As Facebook Takes a Beating, a Brutal Movie Is Set to Make Things Much Worse
blog.newsweek.com
blog.newsweek.com
All 162 pages.
edit: Ironic quote on page 62, which actually exists in the Harvard Crimson:
Zuckerberg said that he hoped the privacy options would help to restore his reputation following student outrage over facemash.com, a website he created in the fall semester.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2004/2/9/hundreds-register...
>While Zuckerberg promised that thefacebook.com would boast new features by the end of the week, he said that he did not create the website with the intention of generating revenue.
"a little wget magic" - Sorkin must have had some techical advisors.
Guy A: I don't want to talk about x.
Guy B: I wasn't going to mention x.
Guy A: Seriously, I'm not in the mood for x today.
Guy B: That's fine, that's not what I came here for.
Guy A: Good because if you even bring up x I'm going to stab you in the nether-regions.
Guy B: Fine no x.
Guy A: So what did you want to talk about?
Guy B: I had a question for you about x.
There you go, just repeat that 15 times per show between different combinations of 2 characters who are walking and you too can be Aaron Sorkin.
Borderline Personality disorder or Narcissism would be closer to the mark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism
When I worked around more therapists(I worked as a qEEG tech) it became apparent that some are the worst offenders when it comes to "inability to respect social norms"
Despite never having met him, and not being a military man, the psychiatrist (I forget his name) predicted Hitler's strategy for the rest of the war - and the eventual suicide, having brought Germany to ruin.
So it's not always necessary for an analyst - a good one that is, not an armchair amateur - to have met their subject in order to perform a successful analysis.
I have posted a time-line of diaspora success: http://chegra.posterous.com/time-line-for-diaspora
What I want to do next is to investigate their dna. Who are the people that first got this going? What are the connections? Did readwriteweb have a connection with them. How about the nytimes?
I could be paranoid, but my intuition says dig deeper.
By the way, Facebook is the second major entrant in this space (the first being MySpace). It's almost always possible for someone new to take a big chunk of a market, given enough time and resources. See Firefox+Chrome+Safari+Opera vs IE as an example.
My point exactly.
People care about this more than you're giving them credit for.
That doesn't mean it is wasted time though, facebook is a brand and brands are vulnerable to more than just absolute numbers of people leaving.
Advertisers will take note, for instance.
I have lots of friends that aren't on Facebook, and I have friends that are inactive on Facebook, logging only when they get a direct message.
Contrary to popular belief, IMHO switching from Facebook to something else is not that hard. People that are active online do have multiple accounts on multiple social apps. And you can use Facebook to advertise your new favorite social app to your friends.
"Facebook leads to death" - http://www.theage.com.au/national/teenager-found-dead-after-....
I think a lot of stuff like this is going to happen and we're going to either see regulation or something else really damage Facebook over the coming year or two as the public gains consciousness of the inherent risks in what they are engaging in when they expose their entire lives to the world.
Mostly the intense criticism is warranted, but I feel as though a lot of levelheadedness is starting to go out the window.
The media got swindled by putting them all on pedestals. (Wired, you're the latest guilty party by putting Zuck next to Gates on the cover).
Time to knock a few down.
I don't see a lot of civilization-advancing going on with Facebook, however.
I’m not saying Facebook is necessarily a net benefit for society, but it’s also not a total waste. If nothing else, I’d rather people were going slackjawed in front of an interactive screen than in front of the TV.
Anyway, yes, that's true, people can move civilizations forward with the worst of intentions (assuming that I read your point correctly). But it would be nice if one or more of them did it with a little more style and less disregard for the rest of us.
There has to be a better way to go about this. Or is it really true that nice guys finish last?
I am basically cynical about the suspicion that this society seems to automatically cast upon the successful. People automatically favor the underdog, casting it in a good light. Once greater successes are reached, the former underdog is looked upon as either a bully or dinosaur.
I'm not saying that the people or organizations that find success necessarily are bad or good. I'm saying that I've noticed that people seem look upon them either positively or negatively based upon their size, rather than their deeds. It is strange to have seen, for example, how rapidly Google went from being perceived as the do-gooder saviors of the new economy to being called Evil. Viewed on the balance I haven't detected much of a change in their behavior, and I am very happy about having Google in my world.
