11 ms·
The Lost Chapter
- EvaPeron 14y agoSour.Grapes.
- bicknergseng 14y agoI know it's a movie and not necessarily based on actual events, but people like this always make me think of the line in the social network: "If you had invented Facebook. You would've invented Facebook."
- ryanmolden 14y agoI don't think you are using that correctly, you seem to be using it as a synonym for jealous/hater. I don't get the impression Aaron is disparaging fame or success; he is making the claim that Mark Zuckerberg has a questionable moral compass. That really doesn't relate in any way to the Aesop's Fable you reference. The fox didn't claim to dislike the grapes because they were ethically dubious; he disliked them as a way to feel better about not being able to acquire them.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- gojomo 14y ago"Stuck in a moment." And once again, in Greenspan's own transcripts, Zuckerberg comes off better -- more focused, more observant, more strategic, seeing opportunities rather than obsessing on risks, and even more generous with offers of collaboration -- than Greenspan himself.
- ipince 14y agoMaybe so. But still as an immature dick. Maybe I'm being too rosy and idealistic here, but I prefer integrity over those other traits you mentioned. Many people have a good balance, so why compromise?
- daleharvey 14y agoAt what point on the transcripts does he come across as 'an immature dick'?
- joelmichael 14y agoHe was 20 years old and joking around in private AIM conversations. Who shall throw the first stone?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- nancyhua 14y agoI read the transcripts, all very fascinating. Aaron's focus is on building stuff whereas Mark's is human interaction- Aaron focuses on products and consulting whereas Mark was already thinking big picture about social. Aaron seems more ambitious than almost anyone and Mark seems 10x even more ambitious than that. Even if Aaron is the superior engineer, Mark is the superior psychologist. Vision and navigation of systems constructed by humans turns out to be more important than building a lot of stuff no matter how cool or new it is. Also seems like mark argues there aren't any ideas to steal and admits facebook's been done before- just this time he's going to execute it better.
- dasil003 14y agoPeople get screwed over all the time. Getting screwed over by Zuckerberg, well, that's an elite club, but time to move on with your life. If you keep it only as a good story for the grand kids maybe it won't eat up the rest of your potential.
- asr 14y agoSeriously, does this guy not have any parents/siblings/super close friends who can tell him it's time to move on? This is a great happy hour story, but not such a great epitaph. On the bright side, at least he's thematically consistent! "I keep getting screwed over by life" is the only reason I can think of to start the post with so many words about Final Clubs before the pivot.... Suffice it to say, anyone who can graduate from Harvard with a CS degree and feel screwed over needs some perspective.
- alid 14y ago"This is a great happy hour story, but not such a great epitaph." - nailed it!
- corporalagumbo 14y agoI can see how Greenspan's experience would not exactly be easy to move on from. At stake is not his own personal success, but his belief about how the world should work. Greenspan sounds like a pretty moral guy, the kind of guy who gets upset when things happen that he thinks are wrong. Basically, you're asking him to shrug and move on but for him, an antisocial bastard is in the spotlight smiling and waving and being showered with praise by the press. It sounds like, for someone like him, fixing this mistake is more important than any other typical SV-type venture he could throw himself into. Or he could just be incompetent and bitter. Who knows.
- cuergas 14y agoOr... maybe he just needed some traffic to his website. It seems everyone who had anything remotely to do with Facebook's origins has tried to cash in. This bothers wantrapreneurs because it highlights just how much luck plays a role in a story like Facebook's. They want to believe that one founder or a few co-founders succeed based on some factor(s) under their control (hardwork, skill, etc.) Greenspan is just another one of those people who was involved and is trying to cash in. If anyone needs to "get over it", it's people who just can't accept that huge fads like Facebook are unpredictable and uncontrollable, and that when faced with the possibility of huge sums of "money for nothing" it brings out the worst in people all seeking a share of the bounty. The web is a lottery. Time to re-read the recent speech from Princeton's graduation ceremony by the author of Liar's Poker.
