4 ms·

"allegedly" Unless you can prove it, or you have the genuine reputation to be taken for your word (good luck with that), it means nothing. And It really amaze

"allegedly" Unless you can prove it, or you have the genuine reputation to be taken for your word (good luck with that), it means nothing. And It really amazes me how some people take articles like this at face-value, believing anything they say. If they said "this" person said "this" thing, as-long as they hate him, they'll instantly jump on believing and ridiculing.

rudderz 6y ago
Do you believe Zuck called people who trust him "Dumb Fucks"? Talk about a genuine reputation.
- RL_Quine 6y ago
  > They trust me — dumb fucks," says Zuckerberg in one of the instant messages, first published by former Valleywag Nicholas Carlson at Silicon Alley Insider, and now confirmed by Zuckerberg himself in Jose Antonio Vargas's New Yorker piece. Zuckerberg now tells Vargas, "I think I've grown and learned a lot" since those instant messages. From the horses mouth.
  - meowster 6y ago
    > learned a lot I've learned to not write my opinions down where someone can use them against me again, or say them where they can be recorded. - Zuck, probably
    - dylan604 6y ago
      I think the word you looking for is "allegedly" instead of "probably".
    - actuator 6y ago
      or he has really grown. Is it really surprising that people can be immature when they are young and grow to learn from their mistakes? It is easy to hate on Zuck so most people love to bring his past to malign his image. The grown up thing would be to trust his words but verify by his actions, not believe hearsay stories published for clicks. Even for people who commit serious crimes, we as a society are looking for ways to integrate them in our society through a correction system. We are talking about just words spoken as a teen/tween here.
      - ydlr 6y ago
        If he had learned from his mistake, he would have shut down facebook by now. Creating a website for the purpose of exploiting people you see as "dumb fucks" could be a youthful indescretion. Continuing to operating your dumb fuck exploiting service for nearly twenty years is the behavior of a sociopath.
        actuator 6y ago
        I don't use Facebook or Instagram but they are hardly just an exploitation service. They do help people in staying connected, specially with ones who are not in your very close circle. There is definitely a positive value that the paltform brings among the many negative ones as well.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      That... seems like the correct lesson to learn there?
      - smilespray 6y ago
        I thought the proper moral lesson was to change your ways instead of making sure you don't get caught again. But who cares about morals?
      - jfengel 6y ago
        People say lots of stuff that they would regret seeing on the front page of the New York Times. They mean something different when published as isolated quotes for a general audience than part of a conversation between people who know each other. So while it's true that this might be a "gaffe" in the sense of accidentally telling the truth, it could also be that it's not what it seems to be. When every word you say is scrutinized, you take a lot more risks that any of them will be seen as "gaffes", and the only way to prevent that is to avoid being quotable. The adversarial nature with the press and the public is a lesson that a famous figure does have to learn. Not the only one, but an important one.
    - rightbyte 6y ago
      There is a photo of Zuckerberg with taped over webcam and dumb plug into the 3.5mm jack on his laptop. I guess he knpws why to be paranoid.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
john2010 6y ago
> It really amazes me how some people take articles like this at face-value, b Unbelievable but true. Very sad indeed.
falcolas 6y ago
Yes, that’s what the article said. > Behind closed doors, Zuckerberg allegedly wanted to bring Apple down a peg, supposedly telling his team "we need to inflict pain" to the iPhone maker. As for the headline... well, it’s a decade past time to acknowledge that clickbait headlines are the norm. It’s how they get people to read the article, where they can make money from ads. The headlines will always be clickbait until this changes.
- smilespray 6y ago
  We're likely in for the long haul. Clickbait-y titles have existed since the invention of the printing press.
arkitaip 6y ago
It doesn't help that zuckerberg reputation is absolute dog shit. We are talking about a man that many considers is a threat to democracy. It wouldn't be out of character for him to be petty and vindictive.
- smilespray 6y ago
  I wonder how many of the higher-level execs and board members of Facebook consider him a liability. They absolutely should.
  - whitepaint 6y ago
    Yeah, absolutely. For every stupid decision he made (buying Instagram, Whatsapp, Oculus etc.), making the company worth almost $1 Trillion, yeah, he's a horrible CEO. As a stockholder, I just hate him.
    - reilly3000 6y ago
      One can be a both good capitalist and a threat to democracy.
      - fuzzfactor 6y ago
        I agree that capitalism and democracy have nothing to do with each other. But I still think a capitalist who is a threat to US democracy is not a good capitalist. Not good for democracy, not good for other capitalists and/or entrepreneurs, not good for the capital itself, and not good enough for me.
    - dmantis 6y ago
      Pablo Escobar was pretty good at making money too. Nobody here talk about money making, there are things more important in life. Like, you know, not running drug traffic or mass espionage.
- whitepaint 6y ago
  > a man that many considers a threat to democracy Oh Jesus Christ talk about over-exaggerations.
mint2 6y ago
It’s pretty in character with zuckerburg so that’s probably why, and the public moves of the two companies align with that part of the article. I’ll agree with you that the quote wasn’t sourced as well as it should be, but it’s hard to fault people when they are told a duck quacked and take it at face value. When someone does something in line with their reputation, people accept a lower burden of proof. If he comes out and denies it, then that’s another thing or if it was a material statement for a binding decision then it would also need more proof.
uniqueid 6y ago
or you have the genuine reputation to be taken for your word (good luck with that) I agree with the sentiment to a large extent, but it's also a question of probability. The original source is the Wall Street Journal, which means there's at least a non-zero probability that stories with 'alleged' and 'anonymous' in them are true :) Traditionally, a big publication would vet stories like this. Maybe someone who knows more about journalism than I do could weigh in re: the state of editors and fact-checking in 2021. Given that publications today expect their writers to churn out story after story, the vetting process has probably gone downhill.
- ergocoder 6y ago
  > which means there's at least a non-zero probability I am thinking this is a very low bar for anything. If we want to be technical, according to Quantum physics, doesn't anything have non-zero probability? :P
kordlessagain 6y ago
I think that Tim Cook is telling the truth and that he has genuine reputation: > Tim Cook calls out Facebook's business model, says it leads to 'violence,' 'polarization' This statement seems to stand on its own, without a need for "proof". If the business model itself leads to this, the conclusion is that the internal conversations about protecting that model also lead to violence and/or polarized thinking. If we look at the alleged occurrence, we can then draw a conclusion without the need for "reputation". There's also the manifesto.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  People lead to violence, FB is an internet tool. E.g. in Myanmar FB is used to plan genocide, in Germany, they didn’t need FB 90 years ago to do the same.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
stadia42 6y ago
> If they said "this" person said "this" thing, as-long as they hate him, they'll instantly jump on believing and ridiculing. This is such a perfect observation! My very intelligent and well-educated friends, most of them successful engineers in the Silicon Valley, behave exactly as you described. And it's not at all limited to the current political divisions in the US. Why would seemingly smart people trust random posts on internet, as long as those posts confirm what they want to hear?
Someone 6y ago
The article in the WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-meets-apple-in-clash-of-the-tech-titanswe-need-to-inflict-pain-11613192406 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-meets-apple-in-clash-o...) says “according to people familiar with the exchange”, not “allegedly”. That means the WSJ is convinced he said it.

