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
Maybe...also the fact that I have 400 "friends" says something. You can't possibly know that many people well enough to trust them. And the fact that they accepted my friend requests means they didn't care about keeping their information secret in a first place. Maybe it's different for an average user (120 connections apparently), although that still seems too high to share sensitive information.
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.
You could also argue that email and NNTP are failed social platforms, mainly due to spam issues. Newsgroups have been almost entirely replaced by one-off forums like this one, and email requires massive continuing efforts to block spammers.
You could also argue that the solutions to that are known but not currently widely used. If you were to create an iteration of email where there only people aloud to email you were the people in your address-book, would that not be a bit like Facebook is now. Identifying people can be done via signing messages with GPG so no one could forge the sender.
Having everyone sign messages on NNTP would work too since you could whitelist a set of people or alternatively a black list of known bad people.
Forums like this are good, but lack the convenience that a NNTP news reader used to have of having all your conversations in one place.
Until a decentralized platform can give me a stream of what all my friends are up to and the ability to see what any individual friend is up to, it won't be anywhere near adequate.
>the Web, games, email, everything. Facebook is only trying to dominate one space: communicating with your friends.
WHAT?
Have you noticed how many corporations these days advertise not their web site, but their facebook (or twitter) page? Of course games are a huge reason Facebook is big today. Email: I cannot stop people from "emailing" me via Facebook's internal messaging. I tell them again and again to just email me directly, but they've been stupidified into thinking that they are emailing me. It's very annoying.
Facebook -- like all sites of the sort -- absolutely wants to be your AOL.
I do not at all agree that Facebook wants to bring the Web within its borders in the way AOL did. Facebook pages are nothing more than streams of messages and links about a business, and Facebook is actually moving away from canvas-type Facebook apps (where the experience is contained within Facebook). What they want to do is be plugged into the existing websites outside of Facebook (see Yelp). As for email, I will concede that they are making a play for that as well.
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."
Probably because they don't have the incentive to out themselves. Remember it's effectively admitting that they're evil. But on the Internet it would be safe, assuming you believe this guy. He's pretty convincing:
Well, this guy is quite different from the reddit link I posted nearby in this thread. He seems concerned about his children's wellbeing, and curing his condition, I didn't think that sociopaths could do this.
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.
Beacon in and of itself is fine. Springing it on people as opt-out, and relying on some Javascript to warn them as they make purchases, is the problem.
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.
That's like saying people who sell their failing business for 100k that then gets turned around to a 100 million business were stupid to sell. By being the one who failed to make it work you would have always failed and the other person succeeded. However, humans are notorious for lacking decent introspection skills I guess so I can see how it could eat someone up slowly.
It's well intentioned most of the time - people who want to see you succeed.
> I can be productive and write too.
Yes and no. Hatred can actually be a powerful motivator - I remember a few years ago, sometimes I'd be low energy, and I'd go check out what my most-disliked-competitor was doing, and then I'd be all fired up and ready to take on the world. The problem is, hatred is a fuel that burns really, really dirty and takes its toll on you. So you've got to meditate a little about whether the price you're paying in terms of time and negative energy is worth the energy boost and subject matter to write about.
Also, you might be getting this reaction because people who read multiple pieces on Facebook by you are getting a very similar angle and facts presented each time. That can get a little boring - and I say that as a non-Facebook user who isn't particularly a fan of Facebook. But whatever, if the Facebook angle is serving your current goals, so be it, and here's wishing for much successes for you.
I completely realize the inane repetition of these themes, and I wish it weren't the case that such repetition seems necessary. Sadly, it does, because even after repeating myself for six years, and watching other people issue similar warnings, we are still at this point.
When I write one of these columns, it's not because I'm filled with hatred. It's because I don't see anyone making a point I think is obvious or important about the whole affair, and each time I write I'm put in a position of having to explain why I think I'm qualified to comment. You have to keep in mind that I'm not writing primarily for the Hacker News audience, even though I'll post some things on here. To people here it sounds like I'm stuck in a cave full of hatred writing about Facebook. I'm not. I just want to make sure I'm reaching the first-time reader who doesn't realize that there's more to this story.
It's much less about "the Facebook angle" serving my goals as you say, and more about sticking to what's right.
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.
That linking too many different parts of data was having a huge effect on the growth of facebook
This is why I'm still not sure that Facebook can do anything to monetize its user base without being off-putting to many members of its user base. To not be annoying takes a lot of data processing for every page view (and every advertisement served up), while to be profitable (and speedily responsive to user page requests) requires as little demand on the Facebook server farms as possible. It may not be technically possible today to run a profitable Facebook that pleases many normal users.
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 really think this is an unfair stereotype. Being relentlessly resourceful is only a great quality as it relates to a great goal or ambition.
You could have an evil resourceful person who is not a sociopath. You could have a good resourceful person who is a sociopath.
Just because you are a sociopath does not mean you can't pursue a socially responsible goal. Also, the the definition of 'good', 'evil', 'socially responsible', we know are relative terms. In history, some sociopaths have used resourcefulness to re-define these norms for society.
The point I am trying to make is that being relentlessly resourceful, in the most rational sense, often means acting like a sociopath in the sense that you need to disregard social inputs unless they help accomplish your goal.
Sociopaths are unconstrained or uninfluenced by how they affect the well being of those around them, unless the effects help achieve their own goals or ambitions.
You can certainly find a sociopath that is helpful to society, they just wouldn't care on an emotional level.
I would be hard pressed to find an evil person who is relentlessly resourceful and social responsible.
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.
Honestly, I don't care what old people like this have to say about Facebook. I was in college when it launched and I still use it every single day. People like this and Calacanis can shove it when they say the Facebook Era is over. Go ask a bunch of highschool and college students right now if they think Facebook is dead, because they are who matter. Anyone that knows that demo can agree they are hooked and don't give a shit about 99% of the privacy concerns all over the news. Give it up grandpa, Facebook doesn't care about you. We never wanted you anyways. : /
Honestly, I don't care what old people like this have to say about Facebook.
If you're going to comment on an article, you might want to take the time to actually read it. The author graduated from college in 2004 and is in his mid to late 20's.
