5 ms·

Facebook CEO Admits To Calling Users 'Dumb Fucks' http://gawker.com/5636765/facebook-ceo-admits-to-calling-users-dumb-fucks http://gawker.com/5636765/facebook-c

Facebook CEO Admits To Calling Users 'Dumb Fucks' http://gawker.com/5636765/facebook-ceo-admits-to-calling-users-dumb-fucks http://gawker.com/5636765/facebook-ceo-admits-to-calling-use... "Mark Zuckerberg admits in a New Yorker profile that he mocked early Facebook users for trusting him with their personal information."

rmc 11y ago
It's almost like he's a human being and is fallible.
- bch 11y ago
  What seems to be passed off as a foible seems to me to be sociopathic. Edit: less accusatory
  - dang 11y ago
    Trash talking at that age is an embarrassingly normal thing to do. Accusing people of sociopathy without evidence is worse. It's also hugely diluting of signal/noise ratio in threads. Grandiose accusations are noise, and no evidence means no signal. Please don't post such things to HN.
    - bch 11y ago
      Re: accusatory tone - I adjusted my comment to reflect more clearly this is only my take away. But I think his words and actions are the evidence. I understand trash talk, but calling your users (behind their back) "dumb fucks" sounds like nothing but contempt.
      - dang 11y ago
        Thanks for adjusting your comment. I want to expand on the point a bit further because I think it's important for Hacker News. But I don't mean to pick on you personally, so I hope you don't feel that way. How many people have any real basis for knowing what Zuckerberg meant by those words? A line like that could mean almost anything. You'd have to have known him at the time. Also, how many people can truly claim never to have said anything just as bad or foolish? Those two groups must be minuscule, yet to be justified in making such an accusation, you'd have to belong to both of them. Far more likely, what's going on here is wishful thinking, where the wish is e.g. to see someone else as a monster. The quote is just a convenient prop. People bring it out at the slightest provocation. It has become an internet reflex, so it no longer adds any information. More importantly, it's the opposite of the principle of charity—i.e. giving the other person the benefit of the doubt—which we try to practice here.
        eggie 11y ago
        > How many people have any real basis for knowing what Zuckerberg meant by those words? A line like that could mean almost anything. You'd have to have known him at the time. Also, how many people can truly claim never to have said anything just as bad or foolish? Those two groups must be minuscule, yet to be justified in making such an accusation, you'd have to belong to both of them. I did know him at the time. He was not a friend, but I saw him every day. My friends were his roommates and in the same circles as some of the early fb people, so I saw and heard a lot to explain the guy and his motivations. It is not an exaggeration to say he has done sociopathic things. He didn't hurt people physically (obviously), but he exploited them to the maximum extent that he has been allowed. Harvard attracts people like this guy, but honestly he was a bit extreme, maybe even out of our league. If you don't care about what people feel or think beyond what they can do to you, you can make the most optimum decisions for yourself. He demonstrated this capacity in impressive form on several occasions which are now public so don't need to be described here. My initial reaction, before the media had taken up and transmitted its own interpretation of these stories, was exactly what many here are saying. So you don't need to moderate the discussion by noting that no one involved knew the guy at the time--- what people are saying is on point. His character is evident in his life's work. Life requires compromise, so it's unlikely that he can do anything really bad now, due to the size of the operation and how many people are working together toward the greater goal of making "the" communication platform. That said, the idea that people need facebook to communicate on the internet is a conceit. The goal of this company is to centralize your communication and social life so it can be analyzed, exploited, and manipulated. That structure has grown from the motivations of this 19 year-old, aloof, and rather arrogant kid. The world has accepted it. Fair enough.
        dang 11y ago
        Assuming the details are true, your comment does count as substantive: it describes concrete personal experiences. It also seems to have an agenda, but readers can evaluate that for themselves. The moderation point is off, though. An unsubstantive smear doesn't suddenly become a good comment just because someone else shows up and posts a better one.
        11y ago
  - icebraining 11y ago
    I dislike FB and don't have an account, but (or because of that) I never understood the criticism. I think he was completely right, even if he said it in coarse terms.
  - eggie 11y ago
    I quit using facebook after I watched him exposing people on the site to everyone who happened to be hanging out in the computer lab (basement Harvard science center). He came off as incredibly inhumane. I got the impression that he feels other people are beneath him, to be used by him for his ends. I see this pattern in every aspect of his company, and it saddens me to see how much it is idolized by people.
    - kristopolous 11y ago
      Unfortunately the most successful people in capitalism tend to have an analogous psychopathy which characterizes an optimal corporation. What a system! Where being a terrible manipulative monster is encouraged.
  - calibraxis 11y ago
    Thing is, Zuckerberg is pretty right. The media frames it as a "scandal" or "indiscretion". But if only everyone had convenient access to education that enables us to consider this perspective obvious...