rudderz 6y ago

Do you believe Zuck called people who trust him "Dumb Fucks"? Talk about a genuine reputation.

RL_Quine 6y ago
> They trust me — dumb fucks," says Zuckerberg in one of the instant messages, first published by former Valleywag Nicholas Carlson at Silicon Alley Insider, and now confirmed by Zuckerberg himself in Jose Antonio Vargas's New Yorker piece. Zuckerberg now tells Vargas, "I think I've grown and learned a lot" since those instant messages. From the horses mouth.
- meowster 6y ago
  > learned a lot I've learned to not write my opinions down where someone can use them against me again, or say them where they can be recorded. - Zuck, probably
  - dylan604 6y ago
    I think the word you looking for is "allegedly" instead of "probably".
  - actuator 6y ago
    or he has really grown. Is it really surprising that people can be immature when they are young and grow to learn from their mistakes? It is easy to hate on Zuck so most people love to bring his past to malign his image. The grown up thing would be to trust his words but verify by his actions, not believe hearsay stories published for clicks. Even for people who commit serious crimes, we as a society are looking for ways to integrate them in our society through a correction system. We are talking about just words spoken as a teen/tween here.
    - ydlr 6y ago
      If he had learned from his mistake, he would have shut down facebook by now. Creating a website for the purpose of exploiting people you see as "dumb fucks" could be a youthful indescretion. Continuing to operating your dumb fuck exploiting service for nearly twenty years is the behavior of a sociopath.
      - actuator 6y ago
        I don't use Facebook or Instagram but they are hardly just an exploitation service. They do help people in staying connected, specially with ones who are not in your very close circle. There is definitely a positive value that the paltform brings among the many negative ones as well.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    That... seems like the correct lesson to learn there?
    - smilespray 6y ago
      I thought the proper moral lesson was to change your ways instead of making sure you don't get caught again. But who cares about morals?
    - jfengel 6y ago
      People say lots of stuff that they would regret seeing on the front page of the New York Times. They mean something different when published as isolated quotes for a general audience than part of a conversation between people who know each other. So while it's true that this might be a "gaffe" in the sense of accidentally telling the truth, it could also be that it's not what it seems to be. When every word you say is scrutinized, you take a lot more risks that any of them will be seen as "gaffes", and the only way to prevent that is to avoid being quotable. The adversarial nature with the press and the public is a lesson that a famous figure does have to learn. Not the only one, but an important one.
  - rightbyte 6y ago
    There is a photo of Zuckerberg with taped over webcam and dumb plug into the 3.5mm jack on his laptop. I guess he knpws why to be paranoid.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

john2010 6y ago

> It really amazes me how some people take articles like this at face-value, b Unbelievable but true. Very sad indeed.

