Facebook CEO Accused of Securities Fraud 247
Precision noted that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg turned 26 last week, and gets to celebrate by being accused of securities fraud. This goes back to the old Facebook legend that Zuckerberg stole code from other Harvard students.
And, just like that, you see the message: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, only 11 people liked this [facebook.com] as of the time I checked.
Because don't forget, even with all the whining about Facebook on Slashdot, Slashdot is on Facebook [facebook.com].
Although, strangely enough, this story didn't appear in my Facebook news feed, I had to go to the Slashdot page to see it. Hmmmm...
Re:And, just like that, you see the message: (Score:5, Funny)
"big bad bubba poked you. -- poke back"
I don't suggest poking bubba back. He's more of a Top.
Note to Owen Thomas (Score:5, Funny)
The fin on top of your head doesn't do what you think it does.
Remember, folks (Score:4, Informative)
The latest unwelcome gift: accusations of securities fraud from former Harvard schoolmates who say he and other Facebook executives tricked them into a supposed $65 million settlement that was actually worth far less.
He may or may not be guilty of anything, so let's try to keep a cool head in the meantime.
Re:Remember, folks (Score:5, Insightful)
He may or may not be guilty of anything
I've never actually done any research into the guy, but from all the stories up here I can pretty much tell he's a douche.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Remember, folks (Score:5, Insightful)
I gotta say, I'm not all that surprised...think about it, you're just an average college student, and not a few years later you're a billionaire. That's gonna fuck with your ego, no matter who you are.
Re:Remember, folks (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh to be so burdened.
Yeah. I'd love the chance to prove that becoming a billionaire wouldn't fuck with my ego...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Remember, folks (Score:4, Insightful)
yeah, the worst-case scenario could happen, and he could be reduced to just a couple hundred mill. Wouldn't that be a shame :/ I can't imagine trying to live off that much as a 26yo; ramen every day, yuck!
Do you *really* think that he hasn't diversified at least a little by now?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Do you *really* think that he hasn't diversified at least a little by now?"
He has. Into securities fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not like his investment is liquid.
But perhaps if he gets smacked around, the investors get cold feet, maybe Microsoft or Oracle or who knows buys it and makes him kind of rich. As in way-rich. The financing that he has means his share is still pretty good..... that is, until whatever comes after Facebook arrives. Facebook arrived after MySpace, which came after various GeoCities, and so on.
Facebook has immense number of users that might be happy to find a subsequent provider that does something more, l
Re:Remember, folks (Score:4, Interesting)
no. 26yr old = not enough experience in the world.
It's why he's know as a raging ass to many that deal with him. he's outright cocky and it will bite him in the butt.
Honestly, after reading the accidental billionaires book http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/books/20maslin.html [nytimes.com]
I am certain that I would not want to have ever had to deal with the man. Every account of him makes him feel "slimey" and sets off all my red flags.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Remember, folks (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially when you make that money by screwing other people over in the first place (allegedly).
BTW - I'm not a huge fan of the fact that the summary refers to the allegations as "legend." That strongly implies that it never happened... And there's decent indication that it may have.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The key word there is the "allegedly." And no, there is absolutely no truth to the allegation. The Winklevosses are upset about how the settlement turned out for them and they're rattling the cage to see if any more money will fall out. They're being dunned by their lawyers for non-payment of legal fees.
Re: (Score:2)
"And no, there is absolutely no truth to the allegation."
And you know this how?
Share the Wealth (Score:2)
Yeah, sounds like someone is just trying to play their "Share the Wealth" card.
Incidentally, I just noticed that some time ago the game of Life(TM) had something of a makeover, and no longer has those little legal "Share the Wealth" and "Exemption" cards. Which I applaud for not teaching the next generation to be a bunch of litigious little bastards.
They've also done some interesting things with employment, salary, and education that helps randomize stuff up a bit, so whomever lands on the Doctor/Lawyer sq
Re:Remember, folks (Score:5, Informative)
He was not yet a billionaire when he called the Facebook users "dumb fucks" [businessinsider.com]. That's right, he was 19, long before those billions would have hit his ego too hard, and already calling the users of his service dumb fucks.
Once that sinks in, I think we can conclude that he has been a douche all along.
