
The Lost Chapter - jond3k
http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=80
======
grellas
_Institutional investors made the mistake - again, and again, and again - of
validating Mark's duplicitousness by pouring literally billions of dollars
into his company, and then billions more into startups seeking to emulate it.
Some of their investments created out of thin air industries that contribute
absolutely nothing to, and in many cases even detract from, society. . . .
Most mind-boggling of all, it's been clear for a long time that Mark's
"social" business model doesn't work anyway: venture capital returns are down,
and not just a little bit. Meanwhile, the opportunity cost to society is
enormous: with engineers and capital allocated to virtual-sheep-throwing,
worthless advertising and sharing ad nasuem, almost a decade's worth of real
innovations got the short end of the stick, including but not limited to
mine._

There needs to be a label placed on the idea of feeling the need to bow to the
wishes of critics who try to limit the idea of valid entrepreneurship to
activities deemed "beneficial to society." I propose Founder's Guilt Complex.

Why on earth - when life is so big and beautiful and complex - should I feel
guilty if I make money from an activity that does nothing more than give
people a diversion from life's burdens and problems? College football may be a
joke to pointy-head types but then reading Latin (my own peculiar idea of fun)
is equally a joke to the cheering fans who join in inter-collegiate rivalries.
Likewise for playing video games or hiking in the woods or listening to rock-
and-roll or producing reality-TV shows or most any other activity you can name
whose main goal is relaxation, entertainment, escape from life's burdens, or
just plain self-indulgence. And social networking is no exception. I may not
do much on Facebook (I don't) but so what? Others can and do like to share
things with people of varying degrees of relationship to them and more power
to them for liking to do this. It is their choice. It is a free country. It is
not for me to be a scold who upbraids them for doing so. Nor should I be
crabbed or pinched about what founders choose to do to create and market
products and services designed to satisfy such proclivities or to make money
from them.

Yes, I can set about in life to conquer diseases or to abolish poverty or to
alleviate people's suffering and all such things are ennobling. I can do such
things via a profit-making venture or I can make my money on other things and
then use it to advance higher goals through giving. Or I can devote time and
energy to helping others in my personal life. All of that is great but it
hardly defines the boundaries of worthwhile human activity. Life has enough
problems without having someone of a judgmental spirit continually taking us
to task for wanting to have some fun as well or for trying to promote fun
things for others. In a free society, there is room for fun things as well and
for those who see it as worthwhile to take risk in building companies that
seek to market less-than-weighty things to the public.

Life certainly can be perverse. In 17th century England, as modern western
society was taking shape, you had, on the one side, royalists who despised
political freedom, who valued rule by a church hierarchy, and yet who were
much given to licentious habits in their lifestyles while, on the other, you
had those who agitated for political freedom, who fought oppressive forms of
centralized rule, who ultimately broke away to form what became America, and
yet who in their personal lives bore the grim face of the puritan that sought
at every turn to chain, quarter, and shame everyone all about who thought it
might be fun to dance or to have a little fun in life. It seems that in our
modern society we have ported over the spirit of the puritan in castigating
others even as we have won the freedoms that allow us under law to enjoy life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Well, if the pursuit of happiness was
deemed a worthy goal of a society's founding documents, far be it from me to
stand grim-faced telling others that they should feel guilty in not conforming
to my narrow view of acceptable life activities - and that _includes_ how I
choose to make my living or start my business.

I don't think this is a mere technical issue either. I believe that no guilt
or stigma should attach to ventures doing legal things just because they don't
set out to solve World Problems. The poor have always been with us. So too
have wars, rapes, and murders. Ditto for disease and death. I am the first to
say "bravo" to those who do not sit resigned to accept all these destructive
elements in life but who instead spur themselves to do something to help make
things better not just for themselves but for the broader society too. That
said, such activities cannot be the only things that define our goals in life,
nor should they be. There is value in having enjoyment and fun in life and
this is a transcending value that betters society. In the entrepreneurial
world, there is no room for a spirit of self-righteousness. Therefore, I say
away with Founder's Guilt Complex. If you want to do a venture, do it honestly
and with integrity, drive, boldness, and energy. Just don't let others tell
you that you should feel guilty about offending their scruples. Enjoy and make
it work without guilt. You can deal with Weighty Issues too if you are so led.
Just don't listen to those who say that what you are doing is not worthwhile
unless it is narrowly confined to them.

So if the VC industry chose to pour all kinds of money into creating something
called social networking, and if all kinds of talented engineers have flocked
to that industry in pursuit of money or other personal goals, that is by
definition a great benefit to society because it has given many, many people
the chance to do things that were scarcely thought possible just a decade ago
- and to derive simple pleasures from the diversions or other benefits
afforded to them through such networking. Whatever the flaws associated with
individual people or companies in such an industry, there is nothing whatever
wrong with those who devoted their money and their efforts to making all this
possible.

~~~
corporalagumbo
Jeez, did you have to write all that? Anyway, although I think you are
focusing on the weakest part of Greenspan's argument - the point where he
comes closest to bitterness - I was wondering if you'd like to invest $20,000
in my new venture. I'd like to sell crack heroin to junkies in Detroit. I'm
sure as a fellow champion of guilt-free founder consciences, you will support
my endeavour as I give gangbangers the chance to flock to this exciting new
industry and do something they scarcely thought possible - to help give people
a diversion from life's burdens and problems.

And don't worry, I'll do it with plenty of integrity, drive, boldness, and
energy. Just like Zynga : )

~~~
tptacek
Ok, Corporal A. Gumbo: Write it better.

