Remember 2008 Facebook? A chronological feed of actual friend updates. No ads. No algorithm manipulation. Simple photo albums you could easily browse. Real community engagement in groups. The platform worked for users because Facebook was burning investor cash to perfect the user experience. They weren’t trying to make money – they were trying to get everyone hooked.

This “user acquisition” phase meant spending billions to create something people loved. Facebook could ignore profit because venture capital funded their pursuit of growth. It worked brilliantly. Nearly everyone joined, drawn in by the genuine user experience and real social connection.

But capitalism demands profit. Once Facebook locked in its user base, the platform transformed. Algorithms now hide friend updates behind sponsored posts. Notifications manipulate you into endless scrolling. Your data gets harvested and sold. The clean, user-friendly interface became a maze designed to maximize “engagement” – meaning profit. Facebook didn’t fail or lose its way – this transformation was inevitable once profit became the priority.

The Facebook of the Cold War: South Korea

South Korea followed the same playbook. During the Cold War, western powers poured billions into making South Korea a capitalist showcase. They didn’t care about sustainability – they needed propaganda proving capitalism beat communism. Just as Facebook burned investor cash to create an artificially amazing user experience, the West funded South Korea’s unsustainable growth to create an artificially prosperous capitalist success story.

The “chaebol” system of massive family-owned conglomerates like Samsung and Hyundai mirrors Facebook’s venture capital-fueled growth. Both prioritized impressive surface metrics over sustainable foundations. The chaebols accumulated massive debt while delivering flashy results, just like Facebook delivered an engaging but financially impossible user experience.

But just as Facebook eventually had to pivot to aggressive monetization, South Korea’s economic model faces a reckoning. The Cold War is over. Western powers no longer need their capitalist showcase. The debt-fueled growth model is already showing cracks – household debt is exploding and youth unemployment rises. Without massive external support propping up an unsustainable system, South Korea will likely follow Facebook’s trajectory: transformation from a shining example into another profit-extraction machine.

The Linux of Nation States: North Korea (DPRK)

Remember how tech giants treated Linux? Microsoft called it “cancer.” Hardware makers wouldn’t touch it. They spread fear and doubt about its stability. Not because Linux was bad – but because it threatened their control.

This same playbook is used against North Korea today. Western sanctions and trade restrictions don’t aim to help North Korean people – they aim to crush an alternative to capitalist control. Just as Linux faced compatibility issues not because of inherent flaws, but because powerful interests actively blocked its development, North Korea’s current challenges may say more about external suppression than system failure.

Look what happened when opposition to Linux eased: it now powers most of the internet’s infrastructure, proves more stable than Windows, and leads in security and innovation. The very features critics mocked as primitive became its strongest selling points.

What if the stranglehold on North Korea loosened? Its focus on self-reliance and systematic control – currently painted as weaknesses – could prove advantageous in an era where technological sovereignty matters more than ever. The industrial foundation built under isolation might rapidly adapt to new opportunities, just as Linux quickly gained polish once corporate obstruction ended.

South Korea vs North Korea Economy Comparison: Seeing Through the Propaganda

The parallel stories of Facebook/South Korea and Linux/North Korea reveal how capitalism creates artificial “successes” through massive investment, then uses these examples as propaganda while actively suppressing alternatives. The “primitive” features of alternative systems often reflect not inherent flaws, but the impact of coordinated opposition from those in power.

As Facebook’s true nature becomes clearer and South Korea’s economic miracle shows cracks, we must question other “obvious truths” about which systems work and which don’t. Today’s “failed state” might be tomorrow’s leader – if we can see past the propaganda and let alternative approaches develop without interference.