The vibe here at hacker news has grown from being fix-it oriented and anti-establishment to being snarly and anti-success in all stripes. It's one of the reasons I rarely contribute here anymore.
I've actually been yelled at for being a greentech entrepreneur, accused of, alternately, conjuring government support through climate lies, or using the latest craze to aid a power-grab. I've seen rage build up in people's eyes, as they realize I'm not clueless in a techie world, but a technical founder with my own successes behind me. It scares me. I wonder what this future world will do to its tall poppies.
In any case, I strongly believe Facebook is a next benefit for the world. I can't think of any major problem society faces that wouldn't be helped on the balance by better and easier communication, and I think Facebook aids that (as do cellphones, Skype, email, Twitter, etc.).
Ok.
> I am basically cynical about the suspicion that this society seems to automatically cast upon the successful.
When you're successful you will get a lot of media coverage, and that in turn begets more scrutiny. A less successful company would have less of an influence and hence would not be covered as thoroughly. If you become successful you have to really manage your media presence or risk some damage in the longer term.
Familiarity really does breed contempt.
> People automatically favor the underdog, casting it in a good light.
Yes, and that automatism is not a good thing.
> Once greater successes are reached, the former underdog is looked upon as either a bully or dinosaur.
Yes. But not always! Some companies have over the years managed to keep their image remarkably clean. But for every 'good' company there are unfortunately plenty of examples of corporate misconduct and those companies are making it harder for 'nice' ones to succeed.
> I'm not saying that the people or organizations that find success necessarily are bad or good. I'm saying that I've noticed that people seem look upon them either positively or negatively based upon their size, rather than their deeds.
Absolutely, there is a loss of objectivity and mass hysteria associated with 'public outrage' about privacy violations at facebook which would probably have been ignored by the press in a smaller organization. The problem is that a minor issue at facebook immediately gets multiplied by the 400 million facebook users as a potential audience for media coverage, blowing the whole thing out of proportion.
> It is strange to have seen, for example, how rapidly Google went from being perceived as the do-gooder saviors of the new economy to being called Evil.
What goes for facebook, goes just the same for google, and google really didn't help matters when they chose 'do no evil' as their slogan, it gave every google hater a really good handle and a perfect way to use their own words against them.
> Viewed on the balance I haven't detected much of a change in their behavior, and I am very happy about having Google in my world.
Google has done lots of stuff good and has messed up a few times too. On balance they've done great and I couldn't live a day without them, no matter how good duckduckgo.com has become :)
> The vibe here at hacker news has grown from being fix-it oriented and anti-establishment to being snarly and anti-success in all stripes.
Hm, I don't know about that. There is a lot of truth in what you say but it's not a general rule. It's just gotten bigger and there is a lot more in terms of one liners and vote mobbing (especially if you hold an impopular opinion on some subject you can find yourself at -4 in a hurry) but on the whole it still is - just like google - largely positive.
No single website can be 'all good', and just like facebook, google and others have their issues because of their size, so does HN. It would be surprising if it didn't.
> It's one of the reasons I rarely contribute here anymore.
Your contributions are being missed, I definitely noticed you dropping off the radar and the site is poorer for it.
> I've actually been yelled at for being a greentech entrepreneur,
That really sucks, and I don't agree with it one bit. In fact I applaud you for it and I think that we should have more rather than less people working on stuff that really matters, such as renewable energy technology and sustainable living. HN is very much pro-nuclear power from what I've seen in various discussions.
> or alternately, conjuring government support through climate lies,
Climate research has been dented by some not-so-ethical researchers, but this is now used by people with an agenda to invalidate all the research. And that's really a pity because it seems as though we might be shooting ourselves in the foot big time on that one if we don't get to some kind of objectivity. After all, science is about finding out what is going on, regardless of who is right.
> I've seen rage build up in people's eyes, as they realize I'm not clueless in a techie world, but a technical founder with my own successes behind me.
It's sad, and yes, there are a lot of jealous people out there. The more successful you get the more you'll be confronted with that, it's the shadow side of any kind of success. It is also why people are gleeful when google or facebook mess up, they elevate their own positions by kicking at others.
But that does not mean that successful people and companies should not be scrutinized. There has to be a way for a company to be both successful, ethical and open.
