6 ms·
>In hindsight, the downvotes from people with more real-world experience than me were definitely justified. I don't want to assume bad intent, but I find it ha
by daenz 6y ago
>In hindsight, the downvotes from people with more real-world experience than me were definitely justified.
I don't want to assume bad intent, but I find it hard to believe that someone could be so naive about the project and the organization controlling it.
- ocdtrekkie 6y agoWithout assuming bad intent, I think it's safe to say people will tend to think in line with what makes them comfortable with the massive amount of money they are about to get.
- exolymph 6y agoWhy do you find it hard to believe that someone could be so naive?
- daenz 6y agoA combination of his past successes with Oculus, Facebook's track record, and his extraordinarily high confidence that the thing lots of people were afraid would happen, wouldn't happen
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- entropicdrifter 6y agoHis success was largely as an engineer hacking together prototypes and as a hype man, pulling in the interest of bigger names like John Carmack.
- Karunamon 6y agoNot to mention his demonstrated history of putting his foot in his mouth. This is hardly the first time he was later proven wrong on something he originally promised. https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/4gfpjk/palmer_luckey_on_twitter_i_prefer_production_that/d2h7zeb/?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/4gfpjk/palmer_lucke...
- Barrin92 6y agoprobably because a giant tech behemoth buying up a small company and giving it the good old Borg treatment is a tale as old as time. Let's be real, the reason he was wilfully naive is because they send him a big fat check, just like they did to the Whatsapp founders, in the same year I think. I just wish they would at least be honest and say it instead of this whole "I thought our dreams would come true" talk.
- cool_dude85 6y agoHe hasn't managed to give all his money away to a wallet inspector yet. That's about the level of naivete needed to believe in a promise FB of all people tells you to get you to sell your company to them.
- Ensorceled 6y agoIt was 6 years ago in 2014. Facebook has done a lot of stuff since then to reveal it's true colors.
- coldpie 6y agoPlus, Luckey was 22 in 2014. That's plenty young to be naive (though that does nothing to excuse his behavior since then).
- Ensorceled 6y agoFacebook was also still taking a hands off with acquisitions like Instagram the time.
- DonHopkins 6y agoBad intent was certainly behind his funding the shitposting of dirty Pro-Trump memes.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- MattGaiser 6y agoTo close the deal, I suspect that many assurances were offered by Facebook. Why do we assume that he lied instead of someone at Facebook?
- someHnUser 6y agoIf I'm reading most of these comments correctly it's that it doesn't matter if he was lied to, he should have known that this is how the world works. "should have known" is what most of these comments are talking about. As a thought experiment assume he was lied to, most of these comments are talking about the ignorance and whether it was sincere. Was he this naive or is it easy to be this naive (i.e. self imposed ignorance) when there's a deal to be made.
- wccrawford 6y agoI don't think any reasonable person thinks Luckey lied. They think he said something stupid, was called on it, and double-down. Now that it has proven out as people expected, they're calling him out on it again. Perhaps other people will learn a lesson from it? I can hope.
- Aerroon 6y agoMaybe he assumed that his new position would allow him to veto or persuade the rest of Facebook to not make such a move? I could certainly see somebody being naive enough on that front.
- fossuser 6y agoI think he was 17 (or close to that) when starting the original kickstarter. Carmack also wanted to sell because he had built businesses before and wanted to focus on the technology without having to deal with survival. It wouldn't surprise me if Luckey believed that would be the outcome. I think Zuck's strategy as CEO was also less clear then. Today it would be obvious, back then though, I'm not so sure.
- chme 6y ago> I think Zuck's strategy as CEO was also less clear then. Today it would be obvious, back then though, I'm not so sure. I think Facebooks business strategy how to make money was pretty clear at that time as well. Just remember the [Facebook Home](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Home https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Home) Android launcher that allowed the company unprecedented access to the data on the device. https://gigaom.com/2013/04/04/why-facebook-home-bothers-me-it-destroys-any-notion-of-privacy/ https://gigaom.com/2013/04/04/why-facebook-home-bothers-me-i...
- xorcist 6y agoAre we talking about the same company? The one whose business idea it is to lock up all the world's information? The one that, together with Quora and Instagram, shove a login screen in your face when you haplessly click the wrong link? When all you really wanted some some local business opening hours or contact information? The one that already owns your contact information, and aren't afraid to tell you so, because they tricked any one of your friends into letting their app suck their contact book dry?
- richardwhiuk 6y agoQuora isn't owned by Facebook, you know?
- philosopher1234 6y agoI think performing mental gymnastics to avoid bad intent is silly. Many people have actual bad intentions. “The divide between good and evil cuts through the heart of every man”
- liability 6y agoPeople often become conveniently naive when offered a lot of money.
- mgraczyk 6y agoHe was pretty young and didn't have professional experience at large companies. I think naivety is a reasonable explanation.
- entropicdrifter 6y agoHe was also homeschooled, so it's kind of a triple whammy as far as naivety goes
- squeaky-clean 6y agoI don't believe him at all. If it is true, then that's surprisingly dumb of him. I'd respect him more if he just admitted he sold out for a life-changing amount of money. Heck, I probably would have done it too.
- macspoofing 6y ago>I don't want to assume bad intent, but I find it hard to believe that someone could be so naive about the project and the organization controlling it. Let's not assume bad intent and recognize the reality that things change. That any corporate statement or policy is not true in perpetuity. It's very possible that at the time FB really did believe it. It has been 6 years since the acquisition after all.
- hacknat 6y agoHere's how money works on people: Step 1: They get an credible offer for a ton of money. Step 2: Their brain starts to spiral out of control and can't stop imagining all of the things they can do for themselves, their family, their friends, the world, etc Step 3: They've just created millions of incentives for themselves. It takes a very strong person to drive out the biases that money creates in our brains. Monetary incentives are the strongest bias creators, beaten (probably) only by sex and blood (i.e. family relations). Breaking them is the work of an iron will. You had better assume you'd do no better.