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."

9 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Well Obviously. by Adambomb · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Well Obviously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Welcome to Slashdot, you'll fit right in.

  2. not motivated by money? by z-j-y · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dr. Evil isn't motivated by money either, and he wants to change the world too.

  3. What a conveniently timed puff piece by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:What a conveniently timed puff piece by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, the traits that allowed us to become the dominant life form are cooperation, reciprocity, a sense of fairness, and intelligence. The only thing we have going for us as predators is our stamina.

      The traits you describe are sociopathic. Sociopathy does not mean you don't know right from wrong. It means you have a diminished sense of empathy and remorse, and you look at people as objects. Sociopaths know right from wrong, which is why they try to hide what they are. They just don't care.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  4. I'm the CEO bitch by xx_chris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, but this just stinks of a payola article.

  5. see Craigslist by lapsed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For an example of what happens when people forgo money.

  6. The 'authorized' biography by Trufagus · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. What are you smoking? by assertation · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.'

    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?