Mark Zuckerberg appears on CNBC to discuss a social network (2004) [video]
facebook.com
facebook.com
And now, Mark created a business with thousands of employees, changing how we communicate, how we discover information about the cities we live in.
Give the man some respect. This isn't about his privileged background, but about the perseverance he showed for the last 11 years.
He got us here by tricking us with cheap tricks. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebooks-evil-interfa...
The way I see, he is one of the worst things to happen to the Internet if not the worst, but that's just my opinion.
For a long time facebook tracked people using flash cookies (also called Local Shared Objects) to track people with opinions flawed like your own around various website that are not facebook.
What if they use some more devious tricks now? You might say that you use noscript, adblock or something else, but what about profiling you based information created by you browser. Browser fingerprinting - https://panopticlick.eff.org/ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_fingerprint
I would rather simply avoid facebook and deal with people without a history of ethical issues.
Perhaps, though I'm not convinced it was for the better. every time I log into Facebook I log off within five minutes wondering why I continue to waste my time with it. Maybe that's just my problem, I don't know.
An RSS reader wouldn't be compelling if you're just subscribed to Buzzfeed, after all.
I keep in contact with my actual friends, but not via FB.
Guess your idea is better, but it's actually kind of fun to de-friend ppl. You should try ;)
so in your logic, because somebody don't use facebook, he/she does not communicate with his/her friends?
wow
Facebook stopped being a fad and became a staple. People who could not fathom using new technology bought a netbook and learned to use it just to find long lost acquaintances and keep in touch with their sons. It's not just chatting, but it's about the core experience: "We are in this together". Photos, silly daily updates and videos make distance less painful.
Remember shooting the shit with him about this social network thing he was working on - he was wearing a dressing/smoking gown and drinking from a plastic bottle of vodka... down to earth guy, not above getting blotto with a couple of random brits - and I don't think at that stage even he expected it to go anywhere near as far as it has.
Not sure why I'm telling this tale, other than to illuminate that the guy's a human being, and an entertaining one at that.
Maybe to brag that you've hung out with him? That's not meant to be snarky. It's the same explanation for why people want the autograph of someone famous - to try to convince other people they know high status, powerful people, and by association they are one themselves.
We are often unaware of why we do what we do... or we tell people one reason and keep the real reason to ourselves :-)
Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't.
Experiments in psychology and neuroscience show how little we know ourselves; how we retrospectively justify our decisions to ourselves and others, and how we are experts in self deception. So it's entirely possible that some part of you was driven by the primitive urge to publicly align yourself with high status people, but finding that disagreeable, you then seemlessly deceived yourself with a different purpose, because of course you aren't so egotistical.
Now I'm not saying that that is what happened, and no one can ever know. I am saying it is a pattern of human behaviour.
> Actually thought twice about posting for this precise reason.
That's kind of strange isn't it, when you think about it? I assume you mean that you thought twice about posting - in case people you'll never meet might think you were bragging - instead of thinking about posting your name? That doesn't really seem to make any sense to me. I mean, why should you care what people you don't know, and in all likelihood will never meet, think about you? From a logical stance, it doesn't make any sense. But then we aren't driven by our logical brains. It's been really fascinating for me to learn about this and then to see the walls of my logical reality crumble and realise how much emotion dictates my life and how little we actually know ourselves.
Don't make the mistake that people are a) logical, or b) that you really know yourself (unless you're superhumanly gifted) and your reasons for doing what you do.
Of course I don't expect you to like this post either, since this challenges our assumptions about ourselves at the most fundamental of levels :-)...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-19/mark-zucke...
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,689438,...
"Two years ago, Dan Stillman and Matt Eaton, then sophomores at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, launched WesMatch.com, a site featuring a humorous, elaborate personality questionnaire. The service allows students to rate themselves and their potential mates in categories ranging from sex drive to "socialisticbutterflyosity." "
BBSs, TheWell, Compuserve, Prodigy, AOL, TheGlobe, Geocities, Friendster, MySpace, Facebook, what's next? Fill in the blank I guess.
DMOZ, Yahoo, HotBot, WebCrawler, AllTheWeb, Excite, AltaVista, Lycos, Google, what's next? Too hard to tell.
Google was founded on principles in artificial intelligence and now has a good handle on how to implement portions of AI along with all the other things they're doing.
Facebook was founded by a guy who was a voyeur and called its users "dumb f*cks" for giving out personal information while rocking a biz card that said "I'm CEO, bitch!".
Big difference and big difference in revenue too.
It's always about who you know to give your work wings (which is apt, since his project was a social network)
What possible grounds could you have for claiming that? The video I watched showed nothing of that kind. I'd say what it showed was the incredible focus and product sense he had.
"Mark Zuckerberg admits in a New Yorker profile that he mocked early Facebook users for trusting him with their personal information."
Edit: less accusatory
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually no, you are incorrect. Calling people "dumb fucks" for trusting you and/or your site is a statement with a pretty specific meaning behind it.
For a fun exercise, how about you explain the multitude of meanings you were able to derive from it?
Calling people dumb fucks for trusting you could easily have been for comic effect. The combination of bravado and self-deprecation is something comedians use for shock value and laughs. Adolescent boys (and not so adolescent boys) ham up outrageous stuff up around their friends all the time. Those things aren't sociopathic.
I have zero idea what he meant, and so does everybody else who has only those words to go on. People are just projecting onto a blank screen a few convenient details to create the image that they want to see, a monster and a sociopath—in other words a cartoon villain. You don't have anything close to the information you would need to draw that conclusion if you were inquiring seriously. What really gives the phenomenon away, though, is the cartoonishness of the picture.
The interesting question is why people do this kind of projection. I think it's that the brain works with contrasts, and creating a bad picture of someone else is a cheap way to create a good picture of oneself. But who knows. What's for sure is that this phenomenon is (a) not intellectually serious, and (b) ubiquitous. Even the comment in this thread that was apparently based on personal experience showed signs of it.
Again, incorrect. You know what we all have to go on? The meaning of those words, and their collective meaning when put together in a sentence. We all have a very good idea what he meant. Well, except for you obviously because willful ignorance seems to be your strong suit in this discussion.
What I think is the real interesting question is why are you taking up the position of Zuckerberg public relations evangelist on HN?
What a system! Where being a terrible manipulative monster is encouraged.
sigh.
I'm talking desktop, mobile is irrelevant for me.
Edit: Oh, I didn't notice that "the only browser you should be using this day and age". That's enough to know about you to not be interested in anything you have to say. Have a nice day!