Do it and I'll donate $1000 that I promise I was not going to donate anyways
to Partners In Health.

There's an idea common to forums that I don't frequent that I recently learned
of called an "ideological Turing test". The idea is to take a group of people
divided along a controversy, and to get each side to anonymously write a
coherent argument that capture's the other side's perspective. Then everyone
tries to tell, "which is the real argument, and which is the cunning fake?".

In that spirit: if you think you understand what 'grellas is trying to say so
well, go ahead and take a whack at saying it better, and demonstrate that you
actually grok his perspective.

~~~
corporalagumbo
Okay, here you are:

People should stop trying to make entrepreneurs feel guilty for not living up
to their personal ethical standards. One of the advantages of our free society
is that people can choose to work on weighty issues or fluffy diversions. As
long as you abide by the law, you should not be criticised for the style of
business you decide to pursue. If a lot of people can make money from social
networking then that is definitionally a good thing (i.e. a good thing is a
thing which makes some people money.)

~~~
grellas
Here is my shortened version:

"What I choose to call 'Founder's Guilt Complex' is a false sense of guilt
imposed on founders who are told that the only worthwhile venture is one aimed
at shaking up the world - I say, relax and use your talents to build the
business you want. Keep it legal and do aspire to more in life than that. But
forget about the censors. Like the Puritans of old, they would put you in a
straightjacket for no good reason. And for this reason too, though there may
be bad actors, there is not a thing wrong with social networking as a
worthwhile business endeavor."

Does this short version achieve the same goals as the original? Yes and no.
Context matters a lot in writing (see, e.g., my thoughts on legal writing:
<http://grellas.com/articles.html>). The original here is flawed in that it is
in the nature of a first draft (which is the case with all my posts at HN) and
could be streamlined. But when one seeks to advance an idea that is bound to
meet resistance among readers who are not used to hearing it, it is important
to develop it and not simply state a summary of it. If this is misplaced for
the forum (my posts do seem to generate a lot of meta-discussion about "walls
of text"), then that is one thing. But there is no doubt that a merely summary
version of such an argument will not have the same impact as one that is
illustrated and developed.

By the way, I am not thin-skinned. I have appreciated your comments in this
thread as well as those of others who have taken me to task on this or that
point. We can disagree and still appreciate each other.

~~~
larrys
"it is important to develop it and not simply state a summary of it."

One suggestion I do have to help with readability (and with someone deciding
whether they want to read the entire comment) is to place a summary ( _longer
than a sentence_ ) at the beginning of what you are writing if it is long and
detailed.

I've found that this practice is helpful not only when writing to customers,
but when writing to "important people" who most likely aren't going to want to
take the time to read an entire detailed _CYA_ type email with my opinion on
something they have asked me about. That way if they want, they can dig
further. And if anything happens it's on them if they did not read the fine
print and only followed the summary to make a decision.

------
mycroftiv
The accumulated evidence of Zuckerberg's poor character was already
overwhelming. For me, all it took was the infamous "dumb fucks" quote to make
me decide to never use Facebook. That alone disqualifies someone to be a
responsible custodian of my privacy. This article's evidence isn't as
significant as other established facts like Zuckerberg's invasion of other
people's email accounts, but it is consistent with everything else we know: in
one of the modern world's great ironies, a person with no respect for his
fellow human beings is the de facto gatekeeper of "friendship" on the net.

~~~
fletchowns
How old was he when he made that comment? We all do/say dumb things when we
are young...

~~~
danielweber
It was about 5 years before he became a billionaire.

If "he was young" is a defense, then "he is too young to trust as a CEO"
suddenly becomes a very very valid criticism of Zuck.

~~~
jamesaguilar
> he is too young to trust as a CEO

Considering he has 57% of the voting power, isn't this criticism largely moot?

~~~
polshaw
It is not moot when considering whether to use facebook's services or not
(which is what OP was talking about).

------
mattmaroon
"Perhaps the lesson here is that competing with and using your 'friends' in
serial fashion until you totally and completely ravage each relationship is
key to achieving financial success—but then it's certainly no way to define
friendship."

That's certainly not the lesson. In fact what's always made me believe these
sort of attacks against Zuckerberg's character is the fact that you don't see
this happen with really any of the other startups that got big. Nobody is
accusing Larry and Sergey of these sorts of shenanigans.

I'd say if anything, being a moral person is more blessing than curse when it
comes to amassing wealth. It's obviously not a requirement though.

~~~
nancyhua
Larry and Sergey are different from other star founders who've been accused of
evil (Jobs, Gates, Zuckerberg) in that they were older so maybe more mature
and also relatively less entrepreneurial- their goal was academia, unlike all
the young dropouts. Maybe many extremely entrepreneurial people don't respect
the law. In Zuckerberg's case it does seem like he doesn't care about patents
at all whereas Aaron is still mad about the IP and hates that Zuckerberg
ignored the rules (re: patents, Facemash, dropping out, and everything else)
and got rewarded for it.