rmc 11y ago

It's almost like he's a human being and is fallible.

bch 11y ago
What seems to be passed off as a foible seems to me to be sociopathic. Edit: less accusatory
- dang 11y ago
  Trash talking at that age is an embarrassingly normal thing to do. Accusing people of sociopathy without evidence is worse. It's also hugely diluting of signal/noise ratio in threads. Grandiose accusations are noise, and no evidence means no signal. Please don't post such things to HN.
  - bch 11y ago
    Re: accusatory tone - I adjusted my comment to reflect more clearly this is only my take away. But I think his words and actions are the evidence. I understand trash talk, but calling your users (behind their back) "dumb fucks" sounds like nothing but contempt.
    - dang 11y ago
      Thanks for adjusting your comment. I want to expand on the point a bit further because I think it's important for Hacker News. But I don't mean to pick on you personally, so I hope you don't feel that way. How many people have any real basis for knowing what Zuckerberg meant by those words? A line like that could mean almost anything. You'd have to have known him at the time. Also, how many people can truly claim never to have said anything just as bad or foolish? Those two groups must be minuscule, yet to be justified in making such an accusation, you'd have to belong to both of them. Far more likely, what's going on here is wishful thinking, where the wish is e.g. to see someone else as a monster. The quote is just a convenient prop. People bring it out at the slightest provocation. It has become an internet reflex, so it no longer adds any information. More importantly, it's the opposite of the principle of charity—i.e. giving the other person the benefit of the doubt—which we try to practice here.
      - eggie 11y ago
        > How many people have any real basis for knowing what Zuckerberg meant by those words? A line like that could mean almost anything. You'd have to have known him at the time. Also, how many people can truly claim never to have said anything just as bad or foolish? Those two groups must be minuscule, yet to be justified in making such an accusation, you'd have to belong to both of them. I did know him at the time. He was not a friend, but I saw him every day. My friends were his roommates and in the same circles as some of the early fb people, so I saw and heard a lot to explain the guy and his motivations. It is not an exaggeration to say he has done sociopathic things. He didn't hurt people physically (obviously), but he exploited them to the maximum extent that he has been allowed. Harvard attracts people like this guy, but honestly he was a bit extreme, maybe even out of our league. If you don't care about what people feel or think beyond what they can do to you, you can make the most optimum decisions for yourself. He demonstrated this capacity in impressive form on several occasions which are now public so don't need to be described here. My initial reaction, before the media had taken up and transmitted its own interpretation of these stories, was exactly what many here are saying. So you don't need to moderate the discussion by noting that no one involved knew the guy at the time--- what people are saying is on point. His character is evident in his life's work. Life requires compromise, so it's unlikely that he can do anything really bad now, due to the size of the operation and how many people are working together toward the greater goal of making "the" communication platform. That said, the idea that people need facebook to communicate on the internet is a conceit. The goal of this company is to centralize your communication and social life so it can be analyzed, exploited, and manipulated. That structure has grown from the motivations of this 19 year-old, aloof, and rather arrogant kid. The world has accepted it. Fair enough.
        dang 11y ago
        Assuming the details are true, your comment does count as substantive: it describes concrete personal experiences. It also seems to have an agenda, but readers can evaluate that for themselves. The moderation point is off, though. An unsubstantive smear doesn't suddenly become a good comment just because someone else shows up and posts a better one.
      - 11y ago
- icebraining 11y ago
  I dislike FB and don't have an account, but (or because of that) I never understood the criticism. I think he was completely right, even if he said it in coarse terms.
- eggie 11y ago
  I quit using facebook after I watched him exposing people on the site to everyone who happened to be hanging out in the computer lab (basement Harvard science center). He came off as incredibly inhumane. I got the impression that he feels other people are beneath him, to be used by him for his ends. I see this pattern in every aspect of his company, and it saddens me to see how much it is idolized by people.
  - kristopolous 11y ago
    Unfortunately the most successful people in capitalism tend to have an analogous psychopathy which characterizes an optimal corporation. What a system! Where being a terrible manipulative monster is encouraged.
- calibraxis 11y ago
  Thing is, Zuckerberg is pretty right. The media frames it as a "scandal" or "indiscretion". But if only everyone had convenient access to education that enables us to consider this perspective obvious...