6 ms·

A few points. - The ongoing coverage of Facebook's birth by the press represents an ongoing epic failure of journalism. This article in particular is more path

A few points. - The ongoing coverage of Facebook's birth by the press represents an ongoing epic failure of journalism. This article in particular is more pathetic than most. When I read phrases like "Because wading through piles of legalese isn’t something that I (or you) can spend most of my time doing, for better or for worse, I don’t understand the ins and outs of the case," it's simply insulting. Alexia Tsotsis, and just as often her colleagues at TechCrunch, should be embarrassed to admit such things. Any real newspaper would fire her on the spot. - Facebook did withhold evidence both in the Winklevosses' litigation and my own. It's easy to tell because even after years of said litigation, Business Insider and other sources kept coming out with new IM conversation after new IM conversation. I've still never seen the documents I requested from Facebook in 2008 and 2009 because Facebook claimed they didn't exist. They do. - I've never met the Winklevosses or Divya. I wasn't there when Mark agreed to work for them, and Mark didn't tell me about them when I met Mark. In other words, what happened from my perspective was independent of anything they've said or done, and I don't know enough to comment on their personalities. I do, however, know enough to comment on their ethics. They lied on national television when they claimed that they had no prior knowledge of The Social Network on Today (one of the morning shows). Random House's general counsel confirmed that Ben Mezrich interviewed them for The Accidental Billionaires. - I did meet Larry Summers during his monthly office hours while he was president of Harvard. His behavior then was reprehensible, and he hasn't changed a bit. - Just about everyone primarily involved in this whole story is fairly unpleasant. Relentlessly trying to set the record straight hasn't made me appear much better, but I've done my best to stay away from it all (hence turning down Mezrich's offer to be a "compelling character.") What's truly sad about it is that for seven years now, not a single reporter has done an in-depth investigation in an attempt to get the story right. We all enjoyed the movie, but that's not what happened. And when you start drawing conclusions under headlines like "The Winklevosses vs. Silicon Valley," you're bound to be wrong if you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

prayag 15y ago
Aaron, I do agree that the reporting was pretty bad. But the points you raised were much more grave than the report. -First of all just because certain IM conversations keep coming out does not prove that certain documents that you or the Winklevosses demand exist. -I've never met Larry but he is a Silicon Valley insider and close to numerous investors of Facebook. His comments are bound to be biased. -I think the biggest opportunity you had to get the record straight was the book and ultimately the movie. I can understand not wanting to put your story through a filter but it was a good chance and you missed it. No number of open letters would give you as much visibility as the book and the movie would have. -I know someone who's very close to Mark who said once that the movie was fairly accurate if a little exaggerated. I don't know who to believe. Anyways, that's besides the point. Facebook grew to become such a huge company years after Harvard. What happened there probably has very little impact on what Facebook is today and it is a testament to Mark's leadership and entrepreneurship acumen rather than ideas, features or how it was initially envisioned.
- thinkcomp 15y ago
  Whoever you are, I'm sure you're really smart, but you're one of those people I'm referring to who has no idea what they're talking about. You know someone who knows an unreliable source; I was there. Aaron
  - prayag 15y ago
    This has nothing to do with me being smart. Your remark comes across as condescending. You are right in the sense that I don't have a first hand information (I definitely WASN'T there). I am just telling you another side of the story. You can keep-on saying 'I was there.' which after a certain point becomes your words against others'. Just because you were there doesn't not lead credibility to your story.
    - thinkcomp 15y ago
      Hi, I wasn't trying to be condescending. I don't know your name because you haven't posted it, and I don't know your background, whereas you know (or can easily find) everything relevant about me. I also have no idea who you know that knows Mark, or exactly what that person said. So you've put me in a position where I have to defend myself against all kinds of unknown variables, and it's not a very generous thing to do to someone. By saying "I'm sure you're really smart," I'm just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. You're wrong about it being my words against others' and your comments above make you sound uninformed. I have hundreds of pages of evidence that I have made public, and Mark has admitted in The New York Times that he does not contest my version of events. If I repeat the fact that I was actually there, it's because a lot of people think that having seen a movie, or knowing someone who knows someone, makes them an expert, and that's not always the case. Aaron
      - prayag 15y ago
        Hi, I posted my name now in my HN profile. It doesn't really mean anything. I am not per-se attacking you. I am merely commenting on your arguments. I am not especially convinced of you claim that Facebook is withholding just because of the IM leaks. The comment about the movie is about the general accuracy in the depiction of the events. It's a very subjective question and I am sure you are correct about some of the turn of events not being completely accurate and my source being that some events were correctly depicted. (I suspect you guys are talking about different eras in Facebook's history, before and after the move to the silicon valley). In general my comment is trying to reason why your efforts in setting the record straight, as you claim, have been unsuccessful, why there is still a lot of confusion around the story and why "I was there" is not a good argument especially if you have incentives to misrepresent the facts (I am not saying you are).

