Slashdot Mirror
Facebook CEO Accused of Securities Fraud
Precision noted that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg turned 26 last week, and gets to celebrate by being accused of securities fraud. This goes back to the old Facebook legend that Zuckerberg stole code from other Harvard students.
"You and 54,972 others like this."
Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
The fin on top of your head doesn't do what you think it does.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The latest unwelcome gift: accusations of securities fraud from former Harvard schoolmates who say he and other Facebook executives tricked them into a supposed $65 million settlement that was actually worth far less.
He may or may not be guilty of anything, so let's try to keep a cool head in the meantime.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Those who desire to steal securities in order to gain freedom will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
I bet he will regret the 'Poke' feature if he does time
I didn't see anything in the article that suggests he was accused of securities fraud, which generally means an accusation from the SEC for something like insider trading. Ripping off counterparties in a settlement deal may not be great behavior (even though the plaintiffs' lawyers should have realized this a lot sooner than they did) but it is not the same as saying there was securities fraud. Again, it sounds like the article is flamebait or the author just has no idea what he's talking about.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Bill Gates stole code for from the dumpster for his BASIC compiler that he based his fortune on, why should Zuckerberg be investigated when Gates isn't?
When will billionaires ever get a fair shake in this world?
People. You don't have to use a dash when writing "god". That is used when writing god's name on paper, because you aren't technically supposed to physically destroy god's name.
It is irrelevant when written on a computer.
Living With a Nerd
How we humans love to tear down success. It's in our social nature. So it's perhaps ironic that Facebook, the top predator in the land of social acceleration, is having a bad week and we are all enjoying the schadenfreude.
That observed, one can realize there are good reasons to hate face book, and overblown ones. Facebook is changing social norms, including privacy norms, faster than the older generations are comfortable with. This could be good in some cases, but there's also can be excellent reasons why traditions became traditions. For example I try to keep a tight hold on my personal information but I can't exactly tell you why I care so much. I just innately think it could come back and bite me. Also it seems a little unseemly to burden others with oversharing. Also people are mean.
My hope is that as the bad reasons get debunked we don't lose sight of the good reasons for hating facebook.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
A bunch of arrogant entitled Haaaarvard douches get butt-humped by the biggest douche amongst them, then spend the rest of their natural lives giving all of their money to lawyers until none of them have anything except crack habits and an autobiography in the bargain bin.
I mean, you can't buy entertainment like this. It's win-win, especially if they all lose.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The title of this article is totally misleading. The Winklevosses agreed to a settlement involving a payment of cash and a quantity of Facebook stock assuming a certain valuation. That valuation was based on the Microsoft purchase of a small chunk of the company that, if you bought all the stock at the same price, would make it work $15 billion.
Obviously that valuation was unrealistic, but the Winklevosses agreed to it *because their lawyers told them to.* Their law firm didn't complete their due diligence or else they may have wanted to renegotiate the deal. But that's not even remotely Facebook's fault.
The reason for this accusation is that the Winklevosses have to pay their lawyers a contingency fee based on the higher valuation of the stock. This will result in a net loss to them. They're pissed off at this turn of events, so they're casting aspersions on Facebook's CEO and demanding a securities investigation. But don't forget that they're a pair of moneyed aristocrats from a family of moneyed aristocrats (read: spoiled brats). So don't think of them as wronged parties because they're not.
Facebook was no more the Winklevosses' idea than Windows Aero or Mac OS Aqua or Enlightenment or KDE were the ideas of Xerox PARC.
What if? The result of offending a god is always the same: nothing happens.
when friendster looked like it was going to take over the internet
there once was a time when myspace looked larger than google
and, in a few short years, someone will say something about facebook, probably as a joke, and someone else will say "facebook? what's that?"
the realm of social networking is true to what it is: an endless party, hosted by one rich kid whose parents are on vacation after another, no one claiming the right to say they are truly in control for very long, forever
what i envision is a permanent progression, every 5-10 years, a new friendster/myspace/facebook taking over the mantle of darling of the ball, and then rudely discarded and abandoned, in endless succession, forever
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dell
sure his company has acted douchey, but i don't think the guy can be called a douche. its been a long time since he founded dell in his dorm, and no one has any real dirt on the fellow. sure he's not a saint, but again, not a douche
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak
wozniak is pretty much the anti-douche. the woz is pure awesomeness. even steve jobs: yeah, your average apple cultist is pretty much the definition of upper middle class douchebag, but steve jobs himself seems like just a cold hard terse shrewd businessman, not a douchebag
to expand the realm outside technology and money, you can point to george clooney: not a douche, for every lindsay lohan, clearly a douchebag, literally and figuratively
there are many other examples of nondouchey massive successes at a young age
additionally, the corollary of your argument, that poverty and suffering somehow make you strong of character, is obviously wrong, because there are plenty of broke douchebags out there
no, the truth is, zuckerberg is, and always would have been, a douchebag, whether facebook happened or not. i'm certain you can find me an example of some nice guy who was destroyed by fame/ money, or some asshole who was redeemed by financial hardship, but for the most part, once a douchebag, always a douchebag, regardless of fame and fortune
i think its a pleasant myth people tell themselves (out of self-righteousness, a form of douchebaggery) that fame and fortune is somehow linked with moral terpitude or character pestilence. but its simply not true
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We are not a predatorial, combative species. We're more like the Bonobos (pygmy chimps) than chimps. They screw each other silly at the drop of a hat to smooth over social tensions. The traits you describe are a consequence of developing agriculture and a surplus, and then experiencing famine. Instead of moving on to more fertile grounds, we stayed until the surplus was exhausted, then used our newly developed societal organization to wage war on our neighbors. This resulted in a whole generation of brain damaged children (starvation does that) being raised by a whole generation of PTSD damaged (war does that) adults. Our selfish side was locked in culturally.
This is why you don't see walled cities before a certain point in history. No weapons exclusive to killing other humans as opposed to hunting, either. No mass graves, not until the time period when the Sahara dried up.
Science has shown that your view of human nature is fundamentally incorrect. Please see my post above yours for citations. It is human nature to be more concerned about fairness and reciprocity than self interest. But the opposite view excuses all sorts of unfair and non-reciprocal behaviors, and so it is still immensely popular with a certain set of privileged people, despite the evidence against it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton