Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks
Mark Zuckerberg said those things when he was 19 over a decade ago. He's now a father, the CEO of a global company with over 12,000 employees and one of the richest people in the world. Maybe he has matured since then?
What evidence do we have that he has matured? It's not a matter of being an immature college kid anymore. In many respects he has a financial incentive to abuse people's privacy now.
Maybe in business practice, not necessarily character. Just look at Trump. (Not to pick on him, but I don't find Trump to be practicing the etiquette I would associate with a man in his position. As for Zuckerberg, I'm not saying he's childish either. I'm just questioning your point.)
For most people, the thirteen years from age 19 to 32 involves a great deal of maturity and in many respects I imagine the same applies to him. But if he started out as somewhat unscrupulous, what evidence do we have that the pressures of having to appease investors is going to change that in a positive way when it comes to people's private information? Especially considering the kind of revenue that data can generate.
> Any evidence of FB going directly against their privacy rules
Whether or not they go against their own rules is a moot point, given their history of changing those rules and systems with little to no notice or documentation.
They've modified privacy multiple times and changed defaults so as to trick users into sharing more than intended. There was an article not long ago about privacy implications of sharing links in the messenger, as they store links in such a way as to track the history of unrelated people who also shared the link. Not to mention various issues with undocumented collection of private data on mobile devices.
Facebook isn't really a company deserving of third-party defense in the arena of privacy.
> I think it's fair to assume that going from a 19-year-old college kid to the CEO of a giant corporation involves maturing quite a bit
Flip side: going from 19-year-old college kid to the CEO of a giant corporation could also sharpen shark-like tendencies and compromise previously held morals.
That's usually a great defense if you're not talking about a person whose schemes only grew over time in both privacy violations and business gains. This is also the same guy who spends lots of time convincing users privacy doesn't matter and he should know everything about them while buying up homes all around his for his privacy.
He's definitely still playing the "if you need info just ask" cuz they're "dumb fucks" that "trust me" game. Just worth billions with his company making as much on the same game on a worldwide scale.
I am sure there is plenty of people who didn't think and say anything like that when they were 19, i.e. they were already mature.
Unfortunately, they have not much say in how FB is doing its business. Why are we giving MZ benefit of the doubt, when there is plenty of likely more mature people?
The differences in maturity between 19 and 31 are tremendous, while those between 60 and 70 are virtually non existent, so no, these cases are not quite similar at all.
For what it's worth, rental car companies won't allow drivers under 25 because their insurance companies have a wealth of data to demonstrate that's when reliable levels of independent judgement emerge. For the same reason, militaries prefer soldiers who are under 25.
"For what it's worth, rental car companies won't allow drivers under 25 because their insurance companies have a wealth of data to demonstrate that's when reliable levels of independent judgement emerge. For the same reason, militaries prefer soldiers who are under 25."
That's a very uncommon and great way to look at military recruitment. I've been focusing on the "not enough judgment for beer or voting but good enough for murder" angle but I think I might quote you too. ;)
The simple solution to anyone concerned about this is to just stop using Facebook. I've done so and it turned out to be a great decision. Contrary to the belief that you'll be "left out," people can and do get in touch with you for the important things. SMS, email, phone, snapchat, etc all work really well today, and you can get your social news fix from reddit, HN, and elsewhere if you need it. I've gotten measurably happier and more productive once I stopped using FB completely and haven't lost touch with any of my friends.
I went through the relatively laborious process of unfollowing every individual and group and now just use it to learn details of events, for other apps which require an account, and to prevent anyone from impersonating me by creating an account in my name (Although I'm not particularly worried about that one.).
I also deleted pretty much all personal details and locked down privacy and removed all posts, images, and tags.
You're absolutely right, it's a pleasure not to deal with that terrible newsfeed filled with so much misinformation and bad memes. I go on twitter a bit more but there you can curate a sweet list of incredible people in any field to follow.
I couldn't agree with you more. I did the same a year ago and couldn't be happier. To be honest it made me really close with friends that really matters in my life.
Having never used Facebook I find that I don't need it for most things.
But, there are some activities in which I'm involved where almost all discussion and event organisation takes place on Facebook. My participation has thus decreased significantly over the past decade.
The organiser of one such event (to which I've been going for years) mentioned to me recently that of the approx. 20 people giving presentations there I was the only one not on Facebook, requiring him to email me separately. Many people wouldn't make that effort any more.
I absolutely agree with you on what you said. But how do you deal with the problem, when you have to, say, create an event and make people aware of it? Are there any alternatives to FB?
that could work, if you already know all the people you want to invite.
but if you want to make people outside your circle aware of your event? like a hackathon or a party. This is the only thing that keeps me on FB, and it's very frustrating
Or you can just use a subset of it, where privacy is of no concern. Those craigslist-esque groups that have been popping up are immensely useful. Especially with the built-in messenger.
There is an interesting resistance, usually from US people, when it's a company; the debate nearly always ends up as "then don't use it", and that companies should be able to decide and do whatever people willing to allow the, by using the service.
These people usually refuse to see that FB has become a generic provider without regulation and competitor and in numerous cases you don't have the choice not use it. In my case, it's even in my workplace now. (Same workplace which is looking to migrate to Gmail from Exchange - and Cyrus before that - despite the countless business secrets that might be in mails.)
Quoting a person talks to everyone, even to those who trust a company no one should.
But thank you for these link, it kind of proves that the quote still stands.