- mattmaroon 14y ago"Perhaps the lesson here is that competing with and using your 'friends' in serial fashion until you totally and completely ravage each relationship is key to achieving financial success—but then it's certainly no way to define friendship." That's certainly not the lesson. In fact what's always made me believe these sort of attacks against Zuckerberg's character is the fact that you don't see this happen with really any of the other startups that got big. Nobody is accusing Larry and Sergey of these sorts of shenanigans. I'd say if anything, being a moral person is more blessing than curse when it comes to amassing wealth. It's obviously not a requirement though.
- Apocryphon 14y agoThey've accused Steve Jobs and Bill Gates of it.
- wpietri 14y agoE.g., Jobs cheated Wozniak out of cash money: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Early_career http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Early_career
- brooktree 14y agoThe first person who comes along and hits the web industry jackpot at an unprecedented level who is also not a stereotype antisocial nerd douchebag* is going to thoroughly debunk all theories that correlate this sort of character to financial success without any evidence of causation. * The degree to which sheer luck and network effects are factors in this particular sector makes this plausible.
- blhack 14y agoUm Jack Dorsey?
- VBprogrammer 14y agoJack who?
- theorique 14y agoThis article reads as being full of blame.
- Tipzntrix 14y agoPerhaps this is one of the places where legal action is justified? Maybe he should've got a patent like all those monsters out there today. At least his would actually have a product behind it. It's nice to here it from the horse's mouth instead of second-hand from a movie made to generate revenue though.
- gwern 14y agoHe mentions his own settlement somewhere in there, although it's not discussed further.
- formeraapl 14y agoIt's damn hard to pull emotion out when writing about one's life story, but Greenspan's writing style so distracts from the meat of his story that it's frustrating. For instance: "both so-called Facebook veterans (a phrase that actual veterans might find laughable)" or "It was an expense I simply could not afford all over again (unlike the Winklevoss twins, my father did not have millions of dollars of disposable income)" or "[Mark] didn't understand how to speak like a mature person his age." Bits like those just scream "I'm a vicitim" and come off as whiny. If Greenspan laid out the timeline and the documentation sans his editorializing it would be more powerful. Carry these same points through any follow-up interviews, testimony, etc and I sense that Greenspan would be much happier with his outcome.
- brooktree 14y agoThe worst was complaining about a cab fare(?) to JFK. But don't shoot the messenger. There are plenty of facts he's giving us. It is not pure opinion. An eye witness is an eye witness. He was there. As long as he is credible, his character, for our purposes, is irrelevant.
- kanchax 14y agoI agree, Greenspan did come out as a victim. His style is heavy.
- j_s 14y agoI don't know the right phrase for the opposite of 'preaching to the choir', but that's what I think this post here on HN is: the opposite of preaching to the choir.
- anon808 14y agoA very large chunk of his articles are negative http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/index.html http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/index.html Not saying they aren't all true, I'm sure they are. Why focus on the negativity? Recognize it and move beyond.
- powertower 14y ago95% of the news is negative.
- anon808 14y agoprobably true, but rarely all from one author.
- backspace 14y agoEver read Techcrunch?
- johnx123-up 14y agoNot to defend... but if you came across similar pain, you may be more negative than him
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- bcherry 14y agoFrom the AIM chat logs: > zberg02: but probably like 8k > zberg02: i think that qualifies as real cool 8k isn't cool. You know what's cool...
- dreamdu5t 14y agoThe lesson is (again): It's all about execution.
- mycroftiv 14y agoThe accumulated evidence of Zuckerberg's poor character was already overwhelming. For me, all it took was the infamous "dumb fucks" quote to make me decide to never use Facebook. That alone disqualifies someone to be a responsible custodian of my privacy. This article's evidence isn't as significant as other established facts like Zuckerberg's invasion of other people's email accounts, but it is consistent with everything else we know: in one of the modern world's great ironies, a person with no respect for his fellow human beings is the de facto gatekeeper of "friendship" on the net.
- fletchowns 14y agoHow old was he when he made that comment? We all do/say dumb things when we are young...
- rjzzleep 14y agohe hasn't gotten much nicer with age, he just got a bit more careful on what he says in public.
- corporalagumbo 14y agoHe sure smiles a lot though!
- danielweber 14y agoIt was about 5 years before he became a billionaire. If "he was young" is a defense, then "he is too young to trust as a CEO" suddenly becomes a very very valid criticism of Zuck.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago> he is too young to trust as a CEO Considering he has 57% of the voting power, isn't this criticism largely moot?
