Zuckerberg's Side of 'The Social Network'

alkasem sent in a video clip where Mark Zuckerberg, speaking at Y-Combinator, tells his side of The Social Network. He says [the movie-makers] "can't wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things." I did really like that a monologue describing Zuckerberg building his first website was shockingly technically accurate — they mention tools, tasks and languages, and show screenshots that were all more or less exactly how we were doing things back then.

Comments

Zuckerberg is a douche

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough said.

Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[kuzb]

He didn't build it because he "likes building things". He built it because he wanted to make money. Facebook is designed from the ground up to do just that - violate your privacy and make the company money in the process.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[binkzz]

He didn't build it because he "likes building things". He built it because he wanted to make money. Facebook is designed from the ground up to do just that - violate your privacy and make the company money in the process.

To be fair, his initial motivation wasn't money but to make something that let him share all the nude pictures of the girls at college.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[L4t3r4lu5]

If you believe what the multi-billion dollar worth guy who owns the company which is making cash hand-over-fist while violating your privacy says about the roots of the website.

You couldn't get a more biased source.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[PolygamousRanchKid]

He built it because he wanted to make money.

Take a look at the current Slashdot poll: most folks would like to travel back in time to invest in something.

So Zuckerberg has good company, even among Slashdot folks. Pretty sad, actually.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

And there isn't a more worthy cause in all the world. Freedom of information? Pfft. Freedom of tits or GTFO.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're quite the whiny little bitch, huh?

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much this right here, although he would never ever admit it.

To be able to make something like that to get all the girls and attention would have been a great idea in the mind of someone in his position at his age.

Money then became a secondary thing.
Yes, the site was wide open for scrapers, but it wasn't the initial reasoning for the design, it was from an ease-of-use standpoint that the site was wide-open in the way it was.
Having a social networking site with everything locked the hell down is absolutely backwards. But then we have all the crybabies moaning over their privacy being violated when they hand over their information to a 3rd party who can do pretty much whatever the hell they want with it since less than 10% of its users probably know what a privacy policy is.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[kuzb]

I don't mind that people make companies to make money. I just find it sad that he has to get up and lie about his own motivations. He's attempting to put a positive spin on his motivations when all his recent actions suggest just the opposite.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[morari]

That sounds like a plan to make money as well. do a search for "nude pictures of girls"... I hear it's a real cash cow.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[assertation]

He didn't build it because he "likes building things". He built it because he wanted to make money. Facebook is designed from the ground up to do just that

There is nothing wrong with wanting to make money and that desire isn't exclusive with wanting to build things. My problem with Zuckerberg is that in addition to those desires he has had nearly complete disrespect for Facebook users and their prerogative to make decisions about the distribution of their private information.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[kevinNCSU]

Speaking as someone who was in college when facebook first started being used I have the strong feeling it started out as just an application he was building that he thought was cool. You generally don't put such hard limits on your user-base if you're simply interested in money right off the bat. Of course, once it started getting used and taking off the natural question is how do I best make money of this, and the natural answer is advertisements and data. Then your little hobby project turns into a profit driven company. I really don't think he had the foresight to sit down and say "How can I best create an internet phenomenon that everyone will use in order to get everyone's user data and information and sell it to advertisers to make millions?" and then immediately bang out facebook. That's generally not how people/life works. There's a natural progression and a shifting of goals/values, the world is not binary.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[binkzz]

I was somewhat sarcastic; I don't think the ''share nudies without girls' consent'' is any better a motivation.

I had to read your sentence four or five times before I could understand it.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[phoenixwade]

You couldn't get a more biased source.

You must be new here..... You post a summary on Slashdot, you get 30 more biased sources within 30 min.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[phoenixwade]

I don't mind that people make companies to make money. I just find it sad that he has to get up and lie about his own motivations. He's attempting to put a positive spin on his motivations when all his recent actions suggest just the opposite.

I don't think that points the original motivation to be a lie, focuses change all the time, he may very well have been motivated differently at first and became motivated by money and evolve into a corporate douchebag over time.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[kuzb]

It's possible that this is an urban myth, possibly fabricated. I'll let you judge for yourself.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I guess that I was thinking more on the likes of Jon Postel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postel

But no one on Slashdot is old enough to know who he was :-)

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[btcoal]

I completely agree.

First, some claim Zuckerberg didn’t build Facebook. Zuckerberg was actually hired by fellow Harvard undergraduates to build a website similar to Facebook. The more accurate accusation as that he stole the idea of Facebook. All articles on the inception of the website clearly state that Zuckerberg wrote the code himself. No one is going to claim that Zuckerberg was the next Don Knuth, Facebook was mainly hacked together using PHP over a couple of nights.

Second, some claim Zuckerberg is just in it for the money. If that were true he could have sold out a LONG time ago for around $1 billion. I think the subtext about building things just because you like to build things is that Zuckerberg is building his company not just for the money. I seriously doubt most of the posters on Slashdot, at the age of 22 would not have taken $1billion for a side project they worked on at school. It takes a special kind of person to have that resolve. Those are the people we should venerate in this country not vilify.

Third, some claim Zuckerberg is a douche. This is largely irrelevant. Most of us geeks aren’t the nicest guys in the world, let’s be real. Borderline Asperger’s/autism is rampant as is narcissism and a complete lack of humility. Find me a geek without a major personality flaw and you haven’t found a geek.

Moreover, I find it ironic that men like Bill Gates and Zuckerberg are constantly shat on here, but Steve Jobs is lauded as the second coming of Christ. If you read about the early history of Apple, you could make perfect parallels between the criticisms leveled at Zuckerberg and Jobs’s rise and fall and rise. Steve Jobs is megalomaniac clearly demonstrated sociopathic tendencies, has questionable tech credentials and could not give two shits about his customers’ opinions. And Apple is all the better for it.

So why does /. hate Zuckerberg so much? I think it is largely a generational divide. Many of you come from the gold old days of tech (command lines, walking five miles in the snow to get your code to compile, etc) and don’t really understand that just because something wasn’t challenging in a technical sense it is still HUGELY useful to millions of people. I was basically part of the first generation to use Facebook in college. It has been a great service for keeping track of friends from high school and family on the other side of the country/world. I can share pictures, stories, articles, links, lolcats and memories on one unified platform. The interface has always been super user friendly and clean. For the vast majority of college students (and increasingly everyone else) Facebook is as essential and important as Wikipedia or YouTube (the latter’s founders sold out for around $165million to Google, I should remind you). So let’s chill with the hating on Zuckerberg’s success. It’s all just a bit tacky and hypocritical.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Gadget_Guy]

You must be new here..... You post a summary on Slashdot, you get 30 more biased sources within 30 min.

The worst part is that it is 30 biased and uninformed sources. At least Zuckerberg knows whether what he is saying is the truth or not. All the people here who post definitively that he was only in it to make money are just giving their gut feeling and they cannot possibly be basing it on fact. There is a 50% chance that they might be right, but they really can't say for sure.

It doesn't stop them from being modded as Insightful though.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Rogerborg]

He didn't build it

Sufficient to stop there, I think. Can't say more. Lawyers have ears like bats. Fangs, too.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[MojoRilla]

I disagree. If he wanted to make money, the site would have been crawling with ads, and would have imploded. In the absense of other believable data, I believe he wanted to build it because he liked to build things, and that he wanted to make something successful.

Off topic, what is with all the Zuckerberg hate on Slashdot? He is a techie made good. He is living most coder's dreams. Is it that he invented it, and you didn't?

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[betterunixthanunix]

it started out as just an application he was building that he thought was cool

Perhaps, but I have to wonder why, then, did he ignore calls for interoperability, even early on before he was a billionaire. Perhaps he didn't think interoperability was cool?

The way I see things, he saw how profitable social networking websites were becoming, and thought he would give it a shot. I doubt he knew that it would become so popular, but he certainly knew the concept was popular (or should I say, the people who thought up ConnectU saw the concept was popular, then Zuckerberg ran with the idea).

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[betterunixthanunix]

So why does /. hate Zuckerberg so much?

Perhaps because the boy doesn't believe that privacy is a good thing? He is on the record as saying that anyone who wants privacy must be unethical. He uses Facebook to try to undermine the very concept of privacy in our society, and he is doing that at a time when the 4th amendment is being attacked by the government.

Or maybe we were all perfectly content with communicating with our friends and families using interoperable systems that are not designed to lock us in. Everything about Facebook is designed like the Hotel California, and Zuckerberg knows that but refuses to make any meaningful changes.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[L4t3r4lu5]

Sure helps my karma, though.

Thanks, folks!

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[X.25]

Take a look at the current Slashdot poll: most folks would like to travel back in time to invest in something.

So Zuckerberg has good company, even among Slashdot folks. Pretty sad, actually.

Yeah, but you don't see them spewing shit like Zuckerberg, in front of a camera, do you?

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[twistedsymphony]

I tend to believe him. Most good "money making" ideas didn't start out as such, Typically anything built with nothing but monetary aspirations tend to be incredibly generic and uninspired. That's not to say you can't capitalize on something you love doing but the real big hit ideas have a lot of love for the process and the results beyond just money.

