Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook Movies Social Networks

Zuckerberg's Side of 'The Social Network' 217

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the wonder-how-he-pronounces-beelion dept.
alkasem sent in a video clip where Mark Zuckerberg, speaking at Y-Combinator, tells his side of The Social Network. He says [the movie-makers] "can't wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things." I did really like that a monologue describing Zuckerberg building his first website was shockingly technically accurate — they mention tools, tasks and languages, and show screenshots that were all more or less exactly how we were doing things back then.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Zuckerberg's Side of 'The Social Network'

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @08:52AM (#33944964)

    Enough said.

  • by kuzb (724081) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @08:53AM (#33944970)
    He didn't build it because he "likes building things". He built it because he wanted to make money. Facebook is designed from the ground up to do just that - violate your privacy and make the company money in the process.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by binkzz (779594)

      He didn't build it because he "likes building things". He built it because he wanted to make money. Facebook is designed from the ground up to do just that - violate your privacy and make the company money in the process.

      To be fair, his initial motivation wasn't money but to make something that let him share all the nude pictures of the girls at college.

      • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @09:00AM (#33945040)
        If you believe what the multi-billion dollar worth guy who owns the company which is making cash hand-over-fist while violating your privacy says about the roots of the website.

        You couldn't get a more biased source.
        • by binkzz (779594)
          I was somewhat sarcastic; I don't think the ''share nudies without girls' consent'' is any better a motivation.

          I had to read your sentence four or five times before I could understand it.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by phoenixwade (997892)

          You couldn't get a more biased source.

          You must be new here..... You post a summary on Slashdot, you get 30 more biased sources within 30 min.

          • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

            by Gadget_Guy (627405) *

            You must be new here..... You post a summary on Slashdot, you get 30 more biased sources within 30 min.

            The worst part is that it is 30 biased and uninformed sources. At least Zuckerberg knows whether what he is saying is the truth or not. All the people here who post definitively that he was only in it to make money are just giving their gut feeling and they cannot possibly be basing it on fact. There is a 50% chance that they might be right, but they really can't say for sure.

            It doesn't stop them from being modded as Insightful though.

            • Sure helps my karma, though.

              Thanks, folks!
            • At least Zuckerberg knows whether what he is saying is the truth or not. All the people here who post definitively that he was only in it to make money are just giving their gut feeling and they cannot possibly be basing it on fact.

              The facts we know are that Zuckerberg has made his fortune on selling Facebook users up the marketing river. That speaks to his character, and many people will conclude from his actions--not without some justification--that he lacks credibility in matters of truth.

              I realise it may come as a shock to some, but just because you've done nothing legally wrong doesn't mean people will be inclined to think you're very trustworthy. PR will only take you so (very) far before people start connecting the dots.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Dhalka226 (559740)

          He is a biased source, yes. He's also the only source capable of 100% knowing the truth of why he decided to do something. It's up to the readers to decide if they prefer first-hand information from a biased source or second-hand information, guesses and suppositions from other, potentially also biased sources, or better yet, a mix of both.

          Your simply dismissing somebody because he has a potential bias and, from the sounds of your post, runs a website you don't like isn't exactly the smartest thing in t

          • by yoshi_mon (172895)

            He is a biased source, yes. He's also the only source capable of 100% knowing the truth of why he decided to do something. It's up to the readers to decide if they prefer first-hand information from a biased source or second-hand information, guesses and suppositions from other, potentially also biased sources, or better yet, a mix of both.

            People rewrite their own history all the time. Either consciously or though some rationalization process.

            As the old saying goes there is what people said happened and then what really happened. Add to that now what Hollywood said happened.

          • by BobMcD (601576)

            He is a biased source, yes. He's also the only source capable of 100% knowing the truth of why he decided to do something.

            That's actually not true. Observe...

            movie-makers “can’t wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things.”

