4 ms·

Apparently people -- even the so called "Smart ones" at Harvard -- just submit their private, personal info. > Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone

Apparently people -- even the so called "Smart ones" at Harvard -- just submit their private, personal info. > Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard > Zuck: Just ask. > Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS > [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? > Zuck: People just submitted it. > Zuck: I don't know why. > Zuck: They "trust me" > Zuck: Dumb fucks. Source: Mark Zuckerberg Called People Who Handed Over Their Data "Dumb F_cks" => https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-news/a19490586/mark-zuckerberg-called-people-who-handed-over-their-data-dumb-f/ https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-news/a19490586/mark-zucker...

ggg9990 8y ago
In Facebook’s early days, everything you put on the site was shared with your friends. So it was not “private, personal, info” but rather the opposite — information that users wanted to publicize widely. I have never put anything on Facebook that I care whether Mark Zuckerberg reads or not. It would be weird and creepy, for sure, if he was looking at pictures of my baby, but I willingly shared those with over a thousand people so am happy to share with one more.
- justboxing 8y ago
  > So it was not “private, personal, info” but rather the opposite — information that users wanted to publicize widely SSN is not private, personal info? I've never met anyone online or offline who wanted to publicize their SSN widely. Oh wait... that LifeLock dude.... https://www.wired.com/2010/05/lifelock-identity-theft/ https://www.wired.com/2010/05/lifelock-identity-theft/
  - wgerard 8y ago
    SNS, not SSNs. SNS almost certainly refers to either: 1) Student numbers 2) Screen names (like for AIM)
  - yayadarsh 8y ago
    SNS is meant to mean SN's, or "screennames". This (now-outdated) term refers to messenger accounts (AIM/ICQ) in the pre-Facebook world.
- michaelbuckbee 8y ago
  This isn't meant to call you out specifically but I've seen others echo similar sentiments of "I only put what I want on FB so it's no big deal privacy wise". What's troubling about FB is the _other_ implicit information they (and the other large social apps) passively collect about you. Unless you're using a particularly effective ad/privacy blocker you're also sharing all the data about every site you've visited that has a FB like button. Also, separate from you and your data, FB has a tremendous graph of all the contacts, etc who have you as a contact. Collectively, this gives them a much greater reach and ability to make inferences than just what you directly share.
- gowld 8y ago
  > shared with your friends. The quoted conversation is about Zuck volunteering to share information to someone who is NOT their friends.
TAForObvReasons 8y ago
This is being downvoted likely because "Mark was a kid", but in many ways he was right. A priori, there is no reason to trust any website or company on the internet. The fact that people trust Google with intimate search queries, or trust Facebook with their personal photos and info, or trust Apple with their messages, or trust a website like Amazon in shopping is really amazing. They are all private companies that are, strictly speaking, beholden only to their shareholders. And for whatever reason, people either forget that or erroneously believe there is legislation governing their behavior.
- abiox 8y ago
  > downvoted likely because "Mark was a kid" well, it's often used as a lazy sort of character assassination. it's also (perhaps ironically) a good example of why "right to be forgotten" can make sense.
  - TAForObvReasons 8y ago
    The 15-year apology tour and various dark patterns that Facebook employs certainly suggest that if "dumb fucks" was a youthful error Zuckerberg has done nothing to change. If he learned and course-corrected the company, then your criticism would be fair; that hasn't happened, so the comment is still relevant today. I don't see these citations as "lazy character assassination"; rather, "this is who he is, he laid the cards bare more than a decade ago"
  - coding123 8y ago
    Can't reply to TAForObvReasons directly due to thread limits but, you're right on - actually just about anyone in this game sits in the same boat. MZ was the only one that admitted it.
  - Fnoord 8y ago
    > it's also (perhaps ironically) a good example of why "right to be forgotten" can make sense. Or, perhaps ironically, a good example of why "right to be forgotten" does not make sense.
- 8y ago
trhway 8y ago
(s/Harward/world/g) and (s/4000/2B/g) and you'd get the recent Zuck's Congress testimony.
45h34jh53k4j 8y ago
I dont know why people even defend MZ, with arguments like, "he was young" -- he still is young. "People grow and mature" -- yup not seeing it. "People change" -- also dont see it. In fact, the MZ of today is just as creepy (if not more) than sketchy Mark 'Dumb Fucks" Zuckerberg. Typically, the only defenders of MZ are FB employees. I guess they indoctrinate their employees to their Godhead well!
dang 8y ago
This breaks the site guidelines, which ask: "Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html That's especially true in this case. When a discussion has been repeated so many times, it becomes off topic on a site where the core value is intellectual curiosity.