Whether he did it just because he wanted to build something, or he was looking for social notoriety (or both) I can't say but I don't really see his initial intentions being based on money. It seems to me that it wasn't until the thing blew up that he decided to capitalize on it.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. If he wanted to make money, the site would have been crawling with ads, and would have imploded. In the absense of other believable data, I believe he wanted to build it because he liked to build things, and that he wanted to make something successful.

Off topic, what is with all the Zuckerberg hate on Slashdot? He is a techie made good. He is living most coder's dreams. Is it that he invented it, and you didn't?

Maybe. Or maybe it's because he stole the motherfucker and straight up lied about it (and still does). People like that don't deserve respect.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[xtracto]

Hey, I do not hate Zuckerberg (yup, that's the man himself in slashdot!.

As always, there is a vocal majority in Slashdot that gets their panties in a bunch about public web pages making public information that people willfully upload.

I even find it funny how (if you see /. as a whole) the same site that bitches about Facebook publishing data, gets all crazy when a lady wants to maintain some information published in her webpage as private.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Dhalka226]

He is a biased source, yes. He's also the only source capable of 100% knowing the truth of why he decided to do something. It's up to the readers to decide if they prefer first-hand information from a biased source or second-hand information, guesses and suppositions from other, potentially also biased sources, or better yet, a mix of both.

Your simply dismissing somebody because he has a potential bias and, from the sounds of your post, runs a website you don't like isn't exactly the smartest thing in the world. Especially when you bring up things like him being a multi-billion-dollar-worth-guy (that is both debatable and entirely imaginary right now) and how the site is making cash "hand-over-fist" despite only being profitable for about the last year, which is questionable in general and totally unrelated to whether or not he is telling the truth about his original motivations.

I have no trouble believing that Zuckerberg is an ass. I have no trouble believing that his primary motivation now is money. But there is also good evidence that that was not always the case, such as the fact that Facebook used to be a fairly closed community available only to college students with a .edu email address.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[RazorSharp]

I disagree. If he wanted to make money, the site would have been crawling with ads, and would have imploded. In the absense of other believable data, I believe he wanted to build it because he liked to build things, and that he wanted to make something successful.

Off topic, what is with all the Zuckerberg hate on Slashdot? He is a techie made good. He is living most coder's dreams. Is it that he invented it, and you didn't?

Here's a question: How did he make billions without the site crawling with ads?

Answer: Selling your personal information without your consent.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[icebraining]

Why should we venerate him because he didn't sold? I'd understand if he hadn't sold to prevent an "evil company" from taking over, but Facebook is already data mining people's private data. Selling wouldn't make it worse.

Third, some claim Zuckerberg is a douche. This is largely irrelevant. Most of us geeks aren't the nicest guys in the world, let's be real. Borderline Asperger's/autism is rampant as is narcissism and a complete lack of humility. Find me a geek without a major personality flaw and you haven't found a geek.

An obnoxious guy can be avoided. At most he's somewhat a pain for the few people who have to interact with him.

Zuckerberg is data mining the private data of millions of people, introducing protocols and formats incompatible with the standards (see OpenGraph), sucking info frm other websites while at the same time not providing themselves, and more.
He and his company has a stronghold over the web that no average geek has.

Steve Jobs is lauded as the second coming of Christ

Ok, here you're talking about a different Slashdot.

So why does /. hate Zuckerberg so much? I think it is largely a generational divide.

Bullshit. /. has plenty of "fresh blood" (myself included) and lots of new technologies are well regarded here by both old and young.

just because something wasn't challenging in a technical sense it is still HUGELY useful to millions of people

Plenty of stuff is well regarded even if it isn't challenging in a technical sense. Stack Overflow isn't exactly rocket science and yet every programmer I've read likes it (or at least, doesn't hate it).

We simply value privacy more than the general people, who in many cases don't even understand the concept. We don't like being tracked, data mined, followed, spied upon, logged.
We also don't like releasing control of our data over to others, to do as they please. We know the perils of that.

Most people are ignorant about it, just like I'm ignorant about many other stuff less related with my interests.

But don't get me wrong: I don't "hate" Zuckerberg. But you won't find me on Facebook, and it's not because it's not useful.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[betterunixthanunix]

Those of us who interact with non-techies know that a lot of people still think that "privacy settings" on Facebook translate to "information not being public." They have no concept of the information being used on an ongoing basis by Facebook, without regard to their privacy settings. Most people are surprised to learn that Facebook actually keeps a log of every single action they take on the website, even something as simple as looking at someone's profile, from the very moment they sign up.

Maybe if Facebook were more upfront about it, things would not be as bad. Things would still be bad -- there is also the lack of interoperability with other systems, the fact that Facebook is proprietary software, etc. -- but at least they would be a little more honest with their users.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[fooslacker]

If you believe what the multi-billion dollar worth guy who owns the company which is making cash hand-over-fist while violating your privacy says about the roots of the website. You couldn't get a more biased source.

Sure you could just go to a news site discussion forum filled with underachieving idealistic tech people who are jealous of the billionaire's success with a seemingly pointless piece of software that violates some of their core principles.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[icebraining]

I disagree. If he wanted to make money, the site would have been crawling with ads, and would have imploded.

Maybe he wanted to make money and he's not stupid? "Making money" doesn't have to mean a fast buck - it may mean making money on a longer run.

And btw, many techies live the coder's dream and they're well regarded here - Sid Maier, Wozniak, Carmack, etc - that "jealousy excuse" doesn't stick.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[icebraining]

I'll allow you and all the rest

Oh thank you good sir, how can we ever repay your generosity?

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Abcd1234]

Steve Jobs is lauded as the second coming of Christ.

ROFL, wow... you *really* don't spend a lot of time around here, do you?

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 10 types of people in this world. Those who believe the world is binary and those who don't.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[theY4Kman]

Everything about Facebook is designed like the Hotel California, and Zuckerberg knows that but refuses to make any meaningful changes.

Wasn't it reported a couple weeks ago that Facebook rolled out a download your profile option? And for years now, they've allowed you to completely delete your profile and any record they had of it (with a grain of salt). So maybe you can't use Facebook while feeling completely safe, but at least know there is a highway option.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[t-twisted]

Yes, clearly the old techie folks are just angry and bitter that technology isn't as hard as it used to be so young punks like Zuckerberg can succeed.

/rolls-eyes

The difference between Gates / Zuckerberg and Jobs lies not in how they came to power, but what they did with it once they got it. Microsoft ran into trouble with its IE "integration" with Windows, and Zuckerberg has gladly sold his user's private information to what I can only assume is the top bidder. Jobs is not abusing his power (as far as we know) by selling our private information or abusing his position as leader in the marketplace - you are not forced to buy Apple products because your business or home computer is a running a certain operating system. There are other MP3 players / phones / laptops / TV streaming products out there that offer the same basic services and content you'll find on an Apple product.

So let’s chill with the hating on Zuckerberg’s success. It’s all just a bit tacky and hypocritical.

Zuckerberg has been and likely always will be distasteful for his disdain for his userbase and how willing he is to sell them out if it fattens his bottom line. He has no honor, and "chill(ing) with the hating" on a person with no honor is, in my opinion, beyond a bit tacky but likely not hypocritical for those that do.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here..... You post a summary on Slashdot, you get 30 more biased sources within 30 min.

The worst part is that it is 30 biased and uninformed sources. At least Zuckerberg knows whether what he is saying is the truth or not. All the people here who post definitively that he was only in it to make money are just giving their gut feeling and they cannot possibly be basing it on fact. There is a 50% chance that they might be right, but they really can't say for sure.

It doesn't stop them from being modded as Insightful though.

Here's the thing about making lots of money...you don't do it accidentally. It is impossible to do so without a lot of drive, a lot of work, and a lot of moral flexibility. Hell, even if you win the lottery, it turns out 80% of lottery winners end up filing for bankruptcy

If you've made tons of money, you were in it for the money. You are also a fucker, because it takes that kind of personality to achieve that result.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[yoshi_mon]

He is a biased source, yes. He's also the only source capable of 100% knowing the truth of why he decided to do something. It's up to the readers to decide if they prefer first-hand information from a biased source or second-hand information, guesses and suppositions from other, potentially also biased sources, or better yet, a mix of both.

People rewrite their own history all the time. Either consciously or though some rationalization process.

As the old saying goes there is what people said happened and then what really happened. Add to that now what Hollywood said happened.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

At least Zuckerberg knows whether what he is saying is the truth or not. All the people here who post definitively that he was only in it to make money are just giving their gut feeling and they cannot possibly be basing it on fact.

The facts we know are that Zuckerberg has made his fortune on selling Facebook users up the marketing river. That speaks to his character, and many people will conclude from his actions--not without some justification--that he lacks credibility in matters of truth.

I realise it may come as a shock to some, but just because you've done nothing legally wrong doesn't mean people will be inclined to think you're very trustworthy. PR will only take you so (very) far before people start connecting the dots.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

What does that have to do with his motivation being about money?

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[lowrydr310]

It has been a great service for keeping track of friends from high school and family on the other side of the country/world. I can share pictures, stories, articles, links, lolcats and memories on one unified platform.

