Beta
×

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!

Facebook Interviewer Heckled at Web Conference

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the go-home-and-cry-in-your-billions dept.

Social Networks 179

jriding writes "Zuckerberg, the 23-year-old billionaire, was the keynote speaker at the SXSW Interactive Festival in Austin, Texas. Business Week journalist Sarah Lacy took the stage to question Zuckerberg, but the audience quickly grew tired of the topics she focused on, claiming that the real issues were being ignored. "Never, ever have I seen such a train wreck of an interview," claimed audience member, Jason Pontin." The audience apparently wanted to know more about privacy and portability issues, which I guess shouldn't surprise anyone here.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's a difficult balance (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22701700)

On the one hand, you want to be able to post pictures of yourself passed out in your own vomit, stripped down to your panties and french kissing another sorority sister, and simulating fellatio on a blow up doll. On the other hand, you don't want people to be able to copy the pictures and send them around the web.

I think the right word to describe this is FAIL [hoboken411.com]

You can't have your urinal cake and eat it too.

Re:It's a difficult balance (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702044)

You can't have your urinal cake and eat it too.
I'd settle for Facebook making new privacy busting "features" opt-in instead of opt-out.

Re:It's a difficult balance (4, Interesting)

montyzooooma (853414) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702180)

I'd settle for Facebook making new privacy busting "features" opt-in instead of opt-out.

The BBC ran a Money Programme show about social sites earlier in the year and a lot of the people interviewed were shocked and disappointed that their information was being skimmed for advertising purposes. They just wanted to be left alone to enjoy their online embroidery circles, or whatever. But at the end of the day someone has to pay. Assuming you're unable or unwilling to disable the ads isn't it better to be looking at TARGETTED ads rather than random ones?

Re:It's a difficult balance (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702320)

Assuming you're unable or unwilling to disable the ads isn't it better to be looking at TARGETTED ads rather than random ones?

No, marketing is supposed to make you spend money you wouldn't have otherwise spent. If not that, then it's supposed to make you spend money on an option you wouldn't have otherwise chosen. It does this through emotional manipulation, rather than presenting facts and arguing them well, so the better marketed option is usually not the best one.

So ads that are targeted towards me are likely to induce me to spend money I would not have otherwise, and they're likely to make me choose a less optimal option by manipulating my emotions. Random ads are less likely to affect my behavior, so I find them more acceptable. There's really *nothing* good that can come from exposure to marketing.

Re:It's a difficult balance (5, Insightful)

Briden (1003105) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702502)

Marketing is supposed to make you spend money you wouldn't have otherwise spent?

No, marketings purpose is simply to get you to buy a given product. Whether or not you'd have bought that product or a similar one is irrelevant, the purpose is to increase the chance that you buy that particular one, contributing to the revenue of that company who is producing the widget.

Some advertisements use emotional manipulation. Some are informational, aesthetic, logical, or price based. It's a big competitive soup of screaming focussed on getting one thing, YOUR dollar.

I have a few dollars, some expendable, and I am willing to part with them for the right thing, stuff I would have bought anyway, as well as new and innovative products that I gotta have. For me it's DJ gear and music, for some it's antique art.

Personally, I mind LESS if the ads are targeted to me. and there is a better chance I might actually buy some of the ads i have "opted in" for. Unlike the mass advertisements, for example, McDonalds, who waste millions on advertising and will never convince me to buy another hamburger, I don't fall for their crass bullshit. 100% Beef my Ass!

Ads are here to stay, they suck for the most part, but they power the finances that drive the web, so we can't get rid of all of them. Click an ad for something you support today!

(and put a bunch of people you don't into your host file) ;)

Re:It's a difficult balance (1, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702936)

No, marketings purpose is simply to get you to buy a given product. Whether or not you'd have bought that product or a similar one is irrelevant, the purpose is to increase the chance that you buy that particular one, contributing to the revenue of that company who is producing the widget.

Lets think about it this way. In the absence of marketing a wise, informed consumer will pick the best option for their needs. So marketing can't influence that choice if it's already optimal. The only thing for marketing to do is to convince you that their non optimal choice is optimal. i.e. the entire purpose of marketing is to mislead.

Re:It's a difficult balance (4, Insightful)

Fex303 (557896) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703224)

In the absence of marketing a wise, informed consumer will pick the best option for their needs.
In the absence of marketing a wise consumer won't be informed, since they won't know what's out there. Who do you think sends out press releases, review copies, etc.

You make it sound like there's an optimal product out there that all consumers would be best off buying.

To use a real-life example, I can't afford to spend lots of money on orange juice. If I did, I would buy the organic brand with no added anything. However I don't buy the store brand, because it tastes terrible (too sweet). So instead I buy a mid-range brand.