- 14y ago
- Smudge 14y ago> "...and the directors and officers of any person that controls the applicant are of good character and sound financial standing." Here, the "good character" requirement would clearly preclude Mark, whose character has now been called into question more times than most of us can count. I'm not aware of a common definition for "good character," but merely having your character "called into question," especially as a high-profile CEO (and celebrity, at that), should not be the sole grounds for being denied a license to transact money. I'm not saying there couldn't have been more to it in the case of Facebook/Zuckerberg, but in general, public defamation should not be, in itself, enough to prevent someone from building a legal business.
- brooktree 14y agoRegardless of Greenspan's own character or his particular situation, he gives us a peek at the facts, which others are so quick to ignore. I think there will be poetic justice in this story. Because the web is much bigger than Zuckerberg, or Facebook or even Google. The world is still getting online. It's early yet. But what Zuckerberg has done, how he has carried himself in the presence of enormous luck, he cannot erase. He will live with this reputation as a con his entire life. Building a website, millions of people signing up, enormous hype, making millions from display ads might seem impressive today. It won't remain that way in years to come. We're just getting started. Technology will be taken for granted. There will be more attention to the things Zuckerberg carelessly disregarded. "Dumb fucks" indeed. Thank you Mr. Greenspan for telling your side of the story.
- corporalagumbo 14y agoSir, I like the cut of your jib.
- brc 14y agoIt's jib - as in the the front sail of a sailboat ahead of the mast. The saying is 'I like the cut of your jib' in that the way the sails are set determines both direction and style of sailing.
- corporalagumbo 14y agoThanks for that.
- brooktree 14y agoThe feeling is mutualistic.
- john_flintstone 14y agoWho cares? More to the point, who will care? Facebook will fall eventually. In the 10 or 20 years from now that you talk about, Facebook will be a distant memory. Does anyone care about what may or may not have gone on at IBM 30 years ago? At MySpace? Facebook is not a bank and it's not a government. It's a social media site. Nobody will care.
- jcfrei 14y agoAaron is (understandably) still butthurt from failing to make his houseSYSTEM successful. And Mark clearly was not only deceiving him but also downright stealing his work. Ultimately though that lack of character doesn't really matter - Mark was obviously more driven and had a clearer vision. I think the only lesson we can learn here is that dedication always wins over talent. And besides: Stealing and building a students directory across universities is one thing, creating a profitable business and amassing 900 Million users is a completely different story (and a task to which zuckerberg had a comparatively small contribution).
- tharris0101 14y agoHere is what I don't get about this whole thing: Friendster - 2002 Myspace - 2003 LinkedIn - 2003 Not to mention the dozens of other social media clones around that time (I remember being members of countless social media sites in those days) Its not like anyone at Harvard stumbled upon an amazing new idea that was going to change the game. They were building what they hoped would be better versions of things already out there. Mark registered thefacebook.com because "Face Book" is a very common phrase/object. For better or worse, Zuckerberg won the social networking race. Congrats to him, everyone else at Harvard at that time trying to stake a claim needs to just get on with their lives.
- jonny_eh 14y agoI assumed he got thefacebook.com because facebook.com wasn't available.
- aheilbut 14y agoand sixdegrees - 1996
- jacques_chester 14y agoI remember thinking that nobody would ever overtake MySpace. 80 million users! Facebook gives me great comfort that the race isn't always to the swift. And the contrast between Facebook and the launch of Google Wave has demonstrated that having a dense social graph early is critical to success.
- tptacek 14y agoLogline: Zuckerberg mistreats Aaron Greenspan, is therefore greatest con of all time.
- theorique 14y agoWell put. While he may be simply "telling his side of the story", Aaron Greenspan comes off in his own writing as a sanctimonious, sour-grapes-y, whinger.
- corporalagumbo 14y agoI disagree. For someone at the very least arguably cheated out of a lot of wealth and at worst simply deceived and mistreated in a very nasty way by another human being, I think Greenspan writes with a tremendous amount of calm and balance, and also I don't think he is writing simply to vent bitterness or jealousy.