Facebook came out just a short while after I finished college. Back when registrations were restricted to .edu addresses, there was no check for "@alumni.xxxxxx.edu" so I got in early.

Does anyone remember Friendster? Shortly before Facebook and MySpace there was a thing called Friendster that was very similar. It had a plain vanilla template (no myspace style wild and crazy customized css hackery pages), and I found it quite useful for staying in touch with people. For some reason it never caught on like Facebook.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[kalirion]

the latter's founders sold out for around $165million to Google, I should remind you

You're missing a zero at the end there.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us read RFCs even though we were born in the '80s.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Zuckerberg, I do software because I like to build stuff. Actually, most of the good programmers are like us. The question is : why so many people want to ditch him? Who is full of shit?

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

So why does /. hate Zuckerberg so much?

Because people on /. are jealous that they didn't invent/code facebook.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Webz]

You're kidding, right? If you're the #1 gorilla, who cares about interoperability? The only thing interoperability does is make it easier for people not-you to take parts of the market that aren't or soon won't be yours.

I'm not saying interoperability is bad. I'm just saying, from the perspective of the one in power, there seems to be no local benefit at all. Why would anyone consider that.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[kevinNCSU]

it started out as just an application he was building that he thought was cool

Perhaps, but I have to wonder why, then, did he ignore calls for interoperability, even early on before he was a billionaire. Perhaps he didn't think interoperability was cool?

Yea, I know when I first start working on a cool project the thing that really gets my blood pumping is working on an export feature to satisfy people who don't want to use my project.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Wh15per]

I'm sure Zuckerburg is all for privacy. He probably has window shows, locks on his doors, and doesn't tell everyone his personal health problems. No one forces you to get a Facebook. No one forces you to connect to friends, post photos of yourself peeing being cars in college, or post status updates about where you like it (your purse that is). If you join Facebook, that's your choice. The recent WSJ article about facebook apps stealing your data is alarmist. You submit to sharing your information with them (and whoever else they say) when you agree to play their game. Same as when you buy a car or house... the dealership or bank takes your info and sells it to all kinds of people. The devil's in the fine print.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Wh15per]

Yeah... my lawsuit is coming! Just you wait Zuckerberg...

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[sexconker]

Facebook was mainly hacked together using PHP over a couple of nights.

No, it wasn't.
A basic site that let you:

• Upload a picture
• Add a blurb

• Fill out basic profile information

was "hacked together using PHP over a couple of nights".

Facebook took many years to become the massive thing it is today. And it took many programmers who are much more skilled than Zuckerberg to do it. And it's still a piece of shit.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Stregano]

When I bash Zuckerberg, it has nothing to do with what he does in the business world (well, slightly). It would be very hypocritical of me to sit here and say that I am not on FB daily. He is still a douche though. There is no escaping that, and I like to try and remind people every chance I can when it is even slightly on topic

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say there was a much smaller chance that they might be right. The one objectionable thing the movie doesn't accuse him of is being materialistic or greedy. It takes pains to point out Zuckerberg's ordinary lifestyle. Zuckerberg still lives in a small house and drives an Acura TSX.

I also think Zuckerberg doesn't give the film enough credit for showing him building something for the sake of building it. Clearly he devotes himself completely to the construction of Facebook. After it takes off, he doesn't have any less of a role in building it. He still shuts out the outside world and buries himself in code.

What the film does allege is that perhaps there's a psychological connection between being something of a known outsider in the real world and having your one labor of love be a technological "enhancement" of real world socializing. Zuckerberg will never admit there is a connection, because it probably isn't even conscious.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Gadget_Guy]

Here's the thing about making lots of money...you don't do it accidentally. It is impossible to do so without a lot of drive, a lot of work, and a lot of moral flexibility. Hell, even if you win the lottery, it turns out 80% of lottery winners end up filing for bankruptcy

I disagree that you can't do it accidentally. You still can't discount the idea that he made the system just for use by his fellow Harvard students, and only once it became popular did he realise that he might have stumbled onto a winner. None of us other than the people involved at the time can really say for sure.

But I have no argument with you when you say he is a fucker!

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[gorzek]

Facebook also has a very accessible API for grabbing information. You are absolutely not locked in--the data is all there for you to access and download, if you want it. If you want to get off of Facebook, use API calls to grab everything, or use the "download profile" option, and move your shit elsewhere.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[snotclot]

Your point that, because he limited the userbase initially, he was not out to make money or make something big -- I disagree. Simply, he was the one who had the vision that he could grow a huge userbase by building upon tiers and tiers of *coolness* leveraged by hierarchies of "in" -- 1) harvard-in 2) ivy-league schools-in 3) stanford / berkeley-in 4) the rest, etc

I starting using fb about 3-4 months after its creation (#8 college i think) and the reason why *everyone at school* hopped on (as opposed to friendster which was already around) was *because* of its exclusivity -- we felt exclusive being in a college only type social network, and to boot, the top-10 colleges.

Things started becoming uncool when people from un college networks started joining, but that's a hard problem to solve when your userbase graduates every 4-5 years and becomes "uncool" pretty much after graduating.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[BobMcD]

He is a biased source, yes. He's also the only source capable of 100% knowing the truth of why he decided to do something.

That's actually not true. Observe...

movie-makers “can’t wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things.”

So it follows that Zuckerberg is claiming that he built Facebook because he likes building things. Okay. So what has he built since? He likes building things, so the profit, the fame, the success, etc, isn't driving him, it's the building of things. Reminds me of Leonardo da Vinci. The difference, though, is that da Vinci's notebook was filled with things he started and never completed. He loved working for the work, it would seem. Where's this in Zuckerberg's behavior?

I'm not seeing it. Therefore I put forward that there can be more than one primary source on why it happened, and I'd also surmise that it is possible that there are psychological constructs at work that could be preventing Zuckerberg from coming to terms with his own identity. Otherwise his behavior would likely match his recollection, but in reality it clearly does not.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Tarsir]

Yeah, but you don't see them spewing shit like Zuckerberg, in front of a camera, do you?

Actually, I do. A few posts above yours someone linked to an alleged IM conversation between Zuckerberg and a friend:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuck: Just ask.

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.

How often do you see, in discussions regarding Facebook, comments to the effect "Facebook users are morons who willingly gave up their privacy, and therefore are getting what they deserve"? It may not be on camera, but it is published and recorded for the world to see.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, for FaceBook, Privacy is unprofitable which is a bigger sin in capitalism than something merely unethical .

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Tarsir]

I'm not saying interoperability is bad. I'm just saying, from the perspective of the one in power, there seems to be no local benefit at all. Why would anyone consider that.

One might consider interoperability if one were interested in building something cool, rather than building something profitable; which, if you read the quoted portion of your parent post, is the claim which started this sub-discussion. Thus, Zuckerberg's unwillingness to inter-operate could be construed as a desire to make money, not just hack together the best website he possibly could.

Although personally, I think it's at least as likely that Zuckerberg didn't want interoperability because he was too lazy/focused-on-cool-new-features to add it.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

It could be that he actually did have relatively earnest and true motivations when he started out, however, as he gained fame and money and power he began to value other things. It wouldn't be the first time that money turned a fairly decent fellow into a raging douche. Just because he makes asshole comments now, and acts like a spoiled blowhard, doesn't mean he had that same personality all along. As my dad used to say, "Money changes folk."

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[owlnation]

"So why does /. hate Zuckerberg so much? I think it is largely a generational divide. Many of you come from the gold old days of tech (command lines, walking five miles in the snow to get your code to compile, etc) and don't really understand that just because something wasn't challenging in a technical sense it is still HUGELY useful to millions of people"

I'd guess the reasons why people hate Zuckerberg here so much, are indeed due to an age difference, and experience. The current generation who grew up with Facebook, such as yourself, have a very different set of values and ethics from any previous generation.

Geeks, generally, tend to be quite ethically-minded. Most sci-fi, for example, has core ethical values. Zuckerberg barely qualifies as a geek -- his technical achievements are insignificant. He simply created a fashionable me-too product -- useful, but which none of us really NEED. It's not life-changing, and it will not last a lifetime -- give it another 5 years max. However his marketing abilities, or those of whom he's worked with, are exceptional. He's sold us something we do not need, and privacy-raped everyone not smart enough to check the privacy settings on the site at least once a week.

His ethics are most certainly questionable. I'm not naive enough to believe for a second that this was some hobby of his, and he just liked building things. Capturing the University demographic was a cold-calculated move -- students are a very richly-prized target market. There was still enough dot.com stupidity around for him to figure out that Facebook would either make money itself, or that some bigger firm would eventually buy it out for its database alone.

The current generation is not as obsessed with privacy as any previously. This may be due to naivete, desensitization, or an increased narcissism, arrogance and self-obsession that typifies the current generation. It's therefore not a surprise that they are not as concerned about the dark side of Facebook as any previous generation. Most older geeks are paranoid enough to know that privacy matters. Zuckerberg has therefore committed the cardinal sin.

Zuckerberg is a Barnum of the Internet world -- much like Cuban and Wales and others before him. He's become very rich through smoke and mirrors, and the worst crime of all -- marketing.