All of those brands have good reasons to exist and reasons to advertise. (To remind people to buy orange juice, to explain what they're all about, etc.) None of the brands are trying to manipulate people into buying something they don't want, simply to provide the right product to the right people.

Re:It's a difficult balance (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703876)

In the absence of marketing a wise consumer won't be informed, since they won't know what's out there. Who do you think sends out press releases, review copies, etc.

There are plenty of third party sources of product information.

You make it sound like there's an optimal product out there that all consumers would be best off buying.

No, but there is always an optimal choice that balances all the factors that play into the decision.

Lets look at your example for a minute. Mid-range orange juice is your optimal choice, but the marketing of the organic OJ has you thinking that if you made a little more money you'd choose them. Why? Because it's labeled organic it must be better?

What's the difference really? Both are made from carbon, so I'm guessing by "organic" they mean they don't use any pesticides. Well how much pesticide is there in the non-organic OJ? Is there any evidence that non-organic OJ hurts people? If the store were selling tainted OJ shouldn't you take that up with the FDA instead of just buying the more expensive non-tainted OJ?

That right there is the kind of harmful emotional manipulation I'm talking about. They're trying to make people think they're making wise purchasing decisions when it's really just based on bullshit.

Re:It's a difficult balance (2, Informative)

Fex303 (557896) | more than 6 years ago | (#22704458)

Lets look at your example for a minute. Mid-range orange juice is your optimal choice, but the marketing of the organic OJ has you thinking that if you made a little more money you'd choose them. Why? Because it's labeled organic it must be better?
Actually, no. It's because it tastes better. I buy it when I either have a bit of extra cash or think that I'll have guests over for breakfast. So I do actually know what it tastes like. And before you start going on about how it tastes better because I've been convinced it does by evil marketing, no it's really a very different product. It tastes exactly the same as fresh squeezed (and therefore varies by season), it has proper pulp, and it goes off really fast since there's no preservatives.

Anyhow, the rest of your rant is thusly invalidated.

Re:It's a difficult balance (1)

ThreeE (786934) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703344)

In the absence of marketing a wise, informed consumer will pick the best option for their needs.

How did the consumer become informed without marketing?

Re:It's a difficult balance (4, Funny)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703628)

google search.

Re:It's a difficult balance (1)

ThreeE (786934) | more than 6 years ago | (#22704528)

How does a search box provide information? Oh, you meant the search results -- which are usually provided by marketing...

Re:It's a difficult balance (1)

AnyoneEB (574727) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703632)

Perhaps there is a definition confusion here. I do not care if companies maintain informative (and, if they want, flashy) websites and show up on a web search for their product type. That is marketing, but it is not intrusive. Also, consumers are free to look up review sites which will probably be less biased than the company's own website to discover products.

On the other hand, advertisements show up when I am not looking for information on the product/product type they are advertising, and are therefore just an annoyance. Admittedly, this does not affect me much because between ad blocking in web browsers and mostly watching TV shows/movies off DVDs, I do not encounter many ads.

Re:It's a difficult balance (1)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703728)

You are making to fallacious assumptions. First, you assume the consumer will always be aware of the best choice for their needs and secondly you assume that there is only one optimal choice.

Advertisers want to get your eyeballs and eventually your money. But there is no way they can make you spend your money you would not have already planned on spending.

You are right. Advertisers can certainly influence what people buy, but the consumer is ultimately responsible for making the choice.

I, like a lot of other people, don't think that advertising is bad, per se, I think visually and aurally loud and obnoxious advertising is. I don't mind and I might even look at text based or even image based ads, especially if I am in a buying mode (or just curious). But flashing text, movies, sounds, roll-overs that cover the page make me 1) use Ad-block liberally or 2) stop viewing the site. I actively ignore obnoxious advertisements if I can. If I can't, I go elsewhere.

Re:It's a difficult balance (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703574)

Is there a specific time slot you allocate for watching ads? Like, hmm, I need a new external drive, let me see some ads at 5pm...

Or is it that you have an extra processor in your brain, so when you are actually reading some email with the subj "[libSBML-discuss]", this additional processor records: "TigerLogic XML database" - useful! Check out SkywaySoftware.com. Wow! XSLT visual editor! and "easy to use"!?

Re:McDonald's 100% Beef (1)

LecheryJesus (1245812) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703674)

100% Beef my Ass!


McDonald's burgers certainly are 100% Beef - its just that a lot of that beef is actually from the cow's ass (its cheap meat)

I don't fall for their crass bullshit.


I'm sure they wash all the shit off the burgers before they cook them ;)

Its not a troll if its true and its never offtopic if its funny.

LJ

Re:It's a difficult balance (2, Informative)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702530)

Random ads are less likely to affect my behavior, so I find them more acceptable.
Why not declare your independence from ads permanently? Adblock Plus [mozilla.org] ...accept no substitutes.