            So it follows that Zuckerberg is claiming that he built Facebook because he likes building things. Okay. So what has he built since? He likes building things, so the profit, the fame, the success, etc, isn't driving him, it's the building of things. Reminds me of Leonardo da Vinci. The difference, though, is that da Vinci's notebook was filled with things he started and never completed. He loved working for the work, it would seem. Where's this in Zuckerberg's beh

        • If you believe what the multi-billion dollar worth guy who owns the company which is making cash hand-over-fist while violating your privacy says about the roots of the website. You couldn't get a more biased source.

          Sure you could just go to a news site discussion forum filled with underachieving idealistic tech people who are jealous of the billionaire's success with a seemingly pointless piece of software that violates some of their core principles.

      • by morari (1080535)

        That sounds like a plan to make money as well. do a search for "nude pictures of girls"... I hear it's a real cash cow.

    • He built it because he wanted to make money.

      Take a look at the current Slashdot poll: most folks would like to travel back in time to invest in something.

      So Zuckerberg has good company, even among Slashdot folks. Pretty sad, actually.

      • by kuzb (724081) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @09:06AM (#33945094)
        I don't mind that people make companies to make money. I just find it sad that he has to get up and lie about his own motivations. He's attempting to put a positive spin on his motivations when all his recent actions suggest just the opposite.
        • I don't mind that people make companies to make money. I just find it sad that he has to get up and lie about his own motivations. He's attempting to put a positive spin on his motivations when all his recent actions suggest just the opposite.

          I don't think that points the original motivation to be a lie, focuses change all the time, he may very well have been motivated differently at first and became motivated by money and evolve into a corporate douchebag over time.

          • by kuzb (724081)
            It's possible that this [businessinsider.com] is an urban myth, possibly fabricated. I'll let you judge for yourself.
        • I guess that I was thinking more on the likes of Jon Postel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postel [wikipedia.org]

          But no one on Slashdot is old enough to know who he was :-)

      • by X.25 (255792)

        Take a look at the current Slashdot poll: most folks would like to travel back in time to invest in something.

        So Zuckerberg has good company, even among Slashdot folks. Pretty sad, actually.

        Yeah, but you don't see them spewing shit like Zuckerberg, in front of a camera, do you?

    • He didn't build it because he "likes building things". He built it because he wanted to make money. Facebook is designed from the ground up to do just that

      There is nothing wrong with wanting to make money and that desire isn't exclusive with wanting to build things. My problem with Zuckerberg is that in addition to those desires he has had nearly complete disrespect for Facebook users and their prerogative to make decisions about the distribution of their private information.

    • by kevinNCSU (1531307) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @09:10AM (#33945142)
      Speaking as someone who was in college when facebook first started being used I have the strong feeling it started out as just an application he was building that he thought was cool. You generally don't put such hard limits on your user-base if you're simply interested in money right off the bat. Of course, once it started getting used and taking off the natural question is how do I best make money of this, and the natural answer is advertisements and data. Then your little hobby project turns into a profit driven company. I really don't think he had the foresight to sit down and say "How can I best create an internet phenomenon that everyone will use in order to get everyone's user data and information and sell it to advertisers to make millions?" and then immediately bang out facebook. That's generally not how people/life works. There's a natural progression and a shifting of goals/values, the world is not binary.
      • by btcoal (1693074) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @09:29AM (#33945332)

        I completely agree.

        First, some claim Zuckerberg didn’t build Facebook. Zuckerberg was actually hired by fellow Harvard undergraduates to build a website similar to Facebook. The more accurate accusation as that he stole the idea of Facebook. All articles on the inception of the website clearly state that Zuckerberg wrote the code himself. No one is going to claim that Zuckerberg was the next Don Knuth, Facebook was mainly hacked together using PHP over a couple of nights.

        Second, some claim Zuckerberg is just in it for the money. If that were true he could have sold out a LONG time ago for around $1 billion. I think the subtext about building things just because you like to build things is that Zuckerberg is building his company not just for the money. I seriously doubt most of the posters on Slashdot, at the age of 22 would not have taken $1billion for a side project they worked on at school. It takes a special kind of person to have that resolve. Those are the people we should venerate in this country not vilify.