Indeed it's actually very hard to see why Facebook is discussed here at all. It's not really news for nerds -- it's news for ad execs, spin doctors and marketing droids. The fact that it's a coded site on the web doesn't make it any more relevant to nerds than TMZ, mlb.com, or cosmopolitan's website.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Maybe he didn't want to bother with implementing interoperability because he had other aspects of the website he wanted to focus on. I know that if I had a pet project going, and some outsider insisted that I should do X, Y, and Z because it is right and just makes sense, I might respectfully tell them to piss off because I would rather work on U, V, and W. It is my project after all, right?

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[eyrieowl]

So he has a different worldview than you (or I). Personally, I think it's much more interesting to try to understand how he sees things and what his vision actually is than to hate him for believing something which, frankly, is far from being inherently hateful. It's not like he held Facebook out as a safety-deposit box for your personal details. Yes, I completely think his vision was a little flawed because it didn't take privacy into account from the get-go. But I don't really blame him for not seeing every nuance of what he was creating. And I certainly don't believe that he had some grand master plan to eliminate privacy and that's why he built Facebook the way he did. I've known far too many programmers and/or technical managers who brush off this or that issue with their plan by saying "that's not important". Later, when pressed, maybe they (like Zuckerberg) might develop a rationale to attempt to support their decisions, but it's after the fact, not the reason for why they did (or didn't do) things initially.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[hitmark]

The guy was 19, asshole-like "king of the world" attitude is part of the package...

One can only hope that he have become more mellowed and reflective now that he has passed 25...

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Carewolf]

FWIW, for FaceBook, Privacy is unprofitable which is a bigger sin in capitalism than something merely unethical .

It is not a sin, and there doesn't even have to be culture against it. There is naturally a strong selection bias against things unprofitable, which will inevitably force ideas with those properties out of the market. Don't attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by natural forces.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Swanktastic]

Having been an engineer and entrepreneur, I can say that building a company IS as exciting and interesting as building a product. For me at least... Most employees don't have the opportunity to build an organization, they are simply thrust into them. It really is intellectually interesting to make decisions about how you want your company to work, minimizing this and maximizing that at the expense of something else. It's not much different than the design decisions you make in creating a product, except that it's sometimes not as easy to make measurements experimentally.

Plus, Zuckerberg gets to be the "idea" guy on all sorts of products/features the organization is building. I'd bet it's pretty fun.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Mongoose Disciple]

Second, some claim Zuckerberg is just in it for the money. If that were true he could have sold out a LONG time ago for around $1 billion.

Sure.

Unless he thinks it's worth more than that, or thinks that it will be worth more than that, which I think it's safe to say he does. In which case he'd be an idiot to cash out like that.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Mongoose Disciple]

That's not really accurate.

Some people on Slashdot bash Jobs; others are lining up to fellate him.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't have a hit product without haters. Part of the hating is fueled by jealousy from not coming up with the idea themselves.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Cytotoxic]

Having been an engineer and entrepreneur, I can say that building a company IS as exciting and interesting as building a product.

Seconded. Also seconded is the notion that it is not nearly as easy to get your ideas implemented in a company as it is in technology. Once an organization reaches a certain size it takes on a completely different dynamic and every problem has to be re-solved. Actually, this happens at several growth points, so there is always something challenging to solve.

Managing a single person consulting business is different from managing a 10 man group. Which is different from 50 people. Another big leap happens around 100-150... then you start acting like a big bureaucracy as you near 500. So all along the way there is new and different problems to solve. I'm sure that running General Electric is even more different and challenging - but I've never run a group that big.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Crayon Kid]

To be fair, his initial motivation wasn't money but to make something that let him share all the nude pictures of the girls at college.

Why was parent modded Troll? He deserves Redundant. That's the ultimate motivation of all men, he shouldn't even have to state it!

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Crayon Kid]

I don't think that points the original motivation to be a lie, focuses change all the time, he may very well have been motivated differently at first and became motivated by money and evolve into a corporate douchebag over time.

Besides, it's hard for anyone to predict with 100% accuracy how they will behave if they ever get into some serious mega-bucks. "Douchebag" may not be so far from the truth for many of us. You never know for sure until you're in that position.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Mister Whirly]

Yet you still choose to willingly come to the "shit sandwich" site and participate. Does that say more about you, or the actual site?

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

He said he had no plans to see the movie.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Mister Whirly]

Jobs gets free passes on things that Gates, Balmer, and Eric Schmidt would be taken to task for every time. As far as Tech company leaders go, he is easily one of the most defended people. Sure, attacked often as well, but vigorously defended more than the rest.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Dahamma]

I think he's dismissing him because he's already proven himself several times to be a bald faced liar. Who cares if he knows the truth, if he doesn't speak it.

Not sure if you have read the copious logs of IMs, emails, and interviews published by his former "friends" regarding the early stages of Facebook, but even he hasn't disputed that he was contracted by others at Harvard to build a social networking site. And then somehow he magically came up with his own. If he just wanted to "build something" and it wasn't about the money, why not be happy with building the site he had promised?

Answer: because he WAS in it for the money (either that or he really *did* just want to F someone in the ear...)

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Dishevel]

Does that say more about you, or the actual site?

Him. To everyone else in the world his opinion about /. is just that. An opinion. Though ones opinion holds much more weight in ones own head. My opinion of the worth of something is basically akin to fact in my mind. There for if my opinion of /. were that it was a "shit sandwich" and I were to participate in it. I would be in fact on who helps to build a "shit sandwich" therefore a useless human being.

I feel sorry for him now that I think about it. I am sure if he looks a lot harder he will find at least some little worth to his life.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Dishevel]

Like we care what some poor fucker thinks. :)

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely disagree Kevin. Perhaps most college students wouldn't have the foresight to design a marketing plan for a new online service, but it seems incredibly naive to ascribe that lack of foresight to the person who revolutionized the internet. One simply does NOT stumble upon all the right steps to become a billionaire. Zuckerberg is almost certainly full of shit, but so what? What CEO isn't? A CEO, especially of a company built around social interaction, playing to the media for PR? How shocking!

I do have several complaints with the way facebook is run, but the fact of the matter is that it's a business. And a successful one. Everyone on facebook chooses, each time they login, whether or not they are willing to accept the terms and conditions. The way it's run is part of the product, much as the way in which apple blocks developer's programs or google tracks your search record is part of their companies. If you care enough about those issues, you can simply choose to not use their products. I closed my facebook account after one of the many changes that I perceived as an unacceptable lessening of my privacy, and that was my choice. Just like every facebook user who doesn't delete their account is making a choice to accept Zuckerberg's product. The product may suck, but it's not a product that anyone has to buy. Zuckerberg may in fact be a complete tool, but how is that really any different than any other CEO?

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[houghi]

Perhaps he is biased, but that is still more believable then ANYTHING Hollywood is trying to sell as true and is 'based on a true story'.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Dishevel]

Well done. Calm, insightful, thought out and simply put.

You have no business here on /. Get out

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Dishevel]

BobMcD. With your abilities you should go work at McD's. The only thing I find more annoying than a fucking idiot is a fucking idiot that thinks he knows everything.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[BobMcD]

Zuck, is that you?

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[rockout]

Hell, even if you win the lottery, it turns out 80% of lottery winners end up filing for bankruptcy

And 95% of all statistics are pulled out of one's ass.

This oft-repeated pile of lottery urban legend deserves to be called out as BS whenever someone uses it to bolster any argument. Not that it changes the validity of your point; just saying, you look a tiny bit dumber when you do that.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[shashark]

>>btcoal (1693074)

Did you just sign up for that rant ?

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Very well written/said.

The bit about the younger generation being self-obsessed and naive scares me somewhat. These are people who will carry these ideals (some what likely) into their adult life unless they have some sort of epiphany (very doubtful). These ideals in turn will eventually shape this country; probably for the worse in all likely-hood.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[jrade]

The difference, though, is that da Vinci's notebook was filled with things he started and never completed. He loved working for the work, it would seem. Where's this in Zuckerberg's behavior?

I agree and good point, but you are assuming that he is NOT working on something else.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or perhaps may /.'rs have once in their life employed the help of a fellow programmer to build a site or program they imagined and truely understand how fucking crappy it is to see your idea grow to a multimillion company run by the douche you hired to do the initial footwork.

Zuckerberg is just all kinds of evil. And the media may not understand why someone would build something just to build it, but Zuckerberg doesn't understand how anyone would say no to money simply because they considered the act to be mean spirited or evil.

Really?

[Eddi3]

I guess now I have to see the movie just to see them get something about computers right for once.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I liked the movie. It really tries to get the computer stuff right - imagine the opposite of a Dan Brown novel - and I had some sympathy for the Zuckerburg character, who was portrayed with sympathy I felt. And I couldn't drag myself away from the plot even to go to the loo halfway, which Hollywood movies normally let me do at the end of Act 2 (i.e. the boring bit where hero and heroine/mentor normally say nothing much).

No shock there.

[jimicus]

[the movie-makers] “can’t wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things.”

No kidding. We've seen evidence of that from lots of big corporations - particularly in the entertainment business - for ten years or more.

It wouldn't surprise me if someone replies to this post with some sort of evidence of that mindset being so heavily entrenched that goes back much further - decades or even centuries.

