You are the sum of the choices you make. You can't say "oh, well I'll just screw over friends, coworkers, etc. to get rich but once I am I'll be nice." All the habits you form getting to the top will stick with you once you're there. And there is always more to want.
Of course one learns from past mistakes but the question is what you learn. From all his actions, it seems to me that what Mark learned was to not be so obvious with his actions. Now he claims to want to make the world a more open and honest place. Why would making all this information about yourself public make the world a better place? We've spent thousands of years developing social protocols for how and what we reveal to others about ourselves, our families and our friends. Now we should just forgo all that because some guy thinks that would somehow make the world a better place? Does he really even believe that? Whether he does or does not, it sure would make things more convenient for him if people would just voluntarily give out more information about themselves so he can sell it.
I generally agree with the sum and totality of what you're saying, and frankly, I personally think that Zuckerberg is a scumbag.
Still, the majority of the stories I've read that really reinforce that feeling, I have to concede were done when he was in college.
College is an interesting place, where interesting things happen -- but it isn't known for fostering the most mature adults; I know that I was a dramatically different person that age than I am now.
I've grown to the point where I can make the harder choice, just because I know it's the right one. I've grown to the point where I can give someone a promise, and not have to worry about whether or not I'll follow through. I've grown to the point where I can preserve my integrity in spite of a lucrative, but unsavory way to earn money.
I definitely did not possess these attributes when I was younger. So as much as I'd like to hate Zuckerberg on principle, I also know that it's the wrong thing to do, and I can see where he might have made the same sort of mistakes I might have, if given the right circumstances.
loewenskind wasn't talking about him personally, but his vision of a world of "open privacy". There are tons of ways I can share my personal life with people: I can call, e-mail, meet up for lunch, bring it up when we're "out", blog about it, etc. Fundamentally, the amount of information I honestly share with everyone I'd possibly run into is quite tiny.
Ug. Apologies, I missed the whole 'vision' part, but I'd been awake for just over 24 hours when I posted that, so my reading skills were somewhat impaired.
"Now he claims to want to make the world a more open and honest place. Why would making all this information about yourself public make the world a better place? We've spent thousands of years developing social protocols for how and what we reveal to others about ourselves, our families and our friends. Now we should just forgo all that because some guy thinks that would somehow make the world a better place?"
That's not an argument against Zuckerberg, it's a fully general argument against any social change. You have discovered the Fully General Social Conservative Argument. It wouldn't take much work to adapt your argument to critique the birth control pill or desegregation (at least before they each became a fait accompli[1]).
(The rest of your post questions Zuckerberg's motives, which is not of interest to me so I'm not addressing it.)
[1] (Edit) At this point, social conservatives have to argue that the change, which has already happened, hurt society. Segregation is too taboo to argue for anymore, but you'll still find some committed social conservatives still resisting the Pill, the Catholic Church for instance. If the world really becomes more open and transparent, we'll have at least a generation of pro-privacy social conservatives saying the world is going to hell because your uncle isn't keeping his leather fetish a closely guarded secret anymore.
I would distinguish between incremental change and radical change. Yes, it's in the eye of the beholder. The loss of privacy is a radical change from the past for those who live in cities. (Privacy is a different beast in a village life.) The argument the OP presented is general but applies to radical changes and I think it applies to Facebook and Zuckerberg.
Is this change in privacy a good thing or a bad thing? I don't know. Is Facebook (and Zuckerberg) the right agent to bring this change about - definitely not in my mind.
Was a eugenicist who favored compulsory sterilization the right agent to bring about social acceptance of contraception? [1] It's a misguided question--changes like this happen for reasons much bigger than one individual, movement, or corporation, or any ulterior motives they may have.
Apparently yes. At the time I would probably say no. It depends on the argument being presented and not on who is presenting it. Though the messenger often times becomes the focus of the debate. In the case of Zuckerburg I don't trust his motives and - here's the rub - he's in a position to abuse trust.
Now if a dictator is in favor of eugenics and starts talking about increasing contraception one might reasonably fear what comes next. When someone is not in a position to takes things to the next level then their ulterior motives are not relevant.
>You have discovered the Fully General Social Conservative Argument.
I'm not arguing against any change. I'm questioning the validity of Zuckerberg's claim that he just wants to make the world a better place. Anyone should want to change the world and make it a better place, but to do that we need to investigate what would actually make things better. Zuckerberg offers no reasoning as to why giving up all privacy would make anything even slightly better. I don't personally see how this would intuitively make the world a better place, but I do see very clearly how it would benefit Zuckerberg personally.
ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at harvard
ZUCK: just ask
ZUCK: i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns
FRIEND: what!? how’d you manage that one?