Re:It's a difficult balance (3, Insightful)

Angostura (703910) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702620)

Because I want the sites that I enjoy visiting to survive?

Re:It's a difficult balance (4, Insightful)

SpiritGod21 (884402) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703114)

Which is why you disable AB on sites you enjoy (like, say NYTimes, Slashdot, or Penny-Arcade) and leave it for sites you don't (in my case, MySpace). See the ads you want, block those you don't.

Re:It's a difficult balance (0, Flamebait)

Single GNU Theory (8597) | more than 6 years ago | (#22704138)

Because I want the sites that I enjoy visiting to survive?
That's what Internet Explorer users are for.

To be honest, though, I do turn the ads back on for sites that I frequent who also run ads that aren't too obnoxious.

Re:It's a difficult balance (2, Interesting)

realthing02 (1084767) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702540)

It's not even really worth posting, but a lot of advertising isn't to get you to buy an unneeded option or spend money you wouldn't have, but get you to choose one product over another. Brand familiarity goes a long way when you have to buy something that you've never bought before.

A good example is something like a carpet cleaner. I never had to worry about such things before I got my own apartment/house. But when I inevitably spilled something I went to Target and bought one of them. I bought Resolve because I knew about it from TV or something stupid*, and it worked on the stain. So we all win, right?

It might also have been on sale, as that's generally how I buy something :-)

Re:It's a difficult balance (1)

jacobw (975909) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702722)

Ironically, that's the viewpoint marketers would love their clients to believe: "We say magic words that make people buy your product even if they have no interested in it!" Of course, if this model were accurate, heavily promoted products would never flop.

Another viewpoint is that of classical economics, which holds that everybody is a strictly rational actor, seeking to optimize their own best interests. Under this model, more targeted advertising is better, since it provides you with new information which you can then use to maximize your utility. Of course, if this model were accurate, there would never be stock market bubbles.

So maybe it's reasonable to conclude that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. People are neither sheep nor Vulcans. Under this model, I'd say targeted advertising is maybe a little better than the non-targeted kind. It makes it a little more likely that the thing I'm being sold is something I actually would want even without the advert.

Re:It's a difficult balance (1)

Fex303 (557896) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702910)

No, marketing is supposed to make you spend money you wouldn't have otherwise spent. If not that, then it's supposed to make you spend money on an option you wouldn't have otherwise chosen. It does this through emotional manipulation, rather than presenting facts and arguing them well, so the better marketed option is usually not the best one.
This argument is flawed on several levels.

First off, most marketing is supposed to make you choose one particular brand over another, as opposed to buying something you wouldn't otherwise buy (since that's hard to do). For example, you're going to buy (say) soap anyhow, the advertising just tries to convince you to buy one brand rather than another.

Secondly, what you term 'emotional manipulation' is generally referred to as branding. In many cases a rational argument cannot be made for why you should buy one brand or another. For example there is rational argument to be made for fashion. So instead fashion labels project an image or emotion and hope that this attracts people to their brand. Also, lots of brands are marketed using rational argument. Some sort of facts form the basis of most ads, but obviously a 30-second TV spot isn't exactly long enough to go into depth about (say) soap composition. Besides which, it's a sad fact that most of the general population don't understand lipid composition all that well, and even if they did, they don't care about it. If your emotions are really manipulated by what happens in the commercial breaks, then I'd suggest that advertising is the least of your problems.

Lastly, even if we were to accept your arguments, it doesn't follow that the 'better marketed option is usually not the best one'. At best you're arguing that they're uncorrelated, but I would make a counter-argument that a company that has a competent marketing department is more likely to have other competent departments, and therefor will be making a better product.

I'm not suggesting that all marketing or advertising is good, or even that most of it is. And there are real issues, like the continual intrusion of advertising into public spaces. But you were making blanket statements, so I thought I'd throw a little debate into the mix.

Full disclosure: I work in advertising.

Re:It's a difficult balance (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703464)

First off, most marketing is supposed to make you choose one particular brand over another, as opposed to buying something you wouldn't otherwise buy (since that's hard to do). For example, you're going to buy (say) soap anyhow, the advertising just tries to convince you to buy one brand rather than another.

Yes, that was the gist of the second sentence of my post.

Secondly, what you term 'emotional manipulation' is generally referred to as branding. In many cases a rational argument cannot be made for why you should buy one brand or another.

If they're not distinguishable by features, then choose on price. If they're the same price, it really doesn't matter. But you'll be hard pressed finding any recognizable brand that doesn't have a cheaper no-name alternative.

For example there is rational argument to be made for fashion.

There is? Do tell.