> I wonder what this future world will do to its tall poppies.
From personal experience in school I would say that tall poppies have a real problem staying tall. The world would very much like to reduce them to average height so they don't stand out so much.
> In any case, I strongly believe Facebook is a net benefit for the world.
I believe so too, they've (re)connected me with lots of people and for that alone I'm very grateful to Mark Zuckerberg, no matter what the origins of facebook or how much they 'violate' my privacy. One reason why that doesn't worry me at all is that I have very little information on there that you couldn't get in 20 different ways, and secondly because I really have no problem with them selling what little info they have on me. If that keeps them in the air, more power to them.
> I can't think of any major problem society faces that wouldn't be helped on the balance by better and easier communication, and I think Facebook aids that (as do cellphones, Skype, email, Twitter, etc.).
A friend of mine once wrote that a human being has an insatiable need to communicate, I believe that's true. We communicate almost all day long when we are awake, except when doing physical labour. From whistling to indicate we're in a good mood to a scream of pain, words, poems, music, blog postings, emails, visual arts, architecture, snail mail and so on, each and every bit of contribution that potentially outlasts a human life starts out as a communication of sorts.
I think it is that which separates us from the other 'animals' on this planet and we should treasure each and every contribution to our ability to communicate.
The facebook issues will blow over, facebook will sooner or later learn their lesson on how to communicate on privacy issues with their users, and users will learn how to manage their online presence better. It's just as much an educational issue as it is a privacy issue and people are wising up to this. The balance will shift a bit, not much, and facebook will continue.
And who knows, maybe one day another, better facebook will come along. But until then this one is pretty good. And I have not killed my account there.
Just a kudos to let you know there are at least a couple of people that are interested in what you're doing.
As for your comment:
> I'm saying that I've noticed that people seem look upon them either positively or negatively based upon their size, rather than their deeds.
There is a certain natural distrust of anything which becomes overwhelmingly powerful.
> ...how rapidly Google went from being perceived as the do-gooder saviors of the new economy to being called Evil. Viewed on the balance I haven't detected much of a change in their behavior, and I am very happy about having Google in my world.
On the balance, maybe, but Google did set some very high standards for itself, and it's impossible to argue that they've met those standards in all cases. I do think they're a hell of an improvement over the megacorporations of the past, but I also think that people have good reasons at this point to regard them somewhat warily. A lot of people are beginning to realize for example that Google is not really a technology company, they are an advertising company that uses technology very effectively.
> ...accused of, alternately, conjuring government support through climate lies, or using the latest craze to aid a power-grab.
The CRU leak brought the crazy out on HN in spades. I, for one, lost a terrible amount of respect for the site in general during that whole episode, and I don't think that's going to really ever change. On the plus side, now it's easier to keep the site at arm's length, and not get too involved in whatever the latest frenzy is.
> I can't think of any major problem society faces that wouldn't be helped on the balance by better and easier communication, and I think Facebook aids that (as do cellphones, Skype, email, Twitter, etc.).
Hmm. I figured that IRC was actually one of the best developments in terms of free and easy international communication; unfortunately, it seems to be going the way of Usenet. Facebook however tends to try to associate users by pre-existing connections, so it's mostly local for most people. And Twitter -- well, it was kind of alright, but it got grabbed in a hurry by all the "social media networking gurus", and I just don't see much in the way of real social benefit there anymore.
I think Gates has done considerable more good for the world than the other assholes of the business world.
That said, sure, Microsoft is a lot better than the businesses that merely push cash around and take a stack for themselves in the process.
But, in all seriousness, Windows (including Office etc.) is morally questionable. Grant me two points:
First, it could be better without serious harm to its success. Over the last 15 years, Microsoft could have funded security and usability a bit more and saturation advertising a bit less, and it would have the same market share but save its users something like 10% of their use time.
Second, it hasn’t competed ethically. Microsoft under Gates did things that were only slightly to its medium-term benefit and very much to the detriment of the market. Many products that were clearly better for the user never got a fair shake. Cutthroat capitalism has its place, but Gates went further.
Given these, the opportunity cost of Windows adds up to a huge amount of inefficiency – time spent needlessly fighting computers – for which Gates is significantly responsible.
