×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Zuckerberg's Side of 'The Social Network'

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the wonder-how-he-pronounces-beelion dept.

Facebook 217

alkasem sent in a video clip where Mark Zuckerberg, speaking at Y-Combinator, tells his side of The Social Network. He says [the movie-makers] "can't wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things." I did really like that a monologue describing Zuckerberg building his first website was shockingly technically accurate — they mention tools, tasks and languages, and show screenshots that were all more or less exactly how we were doing things back then.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

217 comments

Zuckerberg is a douche (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33944964)

Enough said.

Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (5, Interesting)

kuzb (724081) | more than 3 years ago | (#33944970)

He didn't build it because he "likes building things". He built it because he wanted to make money. Facebook is designed from the ground up to do just that - violate your privacy and make the company money in the process.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (-1, Offtopic)

tgd (2822) | more than 3 years ago | (#33944988)

Did you forget to take your pill this morning?

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (-1, Flamebait)

kuzb (724081) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945200)

No, but I think I found yours.

People such as yourself are why Slashdot is losing relevancy on the internet. Combine that with the fact that the idiotic timeout between posts stifles meaningful discussion and you have the site which has descended to shit sandwich status. Not a problem though, I'll allow you and all the rest to continue your circle jerk, unfettered by opposing opinions you're incapable of handling.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (4, Funny)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945950)

I'll allow you and all the rest

Oh thank you good sir, how can we ever repay your generosity?

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (3, Funny)

binkzz (779594) | more than 3 years ago | (#33944994)

He didn't build it because he "likes building things". He built it because he wanted to make money. Facebook is designed from the ground up to do just that - violate your privacy and make the company money in the process.

To be fair, his initial motivation wasn't money but to make something that let him share all the nude pictures of the girls at college.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (4, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945040)

If you believe what the multi-billion dollar worth guy who owns the company which is making cash hand-over-fist while violating your privacy says about the roots of the website.

You couldn't get a more biased source.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (1)

binkzz (779594) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945148)

I was somewhat sarcastic; I don't think the ''share nudies without girls' consent'' is any better a motivation.

I had to read your sentence four or five times before I could understand it.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (2, Insightful)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945166)

You couldn't get a more biased source.

You must be new here..... You post a summary on Slashdot, you get 30 more biased sources within 30 min.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (1, Troll)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945370)

You must be new here..... You post a summary on Slashdot, you get 30 more biased sources within 30 min.

The worst part is that it is 30 biased and uninformed sources. At least Zuckerberg knows whether what he is saying is the truth or not. All the people here who post definitively that he was only in it to make money are just giving their gut feeling and they cannot possibly be basing it on fact. There is a 50% chance that they might be right, but they really can't say for sure.

It doesn't stop them from being modded as Insightful though.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (2, Interesting)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945734)

He is a biased source, yes. He's also the only source capable of 100% knowing the truth of why he decided to do something. It's up to the readers to decide if they prefer first-hand information from a biased source or second-hand information, guesses and suppositions from other, potentially also biased sources, or better yet, a mix of both.

Your simply dismissing somebody because he has a potential bias and, from the sounds of your post, runs a website you don't like isn't exactly the smartest thing in the world. Especially when you bring up things like him being a multi-billion-dollar-worth-guy (that is both debatable and entirely imaginary right now) and how the site is making cash "hand-over-fist" despite only being profitable for about the last year, which is questionable in general and totally unrelated to whether or not he is telling the truth about his original motivations.

I have no trouble believing that Zuckerberg is an ass. I have no trouble believing that his primary motivation now is money. But there is also good evidence that that was not always the case, such as the fact that Facebook used to be a fairly closed community available only to college students with a .edu email address.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (1)

fooslacker (961470) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945916)

If you believe what the multi-billion dollar worth guy who owns the company which is making cash hand-over-fist while violating your privacy says about the roots of the website. You couldn't get a more biased source.

Sure you could just go to a news site discussion forum filled with underachieving idealistic tech people who are jealous of the billionaire's success with a seemingly pointless piece of software that violates some of their core principles.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33945068)

And there isn't a more worthy cause in all the world. Freedom of information? Pfft. Freedom of tits or GTFO.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33945090)

Pretty much this right here, although he would never ever admit it.

To be able to make something like that to get all the girls and attention would have been a great idea in the mind of someone in his position at his age.