Re:No shock there.

[RazorSharp]

It's called drama and yes, it does go back centuries. Characters with unorthodox motivations aren't very compelling and are difficult to make the audience care about. That's why you see a pallet of similar motivations in most films: greed, lust, love, vengeance, survival, and justice. Characters who lack these motivations usually aren't motivated by anything, they're just driven forward by circumstance.

No matter what he says...

[JeffSpudrinski]

He's in it strictly for the money. He's tech savvy, yes...but he's simply trying to find technical ways to share as much information for profit as he can.

Just my $0.02.

-JJS

Re:No matter what he says...

[Jimmy King]

I'm sure he's in it strictly for the money now, but it is possible that initially he built it just because it would be fun. I've started a number of projects just to see if I could do it, what kind of difficulties come up that I haven't thought of, etc. and then later realized that it was actually kind of useful and I could probably make money off of it with some marketing and time spent maintaining it. The difference being he wanted the money bad enough to follow through on that thought while I have decided it was going to be way too much work with a high risk of failure in the end to be worth quitting my stable day job to try.

Re:No matter what he says...

[sardaukar_siet]

Wouldn't he have sold already if he was in it for the money? The dude's had plenty of chances by now...

Re:No matter what he says...

[Anonymous Coward]

I still believe we simplify things too much by claiming it's always "just for the money." You chose not to because a) not worth quitting your stable day job and b) high risk of failure. Zuckerberg never really ran into either of those issues - he was a college student and the cost of failure was minimal. Maybe he just wanted to build the best widget possible and let others figure out how to monetize so he could keep making it better.

Re:No matter what he says...

[T Murphy]

... Or he likes to be in control. A lot of people don't really want money- they want the power that goes with it. I'm sure Zuckerberg is telling the truth when he says he likes building things- he's building himself an online kingdom.

Some people are saying Zuckerberg might be an okay guy just based on the idea that he built facebook for the love of it. But, you still need to make the distinction whether he built the "useful for social interaction" Facebook for the love of it, or the "useful for data mining" Facebook for the love of it. Sure, he couldn't have known enough to have built the "worth $billions" Facebook from the start, but he knew from the start he'd be a man with control.

NB: I'm not so much trying to bash Zuckerberg as simply make the observation that there are people solely motivated by power and Zuckerberg sounds like he fits that profile pretty well. Being considered a negative personality type, it comes across as bashing regardless.

Re:No matter what he says...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well - recently a video was released of his house - and that really did not seem like a mansion some of some guy going after the money... He's not known for buying expensive cars, he's not hanging out with Paris Hilton, he did not sell facebook at any time when he had the chance for shitloads of dollars.

The fact that a young guy in his 20's worth billions still goes to work every day should say enough about his interest in money, I'm not buying that. If someone would say he's "power", "control", "fame" or jsut wants his own big company with what he can do whatever he wants, I'll buy it. But money? No way :)

poor guy

[colmore]

I really feel for these poor misunderstood billionaires.

Re:poor guy

[binkzz]

I really feel for these poor misunderstood billionaires.

We should set up some form of charity fund for them.

Re:poor guy

[AnonymousClown]

I really feel for these poor misunderstood billionaires.

I prefer to state it this way:

I really feel for these poor misunderstood overnight billionaires.

When you make a billion that fast, you stepped in it BIG TIME.

Re:poor guy

[jDeepbeep]

Or we could let them expose us to advertisements... naah that'll never work

Re:poor guy

[digitaldc]

I know what you mean, they don't go out in public or have any privacy...er, wait that is just a typical facebook addict...nevermind.

Re:poor guy

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear the Republicans want to protect the tax cuts for the poor billionaires. It's the "trickle down" aka "piss on regular people" economics philosophy.

Re:poor guy

[bluie-]

10 cents of every dollar will go directly to billionaires, the rest will be "administrative costs"

Too busy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm too busy on farmville to watch this movie...

I still can't understand how this all came to pass

[spiffmastercow]

Facebook was nothing new or revolutionary. There was Friendster way before it came along, Granted, FB was a lot better than MySpace (it's biggest competitor at the time), but that was more due to a failing on the part of MySpace than on the merits of FB. Social networking sites are not really complicated.. Why so much worship, hatred, and jealousy over this?

Wrong answer

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Yes, I understand that people build things because they like building things (I'm one of those).
But the question is why did he, Zuckerberg, create facebooks. Because there is no evidence that shows that he actually built anything, it was all made by others. Sure, he made some drawings on a napkin of something that sort of resembles facebook. But calling that building facebook is just ludicrous.

Re:Wrong answer

[El_Muerte_TDS]

To expand on my own post, building things because you like the build things still isn't an answer to why you decided to build that thing, you could have made some other thing. Why did he decide to "build" facebook, and not youtube, or flickr.

Impressing girls

[O'Nazareth]

a fictional Mark Zuckerberg builds the site in order to impress a girl

This is a silly idea anyway to think that writing some PHP code will get you laid.

Re:Impressing girls

[Smallpond]

Yes, everyone knows you need python for that.

Re:Impressing girls

[Schadrach]

It's also a silly idea to think that much done by a male that age is done for any other reason.

Re:Impressing girls

[El_Muerte_TDS]

I think they they meant a different snake, I think it was a trouser snake.
But you can also fallback to jewelery, perl and ruby spring to mind.
Otherwise you can try your luck over a hot cup of java.

Re:Impressing girls

[shish]

Yes, everyone knows you need python for that.

Indeed, you just need to import wife

... wait, that's actually possible o_O

Re:Impressing girls

[Monkeedude1212]

It's worked in the past. Just look for a local female musician, photographer, make up artist, etc - and offer to build them a website over the weekend.

Re:Impressing girls

[O'Nazareth]

So many opportunities I missed...

Re:Impressing girls

[Carewolf]

This is a silly idea anyway to think that writing some PHP code will get you laid.

I think Zuckerberg managed to do exactly that... though that doesn't mean it is good idea.

Re:Impressing girls

[GreggBz]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=61425&cid=5772514

This is the slashdot discussion about Mark Zuckerberg's Synapse Media Player in 2003, referencing what I can only imagine he wrote on the project's homepage.

College freshmen are very motivated when it comes to sex.

I thought he wasn't going to see it?

[assertation]

I remember Zuckerberg stating that he felt that he expected the movie to portray him unfairly and that he would not see it. I guess he changed his mind. I'm glad, because now he knows that many other people see that some of the things he does are scummy.

Re:I thought he wasn't going to see it?

[Rogerborg]

I remember Zuckerberg stating

We can't say for sure if Mr Zuckerberg did or didn't say that, but [...] excuse me, I misspoke. I meant that we are 100% absolutely sure that he didn't, and we can and will prove it in court.

Re:I thought he wasn't going to see it?

[rho180]

I'm not so sure if he has seen it. I've seen the movie and I didn't think it painted him as doing it for the money. The motivations presented were mostly petty jealousy, a bit of revenge, and yes, doing it because he thought it was a cool project. I don't know the real Mark Zuckerberg, but the fictional one in the movie, while clearly a douchebag, was also a smart guy who had the motivation, energy, and guts to follow through on his idea. Not the worst light to be painted in.

Re:I thought he wasn't going to see it?

[assertation]

I heard that comment too, from a completely non tech, non-materialistically orientated friend. She thought the film made him look good, showing him to be someone full of drive.

Re:I thought he wasn't going to see it?

[Xtravar]

He probably didn't see it. He had a secretary see it and give him notes, which his PR person then turned into some witticisms so he could spin it in his favor during interviews.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[oodaloop]

Yeah, Mark knows about friendster. Check out his profile.

http://profiles.friendster.com/950378

HACK the power!

[digitaldc]

Does anyone else find it a bit annoying that a corporate computer giant billionaire like Zuckerberg is wearing a HACK T-Shirt?
Is he trying to be ironic or cool or something?

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[ZOmegaZ]

Most victory comes, not from your own brilliance, but from instantly exploiting your enemies' stupid mistakes.

We?

[Anonymous Coward]

that's properly the job of the US Senate

Is noone here aware of the actual history of Fb?

[gblackwo]

All the comments say that he was in it for the money from the start. Facebook didn't have a real financial model for years. Facebook, which started at a single university, and spread to a few more, eventually opening up to anyone with a .edu address was a different Facebook than the one we know today. Maybe the percentage of slashdotters that were in college when Facebook was strictly for .edu user is so small you are unaware. Trust me, alotta people were pissed when Fb opened up to everyone and started commercializing- it has been downhill ever since- But to say that it has been a privacy violating money maker since the get go is complete bullshit.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[Timmmm]

It's extremely simple. Before Facebook, it was still considered weird to use your real name on a website. Most names on MySpace were like "johnnys123" rather than "John Smith". Obviously using real names is much more desirable, and one of the main reasons Facebook became popular. And the reason people were willing to use real names on Facebook was because you needed a .ac.uk or .edu email address to get an account, and only people from your uni could see your profile.

In a nutshell:

1. It was much more secure than the alternatives.
2. So people felt ok using real names and details, and allowing other people to see their profiles (because only people from the same uni could).
3. The use of real details made it much more friendly and useful.