Some back-of-the-envelope math: If Windows has an install base of 1 billion, and the average install is used for 4 hours a day, that’s about 150 million Windows-years per year. If Gates is personally responsible for 1% inefficiency there, that’s about 1.5 million person-years of waste per year.
Would that particular time and effort have cured cancer? Or made the Linux kernel twice as good? No. But it’s still a lot to waste.
I’m trying not to be glib. I know it’s not original to say that Windows sucks. My point is that when something really big sucks preventably, we’re talking about significant amounts of resources burning away, and that has a moral dimension. More power to Gates as he eradicates malaria, but as far as I’m concerned he started with a big debt to society.
I’m not saying Gates owes us all a perfect operating system. But by doing a worse job than he could and distorting the market (if you agree to both of those), he screwed up.
If Microsoft would have delivered sexy / functional products, nobody would have noticed ... not only that, but they would have a legion of people defending them.
Unfortunately they preferred to make partnerships with companies like Intel, Compaq or HP, favoring IBM-compatible PCs, or hardware that was more open / accessible, putting a lot of control in the hands of hardware companies.
Maybe it was IBM breathing down their necks, maybe it made sense for their business, but if this didn't happen Windows NT would've been released as a consumer version instead of Win 9x ... which is the main culprit of almost all problems associated with Windows.
And I don't know what "big debt to society" you're talking about ... in '95 in my (arguably third world country) I live in schools in small towns had computer-labs with Microsoft software on it. If IBM-compatible PCs weren't so popular (with MS software contributing a lot to that) or free to clone, we wouldn't have had local companies producing cheap computers, and thus we wouldn't have had computers in school (and I wouldn't be a software developer for that matter).
IMHO, I see a lot of double-standards flying around.
Basically, I recognize the huge benefit to society that Microsoft was involved with. What I’m asking is whether they used the huge opportunities they got (by hook or by crook) as well as should be expected.
(“Third world”, incidentally, originally meant countries that were unaligned in the Cold War, and has no clear meaning when it comes to poverty or human development.)
So, to be contrary, their monopoly was good. See also the iPhone.
Consider: The value of TCP is not in itself, but in the applications that run on it. The greater the market share of TCP, the greater the utility of the applications. The greater the market share of TCP, the greater the incentive for applications to be created for it.
----
The value of Posix is not in itself, but in the applications that run on it. The greater the market share of Posix, the greater the utility of the applications. The greater the market share of Posix, the greater the incentive for applications to be created for it.
Indeed. http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/bill-gates-tours-bihar-by-boa.... Its heartening to see him taking great measures to see his wealth is well spent.
The "hours wasted" argument doesn't hold a lot of traction for me. As anecdotal evidence, I believe I saw a statistic that "House" is watched by over 300 million people globally -- that's 300m * 42 minutes _per week_. (Clay Shirky has a great article about mankind's surplus hours and how they're wasted in television).
At least people choose to watch House. It’s not actively sabotaging other shows and then shipping with glaring, time-wasting bugs.
Clearly the revolution that started with the first tube in 1908 and progressed to fancier tubes, to transistors, to what we have today, points more to Intel than Microsoft.
Compare yourself and see that they are pretty big and content to stay out of the limelight: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=INTC+Key+Statistics vs. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT+Key+Statistics
If you want to give credit, give it to people who did the deeds to deserve it. People like Alan Kay, Doug Engelbart, Ivan Sutherland, Seymour Papert[2].
[1] http://programmersatwork.wordpress.com/bill-gates-1986/
[2] http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/EarlyHistoryST.html
Could they have done the same thing, but in a larger timeline and have not generated the press frenzy? Was it that this last change was larger, was the combination of these 2 things?
Can't know for sure off course, but interesting to speculate IMO.
Starring Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg and Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker!
If anything, Facebook should do something like this themselves, to maximize advertising revenue. If you place a product in the movie and advertise on Facebook, you're getting every demographic :)
Those dangerous autistics....bring your children inside!
I'm autistic and can recognize autistics very quickly. I've met Zuck face-to-face and didn't get any of that vibe from him at all.
Well more like, probably, that autism /neuters/ the sociopathy. You wouldn't have the skill to exploit people. Even more likely, they're both just rarities; someone with both would be rare^2.