        Third, some claim Zuckerberg is a douche. This is largely irrelevant. Most of us geeks aren’t the nicest guys in the world, let’s be real. Borderline Asperger’s/autism is rampant as is narcissism and a complete lack of humility. Find me a geek without a major personality flaw and you haven’t found a geek.

        Moreover, I find it ironic that men like Bill Gates and Zuckerberg are constantly shat on here, but Steve Jobs is lauded as the second coming of Christ. If you read about the early history of Apple, you could make perfect parallels between the criticisms leveled at Zuckerberg and Jobs’s rise and fall and rise. Steve Jobs is megalomaniac clearly demonstrated sociopathic tendencies, has questionable tech credentials and could not give two shits about his customers’ opinions. And Apple is all the better for it.

        So why does /. hate Zuckerberg so much? I think it is largely a generational divide. Many of you come from the gold old days of tech (command lines, walking five miles in the snow to get your code to compile, etc) and don’t really understand that just because something wasn’t challenging in a technical sense it is still HUGELY useful to millions of people. I was basically part of the first generation to use Facebook in college. It has been a great service for keeping track of friends from high school and family on the other side of the country/world. I can share pictures, stories, articles, links, lolcats and memories on one unified platform. The interface has always been super user friendly and clean. For the vast majority of college students (and increasingly everyone else) Facebook is as essential and important as Wikipedia or YouTube (the latter’s founders sold out for around $165million to Google, I should remind you). So let’s chill with the hating on Zuckerberg’s success. It’s all just a bit tacky and hypocritical.

        • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @09:45AM (#33945482)

          So why does /. hate Zuckerberg so much?

          Perhaps because the boy doesn't believe that privacy is a good thing? He is on the record as saying that anyone who wants privacy must be unethical. He uses Facebook to try to undermine the very concept of privacy in our society, and he is doing that at a time when the 4th amendment is being attacked by the government.

          Or maybe we were all perfectly content with communicating with our friends and families using interoperable systems that are not designed to lock us in. Everything about Facebook is designed like the Hotel California, and Zuckerberg knows that but refuses to make any meaningful changes.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by icebraining (1313345)

          Why should we venerate him because he didn't sold? I'd understand if he hadn't sold to prevent an "evil company" from taking over, but Facebook is already data mining people's private data. Selling wouldn't make it worse.

          Third, some claim Zuckerberg is a douche. This is largely irrelevant. Most of us geeks aren't the nicest guys in the world, let's be real. Borderline Asperger's/autism is rampant as is narcissism and a complete lack of humility. Find me a geek without a major personality flaw and you haven'

        • by Abcd1234 (188840)

          Steve Jobs is lauded as the second coming of Christ.

          ROFL, wow... you *really* don't spend a lot of time around here, do you?

        • It has been a great service for keeping track of friends from high school and family on the other side of the country/world. I can share pictures, stories, articles, links, lolcats and memories on one unified platform.

          Facebook came out just a short while after I finished college. Back when registrations were restricted to .edu addresses, there was no check for "@alumni.xxxxxx.edu" so I got in early.

          Does anyone remember Friendster? Shortly before Facebook and MySpace there was a thing called Friendster t

        • by kalirion (728907)

          the latter's founders sold out for around $165million to Google, I should remind you

          You're missing a zero at the end there.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by owlnation (858981)

          "So why does /. hate Zuckerberg so much? I think it is largely a generational divide. Many of you come from the gold old days of tech (command lines, walking five miles in the snow to get your code to compile, etc) and don't really understand that just because something wasn't challenging in a technical sense it is still HUGELY useful to millions of people"

          I'd guess the reasons why people hate Zuckerberg here so much, are indeed due to an age difference, and experience. The current generation who grew up

      • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @09:40AM (#33945440)

        it started out as just an application he was building that he thought was cool

        Perhaps, but I have to wonder why, then, did he ignore calls for interoperability, even early on before he was a billionaire. Perhaps he didn't think interoperability was cool?

        The way I see things, he saw how profitable social networking websites were becoming, and thought he would give it a shot. I doubt he knew that it would become so popular, but he certainly knew the concept was popular (or should I say, the people who thought up ConnectU saw the concept was popular, then Zuckerberg ran with the idea).

