Comment by numair | Hacker News Reader

Comment by numair | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This may come as a complete surprise to you, but the fact that you went to Harvard doesn't mean you know shit about what it takes to build a successful social network, or what made Facebook successful.

The guy who created the photo system on Facebook didn't go to Harvard.

The guy who invented photo tagging didn't go to Harvard (hell, he didn't even work at Facebook...).

The guy who cut the deals to fiendishly import contacts from various large IM/mail networks didn't go to Harvard.

The guy who designed the site and made it usable didn't go to Harvard.

The guy who kept the site from melting down didn't go to Harvard.

I know you think you are somehow directly responsible for the success of Facebook, but you aren't. Very little of the success of Facebook has anything to do with the people who went to Harvard. The difference is, the quiet guys who created most of the innovations that define the way we interact today don't suffer from whatever sort of insecurity they breed in the admissions pool at universities like Harvard that causes people like you to spend all of your time striving for recognition rather than quietly innovating and enjoying the impact of your work. You, Eduardo, the Winkelvoss twins... All of you want to feel important, to be recognized. It's nuts. It makes no sense. But again, you went to Harvard, you know about this better than I do.

This is the first and last thing I will say about all of this, but do understand that I'm simply the only one willing to say what many have been thinking for quite some time -- mainly because I am so far removed from the drama of it all that my opinion is worthless.

(I should note that there are a lot of great people who have gone to Harvard, and a lot of great people who went to Harvard work at Facebook -- there's just an incredible number of people who come out of there who feel compelled to convince everyone else of how great they are.)

You, Eduardo, the Winkelvoss twins... All of you want to feel important, to be recognized. It's nuts. It makes no sense. But again, you went to Harvard, you know about this better than I do.

Give me a break. Desire for recognition is, if not universal, at least common enough that you don't need to infer ridiculous bullshit about Harvard's entire undergrad population to explain a couple instances of it.

At first I was confused about why you were addressing the parent poster like that; this may provide some background for others:

http://www.aarongreenspan.com/letter/index.html

My point, which you missed, was this: you said the movie "wasn't all that inaccurate," which I know to be untrue from first-hand experience. There are several significant inaccuracies, which are compounded by your response above.

I think the problem is that you didn't identify or give any additional information about the inaccuracies. Instead, you allude to first hand experience without saying what it is or how you obtained it (aside from being at Harvard at the time).

This reminds me of a New Yorker lawyer cartoon: A lawyer is facing a jury with the caption "ladies and gentlemen, I've been a lawyer for over 20 years, and either my client is innocent or I'm very much mistaken".

Given that what Numair wrote in response didn't address the issue of inaccuracies in the movie at all, I disagree--the problem seems to be something else entirely.

I've written about the movie here:

http://www.quora.com/The-Social-Network-2010-Movie/What-part...

> doesn't mean you know shit about what it takes to build a successful social network

I am having a Digg feeling as I read these threads.

I also believe very little of the success of Facebook comes from the people who work(ed) on Facebook. Facebook's value comes from its user base, as does its success. Facebook got good enough at just the right time while lots of others failed to attract users. To claim its designers had some secret insight on how social networks functioned that was high above the level of understanding of others is risky.

BTW, there's just too much drama here.

And, before anyone asks, I didn't go to Harvard either.

... and when I get downvoted for saying this "you know shit" arrogance, it gets even more Digg-ish.

Please, kids, go play in your room with your toys. Stop bothering the adults.

FWIW, when Facebook went big in 2005 as it started spreading across schools, CMS'es PHPNuke, Mambo, Xoops, Drupal, Joomla, Post Nuke and many more had been around for years. They were and are called CMS'es first, but really they are social networks too. I was customizing Xoops in 2003 and there were a lot of modules to choose, which could have easily done exactly what FB was doing at the time. FB packaged it up nicely and broke into the cool people first.

> and broke into the cool people first.

They didn't get there first... They got there when the people and the technology was right.

With HTML5, what opportunities do you see open up?

I suppose the idea in creating wealth is about catalyzing a number of similar and different new technologies first and best to meet an unmet or latent human need. Rather than catching a single wave, it's about sitting atop a standing wave generated by many.

Like in the Civilization game, new wonders have prerequisite technologies, and then new opportunities open up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com