Also, lots of brands are marketed using rational argument. Some sort of facts form the basis of most ads, but obviously a 30-second TV spot isn't exactly long enough to go into depth about (say) soap composition.

Just because facts are used doesn't mean the argument is rational. It's not truth, it's truthiness.

Besides which, it's a sad fact that most of the general population don't understand lipid composition all that well, and even if they did, they don't care about it.

True, but soap choice is hardly an important decision for one to make.

If your emotions are really manipulated by what happens in the commercial breaks, then I'd suggest that advertising is the least of your problems.

Oh that's just being silly. Obviously I'm not becoming distraught because of advertisments. But to claim that the constant barrage of emotionally laden imagery has no effect on you is just silly.

Lastly, even if we were to accept your arguments, it doesn't follow that the 'better marketed option is usually not the best one'. At best you're arguing that they're uncorrelated, but I would make a counter-argument that a company that has a competent marketing department is more likely to have other competent departments, and therefor will be making a better product.

No, my arguments didn't directly show that, but from experience that seems to be the case. Companies that make crappy products tend to make up for it with marketing. Companies that make excellent products don't need to trick people into buying them.

Full disclosure: I work in advertising

This [youtube.com] is for you.

Re:It's a difficult balance (1)

cHiphead (17854) | more than 6 years ago | (#22704066)

I wonder what targeted ads would look like for 4chan/7chan /b/ 'ers...

Mating urge (4, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702144)

Many animals willingly engage in potentially risky behaviours to increase their odds of mating.

Fanning out a brightly coloured tail, making loud noises, dancing and many many other things that make them more obvious to potential mates, but at the same time more vulnerable to predators.

Posting pictures of yourself in panties, passed out or french kissing on a "social" website is about the same thing.

Re:Mating urge (1)

stdarg (456557) | more than 6 years ago | (#22704558)

Just being in those situations provides a high enough probability of mating. The pictures are superfluous.

I think you'd have to go with a psychological motive rather than a basic biological motive.

Re:It's a difficult balance (5, Insightful)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702478)

And no matter how hard a webmaster tries, it's impossible to prevent someone from getting pictures off a site. You can prevent "Save as", you can even do things like set the displayed image as a table background with a transparent picture over it, but you can't keep them from taking a simple screen cap and cropping it. Even if you could, it's always possible to point a good camera at a good monitor and get a near-perfect reproduction.

If you don't want specific pictures of yourself being available to everyone, don't make them available to anyone. No matter how "secure" you make it, the internet makes it possible for just one person with the time and know-how to circumvent security and share the content (or the method of circumvention itself) with the rest of the world. Tangent: The same can be applied to copy protection schemes...it just takes one person to render them useless at preventing all but casual "hey can you copy that disk for me?" piracy.

Re:It's a difficult balance (1)

The Evil Couch (621105) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703518)

You can prevent "Save as",
No, you can't. Using a javascript to do retarded things upon a right-click is old hat. Modern browsers let users disable that functionality.

you can't keep them from taking a simple screen cap and cropping it. Even if you could, it's always possible to point a good camera at a good monitor and get a near-perfect
Yeah, or someone could take 10 seconds to scan through the page's source code for images or use the handy "Media" tab in Firefox's "page info". Then, they have a direct link to all of the images in the document and can take whatever they want.

Re:It's a difficult balance (1)

AnyoneEB (574727) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703754)

You are correct. Once someone that wants to release the photo can see it, they can manage to copy it and release to the world. The idea with FaceBook privacy settings is to be able to put up photos and then only allow certain people to view them, and those people are the people you trust to not share the photos. One problem is that FaceBook only allows you to base access on whether someone is your "friend" and whether they can only see your "limited profile" or your full profile, so it is pretty hard to put up photos without giving a lot of people access to them. Another problem is that you are giving FaceBook access to them, and they can do anything they want with them. A third problem is the one you mention: if you do not want anyone to see a photo, you should not put it on the internet.

Re:It's a difficult balance (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22702568)

Reality slap : If you post your image on the internet it can and will be copied. you can do NOTHING to stop that from happening.

It blows my mind how dumb the average facebook and myspace page owner is.

Although the amount pf passed out in vomit photos should be telling me the average IQ.

Re:It's a difficult balance (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703214)

It should be "You can't eat your urinal cake and have it too." because you can carry it around all day and then, at the end of the day, eat it.

Re:It's a difficult balance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22703394)

On the one hand, you want to be able to post pictures of yourself ... stripped down to your panties and french kissing another sorority sister, and simulating fellatio on a blow up doll.

Link please.

Re:It's a difficult balance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22703624)

On the one hand, you want to be able to post pictures of yourself passed out in your own vomit, stripped down to your panties and french kissing another sorority sister, and simulating fellatio on a blow up doll.

Which is how Sarah Lacy should have conducted the interview.