Reading the logs I don't get the sense Zuckerberg is being dishonest or that
he even considers Aaron to be a friend. The main conflict seems to be the
accusation that Zuckerberg stole ideas, which is a big question for software
in general: ideas want to spread so the concept of IP is arguably against the
nature of ideas. At the same time, we want people to be able to get rich off a
great idea even if they don't implement it successfully. This question re: IP
and copyrights is something we're still resolving as a society. Until it gets
resolved, if ever, lots of people are going to have lots of unfair things
happen to them and it's understandable to be mad about that.

But that's what life is: unfair. Just like we can't go through life feeling
guilty about how lucky we are to have survived infancy unlike some absurd
percentage of humans in poor countries, we can't constantly hate on other
people who are even luckier than we are re: how they don't deserve their
success. No one deserves anything. Life is unfair.

~~~
corporalagumbo
1) I don't think Greenspan is mad, he seems more disappointed.

2) It is absolutely possible to treat your fellow human beings well and find
richly-deserved success - Mark Zuckerberg however does not seem capable of
this.

3) Even though our society might tolerate and even reward (in the short-term
at least) this sort of behaviour, should we be happy that a master-exploiter
of this unfairness is the guardian of social relationships on the internet?

~~~
nancyhua
I don't know Zuckerberg but want to play devil's advocate to give him the
benefit of the doubt until he actually gets convicted of something.

> 2) It is absolutely possible to treat your fellow human beings well and find
> richly-deserved success - Mark Zuckerberg however does not seem capable of
> this.

From Aaron's account, it looks like Mark does not believe that these software
ideas were original or IP. If you buy that perspective, he wasn't wrong to
execute far better on the same ideas that have appeared repeatedly in the
history of social networks- he was simply a sucky friend, which is unlikeable
but not illegal.

He's made a bunch of people very rich with Facebook. Do you think D'Angelo,
the Winklevosses, and Saverin would rather have never met Zuckerberg or would
rather he never created Facebook?

>3) Even though our society might tolerate and even reward (in the short-term
at least) this sort of behaviour, should we be happy that a master-exploiter
of this unfairness is the guardian of social relationships on the internet?

The sin Mark's accused of is stealing people's ideas, assuming ideas are
steal-able, and thereby breaching the trust of people who considered
themselves his friends or coworkers. If he's guilty, I guess the question is
whether someone who is immoral/amoral in one respect is able to be ethical in
other areas.

Since the movie makes a good case that Zuckerberg betrayed some of his close
friends, I don't trust him (or any random person) not to betray me, a random
stranger / Facebook user. But I do trust Zuckerberg to want to do whatever is
good for Facebook. Are people scared he's going to somehow blackmail them into
staying on Facebook by threatening to release their private data to everyone?
I'll be scared of that scenario if that ever seems like the best plan for
Facebook.

Who else could run Facebook? Most people are less intelligent or less
competent or less interested in Facebook's future. Almost anyone in Mark's
situation would cash out and grow indifferent but Zuckerberg persuades me he's
not doing it for the money. So I guess I'm happy he's running it because
regardless of his moral judgment or human loyalty at least I feel like he
cares about Facebook.

I think many problems with corporations arise from leaders' interests not
being aligned with those of the company. Facebook is one of the few examples
where I don't believe that's the case. It might seem psychopathic to care more
about Facebook than your best friend and/or cofounder, but is that really a
big problem? Maybe from the corporation's perspective (or from the user and
shareholder perspective), it's actually a virtue.

~~~
corporalagumbo
I appreciate that building Facebook to the point it is at now, and maintaining
focus on the future company despite buy-out offers, is not trivial. Mark is
clearly a talented individual.

However what is good for Facebook =/= what is good for Facebook users. And one
point that emerges from Greenspan's description of Mark is that the man may be
a genius for cutting out friends and building an empire, but when it comes to
human warmth, he's lacking. And the problem with that is that it may very well
limit Mark's ability to imagine how something like Facebook could evolve and
work, and thus limit his ability to better equate what is good for Facebook
with what is good for users.

A subsidiary point is that, due to network effects, Facebook's vulnerability
to a poor core philosophy is reduced, at least in the short term. Once a
social network grows into our lives, it isn't easy to replace. So if Facebook
is indeed "rotten at the core" (I'm not arguing it is necessarily... just
saying) then it may be able to buy itself a lot of time, even if it acts in
its "own" interests, not its users'. But as technology continues to develop
and its environment destabilises it won't remain invulnerable forever. Unless
you are interested in slavery and extortion, eventually, under our moderated
democratic capitalist model, what is good for a company is being good for its
users.

~~~
nancyhua
I think I agree with your points assuming Mark is evil.

I am not convinced Zuckerberg's lacking "human warmth." It didn't strike me
that Mark thought he was actually friends with Aaron or thought he was
betraying anything- that's Aaron's perspective, which was understandable but
we can't be really nice to everyone who considers themselves our friends or
disagrees with us on who owns an idea.

Facebook so far hasn't done anything I really disagree with. But my feelings
on privacy etc aren't that strong yet, maybe a failure of my imagination
because nothing bad has really happened to me yet (knocking on wood).