falcolas 6y ago

Yes, that’s what the article said. > Behind closed doors, Zuckerberg allegedly wanted to bring Apple down a peg, supposedly telling his team "we need to inflict pain" to the iPhone maker. As for the headline... well, it’s a decade past time to acknowledge that clickbait headlines are the norm. It’s how they get people to read the article, where they can make money from ads. The headlines will always be clickbait until this changes.

smilespray 6y ago
We're likely in for the long haul. Clickbait-y titles have existed since the invention of the printing press.

arkitaip 6y ago

It doesn't help that zuckerberg reputation is absolute dog shit. We are talking about a man that many considers is a threat to democracy. It wouldn't be out of character for him to be petty and vindictive.

smilespray 6y ago
I wonder how many of the higher-level execs and board members of Facebook consider him a liability. They absolutely should.
- whitepaint 6y ago
  Yeah, absolutely. For every stupid decision he made (buying Instagram, Whatsapp, Oculus etc.), making the company worth almost $1 Trillion, yeah, he's a horrible CEO. As a stockholder, I just hate him.
  - reilly3000 6y ago
    One can be a both good capitalist and a threat to democracy.
    - fuzzfactor 6y ago
      I agree that capitalism and democracy have nothing to do with each other. But I still think a capitalist who is a threat to US democracy is not a good capitalist. Not good for democracy, not good for other capitalists and/or entrepreneurs, not good for the capital itself, and not good enough for me.
  - dmantis 6y ago
    Pablo Escobar was pretty good at making money too. Nobody here talk about money making, there are things more important in life. Like, you know, not running drug traffic or mass espionage.
whitepaint 6y ago
> a man that many considers a threat to democracy Oh Jesus Christ talk about over-exaggerations.

mint2 6y ago

It’s pretty in character with zuckerburg so that’s probably why, and the public moves of the two companies align with that part of the article. I’ll agree with you that the quote wasn’t sourced as well as it should be, but it’s hard to fault people when they are told a duck quacked and take it at face value. When someone does something in line with their reputation, people accept a lower burden of proof. If he comes out and denies it, then that’s another thing or if it was a material statement for a binding decision then it would also need more proof.

uniqueid 6y ago

or you have the genuine reputation to be taken for your word (good luck with that) I agree with the sentiment to a large extent, but it's also a question of probability. The original source is the Wall Street Journal, which means there's at least a non-zero probability that stories with 'alleged' and 'anonymous' in them are true :) Traditionally, a big publication would vet stories like this. Maybe someone who knows more about journalism than I do could weigh in re: the state of editors and fact-checking in 2021. Given that publications today expect their writers to churn out story after story, the vetting process has probably gone downhill.

ergocoder 6y ago
> which means there's at least a non-zero probability I am thinking this is a very low bar for anything. If we want to be technical, according to Quantum physics, doesn't anything have non-zero probability? :P

kordlessagain 6y ago

I think that Tim Cook is telling the truth and that he has genuine reputation: > Tim Cook calls out Facebook's business model, says it leads to 'violence,' 'polarization' This statement seems to stand on its own, without a need for "proof". If the business model itself leads to this, the conclusion is that the internal conversations about protecting that model also lead to violence and/or polarized thinking. If we look at the alleged occurrence, we can then draw a conclusion without the need for "reputation". There's also the manifesto.

mensetmanusman 6y ago
People lead to violence, FB is an internet tool. E.g. in Myanmar FB is used to plan genocide, in Germany, they didn’t need FB 90 years ago to do the same.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

stadia42 6y ago

> If they said "this" person said "this" thing, as-long as they hate him, they'll instantly jump on believing and ridiculing. This is such a perfect observation! My very intelligent and well-educated friends, most of them successful engineers in the Silicon Valley, behave exactly as you described. And it's not at all limited to the current political divisions in the US. Why would seemingly smart people trust random posts on internet, as long as those posts confirm what they want to hear?

Someone 6y ago

The article in the WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-meets-apple-in-clash-of-the-tech-titanswe-need-to-inflict-pain-11613192406 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-meets-apple-in-clash-o...) says “according to people familiar with the exchange”, not “allegedly”. That means the WSJ is convinced he said it.