It's true for technology in the sense that anytime Congress wants to bring in someone for a hearing about anything tangentially related to being online, Zuckerberg will be invited.

But beyond that, yeah.

Being the cause of widespread despair, hate and fear, and so, the one most often called upon to be held accountable (at least from an optics perspective) is dramatically different than being "'the spokesman' for the Millennial generation — as the single person who gives voice to the hopes and fears and the unique experiences of this generation, at least in the USA" which is a completely delusional take.

He is flattening Mark in order to keep him under his leash. Zuck has never said something generationally interesting

Was so confused on your comment cause to me it seemed like he was massively inflating the Zuck.

Till I figured u likely slightly mistyped flattering, haha.

I’m browsing around on this site and don’t see any indication that this is satire. I think your initial reaction is correct.

> That is an absolutely bananas read of Zuck's place in American culture.

It’s flattery. Consider the audience for the emails. These were not intended for the public.

I just realized it’s satire now that I’m actually reading their thread further.

Whoopsie. Bizarre that it's this plausible but it shows how prone I am to confirmation bias. I'm adding an edit to the comment but leaving it up as a reminder.

I’m actually not sure yet, I was more being tongue in cheek.

This is not satire. This is a website that has been around for years that has an email archive from emails released in lawsuits against tech companies. The page literally sites the specific case ("Tennessee v. Meta (2024)") that this came from and is easily verifiable.

Not satire. They really are just that up their own asses.

> They really are just that up their own asses.

I remember perhaps a decade ago, a coworker and I were watching a clip of Zuckerberg walking up to a group of employees and they started clapping for him. I mentioned how odd it was to see, and he thought it was perfectly natural to applaud the CEO of your company. We never applauded when our boss showed up, and I've never really been sure where the line is for which authority I'm supposed to cheer for merely from being in their presence. I haven't thought about it too much since then, but obviously it's stuck with me.

As a society, we've all had our lips pretty firmly pressed onto the asses of the oligarchs for quite awhile, so it seems pretty natural that they think it's the natural order of things.

Is it really satire? If so, I'm genuinely angry this was not flagged as such. But there is no indication on the website, and they have some older emails which sound familiar as authentic.

Why are main stream media reporting on this, if it's satire? It's supposedly from a court filing in Tennessee vs Meta.

I’ll say this: When you can’t distinguish reality from satire any more, you know we’re royally screwed.

It's important to understand that Peter Thiel is incredibly stupid.

Perhaps his most benign character flaw.

But that does beg the question - what is it about our current system (western civilisation) that seems to reward the incredibly stupid.

Though I do wonder if you looked at all people with a net worth of over say 100M whether the proportion of incredibly stupid people would be the same as the general population or whether we just have so many incredibly stupid people some of them will get lucky.

It sure reads like satire but I dont think it is.