Money then became a secondary thing.
Yes, the site was wide open for scrapers, but it wasn't the initial reasoning for the design, it was from an ease-of-use standpoint that the site was wide-open in the way it was.
Having a social networking site with everything locked the hell down is absolutely backwards. But then we have all the crybabies moaning over their privacy being violated when they hand over their information to a 3rd party who can do pretty much whatever the hell they want with it since less than 10% of its users probably know what a privacy policy is.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945120)

That sounds like a plan to make money as well. do a search for "nude pictures of girls"... I hear it's a real cash cow.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945054)

He built it because he wanted to make money.

Take a look at the current Slashdot poll: most folks would like to travel back in time to invest in something.

So Zuckerberg has good company, even among Slashdot folks. Pretty sad, actually.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (3, Insightful)

kuzb (724081) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945094)

I don't mind that people make companies to make money. I just find it sad that he has to get up and lie about his own motivations. He's attempting to put a positive spin on his motivations when all his recent actions suggest just the opposite.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (1)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945212)

I don't mind that people make companies to make money. I just find it sad that he has to get up and lie about his own motivations. He's attempting to put a positive spin on his motivations when all his recent actions suggest just the opposite.

I don't think that points the original motivation to be a lie, focuses change all the time, he may very well have been motivated differently at first and became motivated by money and evolve into a corporate douchebag over time.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (1)

kuzb (724081) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945290)

It's possible that this [businessinsider.com] is an urban myth, possibly fabricated. I'll let you judge for yourself.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (1)

X.25 (255792) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945568)

Take a look at the current Slashdot poll: most folks would like to travel back in time to invest in something.

So Zuckerberg has good company, even among Slashdot folks. Pretty sad, actually.

Yeah, but you don't see them spewing shit like Zuckerberg, in front of a camera, do you?

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33945088)

You're quite the whiny little bitch, huh?

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945140)

He didn't build it because he "likes building things". He built it because he wanted to make money. Facebook is designed from the ground up to do just that

There is nothing wrong with wanting to make money and that desire isn't exclusive with wanting to build things. My problem with Zuckerberg is that in addition to those desires he has had nearly complete disrespect for Facebook users and their prerogative to make decisions about the distribution of their private information.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (5, Insightful)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945142)

Speaking as someone who was in college when facebook first started being used I have the strong feeling it started out as just an application he was building that he thought was cool. You generally don't put such hard limits on your user-base if you're simply interested in money right off the bat. Of course, once it started getting used and taking off the natural question is how do I best make money of this, and the natural answer is advertisements and data. Then your little hobby project turns into a profit driven company. I really don't think he had the foresight to sit down and say "How can I best create an internet phenomenon that everyone will use in order to get everyone's user data and information and sell it to advertisers to make millions?" and then immediately bang out facebook. That's generally not how people/life works. There's a natural progression and a shifting of goals/values, the world is not binary.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (5, Insightful)

btcoal (1693074) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945332)

I completely agree.

First, some claim Zuckerberg didn’t build Facebook. Zuckerberg was actually hired by fellow Harvard undergraduates to build a website similar to Facebook. The more accurate accusation as that he stole the idea of Facebook. All articles on the inception of the website clearly state that Zuckerberg wrote the code himself. No one is going to claim that Zuckerberg was the next Don Knuth, Facebook was mainly hacked together using PHP over a couple of nights.

Second, some claim Zuckerberg is just in it for the money. If that were true he could have sold out a LONG time ago for around $1 billion. I think the subtext about building things just because you like to build things is that Zuckerberg is building his company not just for the money. I seriously doubt most of the posters on Slashdot, at the age of 22 would not have taken $1billion for a side project they worked on at school. It takes a special kind of person to have that resolve. Those are the people we should venerate in this country not vilify.

Third, some claim Zuckerberg is a douche. This is largely irrelevant. Most of us geeks aren’t the nicest guys in the world, let’s be real. Borderline Asperger’s/autism is rampant as is narcissism and a complete lack of humility. Find me a geek without a major personality flaw and you haven’t found a geek.

Moreover, I find it ironic that men like Bill Gates and Zuckerberg are constantly shat on here, but Steve Jobs is lauded as the second coming of Christ. If you read about the early history of Apple, you could make perfect parallels between the criticisms leveled at Zuckerberg and Jobs’s rise and fall and rise. Steve Jobs is megalomaniac clearly demonstrated sociopathic tendencies, has questionable tech credentials and could not give two shits about his customers’ opinions. And Apple is all the better for it.

