[rdtsc]

Yeah this nice corporate PR

> We’re not going to debate the disgruntled litigants and anonymous sources

"We're not denying it though. It is true. If they were false and we could debate and win the debate, we would"

> The unquestioned fact is that since leaving Harvard for Silicon Valley nearly six years ago, Mark has led Facebook's growth from a college website to a global service playing an important role in the lives of over 400

> [...] instead focus on how many users we have

Even more, it is interesting what they are implying here. If you can get people to give you their data and build a company on it, it somehow means you all of the sudden acquire a better personality, increased morality and are absolved of all the stupid things you said or did before.

Now sure, people do and say stupid stuff when they are teenagers. I've done it. It depends when and what was done and at what age, what happened before and after. I can see being forgiving some thing up until the early 20s. People are still developing and personality could change I suppose. Though when it comes to his "dumb fucks" comment, I give him less of a pass of being a "teenager" because he was 26 already. Additionally, if these were just isolated incidents and everything before and after pointed to him taken privacy seriously but the whole company is built on the opposite of that.

[amirmc]

> It depends when and what was done and at what age, what happened before and after. I can see being forgiving some thing up until the early 20s. People are still developing and personality could change I suppose.

I don't think Zuckerberg should be given a pass just because of this. His life since college has been nothing like the 20s that anyone else would go through (even others from Harvard). Not even close. Imagine the kind of effect that has on someone, especially with the kind of power he wielded (and still wields) through Facebook.

[arachnids]

Zuckerberg was 19 when he made the dumb fucks comment. [2004] I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, just saying that this incident took place earlier than you think it did.

[marricks]

Have his actions done anything to show it's not relevant? He lead the company as a young man and is still pretty young.

Reckless disregard for privacy has been a hallmark of his tenure.

[danso]

The decade immediately after you’re teens is a time period with a lot of change. Many people find career paths, spouses, and have children. Also worth considering is that FB is a much different company — structure-wise — than when it was just a social media site servicing Harvard students.

[saagarjha]

Sure, it's possible that he's stopped having a callous disregard for other people's privacy in those ten years, but all of his actions seem to demonstrate otherwise.

[ryanlol]

Is it a company with much more integrity? I think not.

[danso]

It is a company with many, many more employees, executives, and shareholders. In that respect, your rhetorical question doesn't make sense to me, because I don't think of companies as large as FB (today, or in 2010) as having traits as easily quantifiable as they are for individual humans. Whether Zuckerber had his own road to Damascus moment is only part of the equation -- his innate desire to commit felony-level hacking may also be curtailed by his realization that his actions receive far more scrutiny than they did back when FB did not answer to nor have the attention of shareholders, regulators, and policymakers.

[arachnids]

> Have his actions done anything to show it's not relevant?

Where did I say it's not relevant?