Writing style is important when trying to persuade. But for the discerning reader looking for facts, content is what counts.
The top post shifts the focus from a blogger's (Greenspan's) account of his dealings with Mark Zuckerberg to "founders guilt".
And this comment is now addressed to the relative merits of Facebook.
The discussion moved from discussing Greenspan's account to discussing founder's guilt and the merits of social networking. How does this happen?
Those topics are not the point of Greenspan's post.
It's a simple tale of how one founder treated someone else, from whom he took advice and ideas.
It's a tale that's familiar (perhaps painfully familiar to some), because we've heard others tell it before as it also happened to them.
Keep changing the subject. Or trying to justify how Zuckerberg treated people by looking at the end result (which no one denies was due in part to great luck).
By all means do what Zuckerberg did and build something big. But don't screw other people over the way he did, call users "dumb fucks" and disregard their privacy as a trivial matter because you think that's a prerequisite to success. It isn't.
Or... maybe he just needed some traffic to his website.
It seems everyone who had anything remotely to do with Facebook's origins has tried to cash in.
This bothers wantrapreneurs because it highlights just how much luck plays a role in a story like Facebook's. They want to believe that one founder or a few co-founders succeed based on some factor(s) under their control (hardwork, skill, etc.)
Greenspan is just another one of those people who was involved and is trying to cash in.
If anyone needs to "get over it", it's people who just can't accept that huge fads like Facebook are unpredictable and uncontrollable, and that when faced with the possibility of huge sums of "money for nothing" it brings out the worst in people all seeking a share of the bounty.
The web is a lottery.
Time to re-read the recent speech from Princeton's graduation ceremony by the author of Liar's Poker.
This is quite an overstatement. You don't simply move to Palo Alto and then have a 1/65,412 chance of starting the next Google.
Instead you have to have a great vision, great execution, and great luck. Now Zuckerberg may not have Jobsian vision and execution (or maybe he does, only time will tell), but you can't argue that he executed the hell outta Facebook and he definitely has a vision even if you find it morally bankrupt. This definitely did not just magically fall in his lap, and he certainly deserves most of the credit regardless of what individuals he screwed over at various stages.
(except I think it's quite possible for someone to do what's been done with Facebook without also being morally bankrupt)
But is the rest of the comment an overstatement?
Also, you forgot to mention great marketing. In the IM's I believe both of them at one point agree that great visionary ideas, no matter how well they are executed, (alas) do not market themselves.
Re: marketing, meh, I think Facebook pretty much went viral. Maybe there was more conscious effort there than I give it credit for, but it doesn't strike me as important for Facebook's rise.
One implication is that people making arguments do not necessarily have to believe in them. And that anyone with adequate rhetorical skills can make any argument, even one that is not consistent with what they truly believe.
Example: Readers might believe some rambling gibberish about there being no need for any startup founder to have a conscience, and they might attribute it to the poster's own beliefs (it's ok not to have a conscience), when truthfully the poster might believe otherwise (he does not really believe in screwing people over, to the point of having no friends or a lifelong reputation as a con artist) and might just be advancing an idea that would benefit his business: the more social networking startups and the more money flowing into them, the better for those who take a cut.
The other implication is that you have to first understand a position in order to argue it effectively. The claim here is that one commenter does not actually comprehend the other commenter's position. And an easy way to show this is to ask each commenter to argue for the other's position, instead of against it.
Neither Tesla nor SpaceX rely on millions of fickle web users handing over their personal information and regularly signing in to a website to look at photos and status updates. Nor can they be easily replicated by a competitor who is not a jackass.
I see. You get to baldly assert that SpaceX and Tesla are hard to copy, though few have yet tried, but when I point out that people have tried and failed to beat Facebook at their game, these things take time?
I don't see where in capitalism illegal acts are included in its ambit.
It said let the markets decide, it didn't include freedoms to pursue crime.
At this point you could bring up the definition of criminal vs unethical.
Lets side step that by agreeing on the basic intuitions behind capitalism.
Capitalism is a system aimed at answering the question: what is the best way human beings can organize themselves to best distribute resources and maximize human well being while minimizing suffering.
There are certain acts and substances that can be shown to be immediately harmful to the well being of humanity and humans. Addiction causing drugs are one of them, and efforts to pursue it are marked