So why does /. hate Zuckerberg so much? I think it is largely a generational divide. Many of you come from the gold old days of tech (command lines, walking five miles in the snow to get your code to compile, etc) and don’t really understand that just because something wasn’t challenging in a technical sense it is still HUGELY useful to millions of people. I was basically part of the first generation to use Facebook in college. It has been a great service for keeping track of friends from high school and family on the other side of the country/world. I can share pictures, stories, articles, links, lolcats and memories on one unified platform. The interface has always been super user friendly and clean. For the vast majority of college students (and increasingly everyone else) Facebook is as essential and important as Wikipedia or YouTube (the latter’s founders sold out for around $165million to Google, I should remind you). So let’s chill with the hating on Zuckerberg’s success. It’s all just a bit tacky and hypocritical.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (5, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945482)

So why does /. hate Zuckerberg so much?

Perhaps because the boy doesn't believe that privacy is a good thing? He is on the record as saying that anyone who wants privacy must be unethical. He uses Facebook to try to undermine the very concept of privacy in our society, and he is doing that at a time when the 4th amendment is being attacked by the government.

Or maybe we were all perfectly content with communicating with our friends and families using interoperable systems that are not designed to lock us in. Everything about Facebook is designed like the Hotel California, and Zuckerberg knows that but refuses to make any meaningful changes.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (1)

theY4Kman (1519023) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946122)

Everything about Facebook is designed like the Hotel California, and Zuckerberg knows that but refuses to make any meaningful changes.

Wasn't it reported a couple weeks ago that Facebook rolled out a download your profile option [slashdot.org] ? And for years now, they've allowed you to completely delete your profile and any record they had of it (with a grain of salt). So maybe you can't use Facebook while feeling completely safe, but at least know there is a highway option.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945732)

Hey, I do not hate Zuckerberg [slashdot.org] (yup, that's the man himself in slashdot!.

As always, there is a vocal majority in Slashdot that gets their panties in a bunch about public web pages making public information that people willfully upload.

I even find it funny how (if you see /. as a whole) the same site that bitches about Facebook publishing data, gets all crazy when a lady wants to maintain some information published in her webpage as private.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945838)

Those of us who interact with non-techies know that a lot of people still think that "privacy settings" on Facebook translate to "information not being public." They have no concept of the information being used on an ongoing basis by Facebook, without regard to their privacy settings. Most people are surprised to learn that Facebook actually keeps a log of every single action they take on the website, even something as simple as looking at someone's profile, from the very moment they sign up.

Maybe if Facebook were more upfront about it, things would not be as bad. Things would still be bad -- there is also the lack of interoperability with other systems, the fact that Facebook is proprietary software, etc. -- but at least they would be a little more honest with their users.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (2, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945832)

Why should we venerate him because he didn't sold? I'd understand if he hadn't sold to prevent an "evil company" from taking over, but Facebook is already data mining people's private data. Selling wouldn't make it worse.

Third, some claim Zuckerberg is a douche. This is largely irrelevant. Most of us geeks aren't the nicest guys in the world, let's be real. Borderline Asperger's/autism is rampant as is narcissism and a complete lack of humility. Find me a geek without a major personality flaw and you haven't found a geek.

An obnoxious guy can be avoided. At most he's somewhat a pain for the few people who have to interact with him.

Zuckerberg is data mining the private data of millions of people, introducing protocols and formats incompatible with the standards (see OpenGraph), sucking info frm other websites while at the same time not providing themselves, and more.
He and his company has a stronghold over the web that no average geek has.

Steve Jobs is lauded as the second coming of Christ

Ok, here you're talking about a different Slashdot.

So why does /. hate Zuckerberg so much? I think it is largely a generational divide.

Bullshit. /. has plenty of "fresh blood" (myself included) and lots of new technologies are well regarded here by both old and young.

just because something wasn't challenging in a technical sense it is still HUGELY useful to millions of people

Plenty of stuff is well regarded even if it isn't challenging in a technical sense. Stack Overflow isn't exactly rocket science and yet every programmer I've read likes it (or at least, doesn't hate it).

We simply value privacy more than the general people, who in many cases don't even understand the concept. We don't like being tracked, data mined, followed, spied upon, logged.
We also don't like releasing control of our data over to others, to do as they please. We know the perils of that.

