4 ms·

I don't think cynicism and criticism are the same here. This is the man that about a decade ago who called his users "dumb fucks" for trusting him with their pe

by andreyf 11y ago

I don't think cynicism and criticism are the same here. This is the man that about a decade ago who called his users "dumb fucks" for trusting him with their personal data [1]. The same man who used failed password logins to Facebook to access a journalist's email address [2]. Now he's giving 99% of his wealth to a charity he controls. This is an awesome step: dynastic wealth is stupid. However, it will take a few more good deeds to convince me that he's grown out of his youthful moral indiscretions. 1. http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims... 2. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-into-the-harvard-crimson-2010-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-in...

visakanv 11y ago
What in particular would Zuck have to do to convince you that he's "grown out of his youthful moral indiscretions"?
- andreyf 11y ago
  The most important measure is how well he weaves his core principles stated here into how Facebook makes its money (the way Jobs did with Apple). More specifically, I worry that Internet.org is an advertiser-funded competitor to the user-funded internet as we know it, and that the interests of advertisers are in many ways contrary to the interests of individuals (e.g. w.r.t. privacy). Information pipes are a really important building block to a thriving political and economic ecosystem, and for those blocks to be sturdy, it's important that these pipes have built-in privacy protections which remove a lot of value advertisers derive from them.
gnaritas 11y ago
> Now he's giving 99% of his wealth to a charity he controls. Which is just a way to setup a comfy retirement where you make more from the money than you have to give away to be considered a charity and everywhere you go is now "business" as long as you give some money away on the trip. Make 30% on investments, give away 10%, avoid all kinds of taxes and appear charitable all the while still in control of the whole fortune. Color me skeptical.
- onewaystreet 11y ago
  > Make 30% on investments, give away 10% Any profits made from investments go back into the charity's holdings. This is a good thing.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    "Charity" being Zuck's control. I don't think it's a good thing, I think it's a fancy way to avoid taxes (victimizing american taxpayers) while maintaining control of your fortune. When he gives his money to a charity that isn't his other pocket, then it's charity.

by andreyf 11y ago

visakanv 11y ago

What in particular would Zuck have to do to convince you that he's "grown out of his youthful moral indiscretions"?

andreyf 11y ago
The most important measure is how well he weaves his core principles stated here into how Facebook makes its money (the way Jobs did with Apple). More specifically, I worry that Internet.org is an advertiser-funded competitor to the user-funded internet as we know it, and that the interests of advertisers are in many ways contrary to the interests of individuals (e.g. w.r.t. privacy). Information pipes are a really important building block to a thriving political and economic ecosystem, and for those blocks to be sturdy, it's important that these pipes have built-in privacy protections which remove a lot of value advertisers derive from them.

gnaritas 11y ago

> Now he's giving 99% of his wealth to a charity he controls. Which is just a way to setup a comfy retirement where you make more from the money than you have to give away to be considered a charity and everywhere you go is now "business" as long as you give some money away on the trip. Make 30% on investments, give away 10%, avoid all kinds of taxes and appear charitable all the while still in control of the whole fortune. Color me skeptical.

onewaystreet 11y ago
> Make 30% on investments, give away 10% Any profits made from investments go back into the charity's holdings. This is a good thing.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  "Charity" being Zuck's control. I don't think it's a good thing, I think it's a fancy way to avoid taxes (victimizing american taxpayers) while maintaining control of your fortune. When he gives his money to a charity that isn't his other pocket, then it's charity.