There were other reasons too:

1. It didn't look like shit like MySpace.
2. Due to the .ac.uk/.edu requirement it wasn't filled with idiots.
3. Luck.

Lapdogs

[Dunbal]

I never understand why society is so ready to suck the cock of someone who invented a new way to waste time, while failing to recognize the people who actually contribute to progress. Turn on CNN - Facebook stories. Read slashdot - Facebook stories. Go to the movies - Facebook the fucking movie.

What a fucking coincidence. And people never realize how easy it is to buy a little publicity, especially with all the Bad Things (tm) Facebook has been doing lately, and especially when you have a lot of money. Nope, the sheep just lap it up. Zuckerberg is a GOD! Put him on an altar!

Et tu, slashdot?

Re:Lapdogs

[Anonymous Coward]

I never understand why society is so ready to suck the cock of someone who invented a new way to waste time, while failing to recognize the people who actually contribute to progress. Turn on CNN - Facebook stories. Read slashdot - Facebook stories. Go to the movies - Facebook the fucking movie.

What a fucking coincidence. And people never realize how easy it is to buy a little publicity, especially with all the Bad Things (tm) Facebook has been doing lately, and especially when you have a lot of money. Nope, the sheep just lap it up. Zuckerberg is a GOD! Put him on an altar!

Et tu, slashdot?

No Steve Jobs is God. Zucks just a cheap copy. :)

Re:Lapdogs

[netsharc]

A few years ago people were batshit insane about Second Life... and now it's disappeared from the headlines. Hopefully this will be the Year of Facebook, i.e. next year it'll be yet another niche company.

Re:Lapdogs

[Dunbal]

We never had "Second Life: The Movie"... I think only nerds and pedophiles actually played second life, whereas facebook is full of middle-aged divorcees suffering from empty nest syndrome.

Re:Lapdogs

[Combatso]

Turn on CNN - Facebook stories. Read slashdot - Facebook stories. Go to the movies - Facebook the fucking movie.

What a fucking coincidence...... Zuckerberg is a GOD! Put him on an altar!

Seems you are obsessed with Facebook... You watch it on TV, read about it on forums and go see movies about it? Wow man, you must be hella-good friend-stock

Re:Lapdogs

[RazorSharp]

I get that you're trying to be funny, but Jobs is almost the exact opposite as Zuckerberg. Like the parent said, Facebook is an invented "waste of time." Jobs has always prioritized Macs as tools rather than toys. Even the iPod/iPhone/iPad aren't designed to be a waste of time: the iPod compliments what you would already be doing (exercising, driving, ect.), the iPhone has plenty of useless apps (like Facebook) but is primarily designed to be a more productive phone. The iPad is the closest thing to a pointless time-sink, but I don't consider reading to be a waste of time and to me the iPad is an e-reader first.

Hell, Zuckerberg is worse than Gates. Gates may have also been an evil bastard but at least Office is useful. At least Gates became successful by being a sly bastard and fooling people into "partnering" with him rather than just outright stealing a project he was hired to work on. The only thing more pathetic than people actually using Facebook despite being well aware the jackass who runs it is these kids who actually look up to him. We're looking at a generation of kids who glorify the greatest shortcomings of capitalism and who will exploit those shortcomings given the opportunity.

Re:Lapdogs

[Pecisk]

Well, there was lot of hype about Second Life...but Facebook differs from that with fact that people actually uses it for every day communication with friends. Horror, isn't it.

In fact, I don't dig that social networks hate floating around these days. Geeks use them. Common crowd use them. Some overdose them heavily. Some have their social necessities fulfilled. Some try to use it to replace something they don't have in life. Some use them just for fun - and get it plenty. Go figure.

Re:Lapdogs

[netsavior]

I have never actually met anyone who has even tried second life. I mean, I play MMOs, I have plenty of acquaintences who are the types that would play "Sims" and "Farmville".

I don't know it just seems really unlikely to me that second life was nearly as big as media decided it was for those few months.

Re:Lapdogs

[lowrydr310]

Ah, Second Life. I remember that time when Slashdot was batshit insane about it, with a story or two popping up every single day. I though the concept sounded interesting, but never got around to trying it (did I have to install some software on my computer or was it web-based)?

And isn't Minecraft the new Second Life?

Facebook has been around for quite a few years and has a huge user base. The entire MySpace crowd jumped ship and went to Facebook because anybody who is anybody is on Facebook now. If you would have suggested to me five years ago that most myspace users would migrate to Facebook I would have thought you were crazy. It's just a matter of time until something cooler, more hip, and more trendy comes along to steal people away.

Facebook has a much bigger user base than Second Life and a much bigger price tag* so it will take a little longer for the media attention to wear off.

*IMO that's why there's so much attention when it comes to Facebook; they're big time, with an extremely high estimated value

Re:Lapdogs

[Anonymous Coward]

I think only nerds and pedophiles actually played second life, whereas facebook is full of middle-aged divorcees suffering from empty nest syndrome.

Don't be ridiculous. There's also the furries! (including both the sexual-deviant variety and the miserable-self-image/emo variety; mind that distinction).

Re:Lapdogs

[Anonymous Coward]

We never had "Second Life: The Movie"...

Yes we did:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034032

Re:Lapdogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. If you can honestly say that the iPod, which saved Apple Computers from being the next Commodore, "compliments what you would already be doing" then Facebook certainly deserve its praise as it compliments a person social life. I know that having a social life and finding the value in such a beast often escapes the common Slashdotter but to most people it's an important thing to keep around.

I know, Iknow... you're probably scoffing at this and dismissing me as a fool but you should try it sometime. It's almost as good as the most recent Sims game.

Re:Lapdogs

[spammeister]

They had it in an episode of CSI:NY. That's as close to a movie as it deserves.

Re:Lapdogs

[rthille]

I'm still dumbfounded when I'm listening to an NPR podcast and they say I can join them in Second Life. Really? Those servers are even still turned on? Why?

Re:Lapdogs

[Anonymous Coward]

actually there's a great documentary about second life called "Life 2.0" - check it out.

(but i still take your point)

Re:Lapdogs

[Stuarticus]

Can't believe you publically admitted to watching CSI:NY, every time my GF watches it I have to be forcibly restrained such is my rage at their ludicrous representation of police work and computers.

Re:Lapdogs

[ukyoCE]

Has anyone ever actually been insane over Second Life other than their marketing team, who seem uncannily able to trick the media into posting more articles about Second Life than any of the far-more-popular virtual worlds?

I've never met a single person who has actually played Second Life, despite all the media attention they've gotten.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[Ephemeriis]

Facebook was nothing new or revolutionary.

There's a hell of a lot more to success than simply being new or revolutionary.

There was Friendster way before it came along,

And others.

Granted, FB was a lot better than MySpace (it's biggest competitor at the time), but that was more due to a failing on the part of MySpace than on the merits of FB.

Facebook also had a bit of exclusivity going for it, since you initially had to be a college student. Folks like exclusivity.

Social networking sites are not really complicated..

Nope, they aren't. Which is why there are so many different variations on the theme.

Why so much worship, hatred, and jealousy over this?

Facebook is the de-facto standard. It's the one that caught on. It's the one that pretty much everyone uses. It's the 800lb gorilla in the room.

That doesn't really jive...

[damn_registrars]

cant wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things.

If someone just wanted to build something, why wouldn't they build something useful, instead of just profitable?

Re:That doesn't really jive...

[Combatso]

If someone just wanted to build something, why wouldn't they build something useful, instead of just profitable?

Whats the difference? Seems to me he built a money-making machine... seems pretty useful to me,,,

Re:That doesn't really jive...

[Abcd1234]

If someone just wanted to build something, why wouldn't they build something useful, instead of just profitable?

Yeah, you're right! Obviously those millions and millions of people on Facebook are just, I dunno... dups or something. I mean, it can't *possibly* be useful, 'cuz a Slashbot said so.

Of course, now that I think about it, the answer is quite simple: subliminal brainwashing and an alien conspiracy.

Re:That doesn't really jive...

[damn_registrars]

If someone just wanted to build something, why wouldn't they build something useful, instead of just profitable?

Yeah, you're right! Obviously those millions and millions of people on Facebook are just, I dunno... dups or something. I mean, it can't *possibly* be useful, 'cuz a Slashbot said so.

I don't pretend that slashdot is useful; most of the time it is just a massive time-suck for me. Facebook is much the same for those who are so inclined; it is just a way to waste a lot of time (ask any number of employers in this country). Much like slashdot, very little of what is on facebook is of any value whatsoever. Also much like slashdot there are better ways to get at the miniscule amount of meaningful information that is presented there.

Re:That doesn't really jive...

[SleazyRidr]

Seems like you can't wrap your head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things either...

Re:That doesn't really jive...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you don't think people find facebook to be useful? You don't think some people feel more connected to their friends, can more easily maintain friendships and share stories and thoughts? How is a tool that assist some people in making their relationships more rewarding not useful? Then how about the amazing use people have gotten out of it for marketing and campaigning, or even as a news feed to organizations of the individuals choosing. In my case I use it to stay on top of various different articles and chatter in my area of study, Edutopia, Teach for America, the U.S. Department of Education and various other more useful discussions on education. It certainly saves me a lot of time and I'm more aware of the general opinions because of Facebook. I find that to be quite useful.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[weirdcrashingnoises]

Why so much worship, hatred, and jealousy over this?