------
nancyhua
I read the transcripts, all very fascinating. Aaron's focus is on building
stuff whereas Mark's is human interaction- Aaron focuses on products and
consulting whereas Mark was already thinking big picture about social. Aaron
seems more ambitious than almost anyone and Mark seems 10x even more ambitious
than that.

Even if Aaron is the superior engineer, Mark is the superior psychologist.
Vision and navigation of systems constructed by humans turns out to be more
important than building a lot of stuff no matter how cool or new it is.

Also seems like mark argues there aren't any ideas to steal and admits
facebook's been done before- just this time he's going to execute it better.

------
gojomo
"Stuck in a moment."

And once again, in Greenspan's own transcripts, Zuckerberg comes off better --
more focused, more observant, more strategic, seeing opportunities rather than
obsessing on risks, and even more generous with offers of collaboration --
than Greenspan himself.

~~~
ipince
Maybe so. But still as an immature dick.

Maybe I'm being too rosy and idealistic here, but I prefer integrity over
those other traits you mentioned. Many people have a good balance, so why
compromise?

~~~
joelmichael
He was 20 years old and joking around in private AIM conversations. Who shall
throw the first stone?

------
formeraapl
It's damn hard to pull emotion out when writing about one's life story, but
Greenspan's writing style so distracts from the meat of his story that it's
frustrating.

For instance:

"both so-called Facebook veterans (a phrase that actual veterans might find
laughable)"

or

"It was an expense I simply could not afford all over again (unlike the
Winklevoss twins, my father did not have millions of dollars of disposable
income)"

or

"[Mark] didn't understand how to speak like a mature person his age."

Bits like those just scream "I'm a vicitim" and come off as whiny.

If Greenspan laid out the timeline and the documentation sans his
editorializing it would be more powerful.

Carry these same points through any follow-up interviews, testimony, etc and I
sense that Greenspan would be much happier with his outcome.

~~~
brooktree
The worst was complaining about a cab fare(?) to JFK.

But don't shoot the messenger. There are plenty of facts he's giving us. It is
not pure opinion. An eye witness is an eye witness. He was there. As long as
he is credible, his character, for our purposes, is irrelevant.

------
jcfrei
Aaron is (understandably) still butthurt from failing to make his houseSYSTEM
successful. And Mark clearly was not only deceiving him but also downright
stealing his work. Ultimately though that lack of character doesn't really
matter - Mark was obviously more driven and had a clearer vision. I think the
only lesson we can learn here is that dedication always wins over talent. And
besides: Stealing and building a students directory across universities is one
thing, creating a profitable business and amassing 900 Million users is a
completely different story (and a task to which zuckerberg had a comparatively
small contribution).

------
tharris0101
Here is what I don't get about this whole thing: Friendster - 2002 Myspace -
2003 LinkedIn - 2003

Not to mention the dozens of other social media clones around that time (I
remember being members of countless social media sites in those days)

Its not like anyone at Harvard stumbled upon an amazing new idea that was
going to change the game. They were building what they hoped would be better
versions of things already out there. Mark registered thefacebook.com because
"Face Book" is a very common phrase/object.

For better or worse, Zuckerberg won the social networking race. Congrats to
him, everyone else at Harvard at that time trying to stake a claim needs to
just get on with their lives.

~~~
jacques_chester
I remember thinking that nobody would ever overtake MySpace.

80 million users!

Facebook gives me great comfort that the race isn't always to the swift.

And the contrast between Facebook and the launch of Google Wave has
demonstrated that having a dense social graph early is critical to success.

------
dasil003
People get screwed over all the time. Getting screwed over by Zuckerberg,
well, that's an elite club, but time to move on with your life. If you keep it
only as a good story for the grand kids maybe it won't eat up the rest of your
potential.

~~~
asr
Seriously, does this guy not have any parents/siblings/super close friends who
can tell him it's time to move on? This is a great happy hour story, but not
such a great epitaph.

On the bright side, at least he's thematically consistent! "I keep getting
screwed over by life" is the only reason I can think of to start the post with
so many words about Final Clubs before the pivot.... Suffice it to say, anyone
who can graduate from Harvard with a CS degree and feel screwed over needs
some perspective.

~~~
corporalagumbo
I can see how Greenspan's experience would not exactly be easy to move on
from. At stake is not his own personal success, but his belief about how the
world should work. Greenspan sounds like a pretty moral guy, the kind of guy
who gets upset when things happen that he thinks are wrong. Basically, you're
asking him to shrug and move on but for him, an antisocial bastard is in the
spotlight smiling and waving and being showered with praise by the press. It
sounds like, for someone like him, fixing this mistake is more important than
any other typical SV-type venture he could throw himself into.

Or he could just be incompetent and bitter. Who knows.

~~~
cuergas
Or... maybe he just needed some traffic to his website.

It seems everyone who had anything remotely to do with Facebook's origins has
tried to cash in.

This bothers wantrapreneurs because it highlights just how much luck plays a
role in a story like Facebook's. They want to believe that one founder or a
few co-founders succeed based on some factor(s) under their control (hardwork,
skill, etc.)

Greenspan is just another one of those people who was involved and is trying
to cash in.

If anyone needs to "get over it", it's people who just can't accept that huge
fads like Facebook are unpredictable and uncontrollable, and that when faced
with the possibility of huge sums of "money for nothing" it brings out the
worst in people all seeking a share of the bounty.

The web is a lottery.

Time to re-read the recent speech from Princeton's graduation ceremony by the
author of Liar's Poker.

