Makes sense. He practically stole the idea from the Winklevoss twins; they went on to make billions in cryptocurrency, which is possibly privacy-enhancing/prese

Makes sense. He practically stole the idea from the Winklevoss twins; they went on to make billions in cryptocurrency, which is possibly privacy-enhancing/preserving, and Zuckerberg made Panopticon. I mean Facebook. I always get the name wrong. Don’t use it much since the emotional manipulation “experiment” came out, if you can call it that. It didn’t embody the scientific method, in that humans were not consenting. But, we learned more about human nature, and the nature of Mark Zuckerberg than we could have otherwise, so I guess by a very very strict reading, we learned facts we didn’t already know. As there were bound to be other ways to do that work while respecting individual and collective consent, I don’t feel we have to give Zuck much leeway here. It was wrong, and his punishment is less memorable to me than the offense, which for person of his high profile smacks of regulatory capture and lobbying gone amok. But don’t call it science. It somehow cheapens even a naked cash grab.