#the media you consume or get happiness from does not determine your moral stances or qualities | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

shining--live · 6 years

Text

My Stance On Eiichi (and related discourse)

[WARNING: its long as hell]

Okay so right now (and ever since that Eiichi episode) the utapri fandom has a huge divide, and honestly? Well, idealistically, that divide wouldn't exist. But really, I'd be perfectly content if we could just tolerate each other, like can we at least do that? I think most of us want that. Yeah, I know, who am I to say this? I'm just one random asshole on the internet, I know I can't make a real difference, but y'know, whatever XD

So in my short absence I did spend time doing some things, watching the episodes, looking at defense and hate and analysis of Eiichi and such... And I got some asks, etc. But I don’t think my views have changed much...

I still personally feel like Eiichi wasn't supposed to become a villain. Really, I think the episode was ONLY meant to show the dark side of Otoya, so I blame the writers more than Eiichi for what happened. I still think that the scene where Eiichi and Otoya are singing together was the writers trying to say "They've made up. What Eiichi did isn't meant to be a permanent indicator of his personality, we just wanted drama for the finale." Of course, some people just take it as Eiichi not doing anything to make up for it, but really I think anger should be targeted at the writers, if anything. It's the writers that had Eiichi dig into Otoya's psyche, and break him. It's the writers that failed to make a proper conclusion to that conflict. If you believe it's being sweeped under the rug, it's the writers that did that. (But still I don’t promote like... harassing on twitter and such.) Personally, I have no idea what Eiichi as a character could do to make up for it, but what I do is just apply the Anime Logic™ that episodes never really have a long lasting effect unless shown or stated otherwise, which wasn’t, Eiichi and Otoya were getting along in the end, which makes me think it’s not supposed to have a long lasting effect on Otoya (or Eiichi) as a character.

But that's just me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and not everyone is like me.

I think that's the divide right there, between people who blame Eiichi for not apologizing, and people who blame the writers for not writing well.

Those who solely blame Eiichi for what happened seem to think that people who like Eiichi don't care about what he did, or think it's fine, or support him.

Those who blame the writers seem to think that people who hate Eiichi are just trying to control people's tastes, and say they're bad people.

Honestly this probably goes deeper than just Eiichi vs anti-Eiichi. This is like... A big divide in how we consume media. Many of us are like me and sit back, relax, and just apply Anime Logic™, but then many others like to look deep into it and find a good cause to fight for, or bring awareness to a social issue. Which, you know, is fine, society has issues and that must be talked about but...

When I say "Can we all fucking chill?" I mean it in multiple ways. Honestly, it is me kinda forcing my opinion that anime is just for fun on others but. I mean moreso can we just forget about our fucked up society for like five minutes? Anime IS meant to be fun... You don't have to constantly be fighting for a societal cause or anything, it seems exhausting, you know? I've always thought that it's in the interest of your mental health to put down the pitchforks and just ~relax~. Or "fucking chill" XD But really, I don't think I'll ever understand that mindset. Yet I can accept that it exists. Maybe it's that those people are stronger than me? They have the mental strength and determination to focus on an issue and say "I will combat everything about this, no matter how hard it gets." But not everyone is like that, either because they don't have the mental state, or just don't want to.

I mean... There are many reasons why people would like Eiichi. And no, it's not because they support abuse.

Sometimes it's because they've filled in their own ideas or headcanon. They take the scene where Otoya and Eiichi are singing together, apply Anime Logic™, asume that Eiichi made up for it in some way, and move on. They look at the good things that were shown about him. That he has determination, he's perceptive. That he's confident and isn't afraid to work and reach for what he wants. Or just that his appearance is nice, that his eyes are a pretty purple, or that he wears glasses. Or maybe they JUST LIKE HIS VOICE. The main idea is that these people just don't take the anime THAT seriously.

Or others like to analyze deeper... I've seen theories that it's implied that Raging Otori may be emotionally abusive to his sons (("you're losers" etc)). As far as I've seen, these people feel that Eiichi was able to see Otoya's suffering because they both wear a similar “mask”. Some think that he learned his behaviour from his father or experiences with him, and thought that he(Eiichi) could help Otoya because they are both hurting. They see Eiichi as a 3 dimensional character that royally fucked up. Sometimes also applying Anime Logic™ to that scene where they’re getting along, but it just depends on the person.

