6 ms·

You mean there are still people out there who who have doubts whether Zuckerberg is a sociopath with zero ethics? Why would that be?

edanm 16y ago
I don't know about other people, but I have doubts. I'm actually willing to bet Zuckerberg is very far from being a sociopath. Most of the "damning" stories about him are of the same caliber as this story. And this article, IMO, proves nothing. So he joked around about privacy in IMs 4 years ago. We don't have any context, we don't know almost any of the surrounding circumstances. In fact, since people are publishing these IMs but aren't publishing reports of him leaking actual data, I'm willing to bet these IMs really were just jokes. Other stories are similarly void of content. The truth is, I know almost no one who I'd consider a sociopath with zero ethics. The chance against Zuckerberg being one is pretty small. The chance is much higher that the media have chosen to focus on him because he is: a) rich b) powerful and c) made some moves that some people didn't like in regards to privacy.
- thinkcomp 16y ago
  You're wrong. There are, in fact, published reports of him actually breaking into Crimson reporters' private FAS (Harvard) e-mail accounts with information he gleaned from Facebook. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-into-the-harvard-crimson-2010-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-in... You don't know anyone you'd consider a sociopath with zero ethics because the vast majority of people aren't. Just the same, the people who up hugely successful by most people's standards, which is to say "rich," have a much higher probability of having gotten there at someone else's expense.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    I remember a somewhat disturbing piece I read a couple years ago that pointed out that a disproportionate number (as compared to the general population) of C*O's are borderline (the article used the term "subcriminal") sociopaths.
    - panacea 16y ago
      Without a citation, it's impossible verify your claim, but even with one, I'd be dubious about a 'piece' that purports to 'point out' (read: make an authoritative claim as proof) that... well, let's just say I don't think you read an article that was grounded in verifiable facts.
      - rilindo 16y ago
        Would these do? http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jul/08/entertainment/et-boss8 http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jul/08/entertainment/et-bos... Original article: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss.html http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss.html
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      I wouldn't find that surprising. In the current world, the only thing most big companies ever have to care about is the bottom line. Given that, it's unsurprising that people willing to do anything to get what they want would rise to the top.
  - ryanwaggoner 16y ago
    Just the same, the people who up hugely successful by most people's standards, which is to say "rich," have a much higher probability of having gotten there at someone else's expense. You're wrong. Or at least, we have no reason to believe that you're right, other than small-mindedness borne of jealousy and self-righteousness.
    - thinkcomp 16y ago
      There are countless stories of well-known and incredibly wealthy software CEOs such as Bill Gates and Larry Ellison crushing their competition, sometimes in ways that went beyond what was necessary to merely succeed. Outside of software, you only need to look at the financial sector to see rich people who got to their present position at the expense of others. I don't think my comment was small-minded at all!
      - ryanwaggoner 16y ago
        There are also countless stories of rich people who are very nice and got where they are through hard work and creating a lot of value for their customers, investors, and employees. But you didn't choose to focus on them. Why not?
        thinkcomp 16y ago
        "There are also countless stories of rich people who are very nice..." Enterprise is great--I'm a capitalist, too--but who are you kidding? If all it took to get rich and create value was niceness, I'm pretty sure Hacker News would be largely unnecessary.
        ryanwaggoner 16y ago
        Seriously? You're going to make the leap from me saying that there are lots of rich people who are nice and create value to accusing me of saying that niceness is all that's required to get rich and create value? You really can't see the vast gulf between the two statements? I take issue with your original statement because I think it's bullshit based on nothing. The laziest thing to do is just assume that all rich people got that way by screwing someone over. There are bad people at all levels of society, and I have no data to lead me to believe it's any more prevalent at higher levels of wealth. I doubt you have any data either. Feel free to post it if you do, but otherwise, this just seems like another empty, jealous rant against the rich.
- code_duck 16y ago
  Okay, so he joked around about being a total sleazebag who can't be trusted with people's private data, or be trusted to do the right thing. Now that he's in control of millions of people's private data, WOW, those 'jokes' are SO FUNNY! He should retire and become a stand up comic, it's the BEST!!!
tfh 16y ago
I won't say he's a sociopath. But he's a guy with too much power. And we all know : Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's the main reason I don't like facebook.
- code_duck 16y ago
  Absolute power corrupts more thoroughly and more quickly when applied to someone with a lack of ethics.
- Hexstream 16y ago
  But it seems he was corrupt even before he attained much power...
kareemm 16y ago
do you know mark zuckerberg? have you spent any meaningful time with him? "a sociopath with zero ethics" is a hell of a label to hang on him when you only know him through a few articles you've read on the internet.
- code_duck 16y ago
  Not just that, I know the CEO and founder of Facebook through a legacy and record of actions. Actions speak louder than articles on the internet, and perhaps even louder than personal impressions based on having a beer with someone or a conference, or whatever you're talking about. Nobody in the public eye such as this is ever going to 'spend meaningful time' with an equal amount of people as the number whom will choose to cast a judgement on their character. So, this will have to suffice. If he has a problem with that, please ask him to sell out and go away. Or maybe not. code duck is sorry if he was mean.
  - kareemm 16y ago
    You've judged him as a sociopath by his actions, not his intentions. In other words, you assume he's actually a sociopath, instead of assuming that perhaps the narrow view we see from 72-point headlines doesn't paint an accurate picture of the whole man. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor-observer_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor-observer_bias actors tend to attribute the causes of their behavior to stimuli inherent in the situation, while observers tend to attribute behavior to stable dispositions of the actor i'm hardly a zuckerberg apologist (see previous comments during the whole facebook privacy hoo-hah). but wanted to point out, really, that calling someone a "sociopath with zero ethics" based on a few articles without actually knowing the guy is likely unreliable way to judge someone.

