[mattmanser]

Careful, you'll bring the HN grellas lovers down on you. While I always despair at his inability to say something succinctly, he generally always makes an excellent point.

Facebook provides an excellent service to most people in the world and it does so at a level that your $20,000 cannot buy. While we as a more discerning social customer may see it as extremely low value, the production values are actually extremely high. I always think of my national rag the Sun in these instances, it's utter trash, but they really worked hard on making it extremely good trash.

Alas for the article, to be honest the whole thing reads of bitterness, not unjustified if we are looking at 'justice'. But Zuck is a complete $&!t, and an extremely lucky one at that, but in business that's just the way it works. Moaning about it is futile. The only way to end up playing at that level is probably ending up being a complete $&!t as well. There are few big founders who haven't done very dodgy things in their time.

[corporalagumbo]

I just don't understand why HN readers are so eager to paint Greenspan as a whiner and Zuckerberg as a rightful victor, as if that's the only thing worth saying about this whole commotion. It seems like a very dim view of human potential to me - winning is all that counts, if being a shit means you win, good on ya, and anyone that challenges that is just a whiner.

After all, Greenspan doesn't say that M -shouldn't- have been successful - he does not argue with moral absolutes (or maybe he does and I need to re-read the piece). He argues that eventually that sort of shitty behaviour will catch up with you, no matter what, even if you are the CEO of Facebook. Like I've said in other comments, it sounds like a warning.

Plus shouldn't HN readers be interested in more than just raw victory? If you view the modern tech world as a zero-sum arena, I feel bad for you son. Modern tech is about collaboration, synergy, and finding an approach that authentically makes sense for you in relation to what others are doing. This bloodthirsty power stuff is just a juvenile phase.

(NB: not to take away from all of that Zuck has clearly accomplished at Facebook; its had a huge and rightful impact on the world and our lives.)

[res0nat0r]

We are eager because I think the only things I have ever heard from Greenspan on this site are posts which are still whining about how he got screwed out of lots of fame and fortune in Facebook, or how everyone else is spamming and breaking the law over at AirBnB.

Want me to not paint him as a whiner? How about a Show HN post of a cool new tech company he just started that actually will be useful. Failing that all I hear is someone who is mad he too doesn't have a billion in the bank.

[corporalagumbo]

Again, I just don't think this issue is as simple as you portray it. There is a place for critics and criticism in society, a society with them is healthier I think than a situation (as you seem to, forgive me if I misread you, be promoting) where the only thing worthwhile is creating a startup, and if you have not or are not actively creating a startup and achieving the current consensus definition of success, then your opinion is worthless.

Perhaps Greenspan is, as you say, just a whiner. But he does seem to have a lot of experience in tech, have come up with a lot of different ventures, and, very importantly, he was there in the early days of Facebook, he saw Mark and experienced Mark's behaviour first-hand way back in 2004. Say what you will, I think that experience is important. Facebook is a massive force in current history, and Mark by-and-large defines Facebook's culture. So yeah, I think this stuff matters. Are you saying that we should discount Greenspan's opinions automatically, because what, he's too bitter, or has complained too much already, or hasn't created something nice and shiny and new recently?

[res0nat0r]

> Are you saying that we should discount Greenspan's opinions automatically, because what, he's too bitter, or has complained too much already, or hasn't created something nice and shiny and new recently?

Yes. Rehashing the same sob story about how he isn't a part of Facebook and isn't a billionaire is old news. Another round of complaining how evil Mark is is not going to make Mark or the public feel sad for him and slip him a cool billion.

Get over it and move on.

[18pfsmt]

Given this sentiment, I'm not sure why you even bothered to click on this thread and engage in the comments.

I hadn't ever heard this story before, and only faintly knew Greenspan's name, so I thought it was a somewhat interesting story. It's seems like he should definitely move on at this point.

[tptacek]

What an embarrassing pair of comments.

[seiji]

Careful, you'll bring the HN grellas lovers down on you.

grellas is the most selfless and erudite among us. Attempting to argue, rebut, or piddlepaddle one of his comments reflects more on the commenter than on the point they are trying to make.

The only proper response to a grellas comment is "Thank you."

[GFischer]

While grellas is indeed learned and I do appreciate his sharing with us, I disagree that trying to argue or rebut his arguments necessarily has to be wrong.

Were I to disagree with one of grellas' comments, I would actually go something like "Thank you for posting. However (rebuttal) ... :) "

Also, lawyers / advocates are much better trained than us to write arguments :) , it's their job ! but that doesn't necessarily make them automatically right.

That said, I do tend to side with grellas' point of view.

[dumb_dumb]

I think seiji was joking. It is sarcasm.

[corporalagumbo]

Also, just to make sure I'm understanding you: are you saying that there is a group of people on HN who will vigorously downvote me or anyone else simply for satirically rebutting a laughably verbose comment from a popular user?

Hmm, and I thought I was finished with primary school.

[lotharbot]

There are people on HN who will vigorously downvote you for unnecessary disparaging comments like "Jeez, did you have to write all that?", "laughably verbose" [0], or "I thought I was finished with primary school."

While those lines may not technically violate the letter of the guidelines [1], they violate the spirit of the section that says "please reply to the argument instead of calling names". Note that the next part of the guidelines gives an example of how one can and should remove an extraneous cheap shot from their argument.

Your comment history shows you are capable of producing a much higher signal-to-noise ratio than in the last few comments. Please hold yourself to a higher standard. Satirical rebuttals can be a joy to read when done right.

[0] because grellas has established himself as someone who makes lengthy, meaningful contributions, "tl;dr" type complaints will be considerably less well received than they might be in response to a genuinely too-long post from one with a less valuable contribution history. Particularly yours, because it was phrased so... thoughtlessly.

[1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[corporalagumbo]

You're right. I just read that first Matroshka sentence ("There needs to be a label placed on the idea of feeling the need to bow to the wishes of critics who try to limit the idea of valid entrepreneurship to activities deemed "beneficial to society."") and I couldn't help myself. I did "grok" his argument but I rushed and left some of my assumptions implicit. So yes, I could have set out my rebuttal more cogently.

[Tomis02]

I have a crystal ball... I.. I see the future. You are... banned :)

[freshhawk]

We did finish with primary school. But these days the internet brings it to us. Ah, the future is grand!