Then, some relate to him in some way (and this is kinda my way of looking at it.) Tying into Raging Otori's implied abuse, they relate because they develoed harmful coping mechanisms due to their own abuse, and imagine Eiichi learning and growing from this incident, like they may wish for themselves. Or regardless of theories, some may simply relate to his behaviour because they have hurt people in less extreme ways and tried to make up for it.

Honestly. When you waltz around and say shit like "Eiichi-apologists don't interact" it just FEELS like you're essentially plugging your ears and saying "anyone who disagrees with me is evil!" which just shuts down any conversation and breaks apart the fandom into factions, which is UNNECESSARY.

To me, it just feels like hating him and any other character is almost a waste of energy? When you hate on ANY CHARACTER, you inevitably add negative energy to the fandom. Either by upsetting people who like Eiichi, or reminding other people who hate Eiichi about their hatred. No matter how you look at it, it just seems to bring pain and negativity to everyone. ((If you want to talk about how what Eiichi did is wrong, that's different than just saying "Eiichi is irredeemable trash." I'm not talking about analysis and conversation, I'm just talking about plain old unbridled, unprovoked hatred.))

When you make the conscious choice to show affection for characters you like, it adds positive energy to the fandom. People who like the character are happy, you're happy, the only person who's unhappy is maybe someone who hates the character but like... You really can't please everyone? Idk... At least SOME people are happy in the second scenario...

I just think it doesn't hurt to be respectful. It doesn't hurt to understand that people who like Eiichi don't just go "yeah I love when he mentally breaks people." But it does hurt when you just assume things about people without knowing shit about them. It makes you look like an ass, and makes the assumed person think you’re an ass-it’s just an overall bad scenario.

Chances are, if you (politely) ask someone why they like Eiichi, they'll give a reason I gave, or even one I haven't mentioned or seen. And on the flip side, if you (politely) ask why someone doesn't like Eiichi, they'll give the reasons that everyone has been saying. We can have a conversation, we can come to agreements. Hell, we could do what the undertale fandom did to Sans and completely change his personality if we god damn wanted to XDD

No one side is right or "morally superior" This isn't an "us vs them" battle. We don't have to be at war, we are ALL fans of this stupid idol anime, so Can We All Fucking Chill?

I (And most people) will always agree that the writers should have done a better job. That Eiichi could have been handled MUCH better. We have Maji Love Kingdom coming out, so maybe the writers will have a flashback to the Eiichi/Otoya makeup? idk we’ll see. I’m pretty sure that heavens is gonna be in the movie so like.... We’ll wait and see, but no matter what happens in the movie I will never agree with comparing Eiichi fans to Eiichi's abusive behaviour, or just randomly attacking them.

Let people enjoy things.

Let people have fun.

Live and let live.

And "Can we all fucking chill?"

(Side note: I think I like Eiichi more now??? Like.. Out of all 18 he’s still in the bottom 10 but, he’s definitely in the top 4 of heavens now XD I don’t even want to like him this just kinda happened through reading shit about him.... smh...)

Also I’m a dumbass that doesn’t know all the fandom tags soooo. Sorry! XD

#uta no prince sama #utapri #otori eiichi #eiichi otori #jay space

39 notes · View notes

falafel14 · 7 years

Text

Okja Meta: It’s all edible. All edible except the squeal.

Is Okja is a vegan film or not? I want to offer my personal perspective on Okja's layered messages on the meat eating and factory farming and what responses the film proposes. I’m writing this as someone who has been a vegetarian since I was fourteen (Mija's age in the film) and this year I've been attempting to make the transition into veganism. I'm also a person who grew up in a house next to a cattle farm, walking family dogs through fields of cows that would disappear to slaughterhouses at the end of every summer. We’re raised to have very different feelings towards animals who are our pets and animals bred as livestock and most movies propagate this distinction rather than breaking it down. With Okja we have a film that introduces its titular animal character as a beloved pet, loyal and loving as any family dog, then we see her re-categorized as a product, as a piece of meat to be killed and consumed. This transition has led to some critics to complaining about the film’s "jarring tonal shift" from its cutesy child-friendly opening scenes to the graphic slaughterhouse scenes at its ending. But this is not propaganda. It is simply reality. This is the hypocritical way different animals are treated. Kids are encouraged to love their pets and eat their meat and now critics are worried over a film that highlights this? If the inescapable message of Okja is that the animals we love and the animals we eat are the same then what response should we have? Should we all go vegan?

