> "We’re not going to debate the disgruntled litigants and anonymous sources who seek to rewrite Facebook’s early history or embarrass Mark Zuckerberg with dated allegations. The unquestioned fact is that since leaving Harvard for Silicon Valley nearly six years ago, Mark has led Facebook's growth from a college website to a global service playing an important role in the lives of over 400 million people."
You get a similar argument in the recently leaked ‘Boz memo’: please ignore our unethical behavior, instead focus on how many users we have. Growth at any cost is justified.
They're effectively saying the accusation isn't valid because Zuckerberg is nobility and the accusers are not.
Does his status provide a motive for a false accusation? Sure, but that is different from evidence.
For instance, a mammography doesn't give you cancer. But it can detect one, and thus give you evidence that you had cancer in the first place.
Fame doesn't affect all accusations the same way. I believe the probability of false accusations raise faster with fame than the probability of true accusation (which is mostly dependent on actual guilt).
There's even the possibility that the probability of true accusations lowers as fame raises, leaving more room for the false ones.
It'd be interesting to hear what they'd about it today though. Probably nothing.
> We’re not going to debate the disgruntled litigants and anonymous sources
"We're not denying it though. It is true. If they were false and we could debate and win the debate, we would"
> The unquestioned fact is that since leaving Harvard for Silicon Valley nearly six years ago, Mark has led Facebook's growth from a college website to a global service playing an important role in the lives of over 400
> [...] instead focus on how many users we have
Even more, it is interesting what they are implying here. If you can get people to give you their data and build a company on it, it somehow means you all of the sudden acquire a better personality, increased morality and are absolved of all the stupid things you said or did before.
Now sure, people do and say stupid stuff when they are teenagers. I've done it. It depends when and what was done and at what age, what happened before and after. I can see being forgiving some thing up until the early 20s. People are still developing and personality could change I suppose. Though when it comes to his "dumb fucks" comment, I give him less of a pass of being a "teenager" because he was 26 already. Additionally, if these were just isolated incidents and everything before and after pointed to him taken privacy seriously but the whole company is built on the opposite of that.
I don't think Zuckerberg should be given a pass just because of this. His life since college has been nothing like the 20s that anyone else would go through (even others from Harvard). Not even close. Imagine the kind of effect that has on someone, especially with the kind of power he wielded (and still wields) through Facebook.
Reckless disregard for privacy has been a hallmark of his tenure.
Where did I say it's not relevant?
... captured in the infamous phrase "Move Fast and Break Things"
I suppose it could be red flag and indicate larger character flaws that have leaked into how FB operates now, but I'm personally glad I'm not being judged today for everything I did when I was 19.
"Mark was a different person back then" would be much more believable if it wasn't for the fact he deceived users in 2011, has recently used his privileges as CEO to delete messages he had sent, and repeatedly tried to cover up the abuse of their api in 2014 (even going to far as to threaten lawsuits against the Guardian journalists a few weeks ago).
I don't mean to pick on you personally; there are many such perceptions and they all disagree, just like people's underlying views disagree. Since they don't add information, such comments are off topic.
I agree, my bad. But I have noticed a formulaic rebuttal regarding the actions of Zuck. If you look at previous FB related posts the popular comments consistently suggest Zuck was "young and naive" - to the point of sounding like a PR piece.
I don't have evidence but maybe you have IP logs. I'd be willing to bet there's something very interesting in there.
But I'm all for judging people based on their attitude toward their past misdeeds. If someone fucks up and then years later they go, "Yeah, I fucked up, I'm sorry, I learned X, Y, and Z from the experience and now I'm a better person," then by all means, let's move on. But if their attitude is to smear the victims and essentially claim that the fact that they're now filthy rich excuses them from any past misbehavior (as is the case here), then let's criticize the crap out of them.
Cyni-casm aside, yours is a crucial point I think gets forgotten too often. Just yesterday I was scrolling through the comments on a Fox News post about an 18 year old who'd been sentenced to 25 yrs for being present during robbery when his friend killed someone.
Obviously substantially different crimes, but the comments were mostly people salivating at this "animal" getting "what he deserved."
Anyway, thanks for mentioning this point.
You misread this, likely because that would have made more sense than what actually occurred. The friend/accomplice did not kill anybody, but was killed by police in a shootout; the defendant was charged with murder for this death.
The involved law and its application are interesting interpretations of the idea of justice. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/07/ala-teen-turns-down-25-...)
What the actual fuck? Then again, I can't say I'm suprised that it's in Alabama.
In any case, calling the (lawful) killing of a kid by the police a murder by an accomplice, is making a mockery of the term murder and of justice in general.