~~~
dasil003
> _The web is a lottery._

This is quite an overstatement. You don't simply move to Palo Alto and then
have a 1/65,412 chance of starting the next Google.

Instead you have to have a great vision, great execution, and great luck. Now
Zuckerberg may not have Jobsian vision and execution (or maybe he does, only
time will tell), but you can't argue that he executed _the hell outta
Facebook_ and he definitely has a vision even if you find it morally bankrupt.
This definitely did not just magically fall in his lap, and he certainly
deserves most of the credit regardless of what individuals he screwed over at
various stages.

~~~
cuergas
I agree.

/The web is a lottery./d

(except I think it's quite possible for someone to do what's been done with
Facebook without also being morally bankrupt)

But is the rest of the comment an overstatement?

Also, you forgot to mention great marketing. In the IM's I believe both of
them at one point agree that great visionary ideas, no matter how well they
are executed, (alas) do not market themselves.

~~~
dasil003
No I don't disagree with anything else.

Re: marketing, meh, I think Facebook pretty much went viral. Maybe there was
more conscious effort there than I give it credit for, but it doesn't strike
me as important for Facebook's rise.

------
jamesaguilar
I don't understand why this person thinks Mark owed him all the information he
complains about not being given. Am I obliged to inform my competitors of my
intentions at every turn? Am I obliged to tell them when I change my mind
about my plans? Am I indeed obliged not to deceive them? How do we know that
Mark even viewed this guy as a friend, rather than perhaps as a friendly
acquaintance? I can say for sure that I had many more and longer conversations
on AIM with my real friends.

Maybe this guy has a reasonable beef, but it's far from clear to me.

~~~
corporalagumbo
I don't think Greenspan is complaining - I think this is meant as a warning.
He's not saying that Mark acted unfairly and that he should have been nicer to
Aaron (which would come across as petulant, and I think Greenspan seems quite
realistic and calm about what happened), but that Mark has acted with only
ruthless, narrowly-defined "self-interest", displaying no loyalty or kindness,
and this bodes very poorly for the company, its investors and its users.
Facebook is Mark's creation, and at the core of the company, beneath its
social-open-sharing buzzwords there is no philosophy of human relationships,
only Mark's shallow, self-centered heartlessness and lust for power and
profit. We might think so what, but maybe we've been desensitised by the often
shitty and kinda sociopathic (or socio-agnostic) behaviour of web
entrepreneurs. Anyway point is the arbiter of "friendship" on the internet is
a megalomaniac who seems to understand nothing about friendship - a strange
situation perpetuated by a star-struck, gutless press too busy slathering him
with praise to think critically. Greenspan is just pointing this out, fairly
it seems.

~~~
jamesaguilar
Isn't this basically the same as saying tesla and spacex will fail because
Elon Musk is a jackass?

~~~
patrickk
You don't hear stories about Elon Musk shafting his friends and acquaintances,
stringing them along and stealing their ideas.

Apparently Musk was a bit of a jerk when x.com merged with PayPal, and is
supposedly difficult to work for even today (he works 100 hour weeks, probably
demands the same high standards of his employees as he does of himself), but
there's none of the skeletons in the closet with Musk as there is with
Zuckerberg.

Plus there's the fact that Musk is tackling really difficult problems like
online payments (fraud), mass-producing electric vehicles, making solar
installations viable and _aiming to make humans a multi-planetary species_.
Zuckerberg just created the latest social fad, IMO which is now in the process
of self-destructing.

~~~
jamesaguilar
Did you not read about his divorce?

------
dbul
_So it happened that in my junior year of college, I came across the web site
of one of the many finals clubs on campus, the Fly Club._

It's "FINE-UHL clubs" not "FINE-UHLZ clubs."

 _And he shockingly did not understand why information privacy might be a
controversial issue._

And then

 _He had been searching the houseSYSTEM Facebook for the twins' profiles_

So much for privacy.

 _Aside from the Facebook, the sites had overlapping features for course
schedulers, photo albums, message boards, digital posters for student groups,
and eventually exchanges for buying and selling on campus and mapping your
network of friends._

Irrelevant. People only used Thefacebook for obvious and simple things:
connecting with people they knew, poking, messaging, and photos. No one used
mapping your network of friends (which sucked, incidentally, and also was
faily most of the time) and no one even used the course scheduler. To state
the obvious, facebook was not successful for its features, it was successful
because how it was executed!

This was claimed to have been written for historical significance, but I know
that every time an article is written by this author and about this subject
dozens of people are thinking the same thing: move on. Create a successful
company first, then retire and write about this topic. I'd love to see blog
posts regarding Think Computer's technology. As it stands, this blog post
gained a lot of attention but there isn't even a a sidebar with "Hi, I'm Aaron
Greenspan and I'm the CEO of Think Computer. We have this product, click here
to learn more." It's a marketing failure to not capitalize on such an
opportunity.

~~~
lisper
> click here to learn more

There's a reason there is no such link. FaceCash is currently prohibited from
doing business in California by the Money Transmission Act. Aaron is trying to
resolve this, but until he does his hands are kind of tied.

