Facebook Interviewer Heckled at Web Conference

jriding writes "Zuckerberg, the 23-year-old billionaire, was the keynote speaker at the SXSW Interactive Festival in Austin, Texas. Business Week journalist Sarah Lacy took the stage to question Zuckerberg, but the audience quickly grew tired of the topics she focused on, claiming that the real issues were being ignored. "Never, ever have I seen such a train wreck of an interview," claimed audience member, Jason Pontin." The audience apparently wanted to know more about privacy and portability issues, which I guess shouldn't surprise anyone here.

Comments

It's a difficult balance

[BadAnalogyGuy]

On the one hand, you want to be able to post pictures of yourself passed out in your own vomit, stripped down to your panties and french kissing another sorority sister, and simulating fellatio on a blow up doll. On the other hand, you don't want people to be able to copy the pictures and send them around the web.

I think the right word to describe this is FAIL

You can't have your urinal cake and eat it too.

Re:It's a difficult balance

[TubeSteak]

You can't have your urinal cake and eat it too. I'd settle for Facebook making new privacy busting "features" opt-in instead of opt-out.

Re:It's a difficult balance

[montyzooooma]

I'd settle for Facebook making new privacy busting "features" opt-in instead of opt-out.
The BBC ran a Money Programme show about social sites earlier in the year and a lot of the people interviewed were shocked and disappointed that their information was being skimmed for advertising purposes. They just wanted to be left alone to enjoy their online embroidery circles, or whatever. But at the end of the day someone has to pay. Assuming you're unable or unwilling to disable the ads isn't it better to be looking at TARGETTED ads rather than random ones?

Re:It's a difficult balance

[Hatta]

Assuming you're unable or unwilling to disable the ads isn't it better to be looking at TARGETTED ads rather than random ones?

No, marketing is supposed to make you spend money you wouldn't have otherwise spent. If not that, then it's supposed to make you spend money on an option you wouldn't have otherwise chosen. It does this through emotional manipulation, rather than presenting facts and arguing them well, so the better marketed option is usually not the best one.

So ads that are targeted towards me are likely to induce me to spend money I would not have otherwise, and they're likely to make me choose a less optimal option by manipulating my emotions. Random ads are less likely to affect my behavior, so I find them more acceptable. There's really *nothing* good that can come from exposure to marketing.

Re:It's a difficult balance

[PFI_Optix]

And no matter how hard a webmaster tries, it's impossible to prevent someone from getting pictures off a site. You can prevent "Save as", you can even do things like set the displayed image as a table background with a transparent picture over it, but you can't keep them from taking a simple screen cap and cropping it. Even if you could, it's always possible to point a good camera at a good monitor and get a near-perfect reproduction.

If you don't want specific pictures of yourself being available to everyone, don't make them available to anyone. No matter how "secure" you make it, the internet makes it possible for just one person with the time and know-how to circumvent security and share the content (or the method of circumvention itself) with the rest of the world. Tangent: The same can be applied to copy protection schemes...it just takes one person to render them useless at preventing all but casual "hey can you copy that disk for me?" piracy.

Re:It's a difficult balance

[Briden]

Marketing is supposed to make you spend money you wouldn't have otherwise spent?

No, marketings purpose is simply to get you to buy a given product. Whether or not you'd have bought that product or a similar one is irrelevant, the purpose is to increase the chance that you buy that particular one, contributing to the revenue of that company who is producing the widget.

Some advertisements use emotional manipulation. Some are informational, aesthetic, logical, or price based. It's a big competitive soup of screaming focussed on getting one thing, YOUR dollar.

I have a few dollars, some expendable, and I am willing to part with them for the right thing, stuff I would have bought anyway, as well as new and innovative products that I gotta have. For me it's DJ gear and music, for some it's antique art.

Personally, I mind LESS if the ads are targeted to me. and there is a better chance I might actually buy some of the ads i have "opted in" for. Unlike the mass advertisements, for example, McDonalds, who waste millions on advertising and will never convince me to buy another hamburger, I don't fall for their crass bullshit. 100% Beef my Ass!

Ads are here to stay, they suck for the most part, but they power the finances that drive the web, so we can't get rid of all of them. Click an ad for something you support today!

(and put a bunch of people you don't into your host file) ;)

Re:It's a difficult balance

[CodeBuster]

Random ads are less likely to affect my behavior, so I find them more acceptable. Why not declare your independence from ads permanently? Adblock Plus...accept no substitutes.