Even as an aspiring vegan myself, I'd say Okja’s message is not that simple. I have read several articles now arguing that Okja is not anti-meat eating but anti-factory farming. Pro-meat eating Okja fans are quick to point out that Mija herself is not vegetarian. However I'd argue back that there's a difference between how our farm girl heroine eats meat and how most westerners eat meat. The opening of film dedicates a lot of time to showing how Mija consumes all food in harmony with nature. When Okja rolls into a tree to dislodge its fruit, Mija warns her pig not to hit the tree so hard it'll fall down. When they go fishing, Mija takes only one fish for her supper and throws the others back in the water. She also uses Okja's eco-friendly excrement to fertilize the pool and feed the fish. And it should be noted that while Mija and her grandfather don't abstain from meat, the vast majority of their diet is plant-based, their dinner table crammed with vegetables. We only see them eating their own free-range white meat as opposed to mass-produced red meats that are so damaging to the environment. Mija could be more accurately described as having a flexitarian diet. Plus she knows exactly where all her meat comes from because she prepares it all herself. So if you are a western viewer watching and thinking it’s fine to eat meat because Mija does, I have to ask - are you a farmer living in the mountains catching or rearing your own meat sources in balance with the natural world? Or are you eating factory farmed meat from the supermarket? Because if factory farming is what Okja is really railing against and factory farmed meat is what you personally consume then isn't Okja still anti the type of meat you’re eating?

While we identify most with Mija as the film's protagonist, if we don’t live on remote farms in the Korean wilderness then we have to look to Okja’s western characters for their stances on ethical and sustainable food consumption. And here's where the message gets complicated because all the western characters - whether pro or anti meat - are portrayed as flawed and questionable. First I want to consider the Mirando corporation characters, who are largely perceived as the villains of the film, though I'd say Lucy is probably more representative of the average westerner than any other US-based character. Does Lucy really care about creating a new livestock industry that is kinder to the animals and leaves a minimal carbon footprint? Or does Lucy only care because she knows that in a progressive western society these things make for a better company image? Like Lucy, the progressive westerner would like to say they are animal lovers and they care about the environment but most also want to eat meat that "tastes fucking good". Lucy promotes herself as a savior to the hunger crisis and she greenwashes Mirando’s very tarnished corporate reputation. But her primary motivation is to make herself and her customers look good, rather than really doing good. As soon as the ALF exposes the “little white lies” behind her super pig campaign and she faces bad press, Lucy just gives up on her supposed humanitarian mission and surrenders the company.

Another Mirando stooge who surrenders themselves to the company's corruption is Dr Johnny Wilcox, a character who I actually had some pity for. I don't think Dr Johnny would have become a qualified veterinarian and zoologist if he hadn't genuinely cared about animals at some point in his life. I can believe that Johnny loved animals as a child and he does seem sincerely awed and emotional the first time he meets Okja. I also felt there was a real despair in Dr Johnny ranting - "I shouldn't even be here!" while he is drunkenly abusing Okja in the squalid Mirando laboratory. For ten years Dr Johnny himself has been the "prize pig" of the Mirando corporation and during that decade I imagine he has been party of a lot of animal mistreatment. But Dr Johnny has stuck with the company because he craves fame above all else and as a has-been celebrity Mirando is likely only real option that he has for continuing with his media career. Johnny's alcoholism could just be put down to his bitterness over his fading stardom and that after so long as the face of the company he is being “put out to pasture” too. But I think it is more interesting to view him as a former animal lover who's been driven mad by his complicity in animal abuse. Johnny seems sadistic in his torment of Okja but I sense that Johnny is lashing out, rather like Okja herself lashes out after being mated in the Mirando labs. Johnny offering Okja his bottle and telling her that the booze will "make her feel better" suggests to me that his alcoholism is the only thing Dr Johnny has to make himself feel better too.