        • by Webz (210489)

          You're kidding, right? If you're the #1 gorilla, who cares about interoperability? The only thing interoperability does is make it easier for people not-you to take parts of the market that aren't or soon won't be yours.

          I'm not saying interoperability is bad. I'm just saying, from the perspective of the one in power, there seems to be no local benefit at all. Why would anyone consider that.

        • it started out as just an application he was building that he thought was cool

          Perhaps, but I have to wonder why, then, did he ignore calls for interoperability, even early on before he was a billionaire. Perhaps he didn't think interoperability was cool?

          Yea, I know when I first start working on a cool project the thing that really gets my blood pumping is working on an export feature to satisfy people who don't want to use my project.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Maybe he didn't want to bother with implementing interoperability because he had other aspects of the website he wanted to focus on. I know that if I had a pet project going, and some outsider insisted that I should do X, Y, and Z because it is right and just makes sense, I might respectfully tell them to piss off because I would rather work on U, V, and W. It is my project after all, right?
    • by Rogerborg (306625)

      He didn't build it

      Sufficient to stop there, I think. Can't say more. Lawyers have ears like bats. Fangs, too.

    • by MojoRilla (591502)
      I disagree. If he wanted to make money, the site would have been crawling with ads, and would have imploded. In the absense of other believable data, I believe he wanted to build it because he liked to build things, and that he wanted to make something successful.

      Off topic, what is with all the Zuckerberg hate on Slashdot? He is a techie made good. He is living most coder's dreams. Is it that he invented it, and you didn't?
      • I disagree. If he wanted to make money, the site would have been crawling with ads, and would have imploded. In the absense of other believable data, I believe he wanted to build it because he liked to build things, and that he wanted to make something successful.

        Off topic, what is with all the Zuckerberg hate on Slashdot? He is a techie made good. He is living most coder's dreams. Is it that he invented it, and you didn't?

        Here's a question: How did he make billions without the site crawling with ads?

        Answer: Selling your personal information without your consent.

      • I disagree. If he wanted to make money, the site would have been crawling with ads, and would have imploded.

        Maybe he wanted to make money and he's not stupid? "Making money" doesn't have to mean a fast buck - it may mean making money on a longer run.

        And btw, many techies live the coder's dream and they're well regarded here - Sid Maier, Wozniak, Carmack, etc - that "jealousy excuse" doesn't stick.

    • I tend to believe him. Most good "money making" ideas didn't start out as such, Typically anything built with nothing but monetary aspirations tend to be incredibly generic and uninspired. That's not to say you can't capitalize on something you love doing but the real big hit ideas have a lot of love for the process and the results beyond just money.

      Whether he did it just because he wanted to build something, or he was looking for social notoriety (or both) I can't say but I don't really see his initial
  • I guess now I have to see the movie just to see them get something about computers right for once.

  • No shock there. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jimicus (737525) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @08:54AM (#33944978)

    [the movie-makers] “can’t wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things.”

    No kidding. We've seen evidence of that from lots of big corporations - particularly in the entertainment business - for ten years or more.

    It wouldn't surprise me if someone replies to this post with some sort of evidence of that mindset being so heavily entrenched that goes back much further - decades or even centuries.

    • It's called drama and yes, it does go back centuries. Characters with unorthodox motivations aren't very compelling and are difficult to make the audience care about. That's why you see a pallet of similar motivations in most films: greed, lust, love, vengeance, survival, and justice. Characters who lack these motivations usually aren't motivated by anything, they're just driven forward by circumstance.

  • poor guy (Score:2, Funny)

    by colmore (56499)

    I really feel for these poor misunderstood billionaires.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by binkzz (779594)

      I really feel for these poor misunderstood billionaires.

      We should set up some form of charity fund for them.