Most people are ignorant about it, just like I'm ignorant about many other stuff less related with my interests.

But don't get me wrong: I don't "hate" Zuckerberg. But you won't find me on Facebook, and it's not because it's not useful.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946030)

Steve Jobs is lauded as the second coming of Christ.

ROFL, wow... you *really* don't spend a lot of time around here, do you?

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (3, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945440)

it started out as just an application he was building that he thought was cool

Perhaps, but I have to wonder why, then, did he ignore calls for interoperability, even early on before he was a billionaire. Perhaps he didn't think interoperability was cool?

The way I see things, he saw how profitable social networking websites were becoming, and thought he would give it a shot. I doubt he knew that it would become so popular, but he certainly knew the concept was popular (or should I say, the people who thought up ConnectU saw the concept was popular, then Zuckerberg ran with the idea).

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33946082)

There are 10 types of people in this world. Those who believe the world is binary and those who don't.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33945194)

How many people can adhere to the principle of good faith?
Welcome to our website:http://www.uggsexboots.com, professionalsnow boots [uggsexboots.com] online mall, provide

high quality service to the parity

women boots,ugg boots,boots on sale,cheap ugg boots,snow boots,winter boots [uggsexboots.com] .

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945384)

He didn't build it

Sufficient to stop there, I think. Can't say more. Lawyers have ears like bats. Fangs, too.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (1)

MojoRilla (591502) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945418)

I disagree. If he wanted to make money, the site would have been crawling with ads, and would have imploded. In the absense of other believable data, I believe he wanted to build it because he liked to build things, and that he wanted to make something successful.

Off topic, what is with all the Zuckerberg hate on Slashdot? He is a techie made good. He is living most coder's dreams. Is it that he invented it, and you didn't?

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33945666)

I disagree. If he wanted to make money, the site would have been crawling with ads, and would have imploded. In the absense of other believable data, I believe he wanted to build it because he liked to build things, and that he wanted to make something successful.

Off topic, what is with all the Zuckerberg hate on Slashdot? He is a techie made good. He is living most coder's dreams. Is it that he invented it, and you didn't?

Maybe. Or maybe it's because he stole the motherfucker and straight up lied about it (and still does). People like that don't deserve respect.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (2)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945762)

I disagree. If he wanted to make money, the site would have been crawling with ads, and would have imploded. In the absense of other believable data, I believe he wanted to build it because he liked to build things, and that he wanted to make something successful.

Off topic, what is with all the Zuckerberg hate on Slashdot? He is a techie made good. He is living most coder's dreams. Is it that he invented it, and you didn't?

Here's a question: How did he make billions without the site crawling with ads?

Answer: Selling your personal information without your consent.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945918)

I disagree. If he wanted to make money, the site would have been crawling with ads, and would have imploded.

Maybe he wanted to make money and he's not stupid? "Making money" doesn't have to mean a fast buck - it may mean making money on a longer run.

And btw, many techies live the coder's dream and they're well regarded here - Sid Maier, Wozniak, Carmack, etc - that "jealousy excuse" doesn't stick.

Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (1)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945608)

I tend to believe him. Most good "money making" ideas didn't start out as such, Typically anything built with nothing but monetary aspirations tend to be incredibly generic and uninspired. That's not to say you can't capitalize on something you love doing but the real big hit ideas have a lot of love for the process and the results beyond just money.

Whether he did it just because he wanted to build something, or he was looking for social notoriety (or both) I can't say but I don't really see his initial intentions being based on money. It seems to me that it wasn't until the thing blew up that he decided to capitalize on it.

Really? (1)

Eddi3 (1046882) | more than 3 years ago | (#33944976)

I guess now I have to see the movie just to see them get something about computers right for once.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33945198)

I liked the movie. It really tries to get the computer stuff right - imagine the opposite of a Dan Brown novel - and I had some sympathy for the Zuckerburg character, who was portrayed with sympathy I felt. And I couldn't drag myself away from the plot even to go to the loo halfway, which Hollywood movies normally let me do at the end of Act 2 (i.e. the boring bit where hero and heroine/mentor normally say nothing much).

No shock there. (2, Interesting)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#33944978)

[the movie-makers] “can’t wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things.”

No kidding. We've seen evidence of that from lots of big corporations - particularly in the entertainment business - for ten years or more.

