Zuckerberg says that Facebook is not merely a technology or media company but, above all else, a community. People use the service for a variety of purposes, including helping and receiving help. Mark gives as an example the case of a woman named Christina who found in a group of more than 2,400 people the support necessary to face a serious disease called epidermolysis bullosa. This collaborative spirit is what Zuckerberg wants to intensify on Facebook to solve the problems that afflict the world. To that end, he undertook to build a “social infrastructure” that will motivate social network users to create altruistic groups or join existing ones. Mark Zuckerberg points out that this infrastructure will be focused on five main types of communities:
Solidarity Community: groups that support a noble cause, an institution or an individual. Safe community: groups that mobilize people to act in situations of crisis – in the reconstruction of a place hit by natural disasters or in the prevention of terrorist attacks. Informed community: groups engaged in the dissemination of consistent information. In practice, it is an attempt to counter false news. Civically engaged community: an extension of the first type of community, but focused on political processes, strengthening of democracy and the like. Inclusive Community: The idea here is to make Facebook be used for users to recognize people from all over the world, regardless of culture, ideology, religion, etc.
All of these types of communities already exist, but Zuckerberg believes that it is necessary to reinforce them because the process of globalization that we have today leaves a lot of people behind. Still, in his view, this “abandonment” makes groups that feel scorned or hopeless to see globalization as a mischief, generating anti-globalization movements in various parts of the world. But it’s the exact opposite that we need to look for, according to Mark: With the global connection, it’s easier to combat environmental disasters, terrorist actions, civil strife, and so on. But it’s good to leave the mismatcher on. Mark Zuckerberg’s manifesto, as the text is being called, is very elegant, full of positivity and rather focused on generosity. But the social issues pointed out there involve various circumstances. You can not treat them so simply. Moreover, what Zuckerberg proposes is, in general, a new version of globalization, so to speak. But how safe is it to rely on this global engagement to a company? Although Mark is well-intentioned, what will ensure that this new social infrastructure will not be manipulated to serve obscure interests. In the background, the manifesto is more for the description of the strategy that will chart the future of Facebook. It is as if it were an attempt to sell the image of an organization of good. In this context, “community” sounds much better than “corporation.” One sign that there was a great concern to make the speech pass a positive image is that the text published by Zuckerberg is not the original. Hours prior to publication, the manifesto was released by the Associated Press. The agency version has a paragraph that is not present in the text that appears on Facebook. The excerpt addresses the use of artificial intelligence in monitoring messages (public and private) exchanged within Facebook to identify terrorist actions, bullying, and other threats. Certainly, someone from Facebook, knowing that this monitoring is controversial for hurting privacy rules, thought it would be a good idea to remove that part of the manifesto. The same paragraph informs that this technology is already being developed, but it will take some time to get ready. It’s as if Facebook had missed something then that should be a secret.