The main character who embraces the meat industry’s cruelty without qualm his Nancy Mirando. The capitalist mindset that Nancy represents isn't evil so much as it is pragmatically amoral. Nancy is not sadistically motivated by wanting to murder a young girl's beloved pet pig. Nancy doesn’t care whether Mija’s pet lives or dies. She only cares about making a profit and when it comes to pig farming she reasons that she can “only sell the dead ones”. So when Mija offers Nancy gold in trade for keeping her pig alive, Nancy is perfectly happy to accept the deal. In the end Mija can only save Okja by bargaining with Nancy’s capitalist industry on its own terms. It is significant that this is the one scene where Mija speaks English because she is speaking Nancy's language in more ways than one in this moment. Appeasing the Nancy's desire for profit is the only way Mija can win. She has to hand over further riches to an already mega-rich company that is murdering hundreds of other super pigs just like Okja. Fighting for animal welfare is largely portrayed as a hopeless cause. At the end of their mission, the ALF team have been arrested and their stunt has only succeeded in destroying Lucy's company image and not in saving the pigs from slaughter. They inflicted some economic damage, likely hurting their sales with a scandal, but as Nancy reasons even with the PR damage they can still shift their product because "if it's cheap they'll eat it". It's not hard to imagine that Nancy is right given that in the real world most western consumers are more concerned with price comparison than ethical shopping. And in the case of hungry poor people worldwide, they will just eat whatever food they can best afford.

Unlike Mija, the ALF group’s mission against the meat industry is driven by their ideology rather than by a personal connection to a specific animal. We are told in their character posters they are vegans and vegetarians, but I’d say that ALF leader Jay in particular represents what so many people find alienating about veganism. That to be vegan you must be a purist and you must be judgemental towards anyone who doesn't meet your high moral standards. Jay talks about his compassion for all living creatures, but in early scenes his manner is cold, formal and impersonal to those around him. Jay is always correcting his fellow ALF gang members and threatens to exile them if they say or do anything that conflicts with his version of their ideals. Jay is a perfect example of a “the left looks for traitors” mentality. After K makes an honest and reasoned confession to mis-translating Mija’s consent, Jay inflicts a beating on K even whilst telling him that he still holds him dear to his heart. Jay has clearly taught his little ALF gang to avoid hurting people during their missions, but Jay dishes out violence and a banishment on a friend maybe only to serve as a warning to the rest of his team to follow his idealism absolutely or suffer the consequences. Early on Jay shows more concern over strict adherence to ALF credo than he seems worried over one of his teammates starving themselves. Silver exhibits a dangerous extreme to ethical consumption where his ideals have led to him damaging his health for the cause. I think that is where a purist judgemental vegan mindset can lead - if you live in the western world and you are determined not to eat food that harms animals or the environment...where do you draw the line? With that mentality you will start to find even tomatoes objectionable.

Jay begins his mission with the lofty ideal of saving all the super pigs from slaughter even if it means compromising Okja's personal safety. But when this results in Okja being raped and abused, Jay finally does start showing his true heart and takes personal responsibility for saving the super pig he used for his own political ends. As Jay silently holds up his 'We love you' sign to Mija and then warns her not to look at the screen as the ALF expose Mirando’s animal torture to the world, he is trying to protect not only their lives but their emotions from further harm. There’s two more lovely moments of silent solidarity between Jay and Mija in the film; one where Mija stares at Jay removing the splinter from Okja’s hoof (as she would’ve done) and the other where Mija prevents Jay from striking Okja when the super pig is biting down on her arm. If Jay learns a lesson from Mija then I think it is that love should drive his activism, not his credo. After all, Lucy points out that the ALF’s pig-napping did little damage to Mirando but the image of one girl who loves her pig being dragged away by cops was a PR nightmare. This type of love was always there deep down in Jay. Even after his mission fails he goes with Mija all the way to the slaughterhouse just to save her pig, sacrificing his own freedom just to support her. And in the post-credits scene where Jay released from prison it is also implied that he took responsibility for the ALF’s activist crimes so his teammates could walk or at least serve shorter sentences. Jay's loyalty and self-sacrifice make me pleased that K came back to him even after his very violent expulsion. And just as Mija brings Jay back to his heart, I think it is fair to say that Jay inspires a greater idealism in Mija. Earlier on in the film, Mija only cared about her personal connection to her pet and refused ALF’s ‘greater good’ mission to attempt to save all the super pigs. But once she witnesses the horrors of the slaughterhouse, Mija is clearly devastated at having to abandon the other pigs and takes the risk of rescuing one of the piglets, which is an ALF action more so than a personal one for her.