ZUCK: people just submitted it
ZUCK: i don’t know why
ZUCK: they “trust me”
ZUCK: dumb fucks
I read the whole thing and walked away even more impressed than before. I think if this 'social network' was created by anyone else, they would have settled for the billion dollar and essentially moved on to other things.
I admire his conviction.
Don't worry Zuck, people will forget this movie just as fast as they forgot to delete their facebook account.
So I've got 5 down-votes so far for not having grasped a sentence because I'm not a native speaker, right? HN has become a very friendly place, hasn't it?
However, I've investigated further the issue and, as far as I understand, many people forgot to delete their Facebook account, thus the sentence means: the movie will not be forgotten. Am I correct? Thanks.
Yes, HN can be pretty harsh. I've been here since the beginning and lately I'm coming here less and less :-(
The previous comment was ironic (kind of. He's mentioning a movie (film) they are releasing now based on Zuckerberg's college days and apparently it's pretty negative towards him. "People forgot to delete their FB accounts" is making fun of the people that criticize FB but don't still use it.
If he was supposed to be doing work for hire for them, but instead implemented the same idea for himself, I think that can be accurately described as stealing the execution.
One of the more alarming phenomena to come out of the internet is the idea that we will continue to pay the price for our youthful transgressions, now that they're all on permanent record.
It's more than a little ironic that the founder of the world's most prominent social network is himself subject to the same attack vector.
Or maybe the "Facebook generation" that has grown up with the assumption that this sort of information is public will learn how to deal with it just like any other generation has learned to deal with any other new technology or cultural change.
When the telephone and telegraph came around did we suddenly stop hiring people because we could check their references without so much as lifting a hand to dial the number or send a telegram?
>When the telephone and telegraph came around did we suddenly stop hiring people because we could check their references without so much as lifting a hand to dial the number or send a telegram?
I don't understand how this is as dangerous as online records.
Great work by the author in telling the side of Mark that we have rarely heard or read before. His refusal to sell facebook for billion dollars to yahoo was something I can't think many founders have done or can do.
Also it must have taken a hell lot of time to research for this article.
How would people react if they knew the real story behind Steve Jobs and Apple? Or Microsoft?
This is just the new age. Mark Zuckerberg has vision and he has balls. I admire him for both of those qualities.
Nobody's perfect. His imperfections exist, and he doesn't care. He's giving the world what they want and telling the naysayers "fuck you" because he can.
His life has been, and will continue to be, an interesting and inspiring story, IMHO.
"This is a philosophical battle. Zuckerberg thinks the world would be a better place and more honest, you’ll hear that word over and over again, if people were more open and transparent. My feeling is, it’s not worth the cost for a lot of individuals."
Funny, I read this and found myself intrigued and wanting to know more about what makes Mark Zuckerberg tick. Having witnessed Facebook's rise, reading Accidental Billionaires, hearing about the various lawsuits, seeing the instant messages, waiting in anticipation for the Sorkin movie, and now learning that Mark is a Classics nut... well, this guy is nothing if not interesting. It's a shame the article didn't dig a little deeper. On that note, does anyone recommend David Kirkpatrick's book The Facebook Effect for a credible portrait of the story behind Facebook?
The Facebook Effect is about the product and company Facebook, as opposed to Zuckerberg, per se. In tone, it more closely resembles business non-fiction, or long-form journalism, than the celebrity biopic style of The Accidental Billionaires, on which the film is based. So it's less fun as beach reading, but in my opinion more accurate, and probably of more use to somebody in the business.
Kirkpatrick had unprecedented access to much of the early team, including people who were no longer with Facebook. He does come off as slightly star-struck at times, and not just at Mark Zuckerberg, so keep your salt-shaker handy.
Disclaimer: I work at Facebook, and am proud to call Zuck a friend.
Thanks kmavm. I love a good business page-turner (think 'Den of Thieves' and 'Barbarians at the Gate' as classics in this category)... but also appreciate books I can learn from so I can apply those lessons to my own business. Sounds like I might get something out of The Facebook Effect.
Of course one learns from past mistakes but the question is what you learn. From all his actions, it seems to me that what Mark learned was to not be so obvious with his actions. Now he claims to want to make the world a more open and honest place. Why would making all this information about yourself public make the world a better place? We've spent thousands of years developing social protocols for how and what we reveal to others about ourselves, our families and our friends. Now we should just forgo all that because some guy thinks that would somehow make the world a better place? Does he really even believe that? Whether he does or does not, it sure would make things more convenient for him if people would just voluntarily give out more information about themselves so he can sell it.