Whether or not they go against their own rules is a moot point, given their history of changing those rules and systems with little to no notice or documentation.

They've modified privacy multiple times and changed defaults so as to trick users into sharing more than intended. There was an article not long ago about privacy implications of sharing links in the messenger, as they store links in such a way as to track the history of unrelated people who also shared the link. Not to mention various issues with undocumented collection of private data on mobile devices.

Facebook isn't really a company deserving of third-party defense in the arena of privacy.

http://www.salimvirani.com/facebook/

Flip side: going from 19-year-old college kid to the CEO of a giant corporation could also sharpen shark-like tendencies and compromise previously held morals.

He's definitely still playing the "if you need info just ask" cuz they're "dumb fucks" that "trust me" game. Just worth billions with his company making as much on the same game on a worldwide scale.

And the interest and exploits from Facebook has grown as well.

I mean, of course he is not that naive to use Facebook to extract peoples pics/phone numbers.

But what he can extract from it has probably grown more than he did as a person.

I like him, but he has said what he has said and he is not saint (Snowden in this case).

I does not matter if he had matured since; this was the foundation FB was built on: that you freely give away your personal information.

Unfortunately, they have not much say in how FB is doing its business. Why are we giving MZ benefit of the doubt, when there is plenty of likely more mature people?

For what it's worth, rental car companies won't allow drivers under 25 because their insurance companies have a wealth of data to demonstrate that's when reliable levels of independent judgement emerge. For the same reason, militaries prefer soldiers who are under 25.

That's a very uncommon and great way to look at military recruitment. I've been focusing on the "not enough judgment for beer or voting but good enough for murder" angle but I think I might quote you too. ;)

I also deleted pretty much all personal details and locked down privacy and removed all posts, images, and tags.

You're absolutely right, it's a pleasure not to deal with that terrible newsfeed filled with so much misinformation and bad memes. I go on twitter a bit more but there you can curate a sweet list of incredible people in any field to follow.

That said, I also don't want to be using it in my workplace and will vehemently resist any attempts at using it in my company.

Send an email and CC everyone you want to invite?

2006: http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?men...

2010: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/127409/faceboo...

2013: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2047804/facebooks-new-face-re...

2016: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/business/international/fac...

These people usually refuse to see that FB has become a generic provider without regulation and competitor and in numerous cases you don't have the choice not use it. In my case, it's even in my workplace now. (Same workplace which is looking to migrate to Gmail from Exchange - and Cyrus before that - despite the countless business secrets that might be in mails.)

Quoting a person talks to everyone, even to those who trust a company no one should.

But thank you for these link, it kind of proves that the quote still stands.

If it's not clear that Zuckerberg has matured into a responsible leader since FB started, then I don't know what you've been reading.

And I'm saying this as somebody who has had major gripes with FB in the past, having worked on social games and had to deal with the platform and Credits.

IMO your comment is not constructive discussion.

Because if there's one thing that Stallman has consistently predicted, it's that if you give your private data to a firm, they will absolutely use it however they want.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/StallmanWasRight

I'm quite certain that everyone in the world has said silly things at certain stages of their life that could be used against them and would paint their cause in a horrible light - and by everyone I mean visionaries like Nelson Mandela, The Dali Lama, etc. and of course your run-of-the mill leaders and inspirational people.

Like, right now I have access to some 300,000 phone numbers. All I gotta do is run a shell command and then a SQL query. So can any other engineer in the company. I trust that none of us would use this access maliciously, but how many of our passwords have been leaked in various hacks? What if we're targeted for a hack? What if somebody gets fired and becomes pissy? Hell, what if someone suffers a psychiatric episode and does something stupid?

Situation has been the same at every startup I have ever worked at.

Anyone who gives their data to an early stage startup is not considering all the implications. Me included. I do it all the time. Gotta have all the shiny tools.

And that is of little concern to anyone impacted by such an abuse and of little concern to a 19 year old having a "Holy shit people trust me" moment. I had similar moments running my own stuff in college, if you quoted me out of context I would sound way eviler than Zuck's quote I'm sure. Power, even just a modicum of power, makes 19 year old say dumb shit.

That whole thing about impulse control and executive functions of the brain not being fully developed until you're 25.

The more important question is did he ever abuse that access? [in a way that isn't described in the TOS]

The terms of service is one of those shrink-wrap style of licenses that gives them close to free reign. There's plenty of abuse and sneakiness of Facebook on record. He was fine with it all. He also wasn't 19 during most of it. He also still does things that contradict his profit-motivated claims like most scumbags do. Key one being lying about value of privacy while buying nearby properties to ensure his.

It's not that his opponents are taking one moment of an honest or halfway-decent businessman's past to paint a picture of his entire life. He's ensured that him being an ambitious, lying scumbag with a similar company is what we see him as despite the PR work. He tries hard to justify those actions over time. Then this bombshell dropped which fit totally with his actions over a long period of time to the present moment. As in, "screw everyone and get rich." It's just extra, more-specific corroboration of what seemed true all along.

That's why we're giving Zuckerberg so much shit over it. It clearly reflects who he is. He's simply a wiser, moderate monster now. ;)

An individual can opt out of Facebook in their personal lives relatively easily. But it is not an option to reject the primary communication tool of your business -- this platform has the potential of keeping conscientious objectors out of the workforce.

I don't, but other people do trust it and put information about me and photos including me into it.

https://github.com/jmdugan/blocklists/blob/master/corporatio...

http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/

Some of that information might also be useful for making informed decisions on whether to buy/sell a given security.

Oh actually, the possibilities are infinite.

For me, FB is yet to prove that it really has changed. Zuck as a person, maybe. FB, as a company, I really doubt.

If you are attacking someone then please do it on substantive issues. (something that can be prosecuted)

For example the fact that Facebook engages in censorship (as does Google and Twitter by the way) and actively pushes propaganda trying their best to manipulate the US election. That's a real issue that might lead to some people being sued or even imprisoned after the election if their candidate doesn't win.