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

The Lost Chapter

aarongreenspan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 246 posts

Re: The Lost Chapter

#161

Post by zingahgud »

ryanmolden wrote: post #106
philiac wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It isn't clear if getting someone to believe in your 'extremist philosophy of radical openness' is necessarily a con, unless of course you yourself don't believe in it and/or are doing so only in furtherance of some other interest which you are obscuring." I do believe this is what Greenspan was getting at.

There is some delicious irony in the embarrassment that is likely caused by Aaron posting these conversations. You know, being 'radically open'.

I thought the same thing. As you see him listing the logs of every Zuckerberg login to houseSYSTEM in the pdf you think "Geez, this is a bit much." And then you consider that sort of snooping is Facebook's core business. They love this sort of information and their engineers have zero conscience about working with it. In fact their logs are probably much more detailed (device, geolocation, etc.) The irony is incredible.

Re: The Lost Chapter

#162

Post by jamesaguilar »

corporalagumbo wrote: post #72
jamesaguilar wrote: post #28

I don't understand why this person thinks Mark owed him all the information he complains about not being given. Am I obliged to inform my competitors of my intentions at every turn? Am I obliged to tell them when I change my mind about my plans? Am I indeed obliged not to deceive them? How do we know that Mark even viewed this guy as a friend, rather than perhaps as a friendly acquaintance? I can say for sure that I…

I don't think Greenspan is complaining - I think this is meant as a warning. He's not saying that Mark acted unfairly and that he should have been nicer to Aaron (which would come across as petulant, and I think Greenspan seems quite realistic and calm about what happened), but that Mark has acted with only ruthless, narrowly-defined "self-interest", displaying no loyalty or kindness, and this bodes very poorly for t…

Isn't this basically the same as saying tesla and spacex will fail because Elon Musk is a jackass?

Re: The Lost Chapter

#163

Post by tatsuke95 »

freshhawk wrote: post #133
grellas wrote: post #77

Institutional investors made the mistake - again, and again, and again - of validating Mark's duplicitousness by pouring literally billions of dollars into his company, and then billions more into startups seeking to emulate it. Some of their investments created out of thin air industries that contribute absolutely nothing to, and in many cases even detract from, society. . . . Most mind-boggling of all, it's been cl…

There is a label already, "ethical". Argue all you want over the ethics of facebook, or if entrepreneurs have any duty to act ethically, not unethically, not illegally or just not get caught. You don't need a new label though. You sure did write a lot complaining about people using their free speech to criticize businesses they feel are either harmful or a waste of resources because this is a "free country". I was un…

>"actually contribute to the society"

Facebook has created a vast amount of wealth for a huge number of people. If you believe in capitalism, then Facebook has benefited society greatly, by definition.

Re: The Lost Chapter

#164

Post by misiti3780 »

jemfinch wrote: post #83
kevinalexbrown wrote: post #70

I'm not going to publicly speculate on either party's moral character. But I did skim the transcripts, and I noticed one curious fact: Zuckerberg starts and ends most of the conversations. To clarify: I'm not sure precisely why I find it interesting, it was just one of those phenomena that raised an eyebrow, and passed my "don't publicly engage in debates about people's character whom I haven't personally met"-test.…

Can you clarify why that's interesting?

haha

Re: The Lost Chapter

#165

Post by zingahgud »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #28

I don't understand why this person thinks Mark owed him all the information he complains about not being given. Am I obliged to inform my competitors of my intentions at every turn? Am I obliged to tell them when I change my mind about my plans? Am I indeed obliged not to deceive them? How do we know that Mark even viewed this guy as a friend, rather than perhaps as a friendly acquaintance? I can say for sure that I…

If you read all the IM's, carefully, and you know a bit of Facebook history, you should see that the targets Zuckerberg chose from which he stole the ideas he used for Facebook, like Greenspan, were the type of people who could easily be taken advantage of. He knew who he was dealing with. But there is no empathy.

In the IM's Zuckerberg goes so far as to tell Greenspan he considers him to be "like a friend" (see IM for exact wording). This is really sickening.

Re: The Lost Chapter

#166

Post by cuergas »

tatsuke95 wrote: post #163
freshhawk wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a label already, "ethical". Argue all you want over the ethics of facebook, or if entrepreneurs have any duty to act ethically, not unethically, not illegally or just not get caught. You don't need a new label though. You sure did write a lot complaining about people using their free speech to criticize businesses they feel are either harmful or a waste of resources because this is a "free country". I was un…

> "actually contribute to the society" Facebook has created a vast amount of wealth for a huge number of people. If you believe in capitalism, then Facebook has benefited society greatly , by definition.

Does this also apply to Mexican drug cartels?

Not that I am comparing FB to drug dealers, but I'm just curious how to apply this handy definition of capitalism. Are there any limitations?

Re: The Lost Chapter

#167

Post by wilfra »

dasil003 wrote: post #7

People get screwed over all the time. Getting screwed over by Zuckerberg, well, that's an elite club, but time to move on with your life. If you keep it only as a good story for the grand kids maybe it won't eat up the rest of your potential.

I was thinking the same thing when reading the About page on his website. After the first few paragraphs I was like 'he's not even going to mention Facebook - how baller is that' and thought he had moved on in a very healthy way. But then I kept reading, and he devotes well over half of his about page to the saga. Sad. Really sad, that he is letting this define his life.

Re: The Lost Chapter

#168

Post by YuriNiyazov »

tptacek wrote: post #149
corporalagumbo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeez, did you have to write all that? Anyway, although I think you are focusing on the weakest part of Greenspan's argument - the point where he comes closest to bitterness - I was wondering if you'd like to invest $20,000 in my new venture. I'd like to sell crack heroin to junkies in Detroit. I'm sure as a fellow champion of guilt-free founder consciences, you will support my endeavour as I give gangbangers the chan…

Ok, Corporal A. Gumbo: Write it better. Do it and I'll donate $1000 that I promise I was not going to donate anyways to Partners In Health. There's an idea common to forums that I don't frequent that I recently learned of called an "ideological Turing test". The idea is to take a group of people divided along a controversy, and to get each side to anonymously write a coherent argument that capture's the other side's…

Sorry, I am being dense: and, given the two possible results of the Turing test (population correctly/incorrectly guesses which is real/fake for each side), what are the implications for the argument, if any?

Re: The Lost Chapter

#169

Post by cuergas »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #162
corporalagumbo wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Greenspan is complaining - I think this is meant as a warning. He's not saying that Mark acted unfairly and that he should have been nicer to Aaron (which would come across as petulant, and I think Greenspan seems quite realistic and calm about what happened), but that Mark has acted with only ruthless, narrowly-defined "self-interest", displaying no loyalty or kindness, and this bodes very poorly for t…

Isn't this basically the same as saying tesla and spacex will fail because Elon Musk is a jackass?

Neither Tesla nor SpaceX rely on millions of fickle web users handing over their personal information and regularly signing in to a website to look at photos and status updates. Nor can they be easily replicated by a competitor who is not a jackass.
Post reply on HN