
Zuckerberg Seeks Personal Privacy, Then Removes Online Privacy Feature - talhof8
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/229364
======
blakesterz
"But as Facebook makes it more difficult for users to maintain privacy, its
co-founder is taking drastic measures to protect his own. Ironic timing, isn't
it?"

Doesn't it seem like we're conflating 2 really different definitions of
privacy here? One being online, on facebook, and the other offline, at home.
This doesn't seem ironic at all, we're talking about one person's decision to
do something that he thinks will make his life better vs. a corporation's
decision to try and make more money.

(I'm in no way defending Facebook here, just seems silly to think these 2
things are at all really related. It's like saying Ronald McDonald at a
vegetable and it's ironic McDonalds just introduced a triple giant bacon
burger or something)

~~~
selmnoo
I see what you're getting at, and I kind of agree, but the comparison isn't
altogether wrong, it's just a little stretched.

Anyway, we should really make something out of the frustration we feel over
getting our privacy rights trampled upon by the likes of Facebook. What can we
do to bring it down? Make privacy-oriented alternative networking sites? Maybe
ones that operate on a pay-model, so there isn't a grotesque incentive to
violate basic rights? Or maybe tell Facebook to buckle down and change
direction in favor of the common user's interests?

------
melling
It would be great if we could limit the spin on HN. I had to go to the WSJ to
get the fact that he bought the houses then leased them back. He got wind of a
developer considering buying up nearby property, developing it then selling
the location next to Zuckerberg as a "feature."

It might not change your mind about any irony, but it's certainly worth
mentioning.

~~~
rwmj
Off topic, but is living next to Mark Zuckerberg a thing? You can ask him over
aperitifs for an angel investment in your social network company, is that the
thinking?

~~~
fiatmoney
More indicative of "this is likely a Good Neighborhood with low crime, good
schools, etc. if a man who can live anywhere lives here".

------
Sagat
No matter how many times people bring up privacy issues or the "haha users are
dumb fucks" quote in order to characterize Zuckerberg as evil, the fact
remains that he has absurd amounts of money and power and is likely to remain
that way for a very, very long time if medical science continues to advance in
leaps and bounds.

It's his company, and he can do what he wants. Your opinions are insignificant
to him. We as a society need to start learning how to deal with this, accept
our place in the food chain, and obey those more fortunate. We created
Zuckerberg ourselves by collectively choosing to use Facebook to regulate our
social lives; we must now accept the consequences and embrace the loss of our
rights.

Zuckerberg will forever win, and you will forever lose. He will own you for
the entire duration of your life. You won't enjoy it, and neither will I, but
it is a fact as immutable as the human condition itself.

~~~
Samuel_Michon
> It's his company, and he can do what he wants.

Facebook is a publicly held company. Mark Zuckerberg has less than 30% of its
shares.

> We created Zuckerberg ourselves by collectively choosing to use Facebook to
> regulate our social lives

And people will let it until they lose trust in Facebook or if an alternative
comes along that serves their needs better. AOL, Friendster, and MySpace came
before, they screwed up, and are insignificant now.

~~~
belandrew
It's not that simple. Facebook has two classes of shares. While Zuckerberg
only kept 28% of the shares, he kept 57% of the voting rights. So it's still
entirely his decisions.

~~~
seiji
It's amusing and tragic how the big money people figured out how to subvert
the stock = ownership = voting rights equation. It feels technically legal,
but actually wrong on a couple levels.

Their entire premise is "We're smarter than the rest of the world and you poor
people can't be trusted with the big important decisions of us billionaires."
This is social media on the internet after all—the most important advancement
in humanity's collective history.

------
Havoc
Well he did famously say that users (are) “dumb f*#ks” for trusting him with
their data.

~~~
ryanmerket
Users are dumb f%#@$ for trusting ANYONE with their data.

------
pasbesoin
I live close to an area where, in a previous "gilded age", business magnates
acquired large tracts upon which they established estates.

Over the subsequent decades, many of those were sold off and turned into --
often quite nice -- housing... well, "tracts", doesn't really fit. Nor does
"sub-division"; the use of that word came later and also does not connote the
upper scale nature many of these areas.

(Hey, as I suddenly recall, my home is more modest and is not located in the
heart of the area I'm thinking of, but _I_ live on what was formerly a
substantial country estate of one of these magnates.)

Anyway, my point is, the trend for several decades has been that old estates
have been broken up into smaller units. Sometimes, a smaller "core" of the
estate remains as an actual estate, perhaps even in the original family, but
land-wise, people have "downscaled".

Now... We in the U.S. appear to on the verge of having a new round of estate
creation. Gilded age, indeed.

------
DigitalSea
This is like comparing apples to oranges here. Two completely different forms
of privacy, it was a nice attempt, but this just came across as a desperate
attempt to try and write an article that didn't really make an impact.

------
RafiqM
Bit of a stretch, no? I agree that any removal of privacy features isn't good,
but what Zuckerberg did was stop someone else cashing in on his
name/reputation.

Not entirely about privacy.

~~~
bsullivan01
_but what Zuckerberg did was stop someone else cashing in on his name
/reputation._

That's the official line, it may not be entirely true. Although super rich, he
still has the "I wear a hoodie" shtick so he might have felt his average guy
rep going down if seen as buying 4-5 houses to build a bigger one.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
but he's not building a bigger one. He is leasing those newly purchased houses
back to their owners. So he has paid to ensure he knows exactly who is living
next door to him.

~~~
bsullivan01
but he's not building a bigger one....yet.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
There is an endless list of things he has not done... yet. We should focus on
what is he is doing... which is leasing the homes back to the previous owners.

------
bsullivan01
_Zuckerberg Seeks Personal Privacy, Then Removes Online Privacy Feature_

Zuckerberg Pays $30 Million For Personal Privacy, Then Removes Online Privacy
Feature.

The evil twins, Google and FB, got almost nothing on me because I rarely post
and use them from a separate browser.

~~~
TomaszZielinski
Fuzzy matching does wonders.

------
gtCameron
It's a high bar to clear in today's media, but I think this might be the
dumbest article I have ever read.

I guess the original headline "Rich guy in big house doesn't want close
neighbors" didn't generate enough Internet Outrage (tm).