I am not taking a cheap shot, unless you can prove to me that these "histories" are firmly in the past for Alabama, and that the attitudes have not lingered and that lady Justice is now color-blind in Alabama courts.
Edit: I've just realized your post is what-aboutism, I regret taking the bait.
That's something I never said, or even implied.
If I said that America has a "history of military power projection", would you object that military power projection is the present reality as well? It certainly is, but you probably would not object to that phrasing. You're reading much more into the use of the word 'history' than you should be. I'm well aware of the civil rights problems in southern states. Save your outrage for a situation more deserving than this conversation, in no conceivable way did I defend honor or reputation of Alabama. I used the word disreputable specifically because the social problems of Alabama are widely known, you needn't teach me something every schoolchild is taught.
The simple fact of the matter is that when it comes to the felony murder doctrine, that boy could have just as well been in San Francisco. Rather than allow you to write felony murder off as a consequence of Alabama being a typical southern state, I decided to give you a brief education on the true scope of the issue. Since you were obviously distressed by felony murder doctrine, I expected you to thank me. Instead I get the feeling you're looking for a fight. That's disappointing.
English isn't my native language, so please correct me if I'm wrong. However I believe when you're referring to Alabaman history specifically (not the history of several separate states at once, as I was in my previous comment) you would use the singular "history" rather than the plural "histories".
>Alabama has a history of civil rights violations.
>Alabama and California have histories of suppressing labor organizations.
Ahh, I see where we're crossing lines. I was writing off my lack of surprise at this occurring in Alabama. I would have been more surprised if this had happened in San Francisco, which as you said, has the same law. I'd love to see how frequently it's enforced by location as uneven enforcement is a thing, especially as societal attitudes shift but the laws are yet to be revised (see possession of small amounts of drugs in certain jurisdictions).
> ...I expected you to thank me. Instead I get the feeling you're looking for a fight.
I was merely rebutting your accusation that I took a "cheap shot". The first half-sentence in your initial reply has no substances, and serves no other purpose except to antagonize. I would have been grateful had you replied with just the second half instead.
> English isn't my native language, so please correct me if I'm wrong...
I wasn't attacking your grammar, I was suggesting that the reasons leading to my lack of surprise are very much in the present.
Furthermore if a cop lawfully kills a criminal who was acting alone, felony murder doctrine is not involved in the scenario but the cop is still subjected to the same level of scrutiny as he would be if it were.
And if a cop unlawfully kills a criminal who was working together with other criminals, felony murder doctrine doesn't make it easier for the cop to get away with it (nor harder, for that matter...)
When I saw this I thought to myself if some poor black teenagers had done exactly the same thing they would be in jail for the next 10 years or be dead by now.
If instead of MacGregor and his goonsquad, Floyd Mayweather and his goonsquad had done this, it'd have resulted in more or less the same outcome.
I have seen no evidence that he changed when it comes to unethical behaviour.
What's stopping him from using his master access to obtain any info he needs for a presidential election? Trust? Trusting him?
People literally said the same thing about MySpace when it held the “network effect” throne. And in hindsight after it lost its users to facebook people came up with all kinds of “well, duh” reasons, such as the profile pages automatically playing music or being so customizable to the point of not having any visual consistency.
Well there’s a ton of things wrong with facebook too right now that will be so easy to point out in hindsight. Facebook is just as vulnerable as MySpace was.
But seriously facebook is fragile. If lot of people started to leave then they would be gone. It is not diverse company like amazon or google.
They are lucky they own instagram.
Additionally, Facebook is not just Mark Zuckerberg and likely the company would not like the data being used that way because it would risk their relationship with their users, which is far more important than Zuckerberg being president.
That being said, I could see the future in which the next elections are a full blown, all-gloves-are-off one year long fight between Trump (Republicans) and Zuckerberg (Democrats). Partially because Zuckerberg really does seem like he's aiming for this with its actions, and partially because Democrats don't really seem like they've learned their lessons from two years ago.
Now I'm not saying that's definitely going to happen, nor claiming that it's inevitable, nor that the chances of it actually happening are anything but minuscule, but I wouldn't be too surprised if such thing actually happens.
Assuming that's going to happen. What do you think would be a realistic response to the simple critique "American people deserve better" ?
Not that I subscribe to the same fears of the parent comment, but they’ve already shown plenty of willingness to abuse their relationship with their customers for business gain. It reveals their character (or lack thereof).
No reason to assume that character would change given a different arena like politics. Although neither is there a reason to assume that Mark has political ambitions.