Re: (Score:2)
The funny part is that he has pissed off all his users enough that as soon as there is something that is even just as good as facebook, they will flock to it like crazy leaving him with nothing.
The only reason most people I know are on facebook are because of friends. and when friends start flocking elsewhere to a interface that has less suckage as facebook.... suddenly his empire becomes a moist turd in the bottom of a subway toilet.
Re: (Score:2)
leaving him with nothing.
... except a lousy few billion in the bank, assuming he's had enough sense to diversify.
Yeah, the laugh will definitely be on him.
Re: (Score:2)
Once a douche always a douche.
Re: (Score:2)
I gotta say, I'm not all that surprised...think about it, you're just an average college student, and not a few years later you're a billionaire. That's gonna fuck with your ego, no matter who you are.
Actually, from what I hear he had that kind of ego from the beginning. Read some of the leaked emails if you don't believe me.
what about michael dell? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dell [wikipedia.org]
sure his company has acted douchey, but i don't think the guy can be called a douche. its been a long time since he founded dell in his dorm, and no one has any real dirt on the fellow. sure he's not a saint, but again, not a douche
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak [wikipedia.org]
wozniak is pretty much the anti-douche. the woz is pure awesomeness. even steve jobs: yeah, your average apple cultist is pretty much the definition of upper middle class douchebag, but steve jobs
Re:Remember, folks (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, either an effing HUGE group of people is out to slander that guy into oblivion or at the very least some of the accusations have to be true.
Occam's Razor tells me which one is more likely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Accused" is in the title.
Now I realize this is slashdot and people don't read the articles, or even the summaries sometimes. But I think we can assume they read the fucking title.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now I realize this is slashdot and people don't read the articles, or even the summaries sometimes. But I think we can assume they read the fucking title.
Are you kidding? A lot of them don't even read the comments. It's the only explanation for many of the replies I've gotten some of my own posts--replies that show a complete disregard for or ignorance of what I actually said.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh HAI!
Muz be ur frist time heer!
Welcom to /. I hope u liek it.
KTHXBAI
Re: (Score:2)
And you know what they say (Score:5, Funny)
Those who desire to steal securities in order to gain freedom will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
Re: (Score:2)
+5 Funny but gong-worthy!
True, but how can something be so funny at the same time it tortures the language so badly that it makes my head hurt just to read it?
All i can say is (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the Securities Fraud? (Score:4, Informative)
I didn't see anything in the article that suggests he was accused of securities fraud, which generally means an accusation from the SEC for something like insider trading. Ripping off counterparties in a settlement deal may not be great behavior (even though the plaintiffs' lawyers should have realized this a lot sooner than they did) but it is not the same as saying there was securities fraud. Again, it sounds like the article is flamebait or the author just has no idea what he's talking about.
Re:Where's the Securities Fraud? (Score:5, Informative)
I am not a securities lawyer, but the SEC 1934 Act allows private civil suits regarding securities fraud. This act has been amended and reformed and affected by case law, but you can get the basic gist of modern requirements for civil securities fraud lawsuites here [wikipedia.org].
The securities don't have to be publicly traded. You don't have to sit around and wait for the SEC to investigate. If somebody made material misrepresentations in connection with the sale of securities, that's enough to meet the basic threshold of being subject to this law and open to civil suits. Then there are just a series of bars to get over regarding showing that the person knowingly caused you to lose money and had the intention of screwing you.
These things are expensive to litigate, so the stakes have to be high. Your average $250k angel investment gone wrong isn't going to be something you bring to court. A class action representing thousands of shareholders who each lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in a publicly traded company, however, has enough money at stake to see this sort of lawsuit fairly frequently.
This case is only unusual in that most parties to large private investments on this scale (tens of millions of dollars) are private equity firms or venture capital funds and they generally can do their own due diligence on transactions in the tens of millions of dollars and can afford to write off the expected percentage of complete losses and partial losses. In this case, the suing party took securities that may have been misrepresented as settlement for a lawsuit, and presumably didn't have the resources on hand to conduct their own due diligence.
So I can't say for certain whether a judge will allow this case - are securities offered as part of a settlement being "offered for purchase or sale"? You'd have to ask a lawyer to tell you whether that is technically the case, but if they accepted the securities in lieu of cash, there might be a case for that.