    • by digitaldc (879047) *
      I know what you mean, they don't go out in public or have any privacy...er, wait that is just a typical facebook addict...nevermind.
  • by spiffmastercow (1001386) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @09:02AM (#33945056)
    Facebook was nothing new or revolutionary. There was Friendster way before it came along, Granted, FB was a lot better than MySpace (it's biggest competitor at the time), but that was more due to a failing on the part of MySpace than on the merits of FB. Social networking sites are not really complicated.. Why so much worship, hatred, and jealousy over this?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by oodaloop (1229816)
      Yeah, Mark knows about friendster. Check out his profile.

      http://profiles.friendster.com/950378
    • by Timmmm (636430) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @09:14AM (#33945206)

      It's extremely simple. Before Facebook, it was still considered weird to use your real name on a website. Most names on MySpace were like "johnnys123" rather than "John Smith". Obviously using real names is much more desirable, and one of the main reasons Facebook became popular. And the reason people were willing to use real names on Facebook was because you needed a .ac.uk or .edu email address to get an account, and only people from your uni could see your profile.

      In a nutshell:

      1. It was much more secure than the alternatives.
      2. So people felt ok using real names and details, and allowing other people to see their profiles (because only people from the same uni could).
      3. The use of real details made it much more friendly and useful.

      There were other reasons too:

      1. It didn't look like shit like MySpace.
      2. Due to the .ac.uk/.edu requirement it wasn't filled with idiots.
      3. Luck.

    • Facebook was nothing new or revolutionary.

      There's a hell of a lot more to success than simply being new or revolutionary.

      There was Friendster way before it came along,

      And others.

      Granted, FB was a lot better than MySpace (it's biggest competitor at the time), but that was more due to a failing on the part of MySpace than on the merits of FB.

      Facebook also had a bit of exclusivity going for it, since you initially had to be a college student. Folks like exclusivity.

      Social networking sites are not really complicated..

      Nope, they aren't. Which is why there are so many different variations on the theme.

      Why so much worship, hatred, and jealousy over this?

      Facebook is the de-facto standard. It's the one that caught on. It's the one that pretty much everyone uses. It's the 800lb gorilla in the room.

    • by Idbar (1034346)
      The success of FB was its origins on exclusivity. MySpace et. al just wanted to make social networks, but failed to see the malicious people and how to keep them from accessing their networks. FB started as a club for a university, then a group of universities, and so on. It took years for FB to open to schools and universities around the world. Then, they went public. They built the idea of exclusivity and the people's feeling of belonging to a selected group of people.

      That's where all the others failed
  • Yes, I understand that people build things because they like building things (I'm one of those).
    But the question is why did he, Zuckerberg, create facebooks. Because there is no evidence that shows that he actually built anything, it was all made by others. Sure, he made some drawings on a napkin of something that sort of resembles facebook. But calling that building facebook is just ludicrous.

    • To expand on my own post, building things because you like the build things still isn't an answer to why you decided to build that thing, you could have made some other thing. Why did he decide to "build" facebook, and not youtube, or flickr.

  • a fictional Mark Zuckerberg builds the site in order to impress a girl

    This is a silly idea anyway to think that writing some PHP code will get you laid.

  • I remember Zuckerberg stating that he felt that he expected the movie to portray him unfairly and that he would not see it. I guess he changed his mind. I'm glad, because now he knows that many other people see that some of the things he does are scummy.

    • by Rogerborg (306625)

      I remember Zuckerberg stating

      We can't say for sure if Mr Zuckerberg did or didn't say that, but [...] excuse me, I misspoke. I meant that we are 100% absolutely sure that he didn't, and we can and will prove it in court.

    • by Xtravar (725372)

      He probably didn't see it. He had a secretary see it and give him notes, which his PR person then turned into some witticisms so he could spin it in his favor during interviews.

