[renaudg]

What if Zuckerberg didn't change overnight but his terrible reputation was somewhat undeserved all along ?

I worked at Facebook in 2010-2011 and I must say that the gap between what was really going on inside, and the hysterical, least possibly charitable interpretation and scrutinizing of every single product decision by the press, public, and politicians was insane. By far the worst I'd ever seen.

As an engineer, I actually learnt to appreciate the job of a PR team during that time (I previously assumed they were professional hypocrites paid who put a positive spin on indefensible corporate decisions), and was impressed at how professional they managed to remain as they had to counter some truly insane shit with facts, and still nobody believed them because Facebook is the devil and obviously lying.

Of course there were obviously some large fuck-ups at Facebook over the past decade (some of which even originated from good intentions, like the Cambridge Analytica fiasco : "people accuse us of being anticompetitive as we sit on a treasure trove of data, let's be more open and create a platform !")

In my view, these were more the product of Zuck's failure to rein in bad ideas from some executives due to his inexperience, rather than any indication of strategic malevolence and cynicism on his part.

In other words, he's not perfect but I've always seen him as the rather decent guy that more people can see now, like in this interview. If there's one area where he has changed a lot, it's probably in his ability to show it.

[gu74]

It doesnt matter if the founder of Jurassic Park is cute, imperfect or misunderstood if what happens in the park is unpredictable and uncontrollable.