It wouldn't surprise me if someone replies to this post with some sort of evidence of that mindset being so heavily entrenched that goes back much further - decades or even centuries.

Re:No shock there. (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945850)

It's called drama and yes, it does go back centuries. Characters with unorthodox motivations aren't very compelling and are difficult to make the audience care about. That's why you see a pallet of similar motivations in most films: greed, lust, love, vengeance, survival, and justice. Characters who lack these motivations usually aren't motivated by anything, they're just driven forward by circumstance.

No matter what he says... (0)

JeffSpudrinski (1310127) | more than 3 years ago | (#33944980)

He's in it strictly for the money. He's tech savvy, yes...but he's simply trying to find technical ways to share as much information for profit as he can.

Just my $0.02.

-JJS

Re:No matter what he says... (3, Interesting)

Jimmy King (828214) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945078)

I'm sure he's in it strictly for the money now, but it is possible that initially he built it just because it would be fun. I've started a number of projects just to see if I could do it, what kind of difficulties come up that I haven't thought of, etc. and then later realized that it was actually kind of useful and I could probably make money off of it with some marketing and time spent maintaining it. The difference being he wanted the money bad enough to follow through on that thought while I have decided it was going to be way too much work with a high risk of failure in the end to be worth quitting my stable day job to try.

Re:No matter what he says... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33945116)

I'm sure he's in it strictly for the money now, but it is possible that initially he built it just because it would be fun.

With a nice jewish name like Zuckerberg, it was always strictly about the money. And if this jew has to jizz all over your fucking privacy to make an extra buck, he'll do it too.

poor guy (2, Funny)

colmore (56499) | more than 3 years ago | (#33944990)

I really feel for these poor misunderstood billionaires.

Re:poor guy (2, Funny)

binkzz (779594) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945026)

I really feel for these poor misunderstood billionaires.

We should set up some form of charity fund for them.

We? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33945168)

that's properly the job of the US Senate

Re:poor guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33945250)

I hear the Republicans want to protect the tax cuts for the poor billionaires. It's the "trickle down" aka "piss on regular people" economics philosophy.

Re:poor guy (1)

bluie- (1172769) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945322)

10 cents of every dollar will go directly to billionaires, the rest will be "administrative costs"

Re:poor guy (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945048)

I really feel for these poor misunderstood billionaires.

I prefer to state it this way:

I really feel for these poor misunderstood overnight billionaires.

When you make a billion that fast, you stepped in it BIG TIME.

Re:poor guy (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945214)

I know what you mean, they don't go out in public or have any privacy...er, wait that is just a typical facebook addict...nevermind.

Too busy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33945012)

I'm too busy on farmville to watch this movie...

I still can't understand how this all came to pass (5, Insightful)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945056)

Facebook was nothing new or revolutionary. There was Friendster way before it came along, Granted, FB was a lot better than MySpace (it's biggest competitor at the time), but that was more due to a failing on the part of MySpace than on the merits of FB. Social networking sites are not really complicated.. Why so much worship, hatred, and jealousy over this?

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p (2, Interesting)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945118)

Yeah, Mark knows about friendster. Check out his profile.

http://profiles.friendster.com/950378

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p (1)

ZOmegaZ (687142) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945154)

Most victory comes, not from your own brilliance, but from instantly exploiting your enemies' stupid mistakes.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p (5, Insightful)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945206)

It's extremely simple. Before Facebook, it was still considered weird to use your real name on a website. Most names on MySpace were like "johnnys123" rather than "John Smith". Obviously using real names is much more desirable, and one of the main reasons Facebook became popular. And the reason people were willing to use real names on Facebook was because you needed a .ac.uk or .edu email address to get an account, and only people from your uni could see your profile.

In a nutshell:

1. It was much more secure than the alternatives.
2. So people felt ok using real names and details, and allowing other people to see their profiles (because only people from the same uni could).
3. The use of real details made it much more friendly and useful.

There were other reasons too:

1. It didn't look like shit like MySpace.
2. Due to the .ac.uk/.edu requirement it wasn't filled with idiots.
3. Luck.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945506)

1. It was much more secure than the alternatives.

Hmm...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1255888/Facebook-founder-Mark-Zuckerberg-hacked-emails-rivals-journalists.html [dailymail.co.uk]

Not that I disagree with you, but I think Zuckerberg, like most tech. billionaires, played on a general ignorance about technology.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p (1)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945642)

Not sure that link is relevant. It is about Zuckerberg hacking into *email* accounts, not Facebook accounts (which of course he doesn't need to hack into).