So after considering all the main characters viewpoints, I don't think Okja leaves you with one message, but rather three potential messages for how to respond to meat eating and factory farming from now on. First there's the response that’s represented in the Mirando characters which is simply to go along with it, accept this is how our ugly world works and keep handing over your cash to the factory farm industry. Or you could have the Mija response - have a flexitarian diet and care for the animals that you personally keep. But also if you buy something with your gold, pay for animals to live not die. Mija does this by paying for Okja, but metaphorically we can follow Mija's example by giving our money to cruelty-free products, which naturally includes vegan food. Going vegan or vegetarian isn't the simple solution to the issues raised in Okja but it is not the wrong response either. You could even follow Mija's example in a more literal way by donating to sanctuaries that rescue animals from factory farms and allow them to live out their lives in peace and safety, like Okja in the mountains. Lastly, if you watch all the way to the post credits scene, the ALF gang represents yet another possible response - that being to get involved in animal activism. Even though the ALF gang fail in their mission to save all of the super pigs, it gave me hope that they had not given up the fight and were even gaining new members. And if they are accepting former Mirando employees into their group then they aren’t being too purist and exclusive either. I loved the final beat of the ALF offering a ski-mask to the prim looking middle-aged woman on the bus. It felt like they were holding a mask out to the viewer too and saying "Wanna join?"

(If you read and liked this meta please help me out with a reblog because my hashtags aren’t working on searches for this post)

#okja #okja review #paul dano #steven yeun #devon bostick #tilda swinton #ahn seo-hyun #lily collins #bong joon-ho #long post

46 notes · View notes

viralhottopics · 7 years

Text

Good luck getting out of your Facebook bubble now

Facebook has been criticized for the "filter bubble" effect; it's unclear if Mark Zuckerberg knows how to fix the problem.

Image: Christopher mineses/Mashable

Mark Zuckerberg used nearly 6,000 words to describe the future of Facebook Thursday, but you could sum it up in two: global domination.

Sure, Facebook’s CEO appears more “woke” than ever. He meditates on substantive issues like inclusivity, the eradication of disease, responsible artificial intelligence and the future of media.

And yet. In the simplest terms, his manifesto is about how the social network will continue to be a relevant online product as more of the world becomes connected. It explores how Facebook can become a key part of global “infrastructure,” to borrow a word Zuckerberg uses literally 24 times, that will make it an indispensable part of daily life for people across the planet.

SEE ALSO: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his Facebook manifesto

Let’s be very clear about one thing: Facebook is not medicine. It is not a job that puts money in your pocket or a roof over your head. Nor is it the phone that connects you to your mom several states away, or the plane that takes you to her. It is an online platform where posts from estranged friends and family members are interrupted every so often by ads for “3 free soups”:

We’ll take the Trump takes with some delicious soup, please.

Image: Facebook

Facebook exists to grow and to make money. It treats expansion as a merit unto itself, as if there is some inherent quality to people being on Facebook that betters society.

Consider how Zuckerberg grapples in his manifesto with the idea of disturbing content.

“The guiding principles are that the Community Standards should reflect the cultural norms of our community, that each person should see as little objectionable content as possible, and each person should be able to share what they want while being told they cannot share something as little as possible,” he writes.

It’s the exact type of unprincipled thinking that has ruined Facebook in the past.

There’s a leap therethat someone seeing “objectionable content” is in effect a “bad” thing that should be avoided at all costs. You might think Zuckerberg is referring to extremely disturbing content, like child pornography or videos of suicide, content that no one would argue should be on Facebook but he is not. Rather, it calls to mind a report from November suggesting Facebook would be open to news censorship to break into the Chinese marketplace.

“Even within a given culture, we have different opinions on what we want to see and what is objectionable,” he writes. “I may be okay with more politically charged speech but not want to see anything sexually suggestive, while you may be okay with nudity but not want to see offensive speech.”

Zuckerberg doesn’t grapple in the manifesto with the idea that things that are disturbing could be important to see, perhaps because of the fact that they’re “objectionable.”

Furthermore, his idea about solving this “problem” should raise eyebrows. Emphasis ours:

The approach is to combine creating a large-scale democratic process to determine standards with AI to help enforce them.