- tptacek 14y agoYes, he absolutely is writing out of bitterness and jealousy.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- ChuckMcM 14y agoI think this lacks a bit of compassion. It's one thing to have some idea, not work on it, and then later see someone who made it happen. It is another thing entirely to work on an idea for years, bring someone into the group that is working with you on it (or at least advising) and then have them roll off with it and become one of the richest people in the country. Sure a zen master might take some comfort in validation of your ideas, but man it has to really hurt to not be a billionaire. That can really screw over your psyche in a bad way. I know I would be pretty bitter in a similar situation.
- jamesaguilar 14y agoI don't understand why this person thinks Mark owed him all the information he complains about not being given. Am I obliged to inform my competitors of my intentions at every turn? Am I obliged to tell them when I change my mind about my plans? Am I indeed obliged not to deceive them? How do we know that Mark even viewed this guy as a friend, rather than perhaps as a friendly acquaintance? I can say for sure that I had many more and longer conversations on AIM with my real friends. Maybe this guy has a reasonable beef, but it's far from clear to me.
- corporalagumbo 14y agoI don't think Greenspan is complaining - I think this is meant as a warning. He's not saying that Mark acted unfairly and that he should have been nicer to Aaron (which would come across as petulant, and I think Greenspan seems quite realistic and calm about what happened), but that Mark has acted with only ruthless, narrowly-defined "self-interest", displaying no loyalty or kindness, and this bodes very poorly for the company, its investors and its users. Facebook is Mark's creation, and at the core of the company, beneath its social-open-sharing buzzwords there is no philosophy of human relationships, only Mark's shallow, self-centered heartlessness and lust for power and profit. We might think so what, but maybe we've been desensitised by the often shitty and kinda sociopathic (or socio-agnostic) behaviour of web entrepreneurs. Anyway point is the arbiter of "friendship" on the internet is a megalomaniac who seems to understand nothing about friendship - a strange situation perpetuated by a star-struck, gutless press too busy slathering him with praise to think critically. Greenspan is just pointing this out, fairly it seems.
- jamesaguilar 14y agoIsn't this basically the same as saying tesla and spacex will fail because Elon Musk is a jackass?
- cuergas 14y agoNeither Tesla nor SpaceX rely on millions of fickle web users handing over their personal information and regularly signing in to a website to look at photos and status updates. Nor can they be easily replicated by a competitor who is not a jackass.
- dbul 14y agoSo it happened that in my junior year of college, I came across the web site of one of the many finals clubs on campus, the Fly Club. It's "FINE-UHL clubs" not "FINE-UHLZ clubs." And he shockingly did not understand why information privacy might be a controversial issue. And then He had been searching the houseSYSTEM Facebook for the twins' profiles So much for privacy. Aside from the Facebook, the sites had overlapping features for course schedulers, photo albums, message boards, digital posters for student groups, and eventually exchanges for buying and selling on campus and mapping your network of friends. Irrelevant. People only used Thefacebook for obvious and simple things: connecting with people they knew, poking, messaging, and photos. No one used mapping your network of friends (which sucked, incidentally, and also was faily most of the time) and no one even used the course scheduler. To state the obvious, facebook was not successful for its features, it was successful because how it was executed! This was claimed to have been written for historical significance, but I know that every time an article is written by this author and about this subject dozens of people are thinking the same thing: move on. Create a successful company first, then retire and write about this topic. I'd love to see blog posts regarding Think Computer's technology. As it stands, this blog post gained a lot of attention but there isn't even a a sidebar with "Hi, I'm Aaron Greenspan and I'm the CEO of Think Computer. We have this product, click here to learn more." It's a marketing failure to not capitalize on such an opportunity.
- gee_totes 14y agoAt the bottom of the blog post, it says: Aaron Greenspan is the CEO of Think Computer Corporation and author of Authoritas: One Student's Harvard Admissions and the Founding of the Facebook Era. He is the creator of the FaceCash mobile payment system, ThinkLink business management system, and PlainSite legal transparency project. (and there are hyperlinks)
- lisper 14y ago> click here to learn more There's a reason there is no such link. FaceCash is currently prohibited from doing business in California by the Money Transmission Act. Aaron is trying to resolve this, but until he does his hands are kind of tied.