Re:It's a difficult balance (4, Funny)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703838)

"....stripped down to your panties and french kissing another sorority sister, and simulating fellatio on a blow up doll..."

So...just as an example, where would those be?

Probably set up (3, Interesting)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 6 years ago | (#22701716)

A lot of interviews only happen because the interviewer agrees to only ask questions approved by the interviewee. Maybe that's the case here?

Re:Probably set up (3, Insightful)

dattaway (3088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22701818)

You don't become a billionaire by accident and no billionaire wants to answer those questions.

Re:Probably set up (4, Insightful)

winkydink (650484) | more than 6 years ago | (#22701882)

Well, be sure and let us know when Zuckerberg actually becomes a billionaire on something other than illiquid paper. I'm sure that the entire exec staff of Webvan were billionaires at one point in time too.

Re:Probably set up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22702278)

That's what I don't quite get about Facebook. It seems to be essentially the same thing that's already been done at least twice before (Friendster and MySpace come to mind). Why is it that so many people are going gaga over something that's been shown to follow the site-of-the-moment model before? Not saying that it'll be a failure, just that at some point in the not-too-distant future, Facebook too will become passé.

Re:Probably set up (4, Informative)

jcnnghm (538570) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702990)

Pageviews and revenue. It is widely held that Facebook is profitable, by some accounts, highly. In addition to that, the demographic generating the pageviews is one of the most difficult to reach with conventional marketing, making them highly valuable.

Re:Probably set up (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22704010)

Yes, and that exact same demographic has used and then left both Friendster and MySpace. What's to say that they won't leave Facebook when another flavor du jour comes along?

Re:Probably set up (5, Insightful)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 6 years ago | (#22701896)

That's where journalist integrity comes in. The interviewer is responsible for knowing what questions should be asked. If she isn't allowed to ask those questions, then she should refuse to interview him.

Re:Probably set up (5, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702314)

That's where journalist integrity comes in.

I,... I don't understand. Why do you put those two words so close together?

Re:Probably set up (1)

rhizome (115711) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702710)

That's where journalist integrity comes in. The interviewer is responsible for knowing what questions should be asked. If she isn't allowed to ask those questions, then she should refuse to interview him.

Call me an idealist, but journalistic integrity demands that the reporter follow up answers with questions about those answers. Answers which she could not have known when she started the interview. None of this touches on how an interviewer is supposed to find out what questions they are "allowed" to ask, but that's such a perverse take on journalism that I'd rather just leave it alone.

Re:Probably set up (2, Insightful)

Joelfabulous (1045392) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703466)

"That's where journalistic integrity comes in"

Speaking of which, why is the summary pretty much an unabashed, word for word copy and paste of the initial paragraph or two of the article? Isn't that plagiarism or something? Or is it different when it comes to reporting a news story, a la Reuters? Anyone?

Too bad... (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#22701738)

Too bad the article doesn't tell us what the purportedly clueless interviewer *did* ask.

Re:Too bad... (4, Informative)

millwall (622730) | more than 6 years ago | (#22701842)

Too bad the article doesn't tell us what the purportedly clueless interviewer *did* ask.

TFA is a waste of time.

Sensational headline - "Facebook founder heckled at web conference", yet providing no proof for this, nor any proof on why the interviewer was clueless.

A couple of bland quotes from Zuckerberg on the Yahoo bid and privacy issues. Good enough for a /. first page?

Re:Too bad... (1)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702564)

Good enough for a /. first page?

Well, you're setting the bar pretty low, there...

indeed (1)

Fozzyuw (950608) | more than 6 years ago | (#22701912)

Too bad the article doesn't tell us what the purportedly clueless interviewer *did* ask.

That's exactly what I wanted to know, given that it was the title of the article and worthy enough to be the topic of the first couple of paragraphs.

Re:Too bad... (3, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22701944)

Valley Wag does [valleywag.com] . The twitter feeds are basically asses calling her stupid and what not. She reportedly replied that she hates everyone on the twitter feed. Oh well, another attention whoring soap opera to avoid in my eyes.

Re:Too bad... (5, Informative)

Furry Ice (136126) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702824)

Here's a video of the interview: http://www.austin360.com/news/mplayer/sxsw/73367 [austin360.com]

Re:Too bad... (2, Interesting)

Angostura (703910) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702902)

Actually the comments on that video appear to be the most informative guide to what happened.

Re:Too bad... (3, Interesting)

holden caufield (111364) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703292)

I just watched the video, and (surprise) this is a non-story. The interview just seems like a couple of 20-somethings who forgot they need to act like adults. The interviewer didn't help herself by poorly phrasing her questions (for example, about Facebook's market cap), and rambling on and on. What was she doing? Jockeying for a job? A date? A loan?