The idea is to give everyone in the community options for how they would like to set the content policy for themselves. Where is your line on nudity? On violence? On graphic content? On profanity? What you decide will be your personal settings. We will periodically ask you these questions to increase participation and so you don’t need to dig around to find them. For those who don’t make a decision, the default will be whatever the majority of people in your region selected, like a referendum. Of course you will always be free to update your personal settings anytime.

Let’s put this another way: In Zuckerberg’s idealized, and likely upcoming, version of Facebook, the default option for what is “appropriate” in your News Feed will be determined by groupthink that is specific to your area. The manifesto isn’t overly specific, of course: Regions could be a town, city, country, continent or national park for all we know. The devil will be in the details of how this is rolled out.

But you can see the trouble already: Even as Zuckerberg concedes in his note that Facebook has a “filter bubble” problem, he outlines a system that delivers content according to a moral standard set by a majority of people. Godspeed if you find yourself in a minority of people interested in “politically charged speech” about abortion in Forsyth County, Georgia. Check those News Feed settings, folks!

This definitely isn’t going to pop anyone’s Facebook bubble.

It’s the exact type of unprincipled thinking that has ruined Facebook in the past. Rather than take a meaningful stance in favor of the free spread of information, Zuckerberg, as ever before, walks a middle course that serves Facebook’s aimsto be a happy place for all people, thus ensuring its user base can grow without provoking the ire of tyrants or censors. Individuals are not served by this thinking; they’re limited by it, because by default, they won’t engage with news or content that unsettles.

And we get it: Facebook is a business, it can do whatever it wants, and of course its major incentive is to grow and be all things to all people. The concern comes when Zuckerberg intertwines these motives with something ideological, because Facebook has frequently been a threatening force in the world.

SEE ALSO: 2016: The year Facebook became the bad guy

Remember when it allowed hoaxes and propaganda to spread uninhibited in the lead-up to the election of Donald Trump? When the company tried and failed to become a dominant internet service provider in India? When it removed a line from this very manifesto suggesting it could use AI to monitor private communications and profile people? Or when it allowed advertisers to discriminate on the basis of race?

And how does Zuckerberg presume to know which approach will work best for everyone on this planet when 71 percent of his company’s senior leadership is white and 73 percent male?

read this passage a few times. this is an enormous weird claim about how.. people.. think? become themselves? the whole letter is like this! http://pic.twitter.com/vq7ml61eOg

John Herrman (@jwherrman) February 17, 2017

His solution is to steer clear of politics himself and and design technology solutions that make the hard choices for his company. Yet again Zuckerberg is deluding himself by asserting that refusing to fully own a position means he isn’t taking one.

“In times like these, the most important thing we at Facebook can do is develop the social infrastructure to give people the power to build a global community that works for all of us,” the CEO writes.

Or, as he put it a bit more specifically to Recode‘s Kara Swisher: “Our approach is to try to get community to do it and I would rather that it come from community rather than us”

That’s nice in a sensethe manifesto also includes a rather heart-swelling passage about Zuckerberg wanting Facebook to better empower administrators of the network’s groups, thereby creating “meaningful” interactions even outside of cyberspacebut this is just a remix of the same old song.

Just as Facebook has refused to take responsibility as a media company when things go wrong with the editorial content it serves, Facebook will be able to shrug it off when its “social infrastructure” is used for prejudice or violence. Don’t forget that this is the same company that, as recently as October, couldn’t stop its new “Marketplace” feature from being overrun with illegal weapons, drugs and wildlife.

All this to say: It’s nice that one of the most important companies on this entire planet has a CEO who’s apparently done a little bit of soul-searching as the world cascades into hellfire, but Facebook has failed to earn our trust as consumers of its product. The problem is that it doesn’t need it. Facebook will continue to grow and morph and harvest our data, and so many of us are a little too over-invested in the social network to log off or demand something better.

There’s no question that Facebook has already changed the world, perhaps irrevocably. It’s the product that conditioned us to share photographs, videos and “status updates” from our personal lives online without hesitation. It has used the mass data created by its 1.86 billion users for astounding projects. The ability for A.I. to recognize and describe elements of photographs to the blind, is a striking example, but Facebook’s automated “Trending” news feature, which has been tweaked to better understand how we all consume media, is also substantial.

We’ll no doubt continue to see amazing things as Facebook and its technology mature. But don’t be shocked if (when) Zuckerberg’s 6,000-word idealism coalesces into something a bit less pretty.