- rickdale 14y agoHm, anyone else have old AIM conversations stored on their computers? Seems convenient.
- gknoy 14y agoI do. My chat clients are set to automatically log, so that when I talk to someone a week later, I can look at the history. More importantly, a lot of questions get asked and answered over IM, so I can check it for answers to "why is X broken" or "How do I Y, again?", or "what was your mailing address?" without having to actually _ask_ the person again. I've never looked back at archived IMs from years past, though, but they are still squirreled away on the removed hard drives from past machines.
- pnathan 14y agoI do. I log all chats by default.
- jdrake3 14y agoMe three.
- mratzloff 14y agoI fully believe that Zuckerberg is every bit the scumbag his former friends assert. But bitter, much? This is a diatribe more than an essay.
- 2pasc 14y agoAgree with all of you who say it is all about execution and timing. Zuckerberg had the right vision for what he wanted of Facebook though: a casual place to procrastinate. That is something that nobody else saw as clearly as him...and that's why his product won.
- pbreit 14y agoAs smart as Greenspan is he has no clue whatsoever what it takes to create a widely used service. He is constantly stuck on legal matters and splitting hairs that no one else cares about. He would be so much better off spending his considerable intellect and productivity on more valuable activities.
- kevinalexbrown 14y agoI'm not going to publicly speculate on either party's moral character. But I did skim the transcripts, and I noticed one curious fact: Zuckerberg starts and ends most of the conversations. To clarify: I'm not sure precisely why I find it interesting, it was just one of those phenomena that raised an eyebrow, and passed my "don't publicly engage in debates about people's character whom I haven't personally met"-test. (To be fair I do make practical judgments based on moral reputation when deciding whether or not to enter relationships with others.)
- jemfinch 14y agoCan you clarify why that's interesting?
- patmcguire 14y agoIt's not if it's once, but if it's always the case? Seems kind of transactional - I need to talk to this person for this, so I do; I completed that, so we're done.
- misiti3780 14y agohaha
- waterlesscloud 14y agoMost, I guess. But even though I wasn't really paying attention to that I did make note of the fact that the conversation about how much Z was paying people was started by ThinkComp.
- grellas 14y agoInstitutional investors made the mistake - again, and again, and again - of validating Mark's duplicitousness by pouring literally billions of dollars into his company, and then billions more into startups seeking to emulate it. Some of their investments created out of thin air industries that contribute absolutely nothing to, and in many cases even detract from, society. . . . Most mind-boggling of all, it's been clear for a long time that Mark's "social" business model doesn't work anyway: venture capital returns are down, and not just a little bit. Meanwhile, the opportunity cost to society is enormous: with engineers and capital allocated to virtual-sheep-throwing, worthless advertising and sharing ad nasuem, almost a decade's worth of real innovations got the short end of the stick, including but not limited to mine. There needs to be a label placed on the idea of feeling the need to bow to the wishes of critics who try to limit the idea of valid entrepreneurship to activities deemed "beneficial to society." I propose Founder's Guilt Complex. Why on earth - when life is so big and beautiful and complex - should I feel guilty if I make money from an activity that does nothing more than give people a diversion from life's burdens and problems? College football may be a joke to pointy-head types but then reading Latin (my own peculiar idea of fun) is equally a joke to the cheering fans who join in inter-collegiate rivalries. Likewise for playing video games or hiking in the woods or listening to rock-and-roll or producing reality-TV shows or most any other activity you can name whose main goal is relaxation, entertainment, escape from life's burdens, or just plain self-indulgence. And social networking is no exception. I may not do much on Facebook (I don't) but so what? Others can and do like to share things with people of varying degrees of relationship to them and more power to them for liking to do this. It is their choice. It is a free country. It is not for me to be a scold who upbraids them for doing so. Nor should I be crabbed or pinched about what founders choose to do to create and market products and services designed to satisfy such proclivities or to make money from them. Yes, I can set about in life to conquer diseases or to abolish poverty or to alleviate people's suffering and all such things are ennobling. I can do such things via a profit-making venture or I can make my money on other things and then use it to advance higher goals through giving. Or I can devote time and energy to helping others in my personal life. All of that is great but it hardly defines the boundaries of worthwhile