Re:It's a difficult balance

[realthing02]

It's not even really worth posting, but a lot of advertising isn't to get you to buy an unneeded option or spend money you wouldn't have, but get you to choose one product over another. Brand familiarity goes a long way when you have to buy something that you've never bought before.

A good example is something like a carpet cleaner. I never had to worry about such things before I got my own apartment/house. But when I inevitably spilled something I went to Target and bought one of them. I bought Resolve because I knew about it from TV or something stupid*, and it worked on the stain. So we all win, right?

It might also have been on sale, as that's generally how I buy something :-)

Re:It's a difficult balance

[Angostura]

Because I want the sites that I enjoy visiting to survive?

Re:It's a difficult balance

[SpiritGod21]

Which is why you disable AB on sites you enjoy (like, say NYTimes, Slashdot, or Penny-Arcade) and leave it for sites you don't (in my case, MySpace). See the ads you want, block those you don't.

Re:It's a difficult balance

[Fex303]

In the absence of marketing a wise, informed consumer will pick the best option for their needs.

In the absence of marketing a wise consumer won't be informed, since they won't know what's out there. Who do you think sends out press releases, review copies, etc.

You make it sound like there's an optimal product out there that all consumers would be best off buying.

To use a real-life example, I can't afford to spend lots of money on orange juice. If I did, I would buy the organic brand with no added anything. However I don't buy the store brand, because it tastes terrible (too sweet). So instead I buy a mid-range brand.

All of those brands have good reasons to exist and reasons to advertise. (To remind people to buy orange juice, to explain what they're all about, etc.) None of the brands are trying to manipulate people into buying something they don't want, simply to provide the right product to the right people.

Re:It's a difficult balance

[Hatta]

First off, most marketing is supposed to make you choose one particular brand over another, as opposed to buying something you wouldn't otherwise buy (since that's hard to do). For example, you're going to buy (say) soap anyhow, the advertising just tries to convince you to buy one brand rather than another.

Yes, that was the gist of the second sentence of my post.

Secondly, what you term 'emotional manipulation' is generally referred to as branding. In many cases a rational argument cannot be made for why you should buy one brand or another.

If they're not distinguishable by features, then choose on price. If they're the same price, it really doesn't matter. But you'll be hard pressed finding any recognizable brand that doesn't have a cheaper no-name alternative.

For example there is rational argument to be made for fashion.

There is? Do tell.

Also, lots of brands are marketed using rational argument. Some sort of facts form the basis of most ads, but obviously a 30-second TV spot isn't exactly long enough to go into depth about (say) soap composition.

Just because facts are used doesn't mean the argument is rational. It's not truth, it's truthiness.

Besides which, it's a sad fact that most of the general population don't understand lipid composition all that well, and even if they did, they don't care about it.

True, but soap choice is hardly an important decision for one to make.

If your emotions are really manipulated by what happens in the commercial breaks, then I'd suggest that advertising is the least of your problems.

Oh that's just being silly. Obviously I'm not becoming distraught because of advertisments. But to claim that the constant barrage of emotionally laden imagery has no effect on you is just silly.

Lastly, even if we were to accept your arguments, it doesn't follow that the 'better marketed option is usually not the best one'. At best you're arguing that they're uncorrelated, but I would make a counter-argument that a company that has a competent marketing department is more likely to have other competent departments, and therefor will be making a better product.

No, my arguments didn't directly show that, but from experience that seems to be the case. Companies that make crappy products tend to make up for it with marketing. Companies that make excellent products don't need to trick people into buying them.

Full disclosure: I work in advertising

This is for you.

Re:It's a difficult balance

[mapkinase]

google search.

Re:It's a difficult balance

[argStyopa]

"....stripped down to your panties and french kissing another sorority sister, and simulating fellatio on a blow up doll..."

So...just as an example, where would those be?

Re:It's a difficult balance

[Hatta]

In the absence of marketing a wise consumer won't be informed, since they won't know what's out there. Who do you think sends out press releases, review copies, etc.

There are plenty of third party sources of product information.

You make it sound like there's an optimal product out there that all consumers would be best off buying.

No, but there is always an optimal choice that balances all the factors that play into the decision.

Lets look at your example for a minute. Mid-range orange juice is your optimal choice, but the marketing of the organic OJ has you thinking that if you made a little more money you'd choose them. Why? Because it's labeled organic it must be better?

