EDIT: parent comment edited it from 2017 to 2007. That makes a lot more sense

Yeesh, in 2017? Zuckerberg was really young when he get vaulted into power and fame, so I've always been a little more sympathetic than most to his various foot-in-mouth moments[1], particularly in the past. But Jesus, 2017 was _last year_: how is he such a slow study at this?

[1] I should not that I have some pretty severe disagreements with my understanding of his worldview and ethics, but I'm speaking strictly of gaffes here.

Zuckerberg is who he is--the same guy who, in college, called his fellow students "dumb f---s" for trusting him with their data.

People want to excuse that as youth, but he wasn't an 8 year-old; he was an adult, with many of his morals formed. A statement like that is not indicative of immaturity, but insight into character--the way he views himself and other people--and it also reveals a willingness to use dishonesty to take advantage of people for his own gain.

In fact, his entire business model is built on the same "dumb f---s for trusting him" attitude. He has repeatedly monetized the violation of that trust and continues to do so. It's mind-boggling that people continue to allow him to get away with it.

This "gaffe" is not evidence of him being a "slow study", but borne of the same attitude he displayed in college and on many occasions since--one of superiority and condescension to other individuals and groups.

>Zuckerberg is who he is--the same guy who, in college, called his fellow students "dumb f---s" for trusting him with their data.

I don't really get why people constantly bring this up. First of all he's not wrong - anyone with a FB account (including myself) is an idiot for trusting them, and second of all, it's not even really that insensitive. I mean, could most people here really claim to have never said anything as bad as that in college?

It's notable for several reasons.

> First of all he's not wrong - anyone with a FB account (including myself) is an idiot for trusting them

First of all, many intelligent people got FB accounts in the early days because they didn't know / understand the privacy implications. Eg, some of them surely were college students who went on to become neurosurgeons, astronomers, doctors, etc. They acted on a reasonable heuristic - "this web site looks legit, people I know are using it, there appear to be social benefits, and I live in a country where rule of law is generally enforced, so it's probably safe enough." So they were not dumb categorically, even if their decision in this case turned out to be (arguably) dumb.

Second, for you to call the users idiots for trusting FB is one thing. For Zuckerberg to call them idiots for trusting him is different. A scammer probably thinks of his victims as idiots, whereas their friends think of them as regular people who got tricked. The quote sounds like he meant "because of course I'm going to abuse that trust."

And in context (according to https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg), that appears to be exactly what he meant, treating users' information as his own possession.

> 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 f---s

So this quote is brought up not because it shows his insightful analysis of the fact that generally speaking, people should not trust online services, but because it seems to show his own intent, from the beginning, to take advantage of FB users and blame them for trusting him in the first place.

Yes, I agree, which is why I mentioned that I have disagreements with his ethics in general. What I refer to as his gaffes is how bad he seems to be at _hiding_ this from people. Though the fact that it was in 2007 instead of 2017 sort of bolsters my point, as it would be hard to imagine him saying something like this today.

I hear you and not disagreeing. Just adding that there is a lot of hand-wringing over Zuckerberg, his intentions, etc, but it can all be simplified when people recognize--as you have--that he's just not a good human being. In fact, if you really analyze his behavior and how he's wielded his power, there are clear lines of sociopathy that emerge.

So, when I look at it through that lens, whether he's gotten better at avoiding gaffes and all the other analyses just obscure the point that really matters: he's an immensely powerful person with tremendous reach who utterly lacks a moral foundation.

That was 2007.

Chess is something computers do better than humans anyway. Is that really a useful metric?

Fixed year of reference.