Also, not a good idea to back anything up with a link to the Daily Mail! :-)

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945692)

What allegedly happened was that he use Facebook to gain access to email accounts -- in a sense, Facebook became a security liability for the victims. This actually came out again later, when it was revealed that Facebook records every single action each user takes on their site, and never deletes the records:

http://therumpus.net/2010/01/conversations-about-the-internet-5-anonymous-facebook-employee/ [therumpus.net]

By then, though, network effects had taken over.

As for the choice of sources...well, I just grabbed the first thing that came up on Google. Not the best strategy, but this is not exactly a conference paper...

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945242)

Facebook was nothing new or revolutionary.

There's a hell of a lot more to success than simply being new or revolutionary.

There was Friendster way before it came along,

And others.

Granted, FB was a lot better than MySpace (it's biggest competitor at the time), but that was more due to a failing on the part of MySpace than on the merits of FB.

Facebook also had a bit of exclusivity going for it, since you initially had to be a college student. Folks like exclusivity.

Social networking sites are not really complicated..

Nope, they aren't. Which is why there are so many different variations on the theme.

Why so much worship, hatred, and jealousy over this?

Facebook is the de-facto standard. It's the one that caught on. It's the one that pretty much everyone uses. It's the 800lb gorilla in the room.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p (1)

weirdcrashingnoises (1151951) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945294)

Why so much worship, hatred, and jealousy over this?

Money. Facebook logs the most human hours of any social website, and two months ago passed Google in the US. Not sure where it ranks globally right now.

Also in regards to Zuckerberg's opinion: I doubt it has to do with the creators having difficulty wrapping their heads' around a concept. It's more likely that no one wants to see a movie about somebody who "might build something because they like building things." That and the movie-makers would much rather wrap their hands around a boat-load of money.

Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33945412)

Not sure about worship, but I think you answered the hatred and jealousy part: any idiot could have made Facebook, Zuckerburg IS an idiot and made billions of dollars.

Wrong answer (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945060)

Yes, I understand that people build things because they like building things (I'm one of those).
But the question is why did he, Zuckerberg, create facebooks. Because there is no evidence that shows that he actually built anything, it was all made by others. Sure, he made some drawings on a napkin of something that sort of resembles facebook. But calling that building facebook is just ludicrous.

Re:Wrong answer (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945146)

To expand on my own post, building things because you like the build things still isn't an answer to why you decided to build that thing, you could have made some other thing. Why did he decide to "build" facebook, and not youtube, or flickr.

Impressing girls (2, Funny)

O'Nazareth (1203258) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945098)

a fictional Mark Zuckerberg builds the site in order to impress a girl

This is a silly idea anyway to think that writing some PHP code will get you laid.

Re:Impressing girls (3, Funny)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945204)

Yes, everyone knows you need python for that.

Re:Impressing girls (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945334)

I think they they meant a different snake, I think it was a trouser snake.
But you can also fallback to jewelery, perl and ruby spring to mind.
Otherwise you can try your luck over a hot cup of java.

Re:Impressing girls (1)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945254)

It's also a silly idea to think that much done by a male that age is done for any other reason.

I thought he wasn't going to see it? (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945110)

I remember Zuckerberg stating that he felt that he expected the movie to portray him unfairly and that he would not see it. I guess he changed his mind. I'm glad, because now he knows that many other people see that some of the things he does are scummy.

Re:I thought he wasn't going to see it? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945330)

I remember Zuckerberg stating

We can't say for sure if Mr Zuckerberg did or didn't say that, but [...] excuse me, I misspoke. I meant that we are 100% absolutely sure that he didn't, and we can and will prove it in court.

Re:I thought he wasn't going to see it? (1)

rho180 (1057712) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945424)

I'm not so sure if he has seen it. I've seen the movie and I didn't think it painted him as doing it for the money. The motivations presented were mostly petty jealousy, a bit of revenge, and yes, doing it because he thought it was a cool project. I don't know the real Mark Zuckerberg, but the fictional one in the movie, while clearly a douchebag, was also a smart guy who had the motivation, energy, and guts to follow through on his idea. Not the worst light to be painted in.

