Not only that. NOT selling to Yahoo! in 2006 for one freaking billion dollar, despite everyone, including the entire board, was in favor of the deal. Imagine that. You're 22 years old, this is the first company you co-founded, and you can walk await with something in the ballpark of $400-450M. Set for life. And instead, you do everything you can to turn the deal away, and keep building.

This single episode is, in my view, enough to determine that MZ is a very special entrepreneur.

And yes, agree: privacy, Cambridge Analytica, etc, all topics that deserve attention. But purely looking at his skills, he's simply a genius with iron balls.

If he's a genius, maybe he could at least try to make something the value of which is not only measured in dollar bills.

I have a great instrument to connect to friends who for various reasons live very very far away. We would not stay close if it wasn’t Facebook. We could call, we could send emails or messages, but realistically we wouldn’t do it (or not that often) if there wasn’t medium like Facebook. Being able to stay connected is priceless.

Donalds fan club thinks he is genius too.

Obama's fan club thinks he deserves the Nobel Peace prize.

Elon's fan club is convinced a boring red dirt ball where nothing lives is the place to be.

Greta's fanclub think she is Jesus

The Kardashian fan club think she is the greatest feminist in history.

Who we admire says a lot about who we are and our individual Needs much more than it says anything about the people we prop up.

What are you talking about?

I do not admire MZ. But if you ask me if he's a good CEO/leader, the example I mentioned is clear proof that he's a rare breed.

You thinking I'm a fanboy shows very little respect for what I expressed before.

Well, that comment of yours says about you more than about what it meant to say, if we want to continue these ad hominem arguments. But we should not use these arguments in polite and constrictive conversation or debate. (Edit: typos)

This is the best set of personal attacks I have ever seen. I could give you full marks if you could substantiate this with some evidence.

It's very easy. You can do it!

Obama actually did win the Nobel peace prize...

I think the question is whether he deserved it or not.

Modifying the news feed algorithm to send less traffic to traditional news sites contributed to a lot of layoffs and general turmoil in the industry. This resulted in major animosity toward Facebook among journalists, which has encouraged them to highlight the negative effects of Facebook. These narratives encourage regulatory action against Facebook, which is now one of the main risks facing the company. I’d go so far as to say this little revenue-optimizing move may be a major cause of the media’s turn from fawning over big tech to trying to take it down. Similar story with the fights over payment for Google News previews in Europe. Squeezing journalists financially is a great example of a penny-wise, pound-foolish move.

The original goal of reducing news prevalence was to show less outrage/clickbait and show more friends and family content. Of course, hindsight shows that the move was of limited efficacy, but it's disingenuous to suggest that it was done in order to 'squeeze journalists'.

I don’t think harming journalists was the motive, but it was the outcome, and in hindsight it seems predictable. At least it should serve as a lesson to anyone who faces a similar decision in the future.

So is the lesson here “the media will destroy any social network that doesn’t feed the clickbait-outrage machine”? :(

I’m not sure. If Facebook had been more surgical to send less traffic to clickbait listicles, but more to Prestigious Investigative Journalists, would the outcome have been the same? Did the unemployed listicle authors find their passion and become serious journalists working the tech beat?

Facebook traffic is fairly low quality, one time type visits. Any publisher who built their business with a dependency on FB traffic was doomed to fail no matter what if they didn't convert those users to email registrations, subscribers etc..

I recently read Steven Levy's _Facebook_, which I thought was a well-balanced history of the company.

Some mistakes he highlights that resonated with me: Facebook Platform, Beacon, Cambridge Analytica, foreign expansion without native language support, release of private Messenger records to 3rd parties, placing Security within the business rather than engineering organization and failing to respond to state-actor threats

I'd suspect this is because we evaluate CEOs not just as ruthless money maximizers but as people who use their outsized leverage and influence to create a positive impact on the world. It's hard to argue that Facebook has given us anything of the degree of benefit that, say, Google has, or Tesla could.

Personality and public image play a big part too. Zuckerberg has the charisma of a head of lettuce on his best days.

True, but dont underestimate how little effort he's made to anything but growing revenue.

Asking out of curiosity, not sarcastically: how has Google made a positive impact on the world?

Plenty of ways. Google maps provides accurate maps and route planning pretty much worldwide and for no (monetary) cost. I remember the days before when you had to pay Garmin £60 for up to date maps.

Chrome, while heading the way of ie6 in it's dominance is a massive public benefit.

Search - given that it's free of charge, it is a hugely valuable tool and has changed the world in the last 20 years.

I think you can argue that they don't provide this altruisticly, but it's definitely been a positive impact

Just wanted to chime in that Google Maps was (is) huuuge. Instant access to such quality mas anywhere, anytime and even the street view project.

Improving the world's access to information is probably the biggest one? I would guess Google Search is, if you could magically add up all the net positives/negatives, one of the best things to happen to humanity in the last few decades. Having grown up before it existed, I can't imagine how much I would personally pay just for Search to come back if Google all of a sudden disappeared. I would probably give up my car before I gave up Search.

Google probably increases my productivity as a programmer by a factor of 100. I can't imagine what I would do without it. I remember reading programming books when I was much younger, and the rate of information gathering was orders of magnitude slower.

And that's just programming, a relatively niche use of Google, not to speak of any other occupation or task that you might use it for, and that's just google search, not even chrome or maps or... Google has revolutionized the world.

Even if we ignore the typical answer of finding information in library.

Even as a Search Engine, Google was miles ahead of its competitors during its early days. Yahoo, AltaVista, and plenty of smaller ones like Ask.com..... They were crap.

I dont like Google since the day they said they do no Evil. But there is no way I can ignore the Impact Google has to the Internet and the world.

Have you ever had to research something in a library like in books?

He may be good, but he's not so good that it's hard to find mistakes. The old Open Graph Search, email accounts, re-writing everyone's address books to include FB email accounts, Beacon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Beacon , not actually letting users delete their data, letting genocide coordinators operate openly on the platform?