Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In 2004, Zuckerberg Broke Into a Facebook User's Private Email Account (2010)

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 134 posts

Re: In 2004, Zuckerberg Broke Into a Facebook User's Private Email Account (2010)

#111

Post by mygo »

propman wrote: post #9

Yeahh we need regulations on Facebook. The fact that he retains a majority voting share in the company, the fact that I now have zero trust in Zuckerberg AND Sandberg into doing the right thing, AND that there is no viable competition/users are too psychologically entwined to make the decision to detach from Facebook means the only checks and balances left against this unscrupulous individual is the US government. Un…

> there is no viable competition/users are too psychologically entwined to make the decision to detach from Facebook

People literally said the same thing about MySpace when it held the “network effect” throne. And in hindsight after it lost its users to facebook people came up with all kinds of “well, duh” reasons, such as the profile pages automatically playing music or being so customizable to the point of not having any visual consistency.

Well there’s a ton of things wrong with facebook too right now that will be so easy to point out in hindsight. Facebook is just as vulnerable as MySpace was.

Re: In 2004, Zuckerberg Broke Into a Facebook User's Private Email Account (2010)

#112

Post by whataretensors »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #48
_0vzt wrote: post #4

Facebook’s response to this story is revealing: > "We’re not going to debate the disgruntled litigants and anonymous sources who seek to rewrite Facebook’s early history or embarrass Mark Zuckerberg with dated allegations. The unquestioned fact is that since leaving Harvard for Silicon Valley nearly six years ago, Mark has led Facebook's growth from a college website to a global service playing an important role in t…

They're playing the status game. "Rewrite history" and "dated allegations" serve mostly to slander whoever made those claims. Then they raise Zuckerberg's status by pointing out his achievements. They're effectively saying the accusation isn't valid because Zuckerberg is nobility and the accusers are not.

It's an allegation from 2004. There's a massive hit campaign going on with Zuck and facebook, likely because he publicly considered running for president.

Re: In 2004, Zuckerberg Broke Into a Facebook User's Private Email Account (2010)

#113

Post by smokeyj »

dang wrote: post #99
smokeyj wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These excuses seem to be regularly voted to the top. I wonder if Zuck has his minions crawling this site.

Please don't post like this - it's just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect in action. I don't mean to pick on you personally; there are many such perceptions and they all disagree, just like people's underlying views disagree. Since they don't add information, such comments are off topic.

> Since they don't add information, such comments are off topic.

I agree, my bad. But I have noticed a formulaic rebuttal regarding the actions of Zuck. If you look at previous FB related posts the popular comments consistently suggest Zuck was "young and naive" - to the point of sounding like a PR piece.

I don't have evidence but maybe you have IP logs. I'd be willing to bet there's something very interesting in there.

Re: In 2004, Zuckerberg Broke Into a Facebook User's Private Email Account (2010)

#114

Post by omnimus »

jlgaddis wrote: post #64
sangnoir wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The friend/accomplice did not kill anybody, but was killed by police in a shootout; the defendant was charged with murder for this death. What the actual fuck? Then again, I can't say I'm suprised that it's in Alabama.

AFAIK, there are similar laws in many other states as well. It's definitely not just Alabama. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transferred_intent

This is amazing. Never heard of it. Does it exist to protect cops? To take blame off their shoulders?

Re: In 2004, Zuckerberg Broke Into a Facebook User's Private Email Account (2010)

#115

Post by omnimus »

coss wrote: post #106
propman wrote: post #9

Yeahh we need regulations on Facebook. The fact that he retains a majority voting share in the company, the fact that I now have zero trust in Zuckerberg AND Sandberg into doing the right thing, AND that there is no viable competition/users are too psychologically entwined to make the decision to detach from Facebook means the only checks and balances left against this unscrupulous individual is the US government. Un…

You know you could uh, stop using it. That goes for everyone else too.

Exactly. I dont believe we are there yet because there any sexy alternative (seems like nobody is trying to make social networks nowdays).

But seriously facebook is fragile. If lot of people started to leave then they would be gone. It is not diverse company like amazon or google.

They are lucky they own instagram.

Re: In 2004, Zuckerberg Broke Into a Facebook User's Private Email Account (2010)

#116

Post by loup-vaillant »

sosborn wrote: post #105
loup-vaillant wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but this consideration is evidence that the allegations may be false.

It really isn't though. What happened after this incident has no bearing on what happened before the incident. Does his status provide a motive for a false accusation? Sure, but that is different from evidence.

No it isn't different, you failed Bayesian. Evidence is not causality, it can flow backwards in time.

For instance, a mammography doesn't give you cancer. But it can detect one, and thus give you evidence that you had cancer in the first place.

Re: In 2004, Zuckerberg Broke Into a Facebook User's Private Email Account (2010)

#117

Post by loup-vaillant »

mygo wrote: post #109
loup-vaillant wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but this consideration is evidence that the allegations may be false.

your circular logic translates to “the fact that these allegations even bothered to come out is evidence that they may be false”

Read more charitably, will you?

Fame doesn't affect all accusations the same way. I believe the probability of false accusations raise faster with fame than the probability of true accusation (which is mostly dependent on actual guilt).

There's even the possibility that the probability of true accusations lowers as fame raises, leaving more room for the false ones.

Re: In 2004, Zuckerberg Broke Into a Facebook User's Private Email Account (2010)

#118

Post by baud147258 »

maxxxxx wrote: post #79
acct1771 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making this about race when it's about money. If instead of MacGregor and his goonsquad, Floyd Mayweather and his goonsquad had done this, it'd have resulted in more or less the same outcome.

I wrote "poor black". I think being poor gets counted the most but being black also gets counted against you. I think the point of this thread is that bad behavior gets treated differently for different people. I don't even want to consider what would have happened if a bunch of illegal Muslim immigrants had attacked the bus.

Considering the number of car that's getting burned every year in new Year's eve in France, I'd that in France they can do that without repercussion.

Re: In 2004, Zuckerberg Broke Into a Facebook User's Private Email Account (2010)

#119

Post by [deleted] »

JasonFruit wrote: post #102
zeth___ wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going into someone else's email to read what they have to say about you is something that even a three year old knows is wrong. If you have dealings with people like that and you're helping them don't be surprised when you find out they have used their money to open a child rape hotel somewhere in the developing world.

There's a big difference between email snooping and . . . that.

[deleted]

Re: In 2004, Zuckerberg Broke Into a Facebook User's Private Email Account (2010)

#120

Post by mercer »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #117
mygo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your circular logic translates to “the fact that these allegations even bothered to come out is evidence that they may be false”

Read more charitably, will you? Fame doesn't affect all accusations the same way. I believe the probability of false accusations raise faster with fame than the probability of true accusation (which is mostly dependent on actual guilt). There's even the possibility that the probability of true accusations lowers as fame raises, leaving more room for the false ones.

While I don't necessarily disagree, I do wonder if this is actually true. In my experience lots of people have a weird tendency to bend over backwards to defend the famous (with Chris Brown, Jimmy Saville, and various Hollywood stars as particularly terrible examples). Perhaps Donald Trump too.
Post reply on HN