edanm 16y ago

I don't know about other people, but I have doubts. I'm actually willing to bet Zuckerberg is very far from being a sociopath. Most of the "damning" stories about him are of the same caliber as this story. And this article, IMO, proves nothing. So he joked around about privacy in IMs 4 years ago. We don't have any context, we don't know almost any of the surrounding circumstances. In fact, since people are publishing these IMs but aren't publishing reports of him leaking actual data, I'm willing to bet these IMs really were just jokes. Other stories are similarly void of content. The truth is, I know almost no one who I'd consider a sociopath with zero ethics. The chance against Zuckerberg being one is pretty small. The chance is much higher that the media have chosen to focus on him because he is: a) rich b) powerful and c) made some moves that some people didn't like in regards to privacy.

thinkcomp 16y ago
You're wrong. There are, in fact, published reports of him actually breaking into Crimson reporters' private FAS (Harvard) e-mail accounts with information he gleaned from Facebook. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-into-the-harvard-crimson-2010-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-in... You don't know anyone you'd consider a sociopath with zero ethics because the vast majority of people aren't. Just the same, the people who up hugely successful by most people's standards, which is to say "rich," have a much higher probability of having gotten there at someone else's expense.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  I remember a somewhat disturbing piece I read a couple years ago that pointed out that a disproportionate number (as compared to the general population) of C*O's are borderline (the article used the term "subcriminal") sociopaths.
  - panacea 16y ago
    Without a citation, it's impossible verify your claim, but even with one, I'd be dubious about a 'piece' that purports to 'point out' (read: make an authoritative claim as proof) that... well, let's just say I don't think you read an article that was grounded in verifiable facts.
    - rilindo 16y ago
      Would these do? http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jul/08/entertainment/et-boss8 http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jul/08/entertainment/et-bos... Original article: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss.html http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss.html
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    I wouldn't find that surprising. In the current world, the only thing most big companies ever have to care about is the bottom line. Given that, it's unsurprising that people willing to do anything to get what they want would rise to the top.
- ryanwaggoner 16y ago
  Just the same, the people who up hugely successful by most people's standards, which is to say "rich," have a much higher probability of having gotten there at someone else's expense. You're wrong. Or at least, we have no reason to believe that you're right, other than small-mindedness borne of jealousy and self-righteousness.
  - thinkcomp 16y ago
    There are countless stories of well-known and incredibly wealthy software CEOs such as Bill Gates and Larry Ellison crushing their competition, sometimes in ways that went beyond what was necessary to merely succeed. Outside of software, you only need to look at the financial sector to see rich people who got to their present position at the expense of others. I don't think my comment was small-minded at all!
    - ryanwaggoner 16y ago
      There are also countless stories of rich people who are very nice and got where they are through hard work and creating a lot of value for their customers, investors, and employees. But you didn't choose to focus on them. Why not?
      - thinkcomp 16y ago
        "There are also countless stories of rich people who are very nice..." Enterprise is great--I'm a capitalist, too--but who are you kidding? If all it took to get rich and create value was niceness, I'm pretty sure Hacker News would be largely unnecessary.
        ryanwaggoner 16y ago
        Seriously? You're going to make the leap from me saying that there are lots of rich people who are nice and create value to accusing me of saying that niceness is all that's required to get rich and create value? You really can't see the vast gulf between the two statements? I take issue with your original statement because I think it's bullshit based on nothing. The laziest thing to do is just assume that all rich people got that way by screwing someone over. There are bad people at all levels of society, and I have no data to lead me to believe it's any more prevalent at higher levels of wealth. I doubt you have any data either. Feel free to post it if you do, but otherwise, this just seems like another empty, jealous rant against the rich.
code_duck 16y ago
Okay, so he joked around about being a total sleazebag who can't be trusted with people's private data, or be trusted to do the right thing. Now that he's in control of millions of people's private data, WOW, those 'jokes' are SO FUNNY! He should retire and become a stand up comic, it's the BEST!!!

tfh 16y ago

I won't say he's a sociopath. But he's a guy with too much power. And we all know : Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's the main reason I don't like facebook.

code_duck 16y ago
Absolute power corrupts more thoroughly and more quickly when applied to someone with a lack of ethics.
Hexstream 16y ago
But it seems he was corrupt even before he attained much power...

kareemm 16y ago

do you know mark zuckerberg? have you spent any meaningful time with him? "a sociopath with zero ethics" is a hell of a label to hang on him when you only know him through a few articles you've read on the internet.

code_duck 16y ago
Not just that, I know the CEO and founder of Facebook through a legacy and record of actions. Actions speak louder than articles on the internet, and perhaps even louder than personal impressions based on having a beer with someone or a conference, or whatever you're talking about. Nobody in the public eye such as this is ever going to 'spend meaningful time' with an equal amount of people as the number whom will choose to cast a judgement on their character. So, this will have to suffice. If he has a problem with that, please ask him to sell out and go away. Or maybe not. code duck is sorry if he was mean.
- kareemm 16y ago
  You've judged him as a sociopath by his actions, not his intentions. In other words, you assume he's actually a sociopath, instead of assuming that perhaps the narrow view we see from 72-point headlines doesn't paint an accurate picture of the whole man. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor-observer_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor-observer_bias actors tend to attribute the causes of their behavior to stimuli inherent in the situation, while observers tend to attribute behavior to stable dispositions of the actor i'm hardly a zuckerberg apologist (see previous comments during the whole facebook privacy hoo-hah). but wanted to point out, really, that calling someone a "sociopath with zero ethics" based on a few articles without actually knowing the guy is likely unreliable way to judge someone.