Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg, In It To Change the World?
schmidt349 submitted a story about Zuckerberg that might fly in the face of what you've heard of the guy in the past. "Award-winning New York Times journalist David Kirkpatrick's new book The Facebook Effect presents readers with a complex view of Facebook's founder and CEO. Primed by hours of conversation and research deep into the history of the social network, Kirkpatrick reaches the conclusion that money isn't a primary motivation for Zuckerberg, 'a coder more than a CEO, a philosopher more than a businessman, a 26-year-old who has consistently avoided selling out because he sees Facebook as his way to change the world.' Kirkpatrick deftly handles the controversy surrounding Facebook's sometimes cavalier attitude toward user privacy, and the result is a much more balanced and less sensationalist account of Facebook's past, present, and future."
This is true of course. He wants to change the world from one in which he has less money into one in which he has more money.
Ice Cream has no bones.
...who has consistently avoided selling out because he sees Facebook as his way to change the world
Yeah, if you overlook Facebook Ads, the massive support framework for extracting personal data and giving it to third parties under the guise of 'gaming', the Beacon program, and extending the API so any website can add things to your profile through IFRAMES if you don't delete your cookies/logout. No, Mr. Zuckerberg has a very clear vision of how he intends to change the world: He recognizes the incredible value of having personal information on the majority of people connected to the internet, and he wants to capitalize on that.
He intends to sell the information to the highest bidder, while keeping the market where these exchanges take place to himself. That's his brave new world.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Dr. Evil isn't motivated by money either, and he wants to change the world too.
As parent points out, he's out to change HIS world. He might have more credibility if he hadn't stole the code, and wasn't compromising user's data, but, hey, he's got the stage so why not try a little spin on the truth.
Best regards.
...a philosopher?!
"Sum Ergo Cogito"
Just when everyone is thinking "Zuckerberg, what an ass!" we get a book purporting that Zuckerberg is in fact a genius coder and philosopher. And here I thought his philosophy boiled down to "fucking idiots tell me things about themselves that I can sell." When are we going to stop this sycophantic worship of sociopaths who happen to get rich by screwing over others?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
but if their advertising practices are any indication, they are in it for the money. I'm pretty happy with many of the security changes they made a couple of weeks ago after the furor over privacy reached the boiling point, but to claim they have benevolent intentions is ignorance at best.
Living With a Nerd
Sorry, but this just stinks of a payola article.
For an example of what happens when people forgo money.
1. Creating cool programs
2. Get girls
3. Make money
4. Get more girls
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I just don't trust the guy. Sleaze-ball comes to mind.
I can't get into his method of profit--selling our private info to others.
I'm careful about my private information. I'm sure others aren't so well versed on what to disclose to Facebook. I like the site, seriously, as it has let met get in touch with so many friends and family
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
So is the book based solely on interviews? Because interviewing the subject himself with no other sources will nearly always give you a favorable picture of the subject. We all craft our own favorable narratives, consciously or not, and that's even more so what we share with the world.
The Time article doesn't really delve into the other research that Mr. Kirkpatrick might have done, so it's very difficult to judge the quality of the book.
"Kirkpatrick reaches the conclusion that money isn't a primary motivation for Zuckerberg"
If that's really true (which i'm certainly willing entertain doubts about) does he want to reduce privacy because he really believes that's what best for everyone? Or if he's not in it for money is he in it for power? Does he just like knowing everything about everyone, and making a profit off of that knowledge is a side game to him? I'm really not sure which of those would be worse. The first case is a lot less despicable, but it's also a lot more threatening if you think that a certain amount of privacy is a good thing.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Zuckerberg is clearly doing what he does in order to change the world. I can't imagine how that would even be a question.
However, his image of the future seems a bit dystopian in my mind. Bring the consumers together, lead the dumb ones to the slaughter, and then force-herd the stubborn ones down the same path. Everything is marketing, everything is sales. Social interaction cannot exist, if not for the sake of making a profit. "There is no privacy" - unless you're one of the powerful elite.
By all appearances, he's trying to increase the class spread, and turn the entire world into marketing. O brave new world, that has such people in't!
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
He was lacking a chihuahua, so TPTB created David Kirkpatrick.
Zuckerman's wealth is a divine sign of election and sanctification. Me, I must be hellbound.
I recall reading an article a few months ago where MZ openly admitted to casting ethics to the wind and diving into whatever advertising scheme he could to generate capital in the early years of FB with no regard for privacy or transparency. No, I don't care enough to find the link and reference it.
There is no question of selling out - MZ had a clearance sale on business ethics years ago.