~~~
philwelch
> FaceCash is currently prohibited from doing business in California by the
> Money Transmission Act.

Aaron Greenspan has a whole song and dance about how the state of California
screwed him over, too. The guy comes across as nothing but a professional
victim.

------
brooktree
Regardless of Greenspan's own character or his particular situation, he gives
us a peek at the facts, which others are so quick to ignore.

I think there will be poetic justice in this story. Because the web is much
bigger than Zuckerberg, or Facebook or even Google. The world is still getting
online. It's early yet. But what Zuckerberg has done, how he has carried
himself in the presence of enormous luck, he cannot erase. He will live with
this reputation as a con his entire life. Building a website, millions of
people signing up, enormous hype, making millions from display ads might seem
impressive today. It won't remain that way in years to come. We're just
getting started. Technology will be taken for granted. There will be more
attention to the things Zuckerberg carelessly disregarded.

"Dumb fucks" indeed.

Thank you Mr. Greenspan for telling your side of the story.

~~~
corporalagumbo
Sir, I like the cut of your jib.

~~~
brc
It's jib - as in the the front sail of a sailboat ahead of the mast. The
saying is 'I like the cut of your jib' in that the way the sails are set
determines both direction and style of sailing.

~~~
corporalagumbo
Thanks for that.

------
pbreit
As smart as Greenspan is he has no clue whatsoever what it takes to create a
widely used service. He is constantly stuck on legal matters and splitting
hairs that no one else cares about. He would be so much better off spending
his considerable intellect and productivity on more valuable activities.

------
kevinalexbrown
I'm not going to publicly speculate on either party's moral character. But I
did skim the transcripts, and I noticed one curious fact:

Zuckerberg starts and ends most of the conversations.

To clarify: I'm not sure precisely why I find it interesting, it was just one
of those phenomena that raised an eyebrow, and passed my "don't publicly
engage in debates about people's character whom I haven't personally
met"-test. (To be fair I do make practical judgments based on moral reputation
when deciding whether or not to enter relationships with others.)

~~~
jemfinch
Can you clarify why that's interesting?

~~~
patmcguire
It's not if it's once, but if it's always the case? Seems kind of
transactional - I need to talk to this person for this, so I do; I completed
that, so we're done.

------
tptacek
Logline: Zuckerberg mistreats Aaron Greenspan, is therefore greatest con of
all time.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I think this lacks a bit of compassion. It's one thing to have some idea, not
work on it, and then later see someone who made it happen. It is another thing
entirely to work on an idea for years, bring someone into the group that is
working with you on it (or at least advising) and then have them roll off with
it and become one of the richest people in the country. Sure a zen master
might take some comfort in validation of your ideas, but man it has to really
hurt to not be a billionaire. That can really screw over your psyche in a bad
way.

I know I would be pretty bitter in a similar situation.

~~~
tptacek
I'm never going to be a billionaire. I would prefer that billionaires not get
themselves elected President to cut the top tax rates, but that's about as far
as it goes. We are sailing on an ocean of executable ideas, and we've got some
of the best winds we've had in 10-15 years. Who has time to write 3000 words
on someone else's "unjustified" success?

~~~
zingahgud
Tally up how many words you type into HN each day. Is it close to 3000?

I think he said at one point in the IM's to Zuckerberg Greenspan said that he
writes stuff to vent. And Zuckerberg said he could understood the need for
that, but kept such thoughts to himself. (See e.g. Greenspan's White Paper
enronforkids.pdf)

------
abalone
This poor soul has been grinding this axe for years. He's simply blaming
others for his own failures. The prose is magnified by his clearly high
intellect but it's easy to see through it. You need only take a look at the
mess that was housesystem (his attempt at a campus social network among other
things) to get an idea of why it didn't take off like facebook. Or if that's
not enough, how about his payments startup facecash. No evil Zuckerberg
character to blame there.. It was just a very poorly designed and executed
project. Facebook won because it was better and Mark was right not to hire
this guy. The sad thing is he (Greenspan) is clearly hyper intelligent, and if
he'd only focus that intellect on figuring out where his work could improve
instead of laying his problems at his more successful classmate's feet...

------
anon808
A very large chunk of his articles are negative
<http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/index.html>

Not saying they aren't all true, I'm sure they are.

Why focus on the negativity? Recognize it and move beyond.

~~~
powertower
95% of the news is negative.

~~~
anon808
probably true, but rarely all from one author.

~~~
backspace
Ever read Techcrunch?

~~~
anon808
Yet another source of info that won't inform you constructively.

------
zingahgud
Have a look at the last IM exchange between Greenspan and Zuckerberg on the
idea of protecting the privacy of students' home adresses from being
accessible to any student at any university using Facebook. It is toward the
end of the timeline.pdf document. The problem: Thanks to some sloppy php,
anyone at any univeristy could download a .csv file of all of someone contacts
including their home addresses and other private information, if that person
had ever requested to export her data to csv format. Greenspan wanted this
security hole fixed promptly. Zuckerberg didn't care; he just fired off an
email to someone else (same guy who wrote the sloppy php?) and put it out of
his mind. Then when Greenspan made others aware of the problem, Zuckerberg was
upset because [un]"savvy" users might learn of security holes in Facebook.
What a terrible thing that would be. We see that same sort of denigrating view
of users and concealment attitude continuing at Facebook to this day.

Say what you will about Greenspan but at least the guy is responsible. We
can't say the same for Zuckerberg. The kid is reckless and unremorseful.

------
at-fates-hands
To me, it's like Aaron lost the game with Zuckerberg because Zucks wasn't
fighting fair and Aaron expected him to. The expectations were clearly
different on each side. Zucks wanted to win the game and take all the marbles
any way he could, and didn't care at the who's expense it came, including his
friends. I think Aaron expected more fairness and is hurt, but not surprised
Zuckerberg hasn't changed.

------
Smudge
> "...and the directors and officers of any person that controls the applicant
> are of good character and sound financial standing." Here, the "good
> character" requirement would clearly preclude Mark, whose character has now
> been called into question more times than most of us can count.

I'm not aware of a common definition for "good character," but merely having
your character "called into question," especially as a high-profile CEO (and
celebrity, at that), should not be the sole grounds for being denied a license
to transact money. I'm not saying there couldn't have been more to it in the
case of Facebook/Zuckerberg, but in general, public defamation should not be,
in itself, enough to prevent someone from building a legal business.

------
alid
Wowzers, why are people so keen to be negative? Facebook are doing awesome in
their mission to make the world more open and connected. And regardless of
fluctuations, Facebook's value still sits around, what, $48 billion? This is
far too personal - Mark was 19 and in a private chat with a friend (and he's
remarkably more motivated, mature and respectful than many guys I went to uni
with at that age lol). We all grow and learn a heap from college days, so to
link the success of a company today to factors from almost a decade ago is a
low shot. Go forth and direct your energy into creating your own empires!

------
mratzloff
I fully believe that Zuckerberg is every bit the scumbag his former friends
assert. But _bitter, much?_ This is a diatribe more than an essay.

------
2pasc
Agree with all of you who say it is all about execution and timing. Zuckerberg
had the right vision for what he wanted of Facebook though: a casual place to
procrastinate. That is something that nobody else saw as clearly as him...and
that's why his product won.

------
theorique
This article reads as being full of blame.

------
interg12
This article actually demonstrates Zuckerbergs savvy in being the one who took
the social network to market. Mark played everyone extremely well and deserves
credit for implementing an idea that everyone had. THis story isn't about
coming up with new ideas, it's about shipping something people want.

------
bcherry
From the AIM chat logs:

> zberg02: but probably like 8k

> zberg02: i think that qualifies as real cool

8k isn't cool. You know what's cool...

~~~
slajax
10k?

~~~
samstave
640K should be enough cool for anybody.

~~~
louthy
I spat out my coffee at this point! Excellent :)

------
EvaPeron
Sour.Grapes.

~~~
ryanmolden
I don't think you are using that correctly, you seem to be using it as a
synonym for jealous/hater. I don't get the impression Aaron is disparaging
fame or success; he is making the claim that Mark Zuckerberg has a
questionable moral compass. That really doesn't relate in any way to the
Aesop's Fable you reference. The fox didn't claim to dislike the grapes
because they were ethically dubious; he disliked them as a way to feel better
about not being able to acquire them.

------
dreamdu5t
The lesson is (again): It's all about execution.

------
j_s
I don't know the right phrase for the opposite of 'preaching to the choir',
but that's what I think this post here on HN is: the opposite of preaching to
the choir.

~~~
wmeredith
Maybe something like "Fall on deaf ears" or talking to "a brick wall".

------
davidmathers
Previously: <http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/zuckerberg.html>

------
tomasien
Zuck's business model doesn't work? What a joke. They're profitable and make
billions and billions of dollars a year.

------
Tipzntrix
Perhaps this is one of the places where legal action is justified? Maybe he
should've got a patent like all those monsters out there today. At least his
would actually have a product behind it.

It's nice to here it from the horse's mouth instead of second-hand from a
movie made to generate revenue though.

~~~
gwern
He mentions his own settlement somewhere in there, although it's not discussed
further.

------
swordsmith
I've been reading Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power recently, and throughout
this essay, I can't help but think just how all the "moves" Zuckerburg were
accused (and infamous) of were exemplary of a number of these laws. Not trying
to pass judgement on Zuckerburg's virtues or lack thereof (it's best to accept
the inherent unfairness in life on the road to power), but he is a master of
power plays:

Law 3: Never put too much trust in friends, learn how to use enemies. If only
Zuck's "friends" knew about the first part of the law. Zuck was, however, a
master in exploiting and gaining information from his "enemies". Further, he
used what his competitions to frame what his product should be.

Law 4: Conceal your intentions. "Keep people off-balance and in the dark by
never revealing the purpose behind your actions" -- apparent in both the
Winklevoss and Greenspan's stories. Zuck misled and deceived until the right
time.

Law 5: Always say less than necessary...classic Zuck, "There was a need for
facebook, so I made it"

Law 6: Court attention at all cost. His fight to receive coverage in the
Crimson ensuring the early dominance of thefacebook.

Law 7: Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit. If any
of the stories about facebook is true, then Zuck's a textbook example of
observing this law. According to Greene: using other people's work "not only
will [...] save you valuable time and energy, it will give you a godlike aura
of efficiency and speed". Clearly it has worked to achieve his "genius" aura.

Law 9: Win through your actions, never through argument. He never let the
lawsuits detract him away from the work too much. Now that facebook is too
big, what actually happened really doesn't matter anymore.

Law 11: Learn to keep people dependent on you. Facebook is too big now...G_G

Law 12: Use selective honesty and generosity to disarm your victim. The part
about facebook's frequent change and backtracks of privacy must has something
to do with this.

Law 13: When asking for help, appeal to people's self-interest, never to their
mercy or gratitude. Zuckerburg appealed to Greenspan's desire to help
entrepreneurs when asking for advice. Also, his claim that Greenspan was one
of those on his level can be seen more of a classic ego-stroking rather than
admission of admiration.

Law 14: Pose as a friend, work as a spy. "Knowing about your rival is
critical. Play the spy yourself to gather valuable information that will keep
you a step ahead. [...] There is no occasion that is not an opportunity for
artful spying". Yeah, Zuck's a master at this.

Law 15: Crush your enemey totally. Check.

So out of the first 18 laws, the rise of facebook and Zuckerburg have observed
11, textbook style. His amoral approach to power and life is definitely key to
his success.