human activity. Life has enough problems without having someone of a judgmental spirit continually taking us to task for wanting to have some fun as well or for trying to promote fun things for others. In a free society, there is room for fun things as well and for those who see it as worthwhile to take risk in building companies that seek to market less-than-weighty things to the public. Life certainly can be perverse. In 17th century England, as modern western society was taking shape, you had, on the one side, royalists who despised political freedom, who valued rule by a church hierarchy, and yet who were much given to licentious habits in their lifestyles while, on the other, you had those who agitated for political freedom, who fought oppressive forms of centralized rule, who ultimately broke away to form what became America, and yet who in their personal lives bore the grim face of the puritan that sought at every turn to chain, quarter, and shame everyone all about who thought it might be fun to dance or to have a little fun in life. It seems that in our modern society we have ported over the spirit of the puritan in castigating others even as we have won the freedoms that allow us under law to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Well, if the pursuit of happiness was deemed a worthy goal of a society's founding documents, far be it from me to stand grim-faced telling others that they should feel guilty in not conforming to my narrow view of acceptable life activities - and that includes how I choose to make my living or start my business. I don't think this is a mere technical issue either. I believe that no guilt or stigma should attach to ventures doing legal things just because they don't set out to solve World Problems. The poor have always been with us. So too have wars, rapes, and murders. Ditto for disease and death. I am the first to say "bravo" to those who do not sit resigned to accept all these destructive elements in life but who instead spur themselves to do something to help make things better not just for themselves but for the broader society too. That said, such activities cannot be the only things that define our goals in life, nor should they be. There is value in having enjoyment and fun in life and this is a transcending value that betters society. In the entrepreneurial world, there is no room for a spirit of self-righteousness. Therefore, I say away with Founder's Guilt Complex. If you want to do a venture, do it honestly and with integrity, drive, boldness, and energy. Just don't let others tell you that you should feel guilty about offending their scruples. Enjoy and make it work without guilt. You can deal with Weighty Issues too if you are so led. Just don't listen to those who say that what you are doing is not worthwhile unless it is narrowly confined to them. So if the VC industry chose to pour all kinds of money into creating something called social networking, and if all kinds of talented engineers have flocked to that industry in pursuit of money or other personal goals, that is by definition a great benefit to society because it has given many, many people the chance to do things that were scarcely thought possible just a decade ago - and to derive simple pleasures from the diversions or other benefits afforded to them through such networking. Whatever the flaws associated with individual people or companies in such an industry, there is nothing whatever wrong with those who devoted their money and their efforts to making all this possible.
- interg12 14y agoThis article actually demonstrates Zuckerbergs savvy in being the one who took the social network to market. Mark played everyone extremely well and deserves credit for implementing an idea that everyone had. THis story isn't about coming up with new ideas, it's about shipping something people want.
- alid 14y agoWowzers, why are people so keen to be negative? Facebook are doing awesome in their mission to make the world more open and connected. And regardless of fluctuations, Facebook's value still sits around, what, $48 billion? This is far too personal - Mark was 19 and in a private chat with a friend (and he's remarkably more motivated, mature and respectful than many guys I went to uni with at that age lol). We all grow and learn a heap from college days, so to link the success of a company today to factors from almost a decade ago is a low shot. Go forth and direct your energy into creating your own empires!
- spitx 14y agoAnd let's not forget the Google smear campaign, only last year, orchestrated / bungled by Burson-Marsteller. http://www.wired.com/business/2011/05/facebook-google-smear/ http://www.wired.com/business/2011/05/facebook-google-smear/
- at-fates-hands 14y agoTo me, it's like Aaron lost the game with Zuckerberg because Zucks wasn't fighting fair and Aaron expected him to. The expectations were clearly different on each side. Zucks wanted to win the game and take all the marbles any way he could, and didn't care at the who's expense it came, including his friends. I think Aaron expected more fairness and is hurt, but not surprised Zuckerberg hasn't changed.
