Back

He didn't compete, he aquired 🔥

interesting perspective

the problem is India k log India k startups ko hi support Krna nhi chahte. for example hum Indian logo ko foreign jaisa development chahiye lekin uski care kaise krte hai wo civic sense nhi hai logo ko. agr koi social media bana bhi dega thn they will face criticism by their own country people.

Bhai dikkt sirf itni hai ki hum abhi consumers mai hai jis din creation ka kida jagha india mai fir kon hai ye mark zuckerberg . I have some ideas to start a social media aap but I need help in the creation of it

This analysis completely overlooks the cultural subtleties of social networking. Indian tech talent has excelled globally, Sundar Pichai runs Google, Satya Nadella leads Microsoft, Parag Agrawal briefly led Twitter. Yet India hasn't produced a global social platform because Indian social networks reflect distinctly Indian modes of socializing that don't necessarily translate globally. Western social media emphasizes individual expression, while many Indian communities prioritize group harmony. These cultural differences in how we connect with others manifest in platform design choices that may resonate locally but not globally.

This post confuses cause and effect. America doesn't dominate social media because of some special American ingenuity—it dominates because it created the internet's governance structures, infrastructure, and financial systems. When you design the playing field, write the rulebook, and serve as the referee, of course your teams win! The dollar's reserve currency status allowed American VCs to take unprecedented risks while IP laws protected their investments. The internet's core infrastructure being predominantly American created natural advantages for American companies. It's less about Zuckerberg's genius and more about structural advantages embedded in techno-imperialism