A comment like this does not gratify curiosity, only indignation, and we're here for the former not the latter.
as for the newsguidelines, I think it "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" to think about what motivates tech ceos and talk about how they do things
I doubt that a purely logical evaluation is possible of any statement at all, outside of formal languages, but let's not digress. (Or maybe we should! it's at least more interesting to talk about than how $Billionaire-CEO just got lucky, lacks talent, or is a charlatan.)
> I think it "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" to think about what motivates tech ceos and talk about how they do things
Yes, that's possible, but if one is venting indignation then one is doing something different.
To digress again: "intellectual curiosity" is a funny phrase, one I don't entirely care for - it verges on pretentious and reminds me of Hemingway's ten-dollar words*. But I've stuck with it because you can't just say "curiosity", because there are other kinds of curiosity and they are quite different.
It was stated to be an opinion and opinions are inherently emotional, so that goes without saying, but it is a fact that the account holds that opinion and learning about that fact should spark intellectual curiosity. It is a property of the state of universe along with all the others. There is no reason to believe that intellectual curiosity is limited to only a subset of universe properties.
Perhaps what this reveals is that HN does not attract a curious audience (anymore)? Does that suggest the guidelines are not in tune with the wants and needs of the user base? Trying to force curiosity to emerge does not go far if the users aren't curious to begin with.
Maybe it should, but you don't need much experience with the internet to know that a comment like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48648885 doesn't and won't. There's no need to look for deeper phenomena like mysterious shifts in the audience.
The properties of the state of the universe are effectively infinite. Not all users will find curiosity in the same properties. It is understandable that you may not find the same gratification here. There is still no reason to believe that intellectual curiosity must be limited to a subset of those properties, is there?
This is where it crossed from critique to attack.
It's not that you owe Zuckerberg or any other specific person better, but rather that you owe this community better if you're participating in it. (And by 'you' of course, I don't mean you personally, but all of us.)
Social networks didn't really exist before The Facebook. Understanding the potential market that could be created and turning down a $1B acquisition from Yahoo 20-years ago, at the time, seemed insane.
Also making the shift to mobile, when people thought that would be the death of FB is a remarkable story.
Identifying to acquire WhatsApp & Instagram, both laughed at when bought for the acquisition price at that time, now massive businesses for Meta (and their market cap value).
Meta AI glasses are surprisingly popular and growing. And more...
Note: I have no affiliation with Meta (not now or in the past)
---
EDIT: Many people I see underestimate what it takes to build a business. It is the classic “I could have built that in a weekend” critique. Maybe, but the product is only like 10% of the problem. 90% of the work (and hard part) is execution.
You never heard of MySpace?
Social networks were all the rage. He executed the best of all and had the right strategy to build the user base.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/19/facemash-creat...
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-i...
Not what I'd call great execution anyways.
They have released some good open source technology, but as the OP said, Meta hasn't much going for it apart from addictive apps for showing ads
Seriously? Of course they did. An easy counter-example is MySpace, which launched several months before Facebook's very first appearance as a Hot Or Not mimic (which predates Zuck by 3 years), and had many millions more users for years (especially while FB was restricted to colleges).
Major competition and a lot of money was going into social media around then (and for a couple years prior), FB is just the eventual winner.
My dude, no one in your reply thread is making that claim. We bristling at the claim that "Social networks didn't really exist before The Facebook". Unless you're saying FB's innovation is its business model and is what made it dominate, well, your original statement just didn't substantiate that.
IMO, the only thing I'd credit Zuck for is sticking (at least at the start) to his singular vision of what a social network should be; first it was just open for .edu emails, then when it was released more broadly their product roadmap stuck to fostering a social environment online.
And then he lost that vision. I'd say it was circa Cambridge Analytica when engagement---often ragebait because it gave them more and stronger of that sweet sweet monetizable ad signals---replaced fostering an online social environment. Others would say it's the algorithmic news feed. Either way, losing that vision started FB's demise.
IME, FB was best when it was a supplement and not a replacement for real life. FB had value to me because we could plan parties there and even keep in touch after, get that social buzz going for a little while longer. But it was _never_ the party.
But their recent efforts---Metaverse, all the AI crap---has all the hallmakrs of trying to replace real life. They now want to be the party but good luck with that. Judging by the blowback and lack of adoption consumers see what they're up to a mile away. Zuck has no idea how to stay relevant so now we have a platform more concerned with its market cap than having actual utility.
That’s not to take anything away from the success of early Facebook, but the idea of a social network was not created by fb.
Did Steve jobs have any of that? No. But he shits all over any tech ceo in history and it’ll probably stay that way.
Zuck has no insight. His sole ambition is to be rich and taken seriously.
I will ask though, has he been honest when he’s testified before Congress? At best, I think we can say he hasn’t been very transparent many of those times. If that’s not for power and/or financial gain, what is it? [0]
- [0] https://dispatch.techoversight.org/top-report-mark-zuckerber... - which was previously discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47060486
> “we're told to not like Facebook…”
I didn’t have to be “told” to not like Facebook or Meta. The company’s actions for well over a decade and those of its executives, including the CEO, allowed to form that opinion on our own. I’d be willing to bet that experience is not unique to me.