If it's not clear that Zuckerberg has matured into a responsible leader since FB started, then I don't know what you've been reading.
And I'm saying this as somebody who has had major gripes with FB in the past, having worked on social games and had to deal with the platform and Credits.
I just want to give a shoutout to the subreddit "Stallman was right." [0]
Because if there's one thing that Stallman has consistently predicted, it's that if you give your private data to a firm, they will absolutely use it however they want.
So does the Mark Zuckerberg of today still have the ability to directly access that kind of information? What, if any, safeguards are in place? Asking because it seems kind of an obvious issue.
Why is this even part of the discussion. This was a long time ago and we have no objective proof that they are in the business of abusing privacy and trust. I'm all for a good discussion of multiple view points but not via something thats baseless. If he had shown signs of having no regard for privacy in recent times then fine. But he's time and time again spoken of privacy. Leaving all that aside, they are audited by a 3rd party. That cannot and should not be negated by some frivolous use of a person's statement when he was far less mature and handling far less responsibility. Let's not breed unhealthy conversation please.
I think its a perfectly valid part of the discussion. Facebook holds a great deal of power with the kinds of personal data they possess so I don't have a problem whatsoever holding them to the highest standard possible when it comes to private information.
Holding them to the highest standard and having a discussion is fine. Bringing up non applicable points from the past is not ok. The premise being made in that argument was "mark was untrustworthy as a student and therefore he should be treated with suspicion now". That premise is flawed as it has no logical connection to the present. If someone can bring proof that Mark still doesn't care about privacy and is cavalier about it, fine. That point doesn't do that. Therefore, it shouldn't be part of the discussion.
I think it's unfair to judge someone on what they said when they were 19 and just starting in the world. We were all kids once.
I'm quite certain that everyone in the world has said silly things at certain stages of their life that could be used against them and would paint their cause in a horrible light - and by everyone I mean visionaries like Nelson Mandela, The Dali Lama, etc. and of course your run-of-the mill leaders and inspirational people.
I've worked with many startups. Seeing the security practices of early stage products, I am astounded that anyone gives them data. It's horrifying.
Like, right now I have access to some 300,000 phone numbers. All I gotta do is run a shell command and then a SQL query. So can any other engineer in the company. I trust that none of us would use this access maliciously, but how many of our passwords have been leaked in various hacks? What if we're targeted for a hack? What if somebody gets fired and becomes pissy? Hell, what if someone suffers a psychiatric episode and does something stupid?
Situation has been the same at every startup I have ever worked at.
Anyone who gives their data to an early stage startup is not considering all the implications. Me included. I do it all the time. Gotta have all the shiny tools.
And that is of little concern to anyone impacted by such an abuse and of little concern to a 19 year old having a "Holy shit people trust me" moment. I had similar moments running my own stuff in college, if you quoted me out of context I would sound way eviler than Zuck's quote I'm sure. Power, even just a modicum of power, makes 19 year old say dumb shit.
That whole thing about impulse control and executive functions of the brain not being fully developed until you're 25.
The more important question is did he ever abuse that access? [in a way that isn't described in the TOS]
"The more important question is did he ever abuse that access? [in a way that isn't described in the TOS]"
The terms of service is one of those shrink-wrap style of licenses that gives them close to free reign. There's plenty of abuse and sneakiness of Facebook on record. He was fine with it all. He also wasn't 19 during most of it. He also still does things that contradict his profit-motivated claims like most scumbags do. Key one being lying about value of privacy while buying nearby properties to ensure his.
It's not that his opponents are taking one moment of an honest or halfway-decent businessman's past to paint a picture of his entire life. He's ensured that him being an ambitious, lying scumbag with a similar company is what we see him as despite the PR work. He tries hard to justify those actions over time. Then this bombshell dropped which fit totally with his actions over a long period of time to the present moment. As in, "screw everyone and get rich." It's just extra, more-specific corroboration of what seemed true all along.
That's why we're giving Zuckerberg so much shit over it. It clearly reflects who he is. He's simply a wiser, moderate monster now. ;)
Facebook has a storied history of firing their employees with no justification based entirely on what they say in private messages in Facebook internal. It's happened to close friends of mine. Companies that adopt the same platform will invariably be allowed to use the same unimpeded and unjust surveillance system. And as has been said in other comments here: this information will be more freely and directly available to the US Government, just as Facebook now builds tools specifically for the government to peruse private personal data.
An individual can opt out of Facebook in their personal lives relatively easily. But it is not an option to reject the primary communication tool of your business -- this platform has the potential of keeping conscientious objectors out of the workforce.
Interesting approach. I kind of like it, but then this information should be public, if ypu want actual good things to happen, and not stored in another private company.
even disregarding that completely. no one will trust facebook with their data. they see it as a toy for people to play with at a home. not a work tool. i see it working in silicon valley but good luck convincing IT managers in the midwest to switch from Microsoft.
Really, Pmlnr? Should we hold you accountable for everything you've said 10 years ago about your friends when they were not there, your spouse, your coworkers, everyone else. People change and the guy was a teenager at the time.
People brag sometimes trying to look greater than they are, so whatever.
If you are attacking someone then please do it on substantive issues. (something that can be prosecuted)
For example the fact that Facebook engages in censorship (as does Google and Twitter by the way) and actively pushes propaganda trying their best to manipulate the US election. That's a real issue that might lead to some people being sued or even imprisoned after the election if their candidate doesn't win.
Sure. Also:
Just keep remembering that as well, please.