Re:I thought he wasn't going to see it? (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945768)

I heard that comment too, from a completely non tech, non-materialistically orientated friend. She thought the film made him look good, showing him to be someone full of drive.

HACK the power! (1, Interesting)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945126)

Does anyone else find it a bit annoying that a corporate computer giant billionaire like Zuckerberg is wearing a HACK T-Shirt?
Is he trying to be ironic or cool or something?

Is noone here aware of the actual history of Fb? (5, Insightful)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945176)

All the comments say that he was in it for the money from the start. Facebook didn't have a real financial model for years. Facebook, which started at a single university, and spread to a few more, eventually opening up to anyone with a .edu address was a different Facebook than the one we know today. Maybe the percentage of slashdotters that were in college when Facebook was strictly for .edu user is so small you are unaware. Trust me, alotta people were pissed when Fb opened up to everyone and started commercializing- it has been downhill ever since- But to say that it has been a privacy violating money maker since the get go is complete bullshit.

Re:Is noone here aware of the actual history of Fb (2, Interesting)

liquiddark (719647) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945574)

This is a fallacy. Lots of internet sites don't have a financial model at the outset; that was practically the defining trait for dot-coms during the bubble. That does not mean the people building and running those sites do not have a financial incentive in mind, it simply means they're following a get big fast [joelonsoftware.com] , Amazon-style growth model.

Re:Is noone here aware of the actual history of Fb (2, Informative)

xtracto (837672) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945776)

Jeez, that is actually what they show in The S.N. movie! Even, the way they paint it, Zuckerberg stopped his friends ambitions of putting advertising for a long time!

Re:Is noone here aware of the actual history of Fb (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945780)

The real history? Never going to come out; Facebook's PR department is working to bury it, and reconstruct it as being another case of someone having a great idea while in college.

What everything points to is this: around 2003, it was clear that social networking websites were taking off and that we might have a new way to make money with websites. Two brothers at Harvard thought they would get in on the action with ConnectU. Zuckerberg may or may not have agreed to work for them, but somehow he also thought he would get it on the action with TheFaceBook. College students were a better target because Zuckerberg was a college student so he better understood his victims (for lack of a better word -- Facebook users are certainly not the customers or market). I doubt that Zuckerberg believed Facebook would become as popular as it has become, but I wouldn't say that he just thought it was a cool idea -- I strongly doubt that he even came up with the idea.

Lapdogs (1, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945216)

I never understand why society is so ready to suck the cock of someone who invented a new way to waste time, while failing to recognize the people who actually contribute to progress. Turn on CNN - Facebook stories. Read slashdot - Facebook stories. Go to the movies - Facebook the fucking movie.

What a fucking coincidence. And people never realize how easy it is to buy a little publicity, especially with all the Bad Things (tm) Facebook has been doing lately, and especially when you have a lot of money. Nope, the sheep just lap it up. Zuckerberg is a GOD! Put him on an altar!

Et tu, slashdot?

Re:Lapdogs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33945312)

I never understand why society is so ready to suck the cock of someone who invented a new way to waste time, while failing to recognize the people who actually contribute to progress. Turn on CNN - Facebook stories. Read slashdot - Facebook stories. Go to the movies - Facebook the fucking movie.

What a fucking coincidence. And people never realize how easy it is to buy a little publicity, especially with all the Bad Things (tm) Facebook has been doing lately, and especially when you have a lot of money. Nope, the sheep just lap it up. Zuckerberg is a GOD! Put him on an altar!

Et tu, slashdot?

No Steve Jobs is God. Zucks just a cheap copy. :)

Re:Lapdogs (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945658)

I get that you're trying to be funny, but Jobs is almost the exact opposite as Zuckerberg. Like the parent said, Facebook is an invented "waste of time." Jobs has always prioritized Macs as tools rather than toys. Even the iPod/iPhone/iPad aren't designed to be a waste of time: the iPod compliments what you would already be doing (exercising, driving, ect.), the iPhone has plenty of useless apps (like Facebook) but is primarily designed to be a more productive phone. The iPad is the closest thing to a pointless time-sink, but I don't consider reading to be a waste of time and to me the iPad is an e-reader first.

