14 ms·

I remember when he called his users 'dumb fu*ks'. That told me everything I needed to know about the DNA of that company.

Disruptive_Dave 10y ago
If I were held responsible for snippets of casual conversations had amongst peers behind closed doors and as a very young adult...best case scenario I'd be flipping burgers, worst case I'd be behind bars.
- mjgoins 10y ago
  If Mark Zuckerberg were held responsible for snippets of casual conversations had amongst peers behind closed doors and as a very young adult...best case scenario he'd be flipping burgers, worst case he'd be behind bars.
  - meeper16 10y ago
    You just showed us an exmample of facebook astroturfing
- emsy 10y ago
  Regardless, it was about trusting him with personal data. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg (first quote)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
icebraining 10y ago
I never had a FB account, and I've tried to discourage people from using it every since Beacon came to light, back in 2007/8. FB is a scourge on the web. That said, I never really understood why here of all places he gets grilled over that phrase. I mean, he was right - they were dumb for uploading personal data and pictures to some unknown site owned by some unknown kid. Should he pretend otherwise? Is hypocrisy or stupidity a requirement for running a social network? It reminds me of the quote from Red Mars, "It was a mistake to speak one's mind at any time, unless it perfectly matched your political purpose; and it never did."
- Js20 10y ago
  You should run for President.
- Natsu 10y ago
  It's because it's evidence that he's knowingly screwing the users over, rather than it being subject to Hanlon's Razor. I had the opportunity to make an account back in the day when you needed a .edu email address, but to this day I have never made one.
- wutbrodo 10y ago
  > That said, I never really understood why here of all places he gets grilled over that phrase. I mean, he was right - they were dumb for uploading personal data and pictures to some unknown site owned by some unknown kid. Should he pretend otherwise? Because everything he says and everything he indicates about his beliefs is that sharing is a net good and everybody should be doing it as much as possible (I'm simplifying a little bit, of course). Just because you (and many here) feel differently doesn't mean it's impossible that someone could genuinely believe in the mission of connecting everyone, as opposed to thinking people are "dumb fucks" for wanting to do so. Listen to Larry Page speak enough times and you'll get the same sense: he genuinely believes (to at least some degree) 1) organizing all the world's information from every possible source does powerful good that is more than worth the risks/costs and 2) advertisements are effectively a human-curated addendum to information-seeking and thus entirely consistent with the "organizing information" goal. The fact that you or I may disagree with those ideas doesn't make him a hypocrite for his true-believer status. > Is hypocrisy or stupidity a requirement for running a social network? This is a beyond-bizarre assertion. Loudly and constantly extolling the value of less and less barriers to oversharing when you in fact agree with many people that those doing so are dumb _is_ hypocrisy. To use the same analogy, it's as if there were early records of Larry Page saying something like "once everyone gets their information filtered through us, we can nudge them into believing whatever we want". Do you think the absence of such records indicates that LP is a hypocrite?
  - meeper16 10y ago
    Well said. The difference between facebook, the new friendster/AOL is night and day compared to Google in terms of so many different metrics including the way it started - based on true algorithmic approaches as opposed to a way to voyeuristically spy on classmates for doxxing purposes and such.

Disruptive_Dave 10y ago

If I were held responsible for snippets of casual conversations had amongst peers behind closed doors and as a very young adult...best case scenario I'd be flipping burgers, worst case I'd be behind bars.

mjgoins 10y ago
If Mark Zuckerberg were held responsible for snippets of casual conversations had amongst peers behind closed doors and as a very young adult...best case scenario he'd be flipping burgers, worst case he'd be behind bars.
- meeper16 10y ago
  You just showed us an exmample of facebook astroturfing
emsy 10y ago
Regardless, it was about trusting him with personal data. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg (first quote)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

icebraining 10y ago

I never had a FB account, and I've tried to discourage people from using it every since Beacon came to light, back in 2007/8. FB is a scourge on the web. That said, I never really understood why here of all places he gets grilled over that phrase. I mean, he was right - they were dumb for uploading personal data and pictures to some unknown site owned by some unknown kid. Should he pretend otherwise? Is hypocrisy or stupidity a requirement for running a social network? It reminds me of the quote from Red Mars, "It was a mistake to speak one's mind at any time, unless it perfectly matched your political purpose; and it never did."

Js20 10y ago
You should run for President.
Natsu 10y ago
It's because it's evidence that he's knowingly screwing the users over, rather than it being subject to Hanlon's Razor. I had the opportunity to make an account back in the day when you needed a .edu email address, but to this day I have never made one.
wutbrodo 10y ago
> That said, I never really understood why here of all places he gets grilled over that phrase. I mean, he was right - they were dumb for uploading personal data and pictures to some unknown site owned by some unknown kid. Should he pretend otherwise? Because everything he says and everything he indicates about his beliefs is that sharing is a net good and everybody should be doing it as much as possible (I'm simplifying a little bit, of course). Just because you (and many here) feel differently doesn't mean it's impossible that someone could genuinely believe in the mission of connecting everyone, as opposed to thinking people are "dumb fucks" for wanting to do so. Listen to Larry Page speak enough times and you'll get the same sense: he genuinely believes (to at least some degree) 1) organizing all the world's information from every possible source does powerful good that is more than worth the risks/costs and 2) advertisements are effectively a human-curated addendum to information-seeking and thus entirely consistent with the "organizing information" goal. The fact that you or I may disagree with those ideas doesn't make him a hypocrite for his true-believer status. > Is hypocrisy or stupidity a requirement for running a social network? This is a beyond-bizarre assertion. Loudly and constantly extolling the value of less and less barriers to oversharing when you in fact agree with many people that those doing so are dumb _is_ hypocrisy. To use the same analogy, it's as if there were early records of Larry Page saying something like "once everyone gets their information filtered through us, we can nudge them into believing whatever we want". Do you think the absence of such records indicates that LP is a hypocrite?
- meeper16 10y ago
  Well said. The difference between facebook, the new friendster/AOL is night and day compared to Google in terms of so many different metrics including the way it started - based on true algorithmic approaches as opposed to a way to voyeuristically spy on classmates for doxxing purposes and such.