What's the difference really? Both are made from carbon, so I'm guessing by "organic" they mean they don't use any pesticides. Well how much pesticide is there in the non-organic OJ? Is there any evidence that non-organic OJ hurts people? If the store were selling tainted OJ shouldn't you take that up with the FDA instead of just buying the more expensive non-tainted OJ?

That right there is the kind of harmful emotional manipulation I'm talking about. They're trying to make people think they're making wise purchasing decisions when it's really just based on bullshit.

Re:It's a difficult balance

[Fex303]

Lets look at your example for a minute. Mid-range orange juice is your optimal choice, but the marketing of the organic OJ has you thinking that if you made a little more money you'd choose them. Why? Because it's labeled organic it must be better?

Actually, no. It's because it tastes better. I buy it when I either have a bit of extra cash or think that I'll have guests over for breakfast. So I do actually know what it tastes like. And before you start going on about how it tastes better because I've been convinced it does by evil marketing, no it's really a very different product. It tastes exactly the same as fresh squeezed (and therefore varies by season), it has proper pulp, and it goes off really fast since there's no preservatives.

Anyhow, the rest of your rant is thusly invalidated.

Re:It's a difficult balance

[Fex303]

If they're not distinguishable by features, then choose on price.

And you know about those features how? Packaging? Oh, that would be marketing's job.

For example there is rational argument to be made for fashion.

There is? Do tell.

Apologies, as you've probably realized, I meant to say there is no rational argument to be made for fashion.

True, but soap choice is hardly an important decision for one to make.

Unless you're a soap maker. But still, let's look at something like cars then. Marketed to project an emotion because they essentially an emotional purchase. That's what people actually want from their cars. You can't provide much in the way of a full description of features in a 30 second ad, so you focus one or two and explain how that will make someone feel (leather seats make you feel comfortable, high performance makes you excited, hybrid engine makes you feel environmentally conscious), because at the end of the day, you can get the feeling across more quickly than you can make the argument. But then you go to the dealership get a pamphlet that explains all the features of the car and lists things in a point-by-point fashion for people to make their rational choices with. I suspect you think that people are far more rational than they actually are. And before you blame that on marketing eroding people's reasoning skills I suggest you look at all of human history.

Full disclosure: I work in advertising

This is for you.

I guess I have to go back to using my usual disclaimer. Talk about predictable, I didn't even have to click on the link to know what it was. Also, don't be a dick about things. Even if you're doing it by proxy.

Re:It's a difficult balance

[FLEB]

Why are you even going to sites you don't like?

Re:It's a difficult balance

[asc99c]

When I sold my house the estate agent website had an SWF that downloaded the images and made it tricky to save. I ran Firefox's tamper data add on to see where it was getting them and found a nice image server with the full high-res wide-angle photos their photographer had taken.

Re:It's a difficult balance

[h4rm0ny]

He picked a bad example when he went for the orange juice. I have an empty carton of organic orange juice next to me right now - tastes much nicer than the non-organic and far, far better than the dilutable stuff. But in both your case and mine, we have come to that conclusion ourselves. It's not marketing that makes the organic stuff taste better. Our choice is informed by a different source of information (experience in this case) rather than advertising. So I agree with what you say but draw a different conclusion - marketing is not necessary in this case for me to make an optimal choice and the only possible effect of marketing is to lead me to make an non-optimal choice.Take any argument to extremes or apply it in all cases and it's going to break down, but I would often agree with the OP who said that directed marketing has a negative effect on the viewer.

Re:It's a difficult balance

[DavidD_CA]

Isn't signing up for Facebook your opt-in?

Don't like it; don't use it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Too bad...

[Black Parrot]

Too bad the article doesn't tell us what the purportedly clueless interviewer *did* ask.

Re:Too bad...

[millwall]

Too bad the article doesn't tell us what the purportedly clueless interviewer *did* ask.

TFA is a waste of time.

Sensational headline - "Facebook founder heckled at web conference", yet providing no proof for this, nor any proof on why the interviewer was clueless.

A couple of bland quotes from Zuckerberg on the Yahoo bid and privacy issues. Good enough for a /. first page?

Re:Too bad...

[eldavojohn]

Valley Wag does. The twitter feeds are basically asses calling her stupid and what not. She reportedly replied that she hates everyone on the twitter feed. Oh well, another attention whoring soap opera to avoid in my eyes.

Re:Too bad...