prayag 15y ago

Aaron, I do agree that the reporting was pretty bad. But the points you raised were much more grave than the report. -First of all just because certain IM conversations keep coming out does not prove that certain documents that you or the Winklevosses demand exist. -I've never met Larry but he is a Silicon Valley insider and close to numerous investors of Facebook. His comments are bound to be biased. -I think the biggest opportunity you had to get the record straight was the book and ultimately the movie. I can understand not wanting to put your story through a filter but it was a good chance and you missed it. No number of open letters would give you as much visibility as the book and the movie would have. -I know someone who's very close to Mark who said once that the movie was fairly accurate if a little exaggerated. I don't know who to believe. Anyways, that's besides the point. Facebook grew to become such a huge company years after Harvard. What happened there probably has very little impact on what Facebook is today and it is a testament to Mark's leadership and entrepreneurship acumen rather than ideas, features or how it was initially envisioned.

thinkcomp 15y ago
Whoever you are, I'm sure you're really smart, but you're one of those people I'm referring to who has no idea what they're talking about. You know someone who knows an unreliable source; I was there. Aaron
- prayag 15y ago
  This has nothing to do with me being smart. Your remark comes across as condescending. You are right in the sense that I don't have a first hand information (I definitely WASN'T there). I am just telling you another side of the story. You can keep-on saying 'I was there.' which after a certain point becomes your words against others'. Just because you were there doesn't not lead credibility to your story.
  - thinkcomp 15y ago
    Hi, I wasn't trying to be condescending. I don't know your name because you haven't posted it, and I don't know your background, whereas you know (or can easily find) everything relevant about me. I also have no idea who you know that knows Mark, or exactly what that person said. So you've put me in a position where I have to defend myself against all kinds of unknown variables, and it's not a very generous thing to do to someone. By saying "I'm sure you're really smart," I'm just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. You're wrong about it being my words against others' and your comments above make you sound uninformed. I have hundreds of pages of evidence that I have made public, and Mark has admitted in The New York Times that he does not contest my version of events. If I repeat the fact that I was actually there, it's because a lot of people think that having seen a movie, or knowing someone who knows someone, makes them an expert, and that's not always the case. Aaron
    - prayag 15y ago
      Hi, I posted my name now in my HN profile. It doesn't really mean anything. I am not per-se attacking you. I am merely commenting on your arguments. I am not especially convinced of you claim that Facebook is withholding just because of the IM leaks. The comment about the movie is about the general accuracy in the depiction of the events. It's a very subjective question and I am sure you are correct about some of the turn of events not being completely accurate and my source being that some events were correctly depicted. (I suspect you guys are talking about different eras in Facebook's history, before and after the move to the silicon valley). In general my comment is trying to reason why your efforts in setting the record straight, as you claim, have been unsuccessful, why there is still a lot of confusion around the story and why "I was there" is not a good argument especially if you have incentives to misrepresent the facts (I am not saying you are).