This article was absurdly dramatic. He's right about one thing, though -- that the media is largely influencing the public opinion of Facebook. The number of emotionally fueled articles that have been written about Facebook recently (at least in my opinion) greatly outweighs the actual severity of the situation.
The guy has a lot to feel bitter about, I do believe he got a pay out that set him up quite well.
The media does like stories, and nothing better than building something up to be huge, and then shooting it down. Recent episodes of this include Microsoft and Apple.
But despite what the media says, or how powerful the media seems to believe it is, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook are still strong and huge. The average person just does not concern themselves with what seems to be SO important to the media.
In regards to facebook, the simple fact is that we have all been losing privacy for many years, thanks to technology. We are photographed, filmed, tracked, catalogued so many times in the modern day, and this worries the majority very little. They still carry supermarket loyalty cards, fill out surveys, put in their real names and addresses.
I can't see this affecting facebook in any meaningful way. I wish I was wrong.
I agree. And personally, I find a big gap between what concerns "the media" and the people around me. Among my 400 facebook friends, I've gotten 2 or 3 status updates concerned with new privacy rules. Meanwhile on hacker news I see a dozen of articles in a day about it
I disagree with that analogy. AOL was trying to put the entirety of the internet within its walled garden: the Web, games, email, everything. Facebook is only trying to dominate one space: communicating with your friends. Admittedly, that is a very important area, but the benefits of having all of your friends on one platform are huge, and Facebook is simply working towards that.
Further, what's "the open internet" in your analogy? There is no decentralized social platform that at all compares to Facebook, and currently I fail to see how there could be one that is viable. Diaspora will certainly not be it, unless the readership of HN encompasses all of your friends.
I've been suspecting that he's a sociopath. First, being in a position of power puts him in the right demographic. Then, he seems to continue to do whatever he can get away with, then come with an apology that seems sincere enough that people buy it, and then he keeps on as before. I don't know how you can launch Beacon, the way it was launched, with other people knowing what was going to happen (1), and be surprised when it's a PR disaster. Either he's stupid or he was just testing what he can get away with.
Honestly, I've always been skeptical that "sociopaths" really exist as a psychologically distinct group from, say, run-of-the-mill jerks.
It's easy to find first-person accounts of what it's like to be, say, schizophrenic or delusional or manic-depressive or to have Asperger's, but I've never heard of anyone admitting "I'm a sociopath. Here's what it's like to be me."
One could argue the timing simply wasn't right. Beacon failed in 2007, but Instant Personalization and the "Open Graph" are really the same thing, and they're already everywhere.
I'm confused. Did Greenspan create HouseSystem or theFacebook? In the article he say,
"In late 2003 I created an on-line, opt-in web site referred to as "the facebook" exclusively for Harvard students..."
I too stopped signing in to facebook well before it became trendy. My reason was that facebook was becoming more open and less like the closed social network I shared with my friends.
House System, was, at best, about 10% as influential in the creation of Facebook as was Friendster. You take every opportunity to hate on Mark and Facebook, even when it makes no sense... Why can't you just move on? Mark/Facebook owe you nothing; quit deluding yourself. Go be productive!!
If you made a site and showed it to a guy that made a similar site now valued at $20B, you'd probably think about it a lot.
I think one of the main takeaways here is that an initial media backlash is the fastest way to kill a social site looking for its critical mass. It's like any party, if people think it'll be lame or unsafe because that's the word of mouth, nobody will go. Whether playing fair or foul, somehow Mark got the right words in people's mouths about his site and it took off.
All Facebook needs to do is create a few generic privacy profiles, and default to one of the more private ones. Privacy problem solved. But, I get the feeling there's a corporate culture of vicariousness, exposure and a touch of schadenfreude. That culture is permeating into popular culture.
It might not be that simple. I was reading an article earlier today that pointed out these privacy decisions have mostly been made to simplify the internal processes of the application. That linking too many different parts of data was having a huge effect on the growth of facebook, and this has driven the problems we are facing today.
It also helped them escape the growing pains we have seen form twitter and the like.
Remember Zuckerberg's 60 minutes interview? Perhaps he was nervous, but there was something off about him. I don't think this is evidence that he's a sociopath, but if I squint my eyes and add a dash of the damming condemnations that are leaking out left and right these days, he certainly seems like a sociopath.
Who knows, but Facebook isn't just Mark, it's a large team of highly intelligent and talented (and in most cases PHD level) engineers who I'm sure want nothing more than to protect people's privacy, make a fantastic product, and above all help people connect with current and past friends.
This article has zero credibility. Aaron Greenspan tries to dress it up as some sort of analysis, but it's actually just more of the same: sour grapes. To Aaron:
Aaron, I don't doubt that Zuckerberg screwed you over. Unlike many, I'm willing to take you at your word. You should have written your book, profited from it to the max, and then relegated the whole thing to cocktail party joke. There's no reason to cling to this story; it can only make you look bad.
The word sociopath is used here with kind of an 'evil' bias. But the term really has more to do with how social / external inputs affect decision making.
Really, what is the difference between being a sociopath and being relentlessly resourceful?
To be relentlessly resourceful is a great quality in anyone. You get things done.
To be a sociopath means you have lack of empathy or remorse, usually with an inflated sense of self worth.
You can be a resourceful sociopath, or you can be resourceful but empathetic and socially responsible. The former implies you're likely to screw people over and not care about it.