But just because you don't hear about this kind of case terribly frequently doesn't mean it's total bullshit or that the author is flaming or an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Gates stole code for from the dumpster... (Score:3, Funny)
Bill Gates stole code for from the dumpster for his BASIC compiler that he based his fortune on, why should Zuckerberg be investigated when Gates isn't?
When will billionaires ever get a fair shake in this world?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Because the dumpsters litigation was trash...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...why should Zuckerberg be investigated when Gates isn't?
When will billionaires ever get a fair shake in this world?
Gates was investigated, then when we got an irrationally pro-business president in the WH the DoJ dropped the case even though they were winning.
Billionaires will get fairly cut down to size when we stop electing Republicans.
Oh noes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're Harvard graduates coming from a family that's very chummy with the Fortune 100 [winklevoss.com] and can apparently afford lawyers that can take on a billion dollar company. $65 million is probably chump change for them. The overprivileged fighting among themselves for a bigger piece of the pie; couldn't care less.
Will we see his face on a MUGSHOT soon? (Score:2)
Will we see his face on a MUGSHOT soon?
Re: (Score:2)
What do you need a real mugshot for when we have Photoshop?
Fetch the popcorn! (Score:4, Funny)
A bunch of arrogant entitled Haaaarvard douches get butt-humped by the biggest douche amongst them, then spend the rest of their natural lives giving all of their money to lawyers until none of them have anything except crack habits and an autobiography in the bargain bin.
I mean, you can't buy entertainment like this. It's win-win, especially if they all lose.
And to top it all off (Score:2)
A bunch of arrogant entitled Haaaarvard douches get butt-humped by the biggest douche amongst them, then spend the rest of their natural lives giving all of their money to lawyers until none of them have anything except crack habits and an autobiography in the bargain bin.
I mean, you can't buy entertainment like this. It's win-win, especially if they all lose.
And to top it all off, the man's name means "sugar mountain".
The whole story (Score:4, Insightful)
The title of this article is totally misleading. The Winklevosses agreed to a settlement involving a payment of cash and a quantity of Facebook stock assuming a certain valuation. That valuation was based on the Microsoft purchase of a small chunk of the company that, if you bought all the stock at the same price, would make it work $15 billion.
Obviously that valuation was unrealistic, but the Winklevosses agreed to it *because their lawyers told them to.* Their law firm didn't complete their due diligence or else they may have wanted to renegotiate the deal. But that's not even remotely Facebook's fault.
The reason for this accusation is that the Winklevosses have to pay their lawyers a contingency fee based on the higher valuation of the stock. This will result in a net loss to them. They're pissed off at this turn of events, so they're casting aspersions on Facebook's CEO and demanding a securities investigation. But don't forget that they're a pair of moneyed aristocrats from a family of moneyed aristocrats (read: spoiled brats). So don't think of them as wronged parties because they're not.
Facebook was no more the Winklevosses' idea than Windows Aero or Mac OS Aqua or Enlightenment or KDE were the ideas of Xerox PARC.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously that valuation was unrealistic, but the Winklevosses agreed to it *because their lawyers told them to.* Their law firm didn't complete their due diligence or else they may have wanted to renegotiate the deal. But that's not even remotely Facebook's fault.
If I'm reading the article correctly, it's not about the valuation but about what class of stock they receive:
"The settlement, however, was to be paid in common shares, not preferred shares, which Facebook itself valued at roughly 75 percent less for the purposes of calculating taxes on stock-based compensation — cutting the settlement’s offer roughly in half."
there once was a time (Score:4, Interesting)
when friendster looked like it was going to take over the internet
there once was a time when myspace looked larger than google
and, in a few short years, someone will say something about facebook, probably as a joke, and someone else will say "facebook? what's that?"
the realm of social networking is true to what it is: an endless party, hosted by one rich kid whose parents are on vacation after another, no one claiming the right to say they are truly in control for very long, forever
what i envision is a permanent progression, every 5-10 years, a new friendster/myspace/facebook taking over the mantle of darling of the ball, and then rudely discarded and abandoned, in endless succession, forever
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not with the plans I have in mind... ...it will literally become impossible to create a “separate” site like this.