Money. Facebook logs the most human hours of any social website, and two months ago passed Google in the US. Not sure where it ranks globally right now.

Also in regards to Zuckerberg's opinion: I doubt it has to do with the creators having difficulty wrapping their heads' around a concept. It's more likely that no one wants to see a movie about somebody who "might build something because they like building things." That and the movie-makers would much rather wrap their hands around a boat-load of money.

Ummmm....

[Temujin_12]

WHO CARES!!!!????

Re:Ummmm....

[Combatso]

if not you, then why post? You are killing the internet, go back to your farmville crops and let the discussion continue without you

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure about worship, but I think you answered the hatred and jealousy part: any idiot could have made Facebook, Zuckerburg IS an idiot and made billions of dollars.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[betterunixthanunix]

1. It was much more secure than the alternatives.

Hmm...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1255888/Facebook-founder-Mark-Zuckerberg-hacked-emails-rivals-journalists.html

Not that I disagree with you, but I think Zuckerberg, like most tech. billionaires, played on a general ignorance about technology.

Next he'll be saying computers don't go beboop

[DrXym]

Hollywood strives for accuracy. The Social Network shows Zuckerberg as a precocious 9 year old. He sweeps his hands across the glass wall showing a flyover of facebook in 3D. When an adult asks if he knows what he was doing, he replies "Don't worry this site's password is only protected by fourth polynomial encryption, I'll break it in a few seconds!". With blur-like typing he sets off and the wall fills with a sea of random digits that appear to be crawling along a rotating DNA helix. All of a sudden the screen goes blank and is replaced by a big flashing ALARM sign and a wailing siren. "They must have traced my virus back to the mainframe" he says. "Run!". Then all the magnetic locks on the dinosaur enclosures are tripped and the rest of the movie seems them trying to escape the velociraptors. And that's exactly how it actually happened.

Re:Next he'll be saying computers don't go beboop

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the part about uploading the virus from his Mac onto an alien spacecraft in order to kill the velociraptors.

Re:Next he'll be saying computers don't go beboop

[TerranFury]

Is that you, William Gibson?

Re:Is noone here aware of the actual history of Fb

[liquiddark]

This is a fallacy. Lots of internet sites don't have a financial model at the outset; that was practically the defining trait for dot-coms during the bubble. That does not mean the people building and running those sites do not have a financial incentive in mind, it simply means they're following a get big fast, Amazon-style growth model.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[Timmmm]

Not sure that link is relevant. It is about Zuckerberg hacking into *email* accounts, not Facebook accounts (which of course he doesn't need to hack into).

Also, not a good idea to back anything up with a link to the Daily Mail! :-)

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[betterunixthanunix]

What allegedly happened was that he use Facebook to gain access to email accounts -- in a sense, Facebook became a security liability for the victims. This actually came out again later, when it was revealed that Facebook records every single action each user takes on their site, and never deletes the records:

http://therumpus.net/2010/01/conversations-about-the-internet-5-anonymous-facebook-employee/

By then, though, network effects had taken over.

As for the choice of sources...well, I just grabbed the first thing that came up on Google. Not the best strategy, but this is not exactly a conference paper...

Re:Is noone here aware of the actual history of Fb

[xtracto]

Jeez, that is actually what they show in The S.N. movie! Even, the way they paint it, Zuckerberg stopped his friends ambitions of putting advertising for a long time!

Re:Is noone here aware of the actual history of Fb

[betterunixthanunix]

The real history? Never going to come out; Facebook's PR department is working to bury it, and reconstruct it as being another case of someone having a great idea while in college.

What everything points to is this: around 2003, it was clear that social networking websites were taking off and that we might have a new way to make money with websites. Two brothers at Harvard thought they would get in on the action with ConnectU. Zuckerberg may or may not have agreed to work for them, but somehow he also thought he would get it on the action with TheFaceBook. College students were a better target because Zuckerberg was a college student so he better understood his victims (for lack of a better word -- Facebook users are certainly not the customers or market). I doubt that Zuckerberg believed Facebook would become as popular as it has become, but I wouldn't say that he just thought it was a cool idea -- I strongly doubt that he even came up with the idea.

Re:Is noone here aware of the actual history of Fb

[RazorSharp]

Exactly. Napster NEVER had a financial model.

Define "useful"

[Quiet_Desperation]

And define it in a way that does not apply exclusively to you.

The 1400 people who work there might disagree, along with anyone they buy things from, or the people who make all those ads, or the hundreds of million of users, and so on and so forth.

We really need to start teaching some basic economics at the grade school level.

Re:Define "useful"

[east coast]

To go beyond even that I would suggest that the GP either has never used Facebook or doesn't see the value in the tool that it can be and doubtlessly is for some of its users.

Facebook, in this place and time, is the single best way to get people with different backgrounds together. People who are using Facebook just to post "I can't believe how drunk I was last night. Go [insert the football team of your choice]!" every Sunday morning are pretty much spinning their wheels. But there are tons of groups that can be used to communicate on a level of ease and width that no other technology can today. It can be used for base information or advocacy. Something as exclusive in nature as Slashdot isn't going to bring about many casual users but Facebook sure can by not limiting themselves to a small scope of interest. It can do this without the restrictive format of Twitter and without the tedium of going to dozens of websites.

There is a world of possibilities. Unfortunately most people who could use it to a better degree have dismissed it because they can't be bothered. If someone decides not to use it, that's all fine and well but it doesn't take away from the value that can be found there.

who cares why? he's still a douche

[bouldin]

Who cares why he does anything? He's not a remarkable person. Why do you think the book was called Accidental Billionaires?

More notable is his lack of character. He got where he did by screwing over friends, breaking contracts, and treating FB users with contempt.

Despite some other posts here, not all geeks are like that. The Google guys actually invented something incredible, revolutionized the world, created whole industries, and seem to still have a bright future ahead. Fyodor of NMap created a tool that deserves more geek cool cred than FB + Google combined, yet he manages to remain modest, describing himself as a benevolent steward of his project, even as he makes money from the project and contributes back to the open source / security communities. I can respect those guys.

I fail to see any kind of genius in FB or zuckerberg. PHP ain't rocket science.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[Hatta]

It's still weird to use real names on websites.

Re:Is noone here aware of the actual history of Fb

[Monkeedude1212]

This is a fallacy.

What part? All he is trying to convey is that the claims of Zuckerberg being in it for the money from the start are not true. If that's the case for every website out there, it still makes the parents claim true.

And I think you are a little confused about it. Facebook wasn't designed with a "Let's be free to grow as fast as possible" scheme in mind. It didn't have financial incentive UNTIL it got big, but Amazon had financial incentive all along, but didn't invoke any of its plans until it got big. There is a difference.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[Anonymous Coward]

> 2. Due to the .ac.uk/.edu requirement it wasn't filled with idiots.

Please review the "What if University was run like Wikipedia?" thread and once you have read the number of posts saying "I flunked Uni because I was too busy partying", come back and write that line with a straight face...

Re:Is noone here aware of the actual history of Fb

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I was also part of the first generation of campuses that were allowed access to FB, and its biggest draw was EXCLUSIVITY. It was only friends in College that I could interact with, not aliases like DragonBoy83. These friends in college were also High School friends that I may have lost touch with, and didn't realize went to my school or a neighboring school. As soon as I found out that my hometown community college got access to it, I started getting friend requests from the more unscrupulous people I knew back in High School, and got worse when everyone got access and my Mom was writing on my wall. It has lost its exclusivity appeal, but still keeps the appeal of identifying with real people instead of false personalities. A tool I used to use to keep in touch with old friends has now become a tool to stalk people and play games. I personally only read the status updates now to see if there is any major news, such as a friend that may be seriously ill or in need.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[Anonymous Coward]

It's such an odd worldview, which must be rooted in little tiny schools or some other myopic distortion! When I was in school in the early 90s, I already knew that there were just as many idiots and douchebags with *.berkeley.edu email addresses as without, and enjoyed the relative anonymity of campus life, where you could meet your friends but slip away into the crowds.

Re:Is noone here aware of the actual history of Fb

[liquiddark]

It's a fallacy to say "There wasn't a financial model therefore he wasn't in it for the money." There's no question he was aware he could make money off of a successful website, although I won't go so far as to say firmly that that was part of his planning it seems pretty straightforward to suggest that someone who is cagey, intelligent, and ambitious would plan at least partially around making some money. Maybe not a billion dollars, but certainly more than server costs.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[Idbar]

The success of FB was its origins on exclusivity. MySpace et. al just wanted to make social networks, but failed to see the malicious people and how to keep them from accessing their networks. FB started as a club for a university, then a group of universities, and so on. It took years for FB to open to schools and universities around the world. Then, they went public. They built the idea of exclusivity and the people's feeling of belonging to a selected group of people.

That's where all the others failed. They won the trust of the "selected" and then opened to the public. Otherwise, not everyone would have jumped into his bandwagon.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[lowrydr310]

I'm not arguing with your reasoning for FB becoming more popular.