- swordsmith 14y agoI've been reading Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power recently, and throughout this essay, I can't help but think just how all the "moves" Zuckerburg were accused (and infamous) of were exemplary of a number of these laws. Not trying to pass judgement on Zuckerburg's virtues or lack thereof (it's best to accept the inherent unfairness in life on the road to power), but he is a master of power plays: Law 3: Never put too much trust in friends, learn how to use enemies. If only Zuck's "friends" knew about the first part of the law. Zuck was, however, a master in exploiting and gaining information from his "enemies". Further, he used what his competitions to frame what his product should be. Law 4: Conceal your intentions. "Keep people off-balance and in the dark by never revealing the purpose behind your actions" -- apparent in both the Winklevoss and Greenspan's stories. Zuck misled and deceived until the right time. Law 5: Always say less than necessary...classic Zuck, "There was a need for facebook, so I made it" Law 6: Court attention at all cost. His fight to receive coverage in the Crimson ensuring the early dominance of thefacebook. Law 7: Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit. If any of the stories about facebook is true, then Zuck's a textbook example of observing this law. According to Greene: using other people's work "not only will [...] save you valuable time and energy, it will give you a godlike aura of efficiency and speed". Clearly it has worked to achieve his "genius" aura. Law 9: Win through your actions, never through argument. He never let the lawsuits detract him away from the work too much. Now that facebook is too big, what actually happened really doesn't matter anymore. Law 11: Learn to keep people dependent on you. Facebook is too big now...G_G Law 12: Use selective honesty and generosity to disarm your victim. The part about facebook's frequent change and backtracks of privacy must has something to do with this. Law 13: When asking for help, appeal to people's self-interest, never to their mercy or gratitude. Zuckerburg appealed to Greenspan's desire to help entrepreneurs when asking for advice. Also, his claim that Greenspan was one of those on his level can be seen more of a classic ego-stroking rather than admission of admiration. Law 14: Pose as a friend, work as a spy. "Knowing about your rival is critical. Play the spy yourself to gather valuable information that will keep you a step ahead. [...] There is no occasion that is not an opportunity for artful spying". Yeah, Zuck's a master at this. Law 15: Crush your enemey totally. Check. So out of the first 18 laws, the rise of facebook and Zuckerburg have observed 11, textbook style. His amoral approach to power and life is definitely key to his success.
- davidmathers 14y agoPreviously: http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/zuckerberg.html http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/zuckerberg.html
- patmcguire 14y agoHas everyone on HN always been this cynical?
- zingahgud 14y agoHave a look at the last IM exchange between Greenspan and Zuckerberg on the idea of protecting the privacy of students' home adresses from being accessible to any student at any university using Facebook. It is toward the end of the timeline.pdf document. The problem: Thanks to some sloppy php, anyone at any univeristy could download a .csv file of all of someone contacts including their home addresses and other private information, if that person had ever requested to export her data to csv format. Greenspan wanted this security hole fixed promptly. Zuckerberg didn't care; he just fired off an email to someone else (same guy who wrote the sloppy php?) and put it out of his mind. Then when Greenspan made others aware of the problem, Zuckerberg was upset because [un]"savvy" users might learn of security holes in Facebook. What a terrible thing that would be. We see that same sort of denigrating view of users and concealment attitude continuing at Facebook to this day. Say what you will about Greenspan but at least the guy is responsible. We can't say the same for Zuckerberg. The kid is reckless and unremorseful.
- tomasien 14y agoZuck's business model doesn't work? What a joke. They're profitable and make billions and billions of dollars a year.
- abalone 14y agoThis poor soul has been grinding this axe for years. He's simply blaming others for his own failures. The prose is magnified by his clearly high intellect but it's easy to see through it. You need only take a look at the mess that was housesystem (his attempt at a campus social network among other things) to get an idea of why it didn't take off like facebook. Or if that's not enough, how about his payments startup facecash. No evil Zuckerberg character to blame there.. It was just a very poorly designed and executed project. Facebook won because it was better and Mark was right not to hire this guy. The sad thing is he (Greenspan) is clearly hyper intelligent, and if he'd only focus that intellect on figuring out where his work could improve instead of laying his problems at his more successful classmate's feet...
- huffer 14y agofeeding the tinfoil hats industry: the European Commission blocked this website and flagged it as illegal/scam :) I apologise for not contributing, but I can't access the page so I have no idea what it says.. but by the amount of extensive comments here, I'm dying of curiosity