4 ms·

> 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 dat

> 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.
icebraining 10y ago
To me, there's a subtlety - though I realize Zuckerberg may not have meant it. One may believe that sharing is good and should be encouraged, while recognizing that there are dumb ways of going about it. People were uploading their personal data, expecting it not to be completely out in the open (back then, FB was even restricted to colleges), despite the site being run by someone they have never heard about. It's like believing that people should travel and meet new places, it doesn't mean you can't also believe that entering in an unmarked "taxi" in a foreign country in a high crime area is a dumb move.
- wutbrodo 10y ago
  That's fair, and I did think of that for a second. The fact remains that he was providing a service while calling his users dumb fucks for using the service; Effectively, he was peddling something that he clearly believed was against the interests of his users. When the person constantly trying to convince 7 billion people that sharing every aspect of their lives on his platform is a good idea, it seems entirely relevant that he has demonstrated in the past that he will gladly market you something that he believes is damaging or dangerous or whatever. This is part why people are more inclined to think of the guy as a snake than many other tech leaders: while it's obviously in their interest to sell you their product, you can make a much more plausible case that Bezos or Jobs or Page or Brin actually believe in their pitch too.

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.

icebraining 10y ago

To me, there's a subtlety - though I realize Zuckerberg may not have meant it. One may believe that sharing is good and should be encouraged, while recognizing that there are dumb ways of going about it. People were uploading their personal data, expecting it not to be completely out in the open (back then, FB was even restricted to colleges), despite the site being run by someone they have never heard about. It's like believing that people should travel and meet new places, it doesn't mean you can't also believe that entering in an unmarked "taxi" in a foreign country in a high crime area is a dumb move.

wutbrodo 10y ago
That's fair, and I did think of that for a second. The fact remains that he was providing a service while calling his users dumb fucks for using the service; Effectively, he was peddling something that he clearly believed was against the interests of his users. When the person constantly trying to convince 7 billion people that sharing every aspect of their lives on his platform is a good idea, it seems entirely relevant that he has demonstrated in the past that he will gladly market you something that he believes is damaging or dangerous or whatever. This is part why people are more inclined to think of the guy as a snake than many other tech leaders: while it's obviously in their interest to sell you their product, you can make a much more plausible case that Bezos or Jobs or Page or Brin actually believe in their pitch too.