  • HACK the power! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by digitaldc (879047) *
    Does anyone else find it a bit annoying that a corporate computer giant billionaire like Zuckerberg is wearing a HACK T-Shirt?
    Is he trying to be ironic or cool or something?
  • by gblackwo (1087063) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @09:13AM (#33945176) Homepage
    All the comments say that he was in it for the money from the start. Facebook didn't have a real financial model for years. Facebook, which started at a single university, and spread to a few more, eventually opening up to anyone with a .edu address was a different Facebook than the one we know today. Maybe the percentage of slashdotters that were in college when Facebook was strictly for .edu user is so small you are unaware. Trust me, alotta people were pissed when Fb opened up to everyone and started commercializing- it has been downhill ever since- But to say that it has been a privacy violating money maker since the get go is complete bullshit.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by liquiddark (719647)
      This is a fallacy. Lots of internet sites don't have a financial model at the outset; that was practically the defining trait for dot-coms during the bubble. That does not mean the people building and running those sites do not have a financial incentive in mind, it simply means they're following a get big fast [joelonsoftware.com], Amazon-style growth model.
      • Exactly. Napster NEVER had a financial model.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        This is a fallacy.

        What part? All he is trying to convey is that the claims of Zuckerberg being in it for the money from the start are not true. If that's the case for every website out there, it still makes the parents claim true.

        And I think you are a little confused about it. Facebook wasn't designed with a "Let's be free to grow as fast as possible" scheme in mind. It didn't have financial incentive UNTIL it got big, but Amazon had financial incentive all along, but didn't invoke any of its plans until it got big. There is

        • It's a fallacy to say "There wasn't a financial model therefore he wasn't in it for the money." There's no question he was aware he could make money off of a successful website, although I won't go so far as to say firmly that that was part of his planning it seems pretty straightforward to suggest that someone who is cagey, intelligent, and ambitious would plan at least partially around making some money. Maybe not a billion dollars, but certainly more than server costs.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by xtracto (837672)

      Jeez, that is actually what they show in The S.N. movie! Even, the way they paint it, Zuckerberg stopped his friends ambitions of putting advertising for a long time!

    • The real history? Never going to come out; Facebook's PR department is working to bury it, and reconstruct it as being another case of someone having a great idea while in college.

      What everything points to is this: around 2003, it was clear that social networking websites were taking off and that we might have a new way to make money with websites. Two brothers at Harvard thought they would get in on the action with ConnectU. Zuckerberg may or may not have agreed to work for them, but somehow he also
    • by Rutefoot (1338385)
      Agreed.

      Two supporting points:

      1) Facebook didn't even have a positive cash flow until 2009. That's an awfully long time to wait around for your financial model to really kick in if you had lofty financial goals in the beginning. That was back when Facebook had about 300 Million users. Passing the 100 Million user mark (Hell, the 10 million user mark) without implementing a strong financial model makes it pretty clear to me that they were a) playing it by ear and b) weren't that eager about making ton
  • Lapdogs (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Dunbal (464142) *

    I never understand why society is so ready to suck the cock of someone who invented a new way to waste time, while failing to recognize the people who actually contribute to progress. Turn on CNN - Facebook stories. Read slashdot - Facebook stories. Go to the movies - Facebook the fucking movie.

    What a fucking coincidence. And people never realize how easy it is to buy a little publicity, especially with all the Bad Things (tm) Facebook has been doing lately, and especially when you have a lot of money. Nope

    • Re:Lapdogs (Score:5, Interesting)

      by netsharc (195805) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @09:32AM (#33945364)

      A few years ago people were batshit insane about Second Life... and now it's disappeared from the headlines. Hopefully this will be the Year of Facebook, i.e. next year it'll be yet another niche company.

      • Re:Lapdogs (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Dunbal (464142) * on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @09:38AM (#33945428)

        We never had "Second Life: The Movie"... I think only nerds and pedophiles actually played second life, whereas facebook is full of middle-aged divorcees suffering from empty nest syndrome.

      • by Pecisk (688001)

        Well, there was lot of hype about Second Life...but Facebook differs from that with fact that people actually uses it for every day communication with friends. Horror, isn't it.

        In fact, I don't dig that social networks hate floating around these days. Geeks use them. Common crowd use them. Some overdose them heavily. Some have their social necessities fulfilled. Some try to use it to replace something they don't have in life. Some use them just for fun - and get it plenty. Go figure.

      • by netsavior (627338)
        I have never actually met anyone who has even tried second life. I mean, I play MMOs, I have plenty of acquaintences who are the types that would play "Sims" and "Farmville".