[Furry Ice]

Here's a video of the interview: http://www.austin360.com/news/mplayer/sxsw/73367

Re:Too bad...

[Angostura]

Actually the comments on that video appear to be the most informative guide to what happened.

Re:Too bad...

[holden caufield]

I just watched the video, and (surprise) this is a non-story. The interview just seems like a couple of 20-somethings who forgot they need to act like adults. The interviewer didn't help herself by poorly phrasing her questions (for example, about Facebook's market cap), and rambling on and on. What was she doing? Jockeying for a job? A date? A loan?

The interviewer just didn't do a good job, and was in front of people who witnessed it. The audience should have been more mature, the interviewer should have been more prepared, and a kid who sold his company for a staggering amount of money should have been more interesting.

scrabulous

[apodyopsis]

privacy, shmivacy - what I really want to know is are they going to take our Scrabulous away?

how else am I going to fill the hours spent sitting in front of a computer whilst at work?

Video of Sarah Lacy's version of what happened

[dstone]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ccLJnICdJGI

She's made of Teflon(R), apparently.

Re:Video of Sarah Lacy's version of what happened

[MrMunkey]

Here's a video of the actual interview. I don't think it's the whole thing though.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LxZ6-O5R1zs

Re:Probably set up

[dattaway]

You don't become a billionaire by accident and no billionaire wants to answer those questions.

Get a suit, Zuck!

[davejenkins]

Now that he has a billion dollars, I would hope that Mr Zuckerburg invests in a CEO or COO-- someone over 40 that can at least give the appearance of a "real" company. Yes, I realize that means selling out to a certain degree and it also maybe takes away some (okay most) of the fun, but it also means that certain people (investors) won't think that the staff at facebook is making shit up as they go along.

If I were Mark, I would hire a suit, and put him in front of the crowds, while I stood off to the side and wait for the 'inspirational answer' about the dreamy-dream utopian future and how my software was going to make it happen.

Re:Get a suit, Zuck!

[insertwackynamehere]

He clearly got this far on his own. Why should he hire someone now?

Re:Get a suit, Zuck!

[AvitarX]

I be the one (CEO at 30) has something to do with the other (suit and tie) though.

Not to imply your not talented, or event hat perception is everything. Just that perception is something, and something that is probably worth it when you are trying to overvalue your company at such ridiculous levels.

Re:Get a suit, Zuck!

[maxume]

He doesn't have a billion dollars. He surely has several million in actual money, but the rest is paper.

Given that he has several million dollars that probably aren't going anywhere(which is enough money to do whatever you want for the rest of your life), why should he care more about what certain people think than he cares about having fun? So he can make sure that he is worth $2 billion on paper, and then 4?

I can see where it would be more fun to not put up with a bunch of inane questions from bloggers, but that isn't what you said.

Re:Get a suit, Zuck!

[lotho brandybuck]

This has been my experience too. Both as an investor, and as an employee!

Re:Get a suit, Zuck!

[bkr1_2k]

You're doing a shitty job of investing if you're only making $20k on $1M. Seriously, that's only 2%. A low end money market investment will earn you at least 3.5% on that kind of money and most will guarantee 4.5 and actually earn around 6. If you actually invest the money in real investments you're looking at something more like 8-10% for conservative investment, which earns you around 80-100k (per million) before taxes, so let's say 70-85K per year after taxes, if you actually pay at 15%. (My wife and I made 100k+ this year and our actual tax percentage is around 11%.)

If you can't survive and "do whatever you want" on 300K+ a year (for "several million") in interest income you're seriously being wasteful with your money. Or you're trying to buy shit that costs millions of dollars, which is generally being wasteful with your money, but agreeably doesn't fall into the category "whatever you want to do".

Re:Get a suit, Zuck!

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to subtract 2-3% from each of the interest rates you're using and reinvest it, or your interest income will not keep pace with inflation.

Re:Get a suit, Zuck!

[maxume]

8-10% might be a bit of an aggressive assumption for conservative investments. For the DOW to match last centuries growth in this century, it would have to close at 2,000,000 at the beginning of 2100(page 19, the whole thing is worth a read):

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2007ltr.pdf

To hit 10% a year, the DOW would close at 24,000,000. One way to look at it is to ask, are things going to improve more this century than they improved last century, or less(the upside is that if they improve more, money will get less and less important, so it will be hard to miss out on).