While many great things have been accomplished by the relatively young (there's a firm line between "young" and "adult" at 35 in case you're not aware...similar to Chef's "17" philosophy, in fact), they were entirely by accident.
I think we can expect to see much, much more of this, as Facebook tries to change their CEO's image.
Apparently there is an unflattering movie coming out in the Fall and I assume they want to get ahead of that.
It was my understanding that Zuckerberg was a thief at his very core. Always an opportunist looking to earn off of things he doesn't have any right to possess. This included the photos that started Harvard's Facebook, much of the original code and concept, and continues to this day with examples like the email accounts used to connect to Facebook and their password information. I think this understanding of him is probably accurate.
That being said, wouldn't being a thief preclude the label of 'philosopher'? Isn't the harm caused by theft and the social implications of a world where theft is permissible one of the earliest, simplest hurdles that a 'thinker' must cross to become noteworthy? I'm not up on the stuff, but I'm not aware of any ethos that includes 'rutheless slimeball' as a virtuous-knower of wise things.
He recognizes the incredible value of having personal information on the majority of people connected to the internet, and he wants to capitalize on that.
Either a brave new world (to trust giving out so much personal information), or a naive new world (to trust giving out so much personal information).
As a greedy CEO, I'd expect him to act the way FB is trashing user's privacy. As a coder I'd expect him to be more careful about privacy and the security of the code that goes into production.
Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are just suggestions.
It's easy to say that you're not primarily motivated by money once you're already a billionaire several times over.
Hell, give me a mere couple of million and I'd show you what it's like to not be motivated by money...
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I've hooked up with a number of individuals from my past, and it's been an overall positive experience for me. Yes, Zuckerberg is an annoying a-hole, but Facebook is beneficial to me.
Doesn't matter to me, any more. I've opted out of FB, altogether. "I've opted out of FB" (all together)
Woops, sorry about all the mistakes.
I meant this link: Why I don't use Facebook. I was going to link to that actual link, as well about general privacy.
If you don't take privacy into your own hands, don't expect web browsers to. Especially given that they are owned by either businesses who love marketing, Google, Apple, Microsoft. Don't expect governments to protect you.
I filed a TRUST complaint with Facebook. I urge you to do the same. Not that they will do anything though unless they reach a criticial mass. It shocks me so many people have endorsed the seal.
Facebook TRUSTe
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
What was the author smoking when he wrote this?
Not out for the money? "avoided selling out"? What about the phrase "monetizing information" that so often comes up in Facebook's conversations?
What the interview with the 19 year old Zuckerberg who called his users "stupid" for making their information available to him? Yes, he was 19, but I have seen articles on the internet claiming he has said similar things like that in what he thought were confidential conversations.
What about Facebook making defaults public, when it is obvious private would be preferred and doing so without notice?
Is that lack of respect for other people consistent with a "philosopher" who wants to change the world for the better?
Looking back at your list of privacy things: why would I install a whole fricking plugin to block referrers. You can do that in about:config with a single toggled setting.
I can't tell if you're serious, or just not very funny.
for the first time in history, there exists a man who's interested in changing the world for the democratic better.
Fail. And I use that term sparingly. I'm not going to bother with examples, as this is just batshit insane.
get to know the damn kid
Like YOU know the 'damn kid'? Perhaps you've seen something the rest of us have not with your personal friendship with Zuckerberg. If so you should share. If not, well, look at the preponderance of evidence and draw your own conclusions. Meanwhile leave us free to do likewise.
maybe you'll see that SOME OF US DON'T WANT TO MAKE MONEY! but rather need to make enough to try to help others
This could well be but we're talking about Mark Zuckerberg here. Not Ghandi. Stay on topic, please.
There is no objective sense in which Homo sapiens can be said to be the "dominant life form." It's a value judgement. Don't try to pass it as a fact.
Are you adequate?
I had no idea there was a configuration option for that.
What my plugin seems to do is make every page I visit look like the first page I visited, by supplying the referrer itself. Some websites do break when they use a referrer to force you to come from a certain page, it seems easier to just click the Referrer icon. (Which also lets me block referrer by host, although the information is probably already leaked to be honest.)
Although I may consider the configuration option as no doubt it uses less resources...
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
The Economist's review doesn't necessarily answer your question, but I would say it's more informative overall.
Of all the hot girls in FB. Who could complain?
This is not a bookmark.
"Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
It's a private service, not government supplied. If you do not agree with it's terms of service, then by all means DON'T USE IT! If you didn't bother to read the terms and signed up anyway because everyone else is, then you live with the consequences.
You really don't have to be on facebook... If enough of a consumer base disagree with the practices, a competitor will emerge and users can be divided amongst the various social network websites.