The interviewer just didn't do a good job, and was in front of people who witnessed it. The audience should have been more mature, the interviewer should have been more prepared, and a kid who sold his company for a staggering amount of money should have been more interesting.

scrabulous (2, Funny)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 6 years ago | (#22701772)

privacy, shmivacy - what I really want to know is are they going to take our Scrabulous away?

how else am I going to fill the hours spent sitting in front of a computer whilst at work?

Re:scrabulous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22702298)

what are you doing here?

who was heckled? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22701788)

TITLE: Facebook founder heckled at web conference

ARTICLE LEAD-IN: A keynote talk with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg descended into chaos as the audience heckled the interviewer for failing to get to the point.


So which one was heckled? Zuckerberg or the interviewer?

Video of Sarah Lacy's version of what happened (4, Informative)

dstone (191334) | more than 6 years ago | (#22701792)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ccLJnICdJGI [youtube.com]

She's made of Teflon(R), apparently.

Re:Video of Sarah Lacy's version of what happened (1)

Briden (1003105) | more than 6 years ago | (#22701968)

While the interviewer doesn't exactly seem like she pegged him to the wall, I would have loved to hear the audiences questions and reactions. If she did worse in the interview, than the in the post mortem, it'd be funny on it's own. I'd have liked to have seen zuckberg's reaction too, I wonder if he ever deletes peoples accounts just for spite. Come on, someone has to have recorded this on a cellphone or something?

Re:Video of Sarah Lacy's version of what happened (5, Informative)

MrMunkey (1039894) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702616)

Here's a video of the actual interview. I don't think it's the whole thing though.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LxZ6-O5R1zs [youtube.com]

Re:Video of Sarah Lacy's version of what happened (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22703562)

I've seen more journalism in bars between people trying to get into each other's pants. That girl is just plain sad.

Re:Video of Sarah Lacy's version of what happened (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22704252)

Woah, I could not even count how many times she uses "like" in a single sentence... And, she's a journalist?

Get a suit, Zuck! (4, Interesting)

davejenkins (99111) | more than 6 years ago | (#22701874)

Now that he has a billion dollars, I would hope that Mr Zuckerburg invests in a CEO or COO-- someone over 40 that can at least give the appearance of a "real" company. Yes, I realize that means selling out to a certain degree and it also maybe takes away some (okay most) of the fun, but it also means that certain people (investors) won't think that the staff at facebook is making shit up as they go along.

If I were Mark, I would hire a suit, and put him in front of the crowds, while I stood off to the side and wait for the 'inspirational answer' about the dreamy-dream utopian future and how my software was going to make it happen.

Re:Get a suit, Zuck! (1)

rindeee (530084) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702014)

Ahem. I was a CIO at 26 (not of my own company, either) and a CEO by 30. What's this over 40 nonsense? As for a suit? I would venture a guess that at least a fourth of current CEOs go for the business casual look (I'm a suit/tie guy myself).

Re:Get a suit, Zuck! (2, Insightful)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702608)

I be the one (CEO at 30) has something to do with the other (suit and tie) though.

Not to imply your not talented, or event hat perception is everything. Just that perception is something, and something that is probably worth it when you are trying to overvalue your company at such ridiculous levels.

Re:Get a suit, Zuck! (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702112)

Huh? Investors are pretty clueless people, and pretty much all companies are "maiking up shit as they go along" to keep investors around.

Re:Get a suit, Zuck! (2, Funny)

lotho brandybuck (720697) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703668)

This has been my experience too. Both as an investor, and as an employee!

Re:Get a suit, Zuck! (4, Insightful)

insertwackynamehere (891357) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702114)

He clearly got this far on his own. Why should he hire someone now?

Re:Get a suit, Zuck! (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703396)

He doesn't have a billion dollars. He surely has several million in actual money, but the rest is paper.

Given that he has several million dollars that probably aren't going anywhere(which is enough money to do whatever you want for the rest of your life), why should he care more about what certain people think than he cares about having fun? So he can make sure that he is worth $2 billion on paper, and then 4?

I can see where it would be more fun to not put up with a bunch of inane questions from bloggers, but that isn't what you said.

Re:Get a suit, Zuck! (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 6 years ago | (#22704260)

several million dollars that probably aren't going anywhere(which is enough money to do whatever you want for the rest of your life
 
Dream on; at current rates it takes a LOT more than 'several' million to do 'whatever you want for the rest of your life'. Every million is a lousy $20k/year or so in interest income, on which you pay tax. So the whopping sum of even $10M would put you comfortably upper middle class but hardly an out of control rock-n-roller if you wanted to keep it up.

Shanghai (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22701990)

She should have asked him how many prostitutes he screwed in Shanghai when he was there a couple weeks ago.

tag (1)

sveard (1076275) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702088)

This should be tagged antisocial, not social.