The whole Malthusian folly comes into play, current projections can't really foresee radical future changes, but I don't think it is self evident that the progress made in the last 100 years will be repeated(especially in terms of things like resource extraction and farming, which saw enormous gains in productivity).

Re:Probably set up

[winkydink]

Well, be sure and let us know when Zuckerberg actually becomes a billionaire on something other than illiquid paper. I'm sure that the entire exec staff of Webvan were billionaires at one point in time too.

Re:Probably set up

[LordNimon]

That's where journalist integrity comes in. The interviewer is responsible for knowing what questions should be asked. If she isn't allowed to ask those questions, then she should refuse to interview him.

At least slightly better Wired.com article

[\\]

http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/03/sxsw-mark-zucke.html

Sha handles it gracefully

[prostoalex]

Say what you want about American journalists, and their courageous representative Sarah Lacy, she handled the hiccups in the interview gracefully:

seriously screw all you guys. I did my best to ask a range of things.

Re:Sha handles it gracefully

[Rob T Firefly]

seriously screw all you guys. I did my best to ask a range of things. I will never again be able to read anything she writes without my mind's ear hearing it in Eric Cartman's voice. Seriously, you guys.

Mating urge

[TheLink]

Many animals willingly engage in potentially risky behaviours to increase their odds of mating.

Fanning out a brightly coloured tail, making loud noises, dancing and many many other things that make them more obvious to potential mates, but at the same time more vulnerable to predators.

Posting pictures of yourself in panties, passed out or french kissing on a "social" website is about the same thing.

plan b

[pak9rabid]

When all else fails, kindly remind them that you're the one with billions of dollars, not the audience trolls :).

Who cares about privacy and portability...

[__aaclcg7560]

How to become a young billionaire should've been the topic of the day.

money and reality

[drDugan]

and how is this a surprise?

We live in a society, on the way to be adopted globally, where capitalism is interpreted so narrowly that we have only one linear metric for success: cash.

When you are a billionaire, you can pay for participating in situations where the pitcher tosses you softballs, and if they don't you have enough power to never have to go to bat with them again. Knowing this, the cowardly sheep in the media duly bend over and give deference to rich people. It's not wrong, it just is the way it is when money is the *only* metric we use to evaluate a person's value.

If you have not heard the phrase: "It's just business"

Re:money and reality

[moderatorrater]

We live in a society, on the way to be adopted globally, where capitalism is interpreted so narrowly that we have only one linear metric for success: cash. That's the myth that's being perpetuated by those bending over. For me, my family and friends, it's much more important to be loyal to those around you, spend time together, etc. I could earn a lot more money than I do now, but I'd rather spend my weekends with my wife watching stupid movies and enjoying ourselves before we start raising a family.

People lose sight of the fact that money is nothing more than a means to an end, and if you're living life for anything but happiness, you need to get hit by the clue stick. Being rich doesn't hurt anything, and I wouldn't turn down a billion dollars if someone offered it, but I wouldn't give up my current life for a six-figure salary; it's just not worth it.

Re:Probably set up

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

That's where journalist integrity comes in.

I,... I don't understand. Why do you put those two words so close together?

HOWTO: Privacy on Facebook

[rice_burners_suck]

Privacy on Facebook is relatively simple:

• Don't put any personal information into your profile.
• Don't add anyone to your friends whom you don't know personally.
• Don't add any applications and don't give any application permission to run.
• Ignore all "requests" and "invitations."

The only remaining thing is photographs and videos that you or your friends might upload or "tag" you in. I believe you have the choice to confirm the tags, or at least to untag yourself if you prefer not to be named in your friends' photos. I think this particular issue is not that important, because your pictures are probably on the Internet, and on Facebook, whether with or without your name, whether or not you're on Facebook, and you have no control over them anyway. Chances are, that's the case unless you never leave the house.

TWiT and why the Interviewer sucked

[strredwolf]

This is on This Week In Tech #135 in which Robert Scoble reported from South by Southwest (SxSW) about the uproar: Sarah Lacy was playing softball and flirting with Mark Zuckerberg, and the audience as well as Mark was expecting hard though questions. At the right point the audience interrupted, which made Sarah go defensive -- a bad move that made her loose control of the interview.

Jason Calacanis (in the TWiT podcast) then explained that Sarah's been flirting with Mark for a very long time, and these softball questions are very unprofessional of her.

