Comment by alterom

It's not "smearing" to use Zuckerberg's own words in a discussion of his character, and this is far from the only example of things he's done or said in the past 20 years that would lead a reasonable person to call into question his moral fiber.

It remains, however, a popular point of reference because:

1. It's fast and easy to read and digest.

2. The blunt language leaves little room for speculation about his feelings and intent at the time.

3. A lot of people understand that as Zuckerberg's wealth exploded, he surrounded himself with people (coaches, stylists, PR professionals, etc.) who are paid handsomely to rehabilitate and manage his image. Therefore, his pre-wealth behavior gives insight into who he really is.

I hear this rebuttal a lot; here's why it doesn't work for me:

I'm the exact same age as Zuckerberg. When I first read this quote, it struck me as a really gross mindset and a point of view that I could neither relate to nor have sympathy for. I would not have said (or thought) those things when I was his age. Fundamentally, this is a demonstration of poor character.

Now, people do grow and change. We've all said or done things that we regret. Life can be really hard, at times, for most of us, and more often than not young arrogant guys eventually learn some humility and grace and empathy after they confront the real world and experience the inevitable ups and downs of life.

But Zuckerberg had no such experience. His life during and after the time when he said this was one of accelerating material success and validation. The scam he was so heartlessly bragging about in that statement actually worked, and he became one of the richest men in the world. So my expectation of the likelihood that he matured away from this mindset is much lower than it would be for someone like you or me.

(And, as others have said in this thread, there's ample evidence from his subsequent decisions to support this)

There's a big difference between "someone said something stupid as a kid"... "but now has changed and is a totally different person" and "is doing the same things but now knows how not to say the quiet part out loud"

>they have to reach 20 years into the past.

Well, they don't, but this is a particularly damning statement and it's age is more of a feature than a flaw because it shows a long history of anti-social disdain for humanity.

Learning to choose your words more wisely as you age does not necessarily indicate your underlying value system has evolved.

Okay, how about a settlement from just last year, about how Meta does nothing but violate privacy? [0]

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2jmledvr3o

>it is perhaps also damning that any time someone wants to smear zuck they have to reach 20 years into the past.

It is perhaps not, and perhaps a bit disingenuous to claim so in good faith, as if it exceeds your abilities to search for the list of facebook scandals in the decades following and see that the behavior is often consistent with this quote. Even if you choose to ignore all that, it's also not very reasonable to expect troves of juicier quotes after all the C-suites, lawyers, and HR departments showed up locked everything down with corporate speak. I'm sure if facebook were to be so kind as to leak all the messages and audio of zuck's internal comms since that time people would be able to have many other juicy quotes to work with.

It is often referenced because it's the best quote that represents the trailblazing era of preying on users' undying thirst for convenience in order to package their private data as a product.

You would have a good point if what Meta is doing now wasn’t far worse than what Zuck himself is describing in those comments, all while Zuck has remained at the helm the entire time.

I'd say once someone reveals their true character, you should believe it.

>As much as this is a damning quote, it is perhaps also damning that any time someone wants to smear zuck they have to reach 20 years into the past.

Smear is a word that's not applicable here. It implies that the allegations in the argument labeled thusly are wrong and unjust.

This is not the case here.

Or just quote anything out of the much more recent book Careless People.

Character almost never changes.

or just at any point in the last 20 years to the present works too

Not as self-damning as you trying to defend what he said 20 years ago, with full knowledge of how he's acted in those intervening 20 years.

Congratulations, you've just smeared yourself with your own contemporary words.

you are who you are

or more recently the times he lied to Congress, all the layoffs, the "metaverse", etc

I've tried to learn and grow from the stupid comments of my youth. I haven't been involved in a long list of scandals directly related to the ideas those comments expressed, and if I was, it would be pretty clear that I didn't learn or grow at all.

Yes, I posted some stupid stuff as teenager and later.

I never in my life were mocking and making fun out of other people for trusting me, or equivalent.

I also never run company that knowingly ruined multitude of lives and social interactions in general.

> snarky

Snark is not a problem that people have with Mr. Zuckerberg.

[flagged]