They will be part of a common (full-privacy-enabled) net, whether they want it or not. Even whether they buy a law against it or not.
Facebook's future CEO (Score:2)
I hear Darl is really good at claiming stuff is his when it really isn't..
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People. You don't have to use a dash when writing "god". That is used when writing god's name on paper, because you aren't technically supposed to physically destroy god's name.
It is irrelevant when written on a computer.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
But what if slashdot's servers die and the post is deleted?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole idea is of course superstitious bullshit, but electric and magnetic forces are just as physical as solid matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow... what a superstition...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People. You don't have to use a dash when writing "god". That is used when writing god's name on paper, because you aren't technically supposed to physically destroy god's name.
It is irrelevant when written on a computer.
I always thought it was because you weren't supposed to invoke God's name. But even if it is to avoid destroying it, this glowing-phosphor pattern of God's name will be just as destroyed when it scrolls off my screen as it would be on paper.
Re: (Score:2)
Jewish day of rest. Means I don't work, I don't drive a car, I don't fucking ride in a car, I don't handle money, I don't turn on the oven, and I sure as shit don't fucking poke my friends!
Re: (Score:2)
http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/lawfulneutralp1.jpg [wordpress.com]
Hating facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
How we humans love to tear down success. It's in our social nature. So it's perhaps ironic that Facebook, the top predator in the land of social acceleration, is having a bad week and we are all enjoying the schadenfreude.
That observed, one can realize there are good reasons to hate face book, and overblown ones. Facebook is changing social norms, including privacy norms, faster than the older generations are comfortable with. This could be good in some cases, but there's also can be excellent reasons why traditions became traditions. For example I try to keep a tight hold on my personal information but I can't exactly tell you why I care so much. I just innately think it could come back and bite me. Also it seems a little unseemly to burden others with oversharing. Also people are mean.
My hope is that as the bad reasons get debunked we don't lose sight of the good reasons for hating facebook.
Re:Hating facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, to be honest Facebook really wasn't the first "community" website, or the first site to have the features that it has, it just happened to manage to become the biggest.
Personally I don't mind congratulating and rewarding whoever first came up with an idea (although almost everything "new" is built on what came before it in one way or another, I doubt there was some caveman who woke up one morning, had some leftovers from yesterday's hunt and then figured out the theory of relativity) but why should we all smile and pretend we admire Zuckerberg just because his site happened to become the biggest? By the same logic no one should be criticizing Microsoft because they, after all, managed to become the biggest. Or IBM for that matter, or any other industrial, political or military giants. Hell, we should all have been congratulating the soviets on a job well done when their nuclear arsenal surpassed the US one (and if some brownnosing people had their way we'd also be rewriting the history books to ignore any US achievements in building nuclear weapons that came prior to the soviet equivalents).
A lot of what is considered "business savvy" these days is really just a matter of some decent knowledge of a subject (but not "OMG NEW EINSTEIN!!1" knowledge, just solid knowledge) combined with luck and timing (and you can get lucky when it comes to the timing, your idea might have been tried by some other guy a year ago when the market wasn't ready for it but now the market is ready for it and since you were unaware of the other guy's failure you take another stab at it, or maybe you simply took longer to complete your product/service and the other guy was actually better than you but ignored by customers/users because the market wasn't ready yet, just because you're "first to market" isn't a guaranteed path to profit).
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook pandered to privacy-ignorant college students by offering very unique features. Remember how it used to tell you and all your friends your very physical location when you signed on, and by default no less! People ate that stuff up, and when they realized how bad of an idea that was it was too late; everyone was on facebook, it was the defacto social network for college students.
Re:Hating facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair though, back in the days when it required an .edu address to join, Facebook was much more private than it is now. Now, they constantly change their terms of service and make public what was once private. I think that's what has a lot of people upset.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I actually didn't mind sharing some things as much when it was only for college students. Then they opened up the floodgates and in my opinion it's been going downhill ever since. Not to mention the contents of your Facebook profile could prevent you from being hired for a job.
What business a company has prying into your personal life when deciding whether to hire you I don't know but Facebook did nothing to stop it.
