The linked Verge article has some strange editorialization in it. I find it confusing, because I'm not sure what they're getting at.

> Systrom then immediately peaced out for a few months of paternity leave.

> With Systrom on leave, Facebook began testing location tracking and a disgusting hamburger button inside Instagram, offending Systrom’s delicate sensibilities.

Is the author saying that Systrom was being to sensitive about Facebook's demands? Or are they making fun of Facebook here? It seems like the author tried to inject some attitude into the piece without nailing down their point of view.

"Offending one's delicate sensibilities" is a stock phrase. It's generally used in a tongue-in-cheek/mocking manner, referring to someone who is being overly dramatic; often used together with phrases like "clutching one's pearls".

I think they're mocking both Facebook and Systrom at the same time.

To what end? They think people care too much about UI design?

It sounds like the Verge writer is trying to demonstrate that he has a perspective wider than any of the principals like Systrom and the FB management team, and is thereby entitled to judge them. (Systrom is effete, and the FB team is ruthless.) It does wear thin.

That Systrom checked out but was also checked-in enough to throw a fit over the direction facebook decided to go in his absence/checked-outness.

I barely glanced through the Verge piece once I saw they were basing it off a Wire piece they admitted had a lot more depth to it. When another news outlet regurgitates an article in this way I at least want it to be in service or more analysis and interpretation of that original piece, which wasn't really happening here.

Yes, some poor word choice for journalism. “aesthetic sensibilities” would have had fewer negative connotations.

No. They’re saying Systrom finds the hamburger menu is ugly, crude, and completely out of place on Instagram.

Well, that is essentially Verge's modus operandi: strong opinions over original reporting. Even much of the original reporting they do is heavy on the "hot take" style.

The primary definition of delicate: fine in texture, quality, construction, etc.: a delicate lace collar.

I read it as a compliment.

If he had said "delicate ego" it'd be a different story.

Delicate is synonymous with "fragile". Delicate lace collars are fine when in appropriate context, but that context is fairly narrow (when you know it will be protected enough to survive).

As for people, I don't think our culture values fragility in an individual. Conversely, we definitely do value resilience. I'm not sure of a case where you could refer to a physical or mental aspect of someone as delicate or fragile (when it's relative to the norm where it's not) and it comes out positive.

Most people who read that phrase see "delicate" = fragile. Sensibilities are not like a lace collar.

Thanks for sharing the Wired article - it's really good and I have read the entire thing.

What stood out was the conclusion to me, when Zuckerberg was asked how FB would be in 10 years, and his replies show that he does not understand the implications technologies will have on society and the dangers they enable - it sounds like that's his main repeating pattern. From comments like dumb fucks, to impossible FB had any influence on the presidential elections, to being excited about future mind reading devices FB should build - Facebook (Zuckerberg) doesnt seem to learn to enable technology with safeguards.

That's what continues to stand out to me, and why I would not trust FB any time soon again.

I think Zuckerberg's attitude (whether he really believes this or it's just a PR tactic, I have no idea) is that if Facebook does it, then it must be a good thing by definition.

> I would not trust FB any time soon again.

I agree, although I would say that I won't be able to trust FB ever.

Thanks for linking to this, the story is interesting without a shadow of a doubt. From Verges point of view looks like Zuckerberg has a clear tendency to be monopolistic personality, which is sort of typical for huge CEOs. Currently reading on Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos scam, control freak to say the least.

I can't help but feel like there's no actual narrative being formed throughout the article - the vignettes keep coming one after another until your eyes glaze over - the story can't keep its eye on one thing at a time - I'd recommend skipping to section VII.

"Questions I'm going to investigate..."

By reading Wired.