Sha handles it gracefully (5, Funny)

prostoalex (308614) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702142)

Say what you want about American journalists, and their courageous representative Sarah Lacy, she handled the hiccups in the interview gracefully [twitter.com] :

seriously screw all you guys. I did my best to ask a range of things.

Re:Sha handles it gracefully (4, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703050)

seriously screw all you guys. I did my best to ask a range of things.
I will never again be able to read anything she writes without my mind's ear hearing it in Eric Cartman's voice. Seriously, you guys.

Interesting story (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22702212)

If I regressed myself about 20 years, I might actually care about it.

plan b (3, Funny)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702226)

When all else fails, kindly remind them that you're the one with billions of dollars, not the audience trolls :).

Who cares about privacy and portability... (3, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702242)

How to become a young billionaire should've been the topic of the day.

Re:Who cares about privacy and portability... (1)

pshumate (1004477) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702840)

1. Be young. 2. ????? 3. Profit! Step 1 is the real problem.

money and reality (3, Insightful)

drDugan (219551) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702252)

and how is this a surprise?

We live in a society, on the way to be adopted globally, where capitalism is interpreted so narrowly that we have only one linear metric for success: cash.

When you are a billionaire, you can pay for participating in situations where the pitcher tosses you softballs, and if they don't you have enough power to never have to go to bat with them again. Knowing this, the cowardly sheep in the media duly bend over and give deference to rich people. It's not wrong, it just is the way it is when money is the *only* metric we use to evaluate a person's value.

If you have not heard the phrase: "It's just business"

Re:money and reality (2, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702420)

We live in a society, on the way to be adopted globally, where capitalism is interpreted so narrowly that we have only one linear metric for success: cash.
That's the myth that's being perpetuated by those bending over. For me, my family and friends, it's much more important to be loyal to those around you, spend time together, etc. I could earn a lot more money than I do now, but I'd rather spend my weekends with my wife watching stupid movies and enjoying ourselves before we start raising a family.

People lose sight of the fact that money is nothing more than a means to an end, and if you're living life for anything but happiness, you need to get hit by the clue stick. Being rich doesn't hurt anything, and I wouldn't turn down a billion dollars if someone offered it, but I wouldn't give up my current life for a six-figure salary; it's just not worth it.

Re:money and reality (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22702434)

That does put into perspective what G. Bush meant by "Mission Accomplished".

Face what? (1)

bondjamesbond (99019) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702366)

What is this Face thingy site you're talking about, and why should this kid be an alleged billionaire because of it? I think kids should go outside and play as opposed to killing (as in killing) their time on WASTEbook and myWaste. Whatever.

HOWTO: Privacy on Facebook (4, Informative)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702404)

Privacy on Facebook is relatively simple:

  • Don't put any personal information into your profile.
  • Don't add anyone to your friends whom you don't know personally.
  • Don't add any applications and don't give any application permission to run.
  • Ignore all "requests" and "invitations."
The only remaining thing is photographs and videos that you or your friends might upload or "tag" you in. I believe you have the choice to confirm the tags, or at least to untag yourself if you prefer not to be named in your friends' photos. I think this particular issue is not that important, because your pictures are probably on the Internet, and on Facebook, whether with or without your name, whether or not you're on Facebook, and you have no control over them anyway. Chances are, that's the case unless you never leave the house.

Re:HOWTO: Privacy on Facebook (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703112)

The only remaining thing is photographs and videos that you or your friends might upload or "tag" you in. I believe you have the choice to confirm the tags, or at least to untag yourself if you prefer not to be named in your friends' photos.
Unless like me you chose not to ever get involved with Facebook at all, and you still end up tagged in Facebook users' photos. I personally don't have a problem with it, but I wonder what someone's options would be if they did.

Oh boy! (0, Redundant)

Chas (5144) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702504)

An incorrectly headlined article about a service that doesn't matter to me and which I'll never use. Filled full of irrelevant angst and meaningless conflict.

Glad I'm paying Slashdot to report on this!

Oh wait...I'm not...WHEW!

TWiT and why the Interviewer sucked (5, Informative)

strredwolf (532) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702550)

This is on This Week In Tech #135 [www.twit.tv] in which Robert Scoble reported from South by Southwest (SxSW) about the uproar: Sarah Lacy was playing softball and flirting with Mark Zuckerberg, and the audience as well as Mark was expecting hard though questions. At the right point the audience interrupted, which made Sarah go defensive -- a bad move that made her loose control of the interview.

Jason Calacanis (in the TWiT podcast) then explained that Sarah's been flirting with Mark for a very long time, and these softball questions are very unprofessional of her.

IMO She really needed a wake-up call -- SxSW live isn't print!