        I don't know it just seems really unlikely to me that second life was nearly as big as media decided it was for those few months.
      • Ah, Second Life. I remember that time when Slashdot was batshit insane about it, with a story or two popping up every single day. I though the concept sounded interesting, but never got around to trying it (did I have to install some software on my computer or was it web-based)?

        And isn't Minecraft the new Second Life?

        Facebook has been around for quite a few years and has a huge user base. The entire MySpace crowd jumped ship and went to Facebook because anybody who is anybody is on Facebook now. If yo
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Combatso (1793216)

      Turn on CNN - Facebook stories. Read slashdot - Facebook stories. Go to the movies - Facebook the fucking movie.

      What a fucking coincidence...... Zuckerberg is a GOD! Put him on an altar!

      Seems you are obsessed with Facebook... You watch it on TV, read about it on forums and go see movies about it? Wow man, you must be hella-good friend-stock

  • by damn_registrars (1103043) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @09:24AM (#33945280) Homepage Journal

    cant wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things.

    If someone just wanted to build something, why wouldn't they build something useful, instead of just profitable?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Combatso (1793216)

      If someone just wanted to build something, why wouldn't they build something useful, instead of just profitable?

      Whats the difference? Seems to me he built a money-making machine... seems pretty useful to me,,,

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Abcd1234 (188840)

      If someone just wanted to build something, why wouldn't they build something useful, instead of just profitable?

      Yeah, you're right! Obviously those millions and millions of people on Facebook are just, I dunno... dups or something. I mean, it can't *possibly* be useful, 'cuz a Slashbot said so.

      Of course, now that I think about it, the answer is quite simple: subliminal brainwashing and an alien conspiracy.

      • If someone just wanted to build something, why wouldn't they build something useful, instead of just profitable?

        Yeah, you're right! Obviously those millions and millions of people on Facebook are just, I dunno... dups or something. I mean, it can't *possibly* be useful, 'cuz a Slashbot said so.

        I don't pretend that slashdot is useful; most of the time it is just a massive time-suck for me. Facebook is much the same for those who are so inclined; it is just a way to waste a lot of time (ask any number of employers in this country). Much like slashdot, very little of what is on facebook is of any value whatsoever. Also much like slashdot there are better ways to get at the miniscule amount of meaningful information that is presented there.

    • And define it in a way that does not apply exclusively to you.

      The 1400 people who work there might disagree, along with anyone they buy things from, or the people who make all those ads, or the hundreds of million of users, and so on and so forth.

      We really need to start teaching some basic economics at the grade school level.

  • by DrXym (126579) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @09:48AM (#33945508)
    Hollywood strives for accuracy. The Social Network shows Zuckerberg as a precocious 9 year old. He sweeps his hands across the glass wall showing a flyover of facebook in 3D. When an adult asks if he knows what he was doing, he replies "Don't worry this site's password is only protected by fourth polynomial encryption, I'll break it in a few seconds!". With blur-like typing he sets off and the wall fills with a sea of random digits that appear to be crawling along a rotating DNA helix. All of a sudden the screen goes blank and is replaced by a big flashing ALARM sign and a wailing siren. "They must have traced my virus back to the mainframe" he says. "Run!". Then all the magnetic locks on the dinosaur enclosures are tripped and the rest of the movie seems them trying to escape the velociraptors. And that's exactly how it actually happened.
  • Who cares why he does anything? He's not a remarkable person. Why do you think the book was called Accidental Billionaires?

    More notable is his lack of character. He got where he did by screwing over friends, breaking contracts, and treating FB users with contempt.

    Despite some other posts here, not all geeks are like that. The Google guys actually invented something incredible, revolutionized the world, created whole industries, and seem to still have a bright future ahead. Fyodor of NMap created a to

  • ...and show screenshots that were all more or less exactly how we were doing things back then.

    I haven't seen the flick yet, so forgive me, but I find it hard to believe that Hollywood couldn't resist making the computer monitors go "zzzzzzzzz" every time something changes on the screen.

Those who can, do; those who can't, simulate.

Working...