6 ms·

Facebook’s response to this story is revealing: > "We’re not going to debate the disgruntled litigants and anonymous sources who seek to rewrite Facebook’s ear

Facebook’s response to this story is revealing: > "We’re not going to debate the disgruntled litigants and anonymous sources who seek to rewrite Facebook’s early history or embarrass Mark Zuckerberg with dated allegations. The unquestioned fact is that since leaving Harvard for Silicon Valley nearly six years ago, Mark has led Facebook's growth from a college website to a global service playing an important role in the lives of over 400 million people." You get a similar argument in the recently leaked ‘Boz memo’: please ignore our unethical behavior, instead focus on how many users we have. Growth at any cost is justified.

TAForObvReasons 8y ago
> growth at any cost is justified. ... captured in the infamous phrase "Move Fast and Break Things"
- zeusk 8y ago
  Big If Things == Law
  - TAForObvReasons 8y ago
    Things can be Laws, Ethics, and even Human Life as we saw with the responses to recent accidents involving self-driving cars
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
needToSay 8y ago
Fuck Zuck, let him burn in hell
peacetreefrog 8y ago
Note, again, this was their response when this article was written in 2010. "...since leaving Harvard for Silicon Valley nearly six years ago" is referring to 2004. Just clarifying, because when I first read this I thought, "what was Mark Zuckerburg doing in Harvard still in 2012?" It'd be interesting to hear what they'd about it today though. Probably nothing.
rdtsc 8y ago
Yeah this nice corporate PR > We’re not going to debate the disgruntled litigants and anonymous sources "We're not denying it though. It is true. If they were false and we could debate and win the debate, we would" > The unquestioned fact is that since leaving Harvard for Silicon Valley nearly six years ago, Mark has led Facebook's growth from a college website to a global service playing an important role in the lives of over 400 > [...] instead focus on how many users we have Even more, it is interesting what they are implying here. If you can get people to give you their data and build a company on it, it somehow means you all of the sudden acquire a better personality, increased morality and are absolved of all the stupid things you said or did before. Now sure, people do and say stupid stuff when they are teenagers. I've done it. It depends when and what was done and at what age, what happened before and after. I can see being forgiving some thing up until the early 20s. People are still developing and personality could change I suppose. Though when it comes to his "dumb fucks" comment, I give him less of a pass of being a "teenager" because he was 26 already. Additionally, if these were just isolated incidents and everything before and after pointed to him taken privacy seriously but the whole company is built on the opposite of that.
- arachnids 8y ago
  Zuckerberg was 19 when he made the dumb fucks comment. [2004] I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, just saying that this incident took place earlier than you think it did.
  - marricks 8y ago
    Have his actions done anything to show it's not relevant? He lead the company as a young man and is still pretty young. Reckless disregard for privacy has been a hallmark of his tenure.
    - danso 8y ago
      The decade immediately after you’re teens is a time period with a lot of change. Many people find career paths, spouses, and have children. Also worth considering is that FB is a much different company — structure-wise — than when it was just a social media site servicing Harvard students.
loup-vaillant 8y ago
They're playing the status game. "Rewrite history" and "dated allegations" serve mostly to slander whoever made those claims. Then they raise Zuckerberg's status by pointing out his achievements. They're effectively saying the accusation isn't valid because Zuckerberg is nobility and the accusers are not.
- matte_black 8y ago
  If it weren’t for Zuckerberg’s status these allegations wouldn’t have bothered coming out.
  - sosborn 8y ago
    While that’s probably true, does that justify his actions?
    - loup-vaillant 8y ago
      No, but this consideration is evidence that the allegations may be false.
      - sosborn 8y ago
        It really isn't though. What happened after this incident has no bearing on what happened before the incident. Does his status provide a motive for a false accusation? Sure, but that is different from evidence.
        loup-vaillant 8y ago
        No it isn't different, you failed Bayesian. Evidence is not causality, it can flow backwards in time. For instance, a mammography doesn't give you cancer. But it can detect one, and thus give you evidence that you had cancer in the first place.
      - mygo 8y ago
        your circular logic translates to “the fact that these allegations even bothered to come out is evidence that they may be false”

TAForObvReasons 8y ago

> growth at any cost is justified. ... captured in the infamous phrase "Move Fast and Break Things"

zeusk 8y ago
Big If Things == Law
- TAForObvReasons 8y ago
  Things can be Laws, Ethics, and even Human Life as we saw with the responses to recent accidents involving self-driving cars

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

needToSay 8y ago

Fuck Zuck, let him burn in hell

peacetreefrog 8y ago

Note, again, this was their response when this article was written in 2010. "...since leaving Harvard for Silicon Valley nearly six years ago" is referring to 2004. Just clarifying, because when I first read this I thought, "what was Mark Zuckerburg doing in Harvard still in 2012?" It'd be interesting to hear what they'd about it today though. Probably nothing.

rdtsc 8y ago

Yeah this nice corporate PR > We’re not going to debate the disgruntled litigants and anonymous sources "We're not denying it though. It is true. If they were false and we could debate and win the debate, we would" > The unquestioned fact is that since leaving Harvard for Silicon Valley nearly six years ago, Mark has led Facebook's growth from a college website to a global service playing an important role in the lives of over 400 > [...] instead focus on how many users we have Even more, it is interesting what they are implying here. If you can get people to give you their data and build a company on it, it somehow means you all of the sudden acquire a better personality, increased morality and are absolved of all the stupid things you said or did before. Now sure, people do and say stupid stuff when they are teenagers. I've done it. It depends when and what was done and at what age, what happened before and after. I can see being forgiving some thing up until the early 20s. People are still developing and personality could change I suppose. Though when it comes to his "dumb fucks" comment, I give him less of a pass of being a "teenager" because he was 26 already. Additionally, if these were just isolated incidents and everything before and after pointed to him taken privacy seriously but the whole company is built on the opposite of that.

arachnids 8y ago
Zuckerberg was 19 when he made the dumb fucks comment. [2004] I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, just saying that this incident took place earlier than you think it did.
- marricks 8y ago
  Have his actions done anything to show it's not relevant? He lead the company as a young man and is still pretty young. Reckless disregard for privacy has been a hallmark of his tenure.
  - danso 8y ago
    The decade immediately after you’re teens is a time period with a lot of change. Many people find career paths, spouses, and have children. Also worth considering is that FB is a much different company — structure-wise — than when it was just a social media site servicing Harvard students.

loup-vaillant 8y ago

They're playing the status game. "Rewrite history" and "dated allegations" serve mostly to slander whoever made those claims. Then they raise Zuckerberg's status by pointing out his achievements. They're effectively saying the accusation isn't valid because Zuckerberg is nobility and the accusers are not.

matte_black 8y ago
If it weren’t for Zuckerberg’s status these allegations wouldn’t have bothered coming out.
- sosborn 8y ago
  While that’s probably true, does that justify his actions?
  - loup-vaillant 8y ago
    No, but this consideration is evidence that the allegations may be false.
    - sosborn 8y ago
      It really isn't though. What happened after this incident has no bearing on what happened before the incident. Does his status provide a motive for a false accusation? Sure, but that is different from evidence.
      - loup-vaillant 8y ago
        No it isn't different, you failed Bayesian. Evidence is not causality, it can flow backwards in time. For instance, a mammography doesn't give you cancer. But it can detect one, and thus give you evidence that you had cancer in the first place.
    - mygo 8y ago
      your circular logic translates to “the fact that these allegations even bothered to come out is evidence that they may be false”