Re:TWiT and why the Interviewer sucked (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22703730)

I bet she knows the difference between "loose" and "lose."

And of course random podcasters are totally credible.

Re:TWiT and why the Interviewer sucked (1)

gnarlyhotep (872433) | more than 6 years ago | (#22704500)

What (admittedly little) I've read of her work so far, she doesn't seem that professional in the first place. Comes off more as someone who wanted to be a big journalist, but didn't have the chops for it. The same thinking as with bad software patents, put it on the internet and all of a sudden it's new and worthwhile.

This is part of why the "new media" is not displacing the old tv and print media as quickly as it probably should. Instead of hard-hitting journalists, you get bimbos flirting with their subjects and pitching softball questions.

Drama 2.0 is dull (1)

lunartik (94926) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702670)

Who wants to hear someone talk about "empathy based relationships"? He wasn't talking about the issues you say the crowd wanted, he was talking about marketing terms and explaining what everyone knows, what Facebook is. Basically it was a boring and rude interview subject being interviewed by someone who was pitching boring softballs. The funny thing is that she tried to lead him into a conversation, all the while he is saying "uh, uh huh, umm. Ok Sure." Then he says "you're supposed to ask a question" and all the nerds in the house ROFLOLZ.

Someone sent me a link to a Wired story where someone on Twitter said it was the biggest thing to happen on the internet. It is like a story that parodies itself.

This is my opinion of facebook (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22702704)

pimply-faces teens interviewing each other (3, Informative)

peter303 (12292) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702850)

Just because one of the two was really smart and rich, doesnt mean they have well developed social skills yet. Zuckerberg cratered on 60 Minutes when Leslie started asking hard questions.

NEWS for Nerds? (1)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702904)

This story, the astrology story, this is news? Come on /., there must be better submissions than these.

Suckiness and sexism (2, Insightful)

oceaniv (1243854) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703086)

Watching bit and pieces of the interview I have no doubt that she had not prepared for this, was just not a good choice of an interviewer given the audience and a host of other issues... HOWEVER these comments are kind of interesting to keep in mind "After she asked if someone could send her a message later on why she 'sucked so bad', I'm sure I could hear the person at the mic say something like 'it's because you're wearing a dress' I could be mistaken though." "And for those who think that sexist crap doesn't still happen, it does. Unconsciously mostly, but ALL THE TIME in social media. I witnessed Jay Rosen's citizen journalism pal, Leonard Witt, again at the Computation + Journalism Symposium recently at GA Tech, introduce one of the very few women panelists at that particular conference, Ms. Culver from Pownce, by talking throughout the entire introduction time he was allotted ONLY about Twitter... fer chrissake, and barely once mentioning Ms. Culver's own product or work! And the sad part... he never even realized what he was NOT talking about. Shame again." http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/03/10/zuckerberg-interview-what-went-wrong/ [buzzmachine.com]

Re:Suckiness and sexism (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703480)

Are you sure they didn't say "It's because of your address" instead of "It's because you're wearing a dress"?

For example, maybe her email is populargirl@facebook.com - now that is Flamebait just waiting to get p0wned.

Revenge of the Nerds (a few simple steps) (1)

Hubec (28321) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703280)

Geeks generally don't like "popular girls". Twitter gave the geek audience a back channel for communication. Now self communicating the audience assumed mob-like properties. The "mob" turned on the "popular girl".

Hacked? (1)

presidentbeef (779674) | more than 6 years ago | (#22703306)

I read the headline several times and still thought it said "hacked" and was confused why the summary didn't seem to mention it. I figured the conference attendees hacked his computer and made his presentation say "All Your Faces Are Belong to Us" or something.

My take on the interview (4, Insightful)

Necroman (61604) | more than 6 years ago | (#22704466)

I was at the presentation, and rather disappointed as many other people were. I ended up leaving the interview before the "revolt" happened, I just couldn't take anymore of it. As my friend described it "That interview felt like awkward sex."

She kept rambling on and not asking straight-forward questions (they were more statements than questions). Advertising herself and telling her own stories rather than interview the person we were there to hear from. And her response afterwards (seen in one of the youtube links in these comments) is even more appalling. It seems she did no research about the crowd she was interviewing in front of, which caused a huge problem. And to add the comment about how SXSW won't get another big person. Does she realize that last years keynotes were Dan Rather and William Wright (both of with were awesome interviews/presentations). She may be a good writer, but doesn't have a clue how to run a proper live interview.

And not to put all the blame on her, Mark did not help the situation at all. He repeated the same statements over and over, felt like he just kept repeating himself. He also didn't see like the best public speaker (not to say I'm good at it), but he didn't seem ready for what he was thrown into. He could have done some work to steer the presentation in a way that he wanted, but I don't believe he's had enough experience to do this.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?