I sincerely doubt this is going to be the end of the Facebook era. There are way too many people using the service and only a tiny fraction of them are going to delete their profiles anytime soon.
Read some more of Aaron's stuff, including his Authoritas thing he promotes at the end of the article, and he's the one who comes across as the possible sociopath.
I don't believe one must label every self-promoter a sociopath. And Aaron's post is foremostly a promotion for his self-published 2008 book, Authoritas, whose sales are currently lagging (http://www.amazon.com/Authoritas-Students-Admissions-Foundin...)
Is it just me or is this a real piece of crap? He talks about how it was his idea and how he was maligned by Harvard admins, yada yada, which is typical talk. However, what the heck is the thing about Zuck being a "sociopath"? Now I don't know him, and he does look and (from what I read) act weird sometimes but who cares? Most founders and successful CEO's are in that same boat, otherwise they wouldn't be that successful. Examples range from Oracle's Ellison to RoR's DHH, and of course Jobs.
The FB privacy thing has turned into a true media frenzy. Look, FB is not going to go away anytime soon, users just have invested too much time into it. So, forget about the whole "four brave kids take on FB with open platform". How to make FB behave nicely without any viable competition is the question here.
[+] [-] char|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Qz|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] megablast|16 years ago|reply
The media does like stories, and nothing better than building something up to be huge, and then shooting it down. Recent episodes of this include Microsoft and Apple.
But despite what the media says, or how powerful the media seems to believe it is, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook are still strong and huge. The average person just does not concern themselves with what seems to be SO important to the media.
In regards to facebook, the simple fact is that we have all been losing privacy for many years, thanks to technology. We are photographed, filmed, tracked, catalogued so many times in the modern day, and this worries the majority very little. They still carry supermarket loyalty cards, fill out surveys, put in their real names and addresses.
I can't see this affecting facebook in any meaningful way. I wish I was wrong.
[+] [-] yaroslavvb|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scorpion032|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rjurney|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bcardarella|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fuzzmeister|16 years ago|reply
Further, what's "the open internet" in your analogy? There is no decentralized social platform that at all compares to Facebook, and currently I fail to see how there could be one that is viable. Diaspora will certainly not be it, unless the readership of HN encompasses all of your friends.
[+] [-] varjag|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orblivion|16 years ago|reply
(1) http://gigaom.com/2007/11/06/facebook-beacon-privacy-issues/
[+] [-] hugh3|16 years ago|reply
It's easy to find first-person accounts of what it's like to be, say, schizophrenic or delusional or manic-depressive or to have Asperger's, but I've never heard of anyone admitting "I'm a sociopath. Here's what it's like to be me."
[+] [-] malloreon|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] budu3|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrischen|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] master|16 years ago|reply
House System, was, at best, about 10% as influential in the creation of Facebook as was Friendster. You take every opportunity to hate on Mark and Facebook, even when it makes no sense... Why can't you just move on? Mark/Facebook owe you nothing; quit deluding yourself. Go be productive!!
[+] [-] pak|16 years ago|reply
I think one of the main takeaways here is that an initial media backlash is the fastest way to kill a social site looking for its critical mass. It's like any party, if people think it'll be lame or unsafe because that's the word of mouth, nobody will go. Whether playing fair or foul, somehow Mark got the right words in people's mouths about his site and it took off.
[+] [-] thinkcomp|16 years ago|reply
http://www.thinklink.com
I can be productive and write too.
[+] [-] alanh|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tokenadult|16 years ago|reply
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=463
[+] [-] waxman|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrianwaj|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] megablast|16 years ago|reply
It also helped them escape the growing pains we have seen form twitter and the like.
[+] [-] marknutter|16 years ago|reply
Who knows, but Facebook isn't just Mark, it's a large team of highly intelligent and talented (and in most cases PHD level) engineers who I'm sure want nothing more than to protect people's privacy, make a fantastic product, and above all help people connect with current and past friends.
[+] [-] dasil003|16 years ago|reply
Aaron, I don't doubt that Zuckerberg screwed you over. Unlike many, I'm willing to take you at your word. You should have written your book, profited from it to the max, and then relegated the whole thing to cocktail party joke. There's no reason to cling to this story; it can only make you look bad.
[+] [-] jonmc12|16 years ago|reply
Really, what is the difference between being a sociopath and being relentlessly resourceful?
[+] [-] klochner|16 years ago|reply
To be relentlessly resourceful is a great quality in anyone. You get things done.
To be a sociopath means you have lack of empathy or remorse, usually with an inflated sense of self worth.
You can be a resourceful sociopath, or you can be resourceful but empathetic and socially responsible. The former implies you're likely to screw people over and not care about it.
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] paulnelligan|16 years ago|reply
now give me an alternative, where I can just transfer all my information, friends, and photos in one click, and I'll move - no questions asked...
damn, didn't think so.
[+] [-] rogeriopvl|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FabriceTalbot|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] balding_n_tired|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wakeupthedawn|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FluidDjango|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Aetius|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devinj|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jun8|16 years ago|reply
The FB privacy thing has turned into a true media frenzy. Look, FB is not going to go away anytime soon, users just have invested too much time into it. So, forget about the whole "four brave kids take on FB with open platform". How to make FB behave nicely without any viable competition is the question here.