in human communication or that purpose of life is to live it.

What's the point of going to Mars, if not to share the experience with other people?

Colonizing another planet and expanding the human race's capabilities?

It's not so different. Zuckerberg simply came out and said 'I want your money.' whereas Musk left it as subtext. You just buy the veneer over Musk's pitch.

Musk wants to change the world ... by selling you the products to do so.

If Musk was after money, he wouldn't have started SpaceX. A rocket company is the dumbest way to make a fortune that you could imagine, short of putting your money in a pile and lighting it on fire. That he's made it work (so far) is miraculous.

Rather, SpaceX is the very definition of what venture capital is supposed to invest in--A high risk / high reward enterprise.

I don't know, VC is all about high-risk/high-reward, but there are differences of degree. A rocket company is rather higher risk and lower reward than the typical VC fodder.

Even if it was VC worthy, throwing all your money into two companies like that, when you're already rich, is not the sort of thing you'd see from someone motivated by money. The whole point of VC investing is to invest a little money in a lot of them to even out the risk.

He's running it at a loss with money from other ventures so that when he works it out he is the person you have to go to.

There is no altruism here, he's trying to create an industry where he would be the monopoly.

That makes little sense. There's no vendor lock-in and SpaceX has no inherent advantage over its competitors, just a greater willingness to push ahead, try new things, and relentlessly streamline. The moment one of the incumbents decides to start imitating them, or some other billionaire with an interest in space (<cough>Bezos</cough>) starts their own version, they'll have competition again, if competition even went away in the first place.

For what it's worth, I honestly think Musk is just a geek who got lucky enough to be able to pay everyone else to build his toys. I don't think he saw SpaceX as an investment I think he saw it as crazy fun. If it hadn't worked out he would have gone on to build another valuable startup, since he already had a track record at that point. It just happened to work.

Wouldn't mining trillion+ dollar asteroids make you a fortune?

The odds of SpaceX ever getting that far were tiny. There's a standard saying in aerospace: if you want to make a small fortune in the business, start with a large fortune.

Musk wants to change the world directly by providing products designed to be world-changing.

Zuckerberg hopes he can change the world through the side-effects of a product designed for advertisers to sell stuff.

To be fair, Facebook was an idea that caught on, and advertising was all they could come up with to keep the lights on.

I mean, I can't think of anything else they could do for revenue.

Makes no sense. With $10 billion in net worth, if Musk sold his stock and lived for 40 more years, he could spend about $685,000 per day for the rest of his life.

Yet people think he's in this for more money. Hysterical.

Yet you think Zuck is in it for more money?

No, I don't know what Zuck is in it for. I just don't like what he does, nor the way he does it, regardless of what his intent is.

Didn't he put like 99% of his wealth into a charitable trust or something?

Maybe he doesn't have much of an intention. Maybe he's just sitting on top of a rocket ship and looking around and going "okay, what now?"

So many times this.

What does that even mean?

Because global internet connectivity to help the 1 billion disenfranchised, unconnected 3rd world populace isn't altruistic enough for you?

EDIT: For those who aren't intimately familiar with the Google & FB plans for global internet coverage.... you shouldn't so quick to assume that it will only provide access to facebook.com (I happen to know many of the people working on both projects). This is like the people deriding Elon for building the Tesla Roadster first for the wealthy. Progress is a process that requires strategy, planning, and thoughtful rollouts.

Sure it is! But they're not giving out Internet connectivity. They're giving out Facebook & Co connectivity.

And no, that isn't altruistic enough.

Besides the fact that Musk's plans are impressive and admirable regardless of altruism. No one is asking or expecting Musk to forego making boatloads of cash. He is and will continue to be wealthy, and that's the entire point: it's possible to do good without doing charity. Likewise, it's possible to do charity without doing good.

If you're honestly confused why a for-profit corporation needs to find a business model before they can provide a service then go back to the basics and start reading again.

Charities are altruistic, and even then it's more theory than practice. For example, when charities altruistically donate food to starving people, they can either send armed guards along with it, or watch the food taken by the local armed militia and sold for profit.

Dumping anything free into a market always distorts it, and that's after you figure out how to afford the cost of providing the free thing in the first place.

Where did I say I was confused? I only said that Free Basics isn't altruism and we shouldn't be giving Zuckerberg et al. the leeway earned by attempting to do altruistic things.

Facebook offered to add an indefinite number of partner sites to the Free Basics program. But the problem is regardless of how many sites are offered in the free data program, it legitimizes the concept of 'zero rating', enabling wireless carriers to split the internet into tiers.

Does enslaving them in a pseudosocial mindcage constitute enfranchisement?

SpaceX is planning on launching a satellite internet constellation with enough satellites to cover most of the globe.

The number and mood of comments in the thread is striking too. Zuck is almost a persona non grata in our future, like traditional banks, lobbyists and a supreme court who has never once read constitution correctly.

That's because he's a rent-seeker rather than an innovator.