5 ms·

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 easil

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).
- thinkcomp 15y ago
  Prayag, Thanks. I tend to think that people's names are actually quite meaningful. There wouldn't be so many people who insist on using pseudonyms if this weren't the case. The definition of withholding is not providing something, and Facebook did not provide documents that it had in both the Winklevoss' case and mine, as I've said. That's not a claim, it's a fact. They had the documents during our respective discovery phases of litigation, they knew they had the documents, and they did not respond to formal requests for documents with the documents they knew they had. There's confusion around the story to this day, and there will continue to be probably forever, because so many people have gained so much from it. Mark, and by extension everyone who depends (or once depended) upon Facebook for a living, has something to hide. Ben Mezrich needed to sell books. Sony needed to sell movie tickets. The Winklevosses and Eduardo needed to prevail in their litigation. None of these people have had at any point an incentive to provide full disclosure because the facts do not work in their favor. Consequently none of these people have posted documents on-line for the public to see as I have. The facts work in my favor, and that's why the documents are on my web site. Aaron
  - prayag 15y ago
    Aaron, I am big proponent of pseudonyms on internet. Though I like to associate my real name at certain places like HN. Either way, we are digressing. So what happened to the documents? How did you procure them? Did Facebook ultimately give 'em up? I am genuinely curious. I would also claim that you too have something to gain from perpetuating the story in a way which supports your claim since you also entered in litigation with Facebook. In that sense how are you different from Mark, Ben Mezrich, Sony, Eduardo or the Winklevosses? The fact is that things would not change much and you there is nothing to gain from the futile attempts at trying to convince people. Surely, a smart person like you can build a mini facebook on his own. A worthier goal, no? Prayag

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).

thinkcomp 15y ago
Prayag, Thanks. I tend to think that people's names are actually quite meaningful. There wouldn't be so many people who insist on using pseudonyms if this weren't the case. The definition of withholding is not providing something, and Facebook did not provide documents that it had in both the Winklevoss' case and mine, as I've said. That's not a claim, it's a fact. They had the documents during our respective discovery phases of litigation, they knew they had the documents, and they did not respond to formal requests for documents with the documents they knew they had. There's confusion around the story to this day, and there will continue to be probably forever, because so many people have gained so much from it. Mark, and by extension everyone who depends (or once depended) upon Facebook for a living, has something to hide. Ben Mezrich needed to sell books. Sony needed to sell movie tickets. The Winklevosses and Eduardo needed to prevail in their litigation. None of these people have had at any point an incentive to provide full disclosure because the facts do not work in their favor. Consequently none of these people have posted documents on-line for the public to see as I have. The facts work in my favor, and that's why the documents are on my web site. Aaron
- prayag 15y ago
  Aaron, I am big proponent of pseudonyms on internet. Though I like to associate my real name at certain places like HN. Either way, we are digressing. So what happened to the documents? How did you procure them? Did Facebook ultimately give 'em up? I am genuinely curious. I would also claim that you too have something to gain from perpetuating the story in a way which supports your claim since you also entered in litigation with Facebook. In that sense how are you different from Mark, Ben Mezrich, Sony, Eduardo or the Winklevosses? The fact is that things would not change much and you there is nothing to gain from the futile attempts at trying to convince people. Surely, a smart person like you can build a mini facebook on his own. A worthier goal, no? Prayag