Re:Hating facebook (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, the "good old times", when Zuckerberg sold the information of 4000 Harvard accounts? [businessinsider.com]
Sure, back then Facebook was so much better, mindful of people's privacy and all.
Re:Hating facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't there a huge difference between the companies you list (IBM and MS) and Facebook? IBM and Microsoft got big through hard work and smart business behavior and it took them a quite a long time and a lot of persistence. In the case of MS the products may have been crap but they were crap people wanted. for example, to carnoivres steaks are great but they take skill to prepare so there is actually a lot more revenue in hot dogs which we all know are crap but what we love. MS made crappy software but it did in a way that let oem equipment makers mass market the PC at cheap prices. You got what you paid for, but it was designed carefully to be what you were willing to buy.
Facebook seems to have gotten big mainly by chance. like being the only bacteria in the pietry dish. The only savvy they had was realizing the peitre dish was available and rushing to get there first. But because it happened so fast-- basically just at the moment it was technically possible it happened-- we suspect that maybe even they did not realize it. It's like Yahoo, ebay or craigslist. Someone was going to do it. One lucky bacteria got there first.
Re:Hating facebook (Score:4, Interesting)
Except they quickly beat out Myspace and Friendster; two services that were also free, somewhat popular and relatively equal in basic features. Facebook had an angle (college kids) and they exploited that extremely well, and followed it up by tacking on more mass market features (open apps that led to mafia wars and all the rest).
Lucky? Yes, but then do you think Henry Ford got along on his luck alone?
Re:Hating facebook (Score:5, Informative)
Facebook seems to have gotten big mainly by chance. like being the only bacteria in the pietry dish. The only savvy they had was realizing the peitre dish was available and rushing to get there first.
You're [aol.com] right, [geocities.com] no [egroups.com] one [tribes.com] ever [friendster.com] thought [myspace.com] of [hi5.com] social [classmates.com] sites [livejournal.com] before [meetup.com] Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
There's always a certain amount of creativity, skill, and knowledge in a success story. There's always a certain amount of luck and outside support as well. When people get successful, they have a strong tendency to overate how much was skill or creativity, and how little came from their origins, their supporters or just dumb luck.
It's the ultimate version of the self made man myth "I taught my teachers everything they knew how to teach me. I invented writing so I could learn things fa
Re:Hating facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
Humans do not hate success. Humans love a winner. We love deserved success, success that comes from hard work, determination, and smarts. We hate undeserved success, that comes from taking advantage of others. We are social animals, born with an innate sense of fairness. We don't hate success, we hate injustice and unfairness.
Re:Hating facebook (Score:5, Interesting)
born with an innate sense of fairness.
More on this: The Moral Life of Babies [nytimes.com].
Re:Hating facebook (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking from experience working with kids, while I'm not entirely sure about babies, you can be darn sure that 10-year-old kids will call you out if they think you're playing favorites. If you set a rule, it had better be the same rule for everybody, or they will walk all over you trying to get special treatment. The good news is that if you are playing fairly by everybody, these same kids will actually hold each other to the same rules. And that basic sense doesn't go away in adolescence - I've watched 15-year-old boys enforce my rules for me because they were convinced that the rules were reasonable and fair.
So whether it's innate, or learned at a very young age, both parent and GP are right on the money.
Re: (Score:2)
No, humans pretty much hate seeing other humans succeed in general, deserved or not. It's an emotion allied with envy. The Germans actually have a word for the good feeling you get from seeing successful people screw up: "Schadenfreude."
You're trying to rationalize your emotional reaction to this news rather than interrogate its validity.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have an emotional reaction to this news, sorry. And you'll have to do a better job of convincing me that humans hate success. Why do we idolize the rich? Why do we love celebrities, sports stars, great artists, and musicians? I just don't see it, and I think perhaps YOU hate success, and are justifying it with the 'everybody does it' line.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, when celebrities and the rich prove to us that their success is undeserved, we tear them down. Your examples only prove my point.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Humans love success.
They also love to see someone fail when they foul up.
Take Tiger Woods for example, if it'd not come out that he was a lying, cheating whoremonger, everyone would have continued to love him. If his car accident had been for medical reasons or if his wife had chased him around with a golf club because of something she did, all the Tiger Wood fans would have respected and supported him. But it turned out that someone who has been a major player in golf for 15 years was a jackass and his pro
Re: (Score:2)
No, humans pretty much hate seeing other humans succeed in general, deserved or not. It's an emotion allied with envy. The Germans actually have a word for the good feeling you get from seeing successful people screw up: "Schadenfreude."
You're trying to rationalize your emotional reaction to this news rather than interrogate its validity.
You're stretching the definition of the word "Schadenfreude" to fit your point: it does not. Schadenfreude [reference.com] has no connection to success or successful people, and it's hardly on the same page as envy. You would be better off applying it to the popularity of "America's Funniest Home Videos" than you would using it to illustrate the concept that people don't like a winner.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Modern games theory experiments have shown that people will accept harm to themselves in order to punish unfairness and reward reciprocity. We are not selfish actors, we are social beings. Only when everyone around them is acting unfairly, and they have no opportunity to punish unfairness, will most people act selfishly.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern games theory experiments have shown that people will accept harm to themselves in order to punish unfairness and reward reciprocity. We are not selfish actors, we are social beings. Only when everyone around them is acting unfairly, and they have no opportunity to punish unfairness, will most people act selfishly.
Interesting. Not quite sure that's borne out by my experience, but it would be nice to believe anyway.
Any more specific references to any of these experiments?
Re: (Score:2)
Wiki is always a good place to start, but check the references given on the pages, of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_theory [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator_game [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods_game [wikipedia.org]
Re:oh, so avant garde (Score:5, Interesting)
We are not a predatorial, combative species. We're more like the Bonobos (pygmy chimps) than chimps. They screw each other silly at the drop of a hat to smooth over social tensions. The traits you describe are a consequence of developing agriculture and a surplus, and then experiencing famine. Instead of moving on to more fertile grounds, we stayed until the surplus was exhausted, then used our newly developed societal organization to wage war on our neighbors. This resulted in a whole generation of brain damaged children (starvation does that) being raised by a whole generation of PTSD damaged (war does that) adults. Our selfish side was locked in culturally.
This is why you don't see walled cities before a certain point in history. No weapons exclusive to killing other humans as opposed to hunting, either. No mass graves, not until the time period when the Sahara dried up.
Science has shown that your view of human nature is fundamentally incorrect. Please see my post above yours for citations. It is human nature to be more concerned about fairness and reciprocity than self interest. But the opposite view excuses all sorts of unfair and non-reciprocal behaviors, and so it is still immensely popular with a certain set of privileged people, despite the evidence against it.
Re: (Score:2)
Older generations? I do not consider myself to be part of the "older generation," having gone to elementary school in the 90s, and I am not comfortable with the effect Facebook has had on privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I have a hard time believing any generation is okay with, "We will publish your personal information, even if you ask us not to, and lie to you about it."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, what I find worthy of hate isn't the lack of privacy, it's their locked-in system. Users create a web of friends in Facebook, and that web only exists inside FB's servers. Within Facebook you can't link to friends on LinkedIn or Myspace or Buzz or whatever. Protocols [openidconnect.com] need to be used that allow users to link identity across social networks.
As far as privacy goes, it's really a question of how you use their service. For now, you really need to assume that anything you post on FB will be shared
Re: (Score:2)
You make some good points, though I doubt you'll be modded insightful given the current (and fairly earned) dislike for Zucker and his ethics.
I can't speak for everyone, but I keep an eye on my personal information because I resent its use by strangers. When I share something with friends, it is not intended to be available to people who I do not know. It should not be for sale to marketers. It should not be used for decisions of worthiness of credit or employment. It most certainly should not be avalai
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Facebook is changing social norms, including privacy norms,
I don't see much of facebook changing any social norms; people seem to share more or less what they've always done. Facebook is just a whole lot more promiscuous about who they decide you should be social with, and over what time periods they do it.
The lack of easy granularity and difficulty of controlling information spread mainly means many tend to spew things ranging from the banal and inane that most their friends don't give a crap about to the
Re: (Score:2)
In the immortal words of Dick Cheney, "Go !@#$ Yourself"
There, fixed that for you.