Why was it made private? Isn’t the whole idea of a university to allow different opinions and views to be made available?

I don't know exactly why, but I suspect it's because of the repercussions that started popping up in the news just after the release. The talk was given 1 month prior to the publication of the video, so it was already a little outdated

> even after the video was made private by the Stanford YouTube channel

Stanford is an ... interesting place, it seems. I read that if you filtered for Stanford in the Forbes 30 Under 30 lists, they were most notable for having been accused/charged/convicted of stealing/scamming more money than their companies have generated revenue, to a ratio of nearly 3:1.

> I thought the talk was great.

The talk was effectively how to be a criminal sociopath with some minor technology set dressing, so please elaborate on its greatness.

I really liked the openness he presented about himself. He talked to a bunch of students about things he knew, with little filter, that's it

You're allowed to both like the openness and criticize the character of the speaker who is being open.

Of course, I thought that my comment didn't touch on the critical part about it. I just liked the talk he gave. Should I also criticize when saying 'It's great' so I can express myself in a perfectly balanced way between justice and what people think he said badly? I'm asking an honest question

No but you might think to be less surprised about the repercussions when he's basically suggesting wrecking an entire industry.

Maybe you're not as grounded in the world many people live in.

> It's crazy

that is a phrase often used by people who are appealing to an invisible sense of "us versus them", emphasizing that the crazy thing-person-event is "not us" ?

> even after the video was made private by the Stanford YouTube channel

private conversations among the very powerful is exactly the topic.. so this seems a bit of a Freudian slip

> I thought the talk was great.

I am one of "us" so why so much upset from "them" ? Can we get some social mutual-assurance that "them" are so wrong, and "us" is OK (and continue to be wealthy) ?

> he was being really open about what normally happens in these types of companies

normal ! this is normal ! why are "them" so upset when this is obviously normal, right ?!

> I think the problem is that he, as someone in a position of power, was too open about it?

clearly we need to keep up the secret conversations among the wealthy and powerful ?

Sorry, mate. I'm really not immersed in the English-speaking world, so I don't exactly understand the use of 'crazy'. I just see this word being used and used it here. What I meant was that I think what he said was perfectly normal C-level talk, and that's it. I hope my words don't resonate badly

Really, I was just commenting something completely honest about what I thought.

The problem is exactly that it is "perfectly normal C-Level talk". It's a bit like having all of your legislators discussing acceptable combat attrition rates as balanced against territory annexation all-the-time.

If the most novel innovation your leaders can come up with is "lets do something illegal/immoral/unethical until we become TBTF/TBTBHTA(Too Big To Be Held To Account)", it's a sign you really have a leadership problem, period.

thank you for the reply and no bad feelings.. it is a vigorous and current topic.. lots of implications socially and technically.. Please note that individual artists and writers literally depend on legal sale of their works to live in any city. Those executives, investors and lawyers in the audience at Stanford with large capital assets are making decisions that change the markets in a real ways. Students (like you and me?) are in the middle and learning.. may this exchange contribute to that!

cool dissection, thanks