IMO She really needed a wake-up call -- SxSW live isn't print!

pimply-faces teens interviewing each other

[peter303]

Just because one of the two was really smart and rich, doesnt mean they have well developed social skills yet. Zuckerberg cratered on 60 Minutes when Leslie started asking hard questions.

Re:Probably set up

[jcnnghm]

Pageviews and revenue. It is widely held that Facebook is profitable, by some accounts, highly. In addition to that, the demographic generating the pageviews is one of the most difficult to reach with conventional marketing, making them highly valuable.

Suckiness and sexism

[oceaniv]

Watching bit and pieces of the interview I have no doubt that she had not prepared for this, was just not a good choice of an interviewer given the audience and a host of other issues... HOWEVER these comments are kind of interesting to keep in mind "After she asked if someone could send her a message later on why she 'sucked so bad', I'm sure I could hear the person at the mic say something like 'it's because you're wearing a dress' I could be mistaken though." "And for those who think that sexist crap doesn't still happen, it does. Unconsciously mostly, but ALL THE TIME in social media. I witnessed Jay Rosen's citizen journalism pal, Leonard Witt, again at the Computation + Journalism Symposium recently at GA Tech, introduce one of the very few women panelists at that particular conference, Ms. Culver from Pownce, by talking throughout the entire introduction time he was allotted ONLY about Twitter... fer chrissake, and barely once mentioning Ms. Culver's own product or work! And the sad part... he never even realized what he was NOT talking about. Shame again." http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/03/10/zuckerberg-interview-what-went-wrong/

Re:Probably set up

[Joelfabulous]

"That's where journalistic integrity comes in"

Speaking of which, why is the summary pretty much an unabashed, word for word copy and paste of the initial paragraph or two of the article? Isn't that plagiarism or something? Or is it different when it comes to reporting a news story, a la Reuters? Anyone?

My take on the interview

[Necroman]

I was at the presentation, and rather disappointed as many other people were. I ended up leaving the interview before the "revolt" happened, I just couldn't take anymore of it. As my friend described it "That interview felt like awkward sex."

She kept rambling on and not asking straight-forward questions (they were more statements than questions). Advertising herself and telling her own stories rather than interview the person we were there to hear from. And her response afterwards (seen in one of the youtube links in these comments) is even more appalling. It seems she did no research about the crowd she was interviewing in front of, which caused a huge problem. And to add the comment about how SXSW won't get another big person. Does she realize that last years keynotes were Dan Rather and William Wright (both of with were awesome interviews/presentations). She may be a good writer, but doesn't have a clue how to run a proper live interview.

And not to put all the blame on her, Mark did not help the situation at all. He repeated the same statements over and over, felt like he just kept repeating himself. He also didn't see like the best public speaker (not to say I'm good at it), but he didn't seem ready for what he was thrown into. He could have done some work to steer the presentation in a way that he wanted, but I don't believe he's had enough experience to do this.

Re:My take on the interview

[nomadic]

"That interview felt like awkward sex."

Is there any other kind?

Groupthink

[bjtuna]

This little 'story' has been going around for about 24 hours and the root of it, in my opinion, is being obscured: the self-congratulation of a bunch of developers that they were able to chat online (with Twitter) about an event that they were all watching with their own eyes. The tweets took on a life of their own. That's why you keep seeing the same phrase, "train wreck", in all these write-ups. So one journalist did a poor job of interviewing some business owner? If it wasn't for the "live blogging" aspect, it wouldn't be news. And don't even get me started on how fucking rude it was for the audience to start interrupting them. I've seen some other people comment here that Zuckerburg and Lacy are lacking in social skills... sorry, but that doesn't compare to how completely out-of-line the audience members were.

WTF...

[mcmire]

Personally I think this whole fiasco just proves (yet again) that when people are given the chance to speak their mind, they act like total dickwads. Bloggers and Twitterers are no exception. I mean, read some of the twits. Sarah Lacy may have been a terrible interviewer, but that's no reason to throw insults at her... Jesus. You'd think that the same people that twitter are the same people that troll YouTube and shit all over the comments sections...

It's the middle ages

[gelfling]

A friend of mine, an historian, commented that when you leave teenagers in charge what you get is the middle ages. Which is factually correct.

The Facebook generation, essentially a gibbering gaggle of binge drinking ADD retards, are now in charge. In a few more years you can expect another Cultural Revolution that will make 'Idiocracy' look like a documentary.

Re:Probably set up

[crossmr]

Do you work for Fox?