2. So people felt ok using real names and details, and allowing other people to see their profiles (because only people from the same uni could).

Facebook was the pioneer in making people 'open up' and reveal all their personal information, attributing it to their real name.

3. The use of real details made it much more friendly and useful.

Especially for the advertisers.

Re:who cares why? he's still a douche

[sardaukar_siet]

I call BS. He may be a douche, but he still created something that is seen as useful by 300 MILLION people (I have no problem in believing the numbers). Does it have to be written in Objective-C or Erlang or assembly to be seen as "worthy"?

Re:who cares why? he's still a douche

[Anonymous Coward]

The Google guys built on top of an existing industry and did it better than most. What followed that we bought and paid for with advertising dollars. Let's not get out of hand here.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[Anonymous Coward]

i think you mean it had a clean GUI and so it LOOKED more secure than the alternatives. It clearly was not more secure, and deliberately so in order to make money.

Re:Is noone here aware of the actual history of Fb

[Rutefoot]

Agreed.

Two supporting points:

1) Facebook didn't even have a positive cash flow until 2009. That's an awfully long time to wait around for your financial model to really kick in if you had lofty financial goals in the beginning. That was back when Facebook had about 300 Million users. Passing the 100 Million user mark (Hell, the 10 million user mark) without implementing a strong financial model makes it pretty clear to me that they were a) playing it by ear and b) weren't that eager about making tons of cash (because they certainly could have at that point).

2) Zuckerman had continually turned down enormous amounts of money for the site while also giving up significant shares in the company to third parties which would be quite contradictory behavior for someone motivated by money.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[Anonymous Coward]

It's extremely simple. Before Facebook, it was still considered weird to use your real name on a website. Most names on MySpace were like "johnnys123" rather than "John Smith".

Actually, before the before of yours, it was considered standard to use one's own real name on a website, e-mails and things like that.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[19061969]

Perhaps the OP meant, "full of idiots compared to outside of the universities"?

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, the absence of adds contributes to a (false) feeling of security that makes you feel comfortable with using your real name online. And of course the fact that since it was spread out by word-of-mouth and seeing that your friends that invited you/recommended facebook to you were using their real names urged you to do the same (this goes to back the.ac/.uk/.edu requirement).

Really?

[carrier lost]

...and show screenshots that were all more or less exactly how we were doing things back then.

I haven't seen the flick yet, so forgive me, but I find it hard to believe that Hollywood couldn't resist making the computer monitors go "zzzzzzzzz" every time something changes on the screen.

Re:who cares why? he's still a douche

[Anonymous Coward]

What? I don't think you can "call BS" on somebody's opinions. Did I misrepresent something?

OT: Worst Hollywood attempt to make hacking cool

[GodfatherofSoul]

Haven't seen this flick, but watching the ginned up hacking "action scene" with Hugh Jackmann in Swordfish comes to mind.

Lumosity tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey -- does anyone know why this was tagged as "Lumosity?" Zuck doesn't seem to mention it in the video.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[Anonymous Coward]

What I hear you saying, is that Facebook succeeded over MySpace because it had better privacy.

...

If you need me, I'll be over in the corner crying.

Re:Is noone here aware of the actual history of Fb

[Raenex]

Facebook didn't even have a positive cash flow until 2009. That's an awfully long time to wait around for your financial model to really kick in if you had lofty financial goals in the beginning.

YouTube ran for years like that. Google eventually bought them for an obscene amount of money. That's the game. Facebook eventually sold a big chunk to Microsoft.

Who knows exactly what Zuckerberg thought initially, but it became obvious very fast that the site had money making potential. There's no way they could have survived the scaling issues without investment.

Anyways, the guy is no angel. His first site at Harvard consisted of putting up a bunch of hacked images of students in a hot-or-not vote. He then agreed to build a social networking site for some guys and ended up doing his own. Pretty sleazy.

Privacy and openness are incompatible.

[mosb1000]

This has always bothered me about the Slashdot crowd. You can't have both openness and privacy.

Someone will now come out and say "I want personal privacy, but openness from government and business." The distinction is false. Governments and businesses are made up of people who often want the same kind of privacy as other people.

Someone else will say that the difference is that powerful CEOs and government bureaucrats (and celebrities) need to be accountable while the ordinary man can keep his privacy. This also is false. The only true power anyone has is the ability to do work with their own hands, everything else is people trading responsibility and negotiating benefits. That means government officials need to trust ordinary people as much as ordinary people to need trust them for the system to work.

But in reality there is almost no trust, so the ordinary man demands privacy for himself and openness from the government, and the politicians and bureaucrats and CEOs do the same.

The Slashdot crowd is very much like a bunch of voyeurs. They like to watch a woman undress, but at the same time they want to remain completely unseen.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone else made mistakes that Facebook didn't make. Friendster had scaling problems and then pissed everyone off when they removed the fakester accounts. MySpace allowed users to customize their profile page in a way that made the average Geocities page from 1996 look stylish. Orkut allowed their community to be overrun by Brazilians to the point where it was useless if you didn't speak Portuguese.

Meanwhile, Facebook targeted the college crowd and offered a UI which didn't suck. And as they slowly relaxed the requirements, Facebook was, in many ways, the most attractive community for defectors from the other networks to join.

Re:who cares why? he's still a douche

[Anonymous Coward]

I call BS. He may be a douche, but he still created something that is seen as useful by 300 MILLION people (I have no problem in believing the numbers).

Does it have to be written in Objective-C or Erlang or assembly to be seen as "worthy"?

You must be new here..

It's a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fictional movies are about story, not historical accuracy. The writers probably fully understood that geeks like building things because they like building things. Writers write stories and create whole worlds and universes because they like writing stories and creating whole universes. But that’s not a compelling story. Stories need conflict everybody can identify with and not everybody likes building things.

Re:Is noone here aware of the actual history of Fb

[Rutefoot]

A big chunk meaning 1.3 percent?

Don't Use it

[Anonymous Coward]

As simple as that, if you don't like it.

Re:Is noone here aware of the actual history of Fb

[jafac]

Maybe the percentage of slashdotters that were in college when Facebook was strictly for .edu user is so small you are unaware. Trust me, alotta people were pissed when Fb opened up to everyone and started commercializing- it has been downhill ever since-

ha. Y'all are probably too young to remember when the Internet was ALL either .mil or .edu. Trust me. A LOTTA people were pissed when AOL opened up the Internet to everyone and started commercializing. It has been downhill ever since.

Re:Is noone here aware of the actual history of Fb

[Raenex]

OK, so the percentage wasn't high, but Microsoft paid $240 million dollars, resulting in a $15 billion evaluation of the company. Having a low percentage even worked out in their favor. The point is the money, remember?

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[MichaelKristopeit 62]

why do you continue to post using my given name?

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

present yourself to me; admit what you've done, then i will kill you.

Re:Is noone here aware of the actual history of Fb

[gravis777]

Completely agree. I was one of those that joined when it was still .edu only, and before they went international. According to the movie, they were trying to get Baylor, and my university was one in the radius around the school that they expanded to trying to raise intrest at Baylor. Back in those days, there were no ads or anything else on there, and many of us were questioning how they were financing servers. The reason many of us went to it was because we were sick of Myspace constantly being down. So Mark is a bit of a douche, or know-it-all, or however you want to look at it. I could say that about 3/4ths of the slashdot userbase (no trolling intended).

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[ukyoCE]

Agreed. The use of real names AND, perhaps more importantly, the default privacy restrictions, made people feel comfortable enough to actually USE Facebook as a social network.

Which makes it all the more painful and ironic that now that Facebook is mainstream, they're defaulting private info to public (even AFTER it was entered as private), instilling the exact privacy fears in their users that prevented any competitor from getting this popular.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[ukyoCE]

Not in e-mail (who doesnt have first.last@gmail.com, or similar?) and not in a social network targeted specifically at networking with people you know by their real name.

Trying to make the leap to using real names on a video game site (*cough*battle.net/blizzard) though, is very weird and prohibitive.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Slashdot. I can give myself any name I want. Bugger off, troll.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[MichaelKristopeit115]

you can lie about yourself if you're a coward... you can choose to be completely pathetic and speak with no responsibility.

i can call you a pathetic troll just as well.

ur mum's face is a troll.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[Anonymous Coward]

"MichaelKristopeit115" is operated by a desperately pathetic individual who is attempting to steal my identity.

to the individual responsible: present yourself to me, and i will bring unto you the ultimate penalty for your discretions.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[MichaelKristopeit121]

no... "MichaelKristopeit115" is operated by Michael Kristopeit, an individual who is neither desperate or pathetic, and wants nothing to do with a cowardly persona.

"Anonymous Coward" is operated by a desperately pathetic individual who cowers in fear, afraid to even REVEAL their identity, let alone allow anyone to attempt to steal it.

you are completely pathetic.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[Anonymous Coward]

Rage harder, faggot. Nobody except you cares about your idiotic and obsessive shadow-boxing matches with Anonymous Cowards.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p

[MichaelKristopeit121]

why then did you post?

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

you're an ignorant hypocrite.