~~~
ryanmolden
>His amoral approach to power and life is definitely key to his success.

Bit of a hasty conclusion. Have you really analyzed the sum-total of his
behaviors/moves and feel you can conclusively state that the above 11 "laws"
are the cornerstone of his success? I doubt that. Also, the book you reference
is really not useful for any human being that intends to be part of a actual
society. It is a great primer for a sociopath, but I will assume that is not
what you aspire to be. Some people see successful sociopaths and incorrectly
conclude their sociopathy is what made them successful. That is like assuming
Steve Jobs, who was somewhat notorious for being...blunt, was successful
because he was an asshole, instead of in spite of that characteristic. It also
willfully ignores a lot of non-sociopaths that are successful and disregards
other factors that may be more causative.

I would take that book with a _big_ grain of salt and not use it as a manual
for life. Or you can, I just don’t predict great success. I would predict a
long string of people telling other people what an ass you are and causing you
to have countless doors closed to you without ever knowing it or knowing why;
primarily because people don’t relish partnering with/working for/associating
with sociopaths. For every "successful" sociopath you see that lives by those
"laws" there are millions of others that also live by those "laws" that have
nothing to show for it but a string of failed relationships and a complete and
utter lack of friends. Beware of survivorship bias[1], it can teach you only
the wrong things.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias>

~~~
swordsmith
Thanks for the comment, you're right, my conclusion was definitely hasty and
very much lacking reading it the second time. The 11 laws were illustrated
through historical examples, showing how observance and transgression of each
primarily resulted in the win/loss of power. I found it very interesting that
Zuckerburg's rise illustrated many of these laws.

However, I don't think the laws outlined (or at least all of them) only apply
to sociopaths. Law 2: Never put too much trust in friends, learn how to use
enemies. This is just as defensive as manipulative, we would like to think our
friends will always be loyal, but that's simply not true.

Law 3: Conceal your intentions. Law 4: Always say less than necessary. Law 6:
Court attention at all cost. Marketing and public relations use these all the
time.

Law 7: Get others to do the work, and you take credit. Indeed, this one breaks
hearts and how we wish that no one ever does this. You can chose to play the
game, or learn how it can happen to better defend against credit-stealing. If
only Tesla was aware...

Law 9: Win through actions rather than arguments. I actually don't see
anything sociopathic about this law at all.

Law 11: Learn to keep people dependent on you. Gaining early traction is
pretty important for a startup's success.

Law 12: Use selective honesty and generosity to disarm your victim. This is
mostly used in adversarial situations, more like a law of war rather than law
of life. But again, "crush your enemy totally" is preached in Sun Tzu's Art of
War, but the book is still a classic.

Law 13: When asking for help, appeal to people's self-interest, never to their
mercy or gratitude. This is one of the tenet in Dale Carnegie's "How to win
friends and influence people", simply explains human nature.

Like every piece of knowledge, the laws outlined in the book really depend on
your own interpretation and how you apply them. It's similar to learning about
security so you can protect yourself against exploits and make robust
products.

------
rickdale
Hm, anyone else have old AIM conversations stored on their computers? Seems
convenient.

~~~
gknoy
I do. My chat clients are set to automatically log, so that when I talk to
someone a week later, I can look at the history. More importantly, a lot of
questions get asked and answered over IM, so I can check it for answers to
"why is X broken" or "How do I Y, again?", or "what was your mailing address?"
without having to actually _ask_ the person again.

I've never looked back at archived IMs from years past, though, but they are
still squirreled away on the removed hard drives from past machines.

------
huffer
feeding the tinfoil hats industry: the European Commission blocked this
website and flagged it as illegal/scam :)

I apologise for not contributing, but I can't access the page so I have no
idea what it says.. but by the amount of extensive comments here, I'm dying of
curiosity

------
patmcguire
Has everyone on HN always been this cynical?

------
spitx
And let's not forget the Google smear campaign, only last year, orchestrated /
bungled by Burson-Marsteller.

<http://www.wired.com/business/2011/05/facebook-google-smear/>