That being said, I do believe that Facebook has to have a reasonable method of informing it's membership to changes of terms of service... but I believe in most cases this has been done. It's just this particular user base (wahhh privacy wahhh) ignored the change and kept using it while whining about it, or didn't bother to keep themselves informed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook
Stay clear of failbook.
This couldn't be more on topic.
Give me an example. please. name me one person who wanted to make the world a better place, and gave less of a fuck about money.
you'd be surprised how hard they are to find. (the emphasis IS off in the first line you quoted, I can see how it may be misread. it would have been better worded: "for the first time in history, there exists a man who's interested in changing the world for the democratic better THAT MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE TO REALLY DO IT.) Mark's one of the most open people you'll ever meet. send the guy an e-mail sometime, be a human being to the man, and go figure: he'll be a human back to you. (unless you are just being a money driven dick to him.)
stop thinking with your wallet for a second, and start thinking like a human being. there ARE other human beings in the world. there are even those of us who understand that he doesn't want to "get rich"
people that spend lifetimes gathering money and value, only to die, and find out that none of it could have saved them. then sit and regret having not given that guy from your youth asking for change a hand, or a kind word.
Give me an example. please. name me one person who wanted to make the world a better place, and gave less of a fuck about money.
Buddha. Gandhi. Mother Theresa.
That's three. Google yourself some more. All of these people were successful, too. Moreso than Zuckerberg.
stop thinking with your wallet for a second, and start thinking like a human being.
Capitalist pigs and all that aside, I'm thinking with my brain. People get painted by their behaviors. MZ doesn't even admit to his crimes, let alone begin to atone for them, and you want to anoint him a saint. He has yet to do one decent thing for humanity, as far as I have seen.
You're attributing to a single slimeball the entirety of the internet's value while simultaneously blathering on about the limits of materialism.
In short you're not having a conversation, so have a nice day!
He never said he had benevolent intentions, he said he wanted to change the world. He dreams of being atop a world changing company, just as Bill Gates, J P Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, and the railroad barons of old all have done. He wants to be the great. He wants to be respected. He sees 'changing the world' as a means to that end, but no moreso than being rich.
Qxe4
to be completely fair, Gandi's a pretty good example of somebody along the same lines.
but he was rather limited in the scope of the work he could accomplish. (I admit, I have no idea what the guy was like, he was long dead when I was born.)
the key point you're missing, is that the majority of the good gandi did for the world, came after he died. where as mark's in a position to make global changes a reality, and make the world a better place, in his current lifetime.
True...I guess this is indicitive of the difference between myself and him, then. I hear change the world, and I think of positive things that benefit all mankind. He hears change the world, and he thinks of leaving the world a different place than it was before he showed up, good or bad. ::shrug::
Living With a Nerd
all of which were people that did the majority of their work and goodwill after their death.
it's funny that you'd mention gandhi. hoping that you know SOMETHING about his teachings after using him shamelessly in a post, would you answer any question asked of you in complete and honest truth?
now, if you had a website of all the personal details of your life, would you mind if somebody indexed it and built a profile describing who you are?
it's the same thing. except that one most people don't really mind, the other people get shy about.
Did he say how he wants to change the world?
If for better, I'd say he is not doing too well.
and it's funny that you only mention religious people. people that felt that the world could only ever be united and peaceful when they live under a god.
strangely, that bears NO resemblance to what mark's trying to do.
So he's a narcissist, just like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Not much of a surprise, really.
In hindsight, We can say Bill Gates really wanted a PC running Windows on everyone's desktop. It's not really a bad intention.
OpenId is what you're looking for I believe. . . I think that's FB's implementation as well. (probably way wrong there though)
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Mother Theresa who took 1.4m stolen dollars from Charles Keating? Mother Theresa gave a hell of a fuck about money, mainly by fetishizing the suffering of those without it....
Read up.
Otherwise I agree.
grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)
Jobs is a psychopath that wanted to change the world, even got his wish, kinda. Among sane people, I'm not sure the Google guys were exactly trying to change the world, although they're willing to take up the mantle when absolutely necessary. Bill Gates wasn't trying to change anything either, but age eventually showed how he had little choice. Zuckerberg? change? don't make me laugh!
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: 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. IM after Mark "The Philantropist" launched The Facebook
#facebook #zuckerberg #gods #falseprophets #death #eternity #love #sex #heaven #fear #freedom ON ZUCKERBERG: http://tinyurl.com/2wxgaeq
Uuh he didn't say a damn thing. The article depends on what David Kirkpatrick says, and all the article says is "Zuckerberg wants to change the world!" and "He's not in it for the money!".
The article is just a plug for the book, that's it.