Hell, Zuckerberg is worse than Gates. Gates may have also been an evil bastard but at least Office is useful. At least Gates became successful by being a sly bastard and fooling people into "partnering" with him rather than just outright stealing a project he was hired to work on. The only thing more pathetic than people actually using Facebook despite being well aware the jackass who runs it is these kids who actually look up to him. We're looking at a generation of kids who glorify the greatest shortcomings of capitalism and who will exploit those shortcomings given the opportunity.

Re:Lapdogs (4, Interesting)

netsharc (195805) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945364)

A few years ago people were batshit insane about Second Life... and now it's disappeared from the headlines. Hopefully this will be the Year of Facebook, i.e. next year it'll be yet another niche company.

Re:Lapdogs (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945428)

We never had "Second Life: The Movie"... I think only nerds and pedophiles actually played second life, whereas facebook is full of middle-aged divorcees suffering from empty nest syndrome.

Re:Lapdogs (1)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945686)

Well, there was lot of hype about Second Life...but Facebook differs from that with fact that people actually uses it for every day communication with friends. Horror, isn't it.

In fact, I don't dig that social networks hate floating around these days. Geeks use them. Common crowd use them. Some overdose them heavily. Some have their social necessities fulfilled. Some try to use it to replace something they don't have in life. Some use them just for fun - and get it plenty. Go figure.

Re:Lapdogs (2, Funny)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945614)

Turn on CNN - Facebook stories. Read slashdot - Facebook stories. Go to the movies - Facebook the fucking movie.

What a fucking coincidence...... Zuckerberg is a GOD! Put him on an altar!

Seems you are obsessed with Facebook... You watch it on TV, read about it on forums and go see movies about it? Wow man, you must be hella-good friend-stock

That doesn't really jive... (2, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945280)

cant wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things.

If someone just wanted to build something, why wouldn't they build something useful, instead of just profitable?

Re:That doesn't really jive... (2, Funny)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945630)

If someone just wanted to build something, why wouldn't they build something useful, instead of just profitable?

Whats the difference? Seems to me he built a money-making machine... seems pretty useful to me,,,

Re:That doesn't really jive... (2, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946000)

If someone just wanted to build something, why wouldn't they build something useful, instead of just profitable?

Yeah, you're right! Obviously those millions and millions of people on Facebook are just, I dunno... dups or something. I mean, it can't *possibly* be useful, 'cuz a Slashbot said so.

Of course, now that I think about it, the answer is quite simple: subliminal brainwashing and an alien conspiracy.

Define "useful" (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946004)

And define it in a way that does not apply exclusively to you.

The 1400 people who work there might disagree, along with anyone they buy things from, or the people who make all those ads, or the hundreds of million of users, and so on and so forth.

We really need to start teaching some basic economics at the grade school level.

Next he'll be saying computers don't go beboop (5, Funny)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945508)

Hollywood strives for accuracy. The Social Network shows Zuckerberg as a precocious 9 year old. He sweeps his hands across the glass wall showing a flyover of facebook in 3D. When an adult asks if he knows what he was doing, he replies "Don't worry this site's password is only protected by fourth polynomial encryption, I'll break it in a few seconds!". With blur-like typing he sets off and the wall fills with a sea of random digits that appear to be crawling along a rotating DNA helix. All of a sudden the screen goes blank and is replaced by a big flashing ALARM sign and a wailing siren. "They must have traced my virus back to the mainframe" he says. "Run!". Then all the magnetic locks on the dinosaur enclosures are tripped and the rest of the movie seems them trying to escape the velociraptors. And that's exactly how it actually happened.

Re:Next he'll be saying computers don't go beboop (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33945912)

You forgot the part about uploading the virus from his Mac onto an alien spacecraft in order to kill the velociraptors.

who cares why? he's still a douche (2, Insightful)

bouldin (828821) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946070)

Who cares why he does anything? He's not a remarkable person. Why do you think the book was called Accidental Billionaires?

More notable is his lack of character. He got where he did by screwing over friends, breaking contracts, and treating FB users with contempt.

Despite some other posts here, not all geeks are like that. The Google guys actually invented something incredible, revolutionized the world, created whole industries, and seem to still have a bright future ahead. Fyodor of NMap created a tool that deserves more geek cool cred than FB + Google combined, yet he manages to remain modest, describing himself as a benevolent steward of his project, even as he makes money from the project and contributes back to the open source / security communities. I can respect those guys.

I fail to see any kind of genius in FB or zuckerberg. PHP ain't rocket science.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...