Mark Zuckerberg's Hoodie

Based on the responses here on Hacker News, it seems like some of you didn't get it.

This article is about social privilege, and how different the life circumstances of the founder of Facebook are from many of the people using his product.

It's underscoring the fact that Graph Search could only be built by someone who doesn't understand the sometimes life-or-death importance of privacy, who has never had to fear any real consequences from any expression of identity or presenting the same face to all people.

A large segment of the readers of Hacker News have the same blind spots as Mark Zuckerberg, and this comes out whenever any question of social privelege as it relates to technology comes up here. This is a problem. The products we're building have huge, and usually unexamined, social consequences, and I don't think ignoring those consequences will work long term.

This is true in other fields that claim "neutrality" the way technologists do. Most working U.S. journalists, for instance, work for pro-government, pro-Capitalist news outlets. We call this "objective". Any deviation from that norm is "bias".

Keeping identifying information in a centralized location that is subject to subpoena by law enforcement is a norm now, too, one that has serious social consequences. So your decision to roll your own auth system and saying "fuck it, I'll just make them log in through Facebook" is about a lot more than how many keystrokes you have to enter and how much maintenance you're going to have to do down the road.

We should start factoring social consequences in to our technical decisions, like, ten years ago, and I'm afraid it's going to take a lynch mob empowered by Graph Search for people to get this.

You missed the entire point of the essay. 1) The hoodie is more than just an article of clothing, and 2) it wasn't really about the hoodies.

TLP: "The Last Psychiatrist" http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/

For most purposes, it is de-anonymizing. There might be several famous people who share your name, but is there more than one person with your name who is currently an undergrad at Caltech studying CS? In most cases, a name combined with a little bit of context will identify an individual.

The problem is that, in addition to what I've already said, the essay itself does not do a good job at making a point. Sure, it gesticulates at some points. Sure, you could assume the author is trying to say X, but I think that is one's own projection of the essay's vague intent. In fact, we have two comments here which potentially illustrate what I mean. You argue that the article is about fashion. Someone else argues that it's about social privilege. I argue that it's so vague that it's really about nothing.

I'm not sure who you're calling a "critical-thinking-by-the-numbers guy," but since I was one of those criticizing the article, I'll respond that it is wrong of you to assume that our criticism must be due to the fact that we/I don't understand that fashion in some ways represents who we are. Because I certainly recognize that fashion represents not only who we are, but who we want to be. But that does not absolve the article of having made no meaningfully substantiated conclusions apart from interesting points about the anonymizing use of hoodies.

If you asked me, the only reason Zuckerberg wears/wore hoodies is because he is/was a twenty-something. In his case it has nothing to do with anonymity/surveillance, etc. etc. They're just what was in fashion when he was in college. They're still in fashion. I wear them. They're comfortable. For youth, they're not uncool to wear. A suit would be uncool. Imagine all the grief you'd get if you wore a suit to high school.

EDIT (reply to below): While your reply may or may not be accurate, I think the fact that this is yet another interpretation of what the author's point makes my argument even clearer, that the essay has no point at all.