ggg9990 8y ago

In Facebook’s early days, everything you put on the site was shared with your friends. So it was not “private, personal, info” but rather the opposite — information that users wanted to publicize widely. I have never put anything on Facebook that I care whether Mark Zuckerberg reads or not. It would be weird and creepy, for sure, if he was looking at pictures of my baby, but I willingly shared those with over a thousand people so am happy to share with one more.

justboxing 8y ago
> So it was not “private, personal, info” but rather the opposite — information that users wanted to publicize widely SSN is not private, personal info? I've never met anyone online or offline who wanted to publicize their SSN widely. Oh wait... that LifeLock dude.... https://www.wired.com/2010/05/lifelock-identity-theft/ https://www.wired.com/2010/05/lifelock-identity-theft/
- wgerard 8y ago
  SNS, not SSNs. SNS almost certainly refers to either: 1) Student numbers 2) Screen names (like for AIM)
- yayadarsh 8y ago
  SNS is meant to mean SN's, or "screennames". This (now-outdated) term refers to messenger accounts (AIM/ICQ) in the pre-Facebook world.
michaelbuckbee 8y ago
This isn't meant to call you out specifically but I've seen others echo similar sentiments of "I only put what I want on FB so it's no big deal privacy wise". What's troubling about FB is the _other_ implicit information they (and the other large social apps) passively collect about you. Unless you're using a particularly effective ad/privacy blocker you're also sharing all the data about every site you've visited that has a FB like button. Also, separate from you and your data, FB has a tremendous graph of all the contacts, etc who have you as a contact. Collectively, this gives them a much greater reach and ability to make inferences than just what you directly share.
gowld 8y ago
> shared with your friends. The quoted conversation is about Zuck volunteering to share information to someone who is NOT their friends.

TAForObvReasons 8y ago

This is being downvoted likely because "Mark was a kid", but in many ways he was right. A priori, there is no reason to trust any website or company on the internet. The fact that people trust Google with intimate search queries, or trust Facebook with their personal photos and info, or trust Apple with their messages, or trust a website like Amazon in shopping is really amazing. They are all private companies that are, strictly speaking, beholden only to their shareholders. And for whatever reason, people either forget that or erroneously believe there is legislation governing their behavior.

abiox 8y ago
> downvoted likely because "Mark was a kid" well, it's often used as a lazy sort of character assassination. it's also (perhaps ironically) a good example of why "right to be forgotten" can make sense.
- TAForObvReasons 8y ago
  The 15-year apology tour and various dark patterns that Facebook employs certainly suggest that if "dumb fucks" was a youthful error Zuckerberg has done nothing to change. If he learned and course-corrected the company, then your criticism would be fair; that hasn't happened, so the comment is still relevant today. I don't see these citations as "lazy character assassination"; rather, "this is who he is, he laid the cards bare more than a decade ago"
- coding123 8y ago
  Can't reply to TAForObvReasons directly due to thread limits but, you're right on - actually just about anyone in this game sits in the same boat. MZ was the only one that admitted it.
- Fnoord 8y ago
  > it's also (perhaps ironically) a good example of why "right to be forgotten" can make sense. Or, perhaps ironically, a good example of why "right to be forgotten" does not make sense.
8y ago

trhway 8y ago

(s/Harward/world/g) and (s/4000/2B/g) and you'd get the recent Zuck's Congress testimony.

45h34jh53k4j 8y ago

I dont know why people even defend MZ, with arguments like, "he was young" -- he still is young. "People grow and mature" -- yup not seeing it. "People change" -- also dont see it. In fact, the MZ of today is just as creepy (if not more) than sketchy Mark 'Dumb Fucks" Zuckerberg. Typically, the only defenders of MZ are FB employees. I guess they indoctrinate their employees to their Godhead well!

dang 8y ago

This breaks the site guidelines, which ask: "Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html That's especially true in this case. When a discussion has been repeated so many times, it becomes off topic on a site where the core value is intellectual curiosity.