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.
People can change but based on Facebook's actions vis-a-vis privacy, mental health, etc. there's little evidence that Zuckerberg has gone from treating his users like "dumb f...." to treating them like human beings.
If we're going to talk about quotes, here's one: "money amplifies who you are".
Whatsapp is one of the only instances I can think of in corporate acquisitions where the side being acquired lashes out at the acquiring side as much as this ("It's time. Delete Facebook")
You're talking about someone who changes privacy settings, who was told about gay people being automatically added to groups and posting on their walls so it outed them, being told about this and dismissing it. Or "graph search". He doesn't think people deserve any respect when it's not him?
When a man changes it is on him to prove that he has changed. Has Zuck atoned himself in any way? Has Meta?
I'm a big believer in second chances and letting people rehabilitate, but there's no evidence the Meta or Zuck have changed for the better. Meanwhile, *there is plenty of evidence that suggests he has only become more uncaring and deceptive, as Meta has only become more invasive over time*, the article itself being one such example.
So I do believe Zuck has changed, but not in the direction that we should applaud and/or forgive him. I've only seen him change in the way that should make us more concerned and further justify the hatred. A man may change, but he does not always change for the better.
No, you didn't suggest that. You suggested that the quote is not representative of who he is now.
We'd need a lot more context (and words) for us to understand that sentence as anything other than defending him. At best you're giving him the benefit of doubt.
I think his actions speak for themselves. Facebook, effectively completely controlled by Zuckerberg, has consistently taken actions that erode privacy and degrade mental health.
And no, not every young person has the attitude that Zuckerberg demonstrated in his "dumb f...s" comment. If my son or daughter was behaving like that in their late teens/early twenties I would be ashamed and feel like a failure as a parent.
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"
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.
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)
>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.
Thank you for saying this. I would not find a better way to word the response myself.
"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.
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.
These sentences are deliciously delightful to read in this era of writing whose blandness and sloppiness is only amplified by LLM-driven "assistance".
It is difficult to be pithy without being bitter, but your writing achieves it within the span of a single comment. If you have a blog, I hope you share it!
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.
No he has clearly said there are differences. He has said that the points around what it may be used for are the same. HOWEVER, he has also stated that the definitions and enforcement are left to US law in the OAI contract. These were left to Anthropic in theirs.
I'm in a weird spot where I do agree with your assessment of the core claim. But putting that aside, in the world where the DoW's claim _is_ correct -- I think you don't have any choice other than to designate them a supply chain risk.
Disregarding who is right or wrong for a moment, if the DoW are right (which I'm not personally inclined to believe, but we're ignoring that for the moment) -- how else can they avoid secondhand Claude poisoning?
Supposing they really want to use their software for things disallowed by Claude's (now or future) ToS, it seems like designating it a supply chain risk is the only way they can ensure that their contractors don't include Claude (either indirectly as a wrapper or tertially through use of generated code etc)
> designating it a supply chain risk is the only way they can ensure that their contractors don't include Claude
I agree that if the DoW claim is correct (and I doubt it is), then, sure, the DoW dropping Anthropic and precluding the DoW's suppliers from using Anthropic for any DoW work would be expected. However, the "supply chain risk" designation they are deploying goes far beyond that to block Anthropic use by any supplier to any part of the entire U.S. government for anything.
For example, no one at Crayola can use Anthropic for anything because Crayola sells crayons to the Education Dept. The DoW already has much less draconian ways to restrict what their direct suppliers use to build things for military applications. But instead of addressing the actual risk in a normal measured way, they are choosing to use a nuke against a grenade-sized problem. This "supply chain risk" designation is rarely used and has never been used against a U.S. company. It's used against Chinese or Russian companies when in cases where there's credible risk of sabotage or espionage. That's why that particular designation always blocks all products from an entire company for any application by any part of the U.S. Government, contractors and suppliers (which is why it's never been used against a U.S. company).
One positive thing I will say about this administration is that they have really drawn into focus the difference between de jure and de facto law.
My hope is that this gets us some real concern for things that have been defended with de facto arguments (i.e. privacy) going forward.
edit: Anthropic argues that your Crayola analogy is fundamentally incorrect.
> Legally, a supply chain risk designation under 10 USC 3252 can only extend to the use of Claude as part of Department of War contracts—it cannot affect how contractors use Claude to serve other customers.
> Anthropic argues that your Crayola analogy is fundamentally incorrect.
Yes, I just saw Dario's latest post with that more detailed info. My understanding was informed by news reporting in a couple different outlets but those reports may have been conflating the "supply chain risk" designation (under 10 USC 3252) with the net effect of statements from the pentagon and white house which go substantially further.
Even if it's not in the legal scope of 10 USC 3252, the administration has made clear they intend to ban Anthropic from use across the federal government. AFAICT doing that is probably within the discretionary remit of the executive branch, even though I believe it's unprecedented - to your point about de jure and de facto law.
To me, if there's a silver lining to all this, it's making a strong case for restricting executive branch power.
Edit to add: Per the Wall Street Journal's lead story (updated in the last hour): "The General Services Administration, which oversees federal procurement, said it is removing Anthropic from its product offerings to government agencies... Even absent the supply-chain risk designation, broadening the clash to include all federal agencies takes the Anthropic fight to a much larger scale than its spat with the Pentagon."
How would this risk be mitigated by signing a contract? Seems like “supply chain poisoning as treason” is probably not going to stopped by a piece of paper. You either trust anthropic or you don’t but the deal has nothing to do with it.
Isn't the point that they aren't entering into a contract with them, they are just ensuring that none of their still trusted suppliers repackage Anthropic without their knowledge?
I’m not sure, but I think you’re right. I was thinking about the logical implications of the. If they are a supply chain risk without a contract, how does the existence of a contract suddenly make them not a risk? Especially if the DoD strong arms them into a deal.
Because the act that the SCR designation would “protect” against is treason, so I don’t think people would care too much whether there’s a contract.
It's also important to remember that vibe coders throw away the natural language spec each time they close the context window.
Vibe coding is closer to compiling your code, throwing the source away and asking a friend to give you source that is pretty close to the one you wrote.
"Before you read this post, ask yourself a question: When was the last time you truly thought hard?
...
a) All the time. b) Never. c) Somewhere in between."
P/E isn't a future projection. There is literally no analysis that asserts Amazon will achieve the same growth rate in the future that it achieved in the past. It will retain stock value by eating itself for a while (could be a long time), then die.
It doesn't though. As an aside, I have been using a competitor to chatgpt health (nori) for a while now, and I have been getting an extreme amount of targeted ads about HRV and other metrics that the app consumes. I have been collecting health metrics through wearables for years, so there has been no change in my own search patterns or beliefs about my health. I just thought ai + health data was cool.
Nix is where we're going. Maybe not with the configuration language that annoys python devs, but declarative reproducible system closures are a joy to work with at scale.
Reproducible can have a lot of meanings. Nix guarantees that your build environment + commands are the same. It still uses all the usual build tools and it would be trivial to create a non-reproducible binary (--impure).