As one example, because Sandberg was at least partially responsible for blocking attempts at reforming data policies inside of Facebook that likely made the Russia tampering mess worse. And then Facebook corporate attempted to cover that up by pushing the NY Times to alter its reporting:
Further, Sandberg was the core architect behind Facebook's ad business and shift to aggressive monetization. She was brought in from Google precisely for that reason, that's why Facebook recruited her from there.
 "Ms. Sandberg, currently vice president for global online sales and operations at Google, joined the search giant in 2001 and helped develop its immensely lucrative online advertising programs, AdWords and AdSense."
"She will also oversee Facebook’s marketing, human resources and privacy departments — essentially guiding how Facebook presents itself and its intentions to the outside world."
Sandberg may be a "professional grown up adult", but that doesn't preclude her from being a liability to the company.
Zuckerberg compared to other CEO level executives have a fairly good track record. Somehow his mistakes were not an issue for you for last 10 years and now you have a tough stance against him. What you are buying into now is a form of propaganda where it is fashionable to bash him.
People’s intelligence? People are still able to tell lies from truth, media pressure from propaganda. The best proof is all media told americans not to vote for Trump, yet they did so.
And to the point, Zuck’s understanding of its electorate will get him votes or not. For example, Facebook’s censorship of republican topic is not something that gets votes. Facebook’s employment culture of getting rid of males and whites won’t get him much votes. It doesn’t depend how you spin it. It doesn’t matter how many times we explain or how much data they have on us, what matters is whether Mark personally understands whites, cis, both genders including males, etc.
Milo even made a tutorial about how Democrats could win back the white/male/cis vote again, it’s not like it’s not ELI5’ed already. Some people, from the top of any aparatus, still wouldn’t understand that stirring up hate against whites doesn’t get them votes.
The source of the story is described to be one of Mark's friends "Here's how Mark described his hack to a friend" and not the journalists "We reached out to Tim McGinn and Elisabeth Theodore for comment. Both declined to comment.". Given the evidence is based on a verbal account to a friend there is a slim probability that Mark made the story up.
It also seems odd that the details of the hack are laid out so precisely. It is stated that he found the passwords to exactly two email accounts, one of which belonged to Tim McGinn given that "In one account he accessed, Mark saw an email from Crimson writer Tim McGinn to Cameron, Tyler, and Divya.". Mark looked for "members of the site who identified themselves as members of the Crimson" but it would have been easier to find the specific people involved instead. And why use failed login attempts if you have access to actual user passwords. I can't think of any reason why you'd log failed passwords but not real ones (except for maliciously stealing passwords).
Finally, how did the email from Elisabeth Theodore to Tim McGinn become public given neither commented on the story. From other parts of the story, it seems likely that Tim McGinn was a source (who else would have known about Mark getting upset with Tim on the phone). So it seems that Tim gave the email to Business Insider however Business Insider does not explicitly state that. This suggests that neither they nor Tim have any real evidence that this "hacking" actually occurred.
It wasn't until a review by one of the senior devs that saw passwords in the log files - and with eyebrows raised asked "wth are you doing" - that it dawned on me, "oops". I'm glad that never made it out to production.
"Yep, all looks good on my machine!".
I don't think this is necessarily a case of wickedness, but instead lack of knowledge and immaturity when the event happened.
If you have dealings with people like that and you're helping them don't be surprised when you find out they have used their money to open a child rape hotel somewhere in the developing world.
Congresscritters on Tuesday are gonna set him on fire. Chances are that's all they do, unless setting him on fire brings about some actual political capital, and specific policies, to do something about facebook or privacy in general. But I think the critters have benefited from lax privacy laws, it's made them and their donor base wealthy and powerful, and a good deal of them will not want broad privacy protection for any number of reasons.
If their approval is around 10%, and Zuckerberg's is around 20% (estimates, but point being Zuck's is probably higher than Congress), they'll see making him look bad will at least in the short term make them look informed, sympathetic and serious. Even if they get a +1% for giving him a hard time, they'll see it as a win. It'll be a spectacle for fans of schadenfreude.
He started the whole Facebook with a theft from the Winklevoss brothers. That whole business is the fruit of theft. Yeah, he was young and stupid, but how many of you even considered doing such a thing to your employer? Yeah, he built a huge business based on it, but it's still built on thievery and deceivement.
No matter how many seemingly good things he does, he is still a thief (by my moral grounds, of course, not by law)
I rail against Facebook, and think it's a dangerous system, but Zuckerberg is a damn saint compared to many of the people Obama and Bill Gates have shown themselves with. And the two are themselves far from .
Because they are just as shity as him. They just hide it better. Show me a rich person and I will show you a criminal.
Corporate culture changes a lot in 10 years, Facebook is the wrong target.
> Corporate culture changes a lot in 10 years ...
Not at Facebook, apparently.