Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks The Internet

Facebook Interviewer Heckled at Web Conference 179

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the go-home-and-cry-in-your-billions dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Interviewer Heckled at Web Conference

Comments Filter:
  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Monday March 10, 2008 @11:22AM (#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.
    • by TubeSteak (669689) on Monday March 10, 2008 @11:42AM (#22702044) Journal

      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.
      • by montyzooooma (853414) on Monday March 10, 2008 @11:51AM (#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?
        • by Hatta (162192) on Monday March 10, 2008 @11:59AM (#22702320) Journal
          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.
          • by Briden (1003105) on Monday March 10, 2008 @12:10PM (#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) ;)
            • by mapkinase (958129)
              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"!?
            • by piojo (995934)

              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.

              Marketing is also intended to make you think about a brand or product, and this even works on cheap people like me. (I am almost never swayed to buy based on advertisements, because the thing being advertised is almost never the best price or value.) But even so, ads make a brand stick in my mind, and occasionally, in absence of all other information, I will buy the brand that I have heard of over the one that I haven't.

              As for targeted vs. untargeted, I think I prefer targeted ads, because they are more li

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by CodeBuster (516420)

            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: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by realthing02 (1084767)
            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 beca
          • by jacobw (975909)
            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 w
          • by Fex303 (557896)

            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

            • by Hatta (162192) on Monday March 10, 2008 @01:03PM (#22703464) Journal
              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: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Fex303 (557896)

                If they're not distinguishable by features, then choose on price.

                And you know about those features how? Packaging? Oh, that would be marketing's job.

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

                There is? Do tell.

                Apologies, as you've probably realized, I meant to say there is no rational argument to be made for fashion.

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

                Unless you're a soap maker. But still, let's look at something like cars then. Marketed to pro

                • I meant to say there is no rational argument to be made for fashion.
                  Wouldn't increasing your chances at sex, social promotion, acceptance by others, etc. be rational arguments for fashion? Fashion is basically marketing yourself, with limited facts people will make decisions on you based on your clothing.
        • by cHiphead (17854)
          I wonder what targeted ads would look like for 4chan/7chan /b/ 'ers...
      • by StikyPad (445176)
        I'd settle for "social networking" sites to go the way of GeoCities.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DavidD_CA (750156)
        Isn't signing up for Facebook your opt-in?

        Don't like it; don't use it.
    • Mating urge (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheLink (130905) on Monday March 10, 2008 @11:49AM (#22702144) Journal
      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.
      • by stdarg (456557)
        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.
      • by homer_ca (144738)
        That's pretty much it. I always used to keep a low profile online, being careful with my real name. I actually joined Facebook a while ago with an alumni email address, but never used it because I didn't find any friends on it. Then a friend asked me about it and added me. I logged in and a whole bunch of my friends were on it now. I figured what the hell; I can't be a hermit forever. It's great for socializing and keeping up with friends, but you're really putting your whole life online. Don't post incrimi
    • by PFI_Optix (936301) on Monday March 10, 2008 @12:09PM (#22702478) Journal
      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.
      • 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

        • Don't forget those silly flash sites where you can't save images... with those usually you end up downloading the SWF and dumping the images/sounds from it with a tool.

          Sometimes it gets more complicated (the SWF downloads the image files or another SWF with the image files separately) but then you can still see what happens in the decompiled SWF code. And if all else fails, Wireshark can trap all the HTTP traffic and you can identify individual files downloaded, and even rip the files from the captured H

      • by AnyoneEB (574727)
        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
        • by PFI_Optix (936301)
          The alternative would be to specify access rights for each individual image, and that would be a nightmare for users AND facebook developers. Better to just leave it be.

          If you want only five of your closest friends to see that picture of you making out with your sorority sister, here's a thought...EMAIL IT TO THEM. Or tranfer it via IM. Or whatever. But DO NOT upload it to any hosting site, because even if it's 100% secure from the outside, you have no idea how many people have access to it from inside the
    • by argStyopa (232550) on Monday March 10, 2008 @01:24PM (#22703838) Journal
      "....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 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by liquidpele (663430) on Monday March 10, 2008 @11:24AM (#22701716) Journal
    A lot of interviews only happen because the interviewer agrees to only ask questions approved by the interviewee. Maybe that's the case here?
  • Too bad... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Monday March 10, 2008 @11:24AM (#22701738)
    Too bad the article doesn't tell us what the purportedly clueless interviewer *did* ask.
    • Re:Too bad... (Score:5, Informative)

      by millwall (622730) * on Monday March 10, 2008 @11:30AM (#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?
      • by TopShelf (92521)
        Good enough for a /. first page?

        Well, you're setting the bar pretty low, there...
    • 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... (Score:4, Informative)

      by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday March 10, 2008 @11:36AM (#22701944) Journal
      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... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Furry Ice (136126) on Monday March 10, 2008 @12:28PM (#22702824)
      Here's a video of the interview: http://www.austin360.com/news/mplayer/sxsw/73367 [austin360.com]
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Angostura (703910)
        Actually the comments on that video appear to be the most informative guide to what happened.
      • Re:Too bad... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by holden caufield (111364) on Monday March 10, 2008 @12:53PM (#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.
    • by earlymon (1116185)
      From http://www.news.com/8301-13772_3-9889528-52.html [news.com] -

      "You have to ask questions," he said.

      Again, his line generated a massive cheer from the crowd.

      By now, Lacy was becoming aware of how she was losing the crowd, and said, "Anybody who's seen my (TV) show...has seen me throw a whole glass of water on (Techcrunch founder Michael) Arrington."

      With a sly look, Zuckerberg grabbed her water glass and moved it out of her reach.

      She then tried to follow up the line of questioning about the journals, saying that one of the interesting things about his process was that he burned the journals when he was done with them.

      "I don't do that," Zuckerberg said. "You made that up."

      Shocked, Lacy called out to the back of the room where someone who had apparently sat and talked with Lacy and Zuckerberg the night before was sitting in an attempt to get confirmation that he had said he burned his journals.

      Much as I dislike CNET, the above link seems to tell more than most sites, I recommend it, FWIW. In any case, the rage sounds justified.

  • scrabulous (Score:3, Funny)

    by apodyopsis (1048476) on Monday March 10, 2008 @11:27AM (#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?
  • by dstone (191334) on Monday March 10, 2008 @11:27AM (#22701792) Homepage
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=ccLJnICdJGI [youtube.com]

    She's made of Teflon(R), apparently.
  • Get a suit, Zuck! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by davejenkins (99111) <slashdot@@@davejenkins...com> on Monday March 10, 2008 @11:32AM (#22701874) Homepage
    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.
    • by rindeee (530084)
      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: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by AvitarX (172628)
        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.
    • by insertwackynamehere (891357) on Monday March 10, 2008 @11:45AM (#22702114) Journal
      He clearly got this far on his own. Why should he hire someone now?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by maxume (22995)
      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, b
      • by magarity (164372)
        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.
        • Re:Get a suit, Zuck! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by bkr1_2k (237627) on Monday March 10, 2008 @02:42PM (#22705480)
          You're doing a shitty job of investing if you're only making $20k on $1M. Seriously, that's only 2%. A low end money market investment will earn you at least 3.5% on that kind of money and most will guarantee 4.5 and actually earn around 6. If you actually invest the money in real investments you're looking at something more like 8-10% for conservative investment, which earns you around 80-100k (per million) before taxes, so let's say 70-85K per year after taxes, if you actually pay at 15%. (My wife and I made 100k+ this year and our actual tax percentage is around 11%.)

          If you can't survive and "do whatever you want" on 300K+ a year (for "several million") in interest income you're seriously being wasteful with your money. Or you're trying to buy shit that costs millions of dollars, which is generally being wasteful with your money, but agreeably doesn't fall into the category "whatever you want to do".
          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            You need to subtract 2-3% from each of the interest rates you're using and reinvest it, or your interest income will not keep pace with inflation.
          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by maxume (22995)
            8-10% might be a bit of an aggressive assumption for conservative investments. For the DOW to match last centuries growth in this century, it would have to close at 2,000,000 at the beginning of 2100(page 19, the whole thing is worth a read):

            http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2007ltr.pdf [berkshirehathaway.com]

            To hit 10% a year, the DOW would close at 24,000,000. One way to look at it is to ask, are things going to improve more this century than they improved last century, or less(the upside is that if they improve more, mon
  • by prostoalex (308614) * on Monday March 10, 2008 @11:48AM (#22702142) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • plan b (Score:4, Funny)

    by pak9rabid (1011935) on Monday March 10, 2008 @11:53AM (#22702226)
    When all else fails, kindly remind them that you're the one with billions of dollars, not the audience trolls :).
  • by creimer (824291) on Monday March 10, 2008 @11:54AM (#22702242) Homepage
    How to become a young billionaire should've been the topic of the day.
    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      Who cares about privacy and portability... How to become a young billionaire should've been the topic of the day.
      1) If everyone was a billionaire, being a billionaire would be meaningless.
      2. Ask any (non-attention whore) movie/music/tv/sports star how important privacy is to them. You'd be rather surprised how much money & effort they have to spend to get the kind of privacy you and I take for granted.
      • by creimer (824291)
        You have to be a billionaire since being a millionaire doesn't mean much these days.
  • money and reality (Score:4, Insightful)

    by drDugan (219551) on Monday March 10, 2008 @11:55AM (#22702252) Homepage
    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      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

      • by bkr1_2k (237627)
        Who says you have to? Plenty of people make six figure salaries and work fantastic jobs and have all the balance you have. The only thing you have to do is not accept the alternative (shitty work life in favor of money) and you'll get there eventually, if you want to. Most people don't because they accept that they can't, but it's simply not true. Well, for many people it is true, but it's not pre-ordained or anything.

        I have several friends making well into the 6 figures doing fairly routine program man
    • Money is the *only* metric for sucess?!?! I pity you.
  • by rice_burners_suck (243660) on Monday March 10, 2008 @12:05PM (#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.
    • 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.
  • by strredwolf (532) on Monday March 10, 2008 @12:13PM (#22702550) Homepage Journal
    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!
  • 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"
  • by peter303 (12292) on Monday March 10, 2008 @12:29PM (#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.
  • by oceaniv (1243854)
    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
    • 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.
  • 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.
  • by Necroman (61604) on Monday March 10, 2008 @01:48PM (#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.
  • Groupthink (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bjtuna (70129) <brian@noSPam.intercarve.net> on Monday March 10, 2008 @02:26PM (#22705192) Homepage
    This little 'story' has been going around for about 24 hours and the root of it, in my opinion, is being obscured: the self-congratulation of a bunch of developers that they were able to chat online (with Twitter) about an event that they were all watching with their own eyes. The tweets took on a life of their own. That's why you keep seeing the same phrase, "train wreck", in all these write-ups. So one journalist did a poor job of interviewing some business owner? If it wasn't for the "live blogging" aspect, it wouldn't be news. And don't even get me started on how fucking rude it was for the audience to start interrupting them. I've seen some other people comment here that Zuckerburg and Lacy are lacking in social skills... sorry, but that doesn't compare to how completely out-of-line the audience members were.
  • WTF... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mcmire (1152897)
    Personally I think this whole fiasco just proves (yet again) that when people are given the chance to speak their mind, they act like total dickwads. Bloggers and Twitterers are no exception. I mean, read some of the twits [valleywag.com]. Sarah Lacy may have been a terrible interviewer, but that's no reason to throw insults at her... Jesus. You'd think that the same people that twitter are the same people that troll YouTube and shit all over the comments sections...
  • by gelfling (6534) on Monday March 10, 2008 @02:49PM (#22705636) Homepage Journal
    A friend of mine, an historian, commented that when you leave teenagers in charge what you get is the middle ages. Which is factually correct.

    The Facebook generation, essentially a gibbering gaggle of binge drinking ADD retards, are now in charge. In a few more years you can expect another Cultural Revolution that will make 'Idiocracy' look like a documentary.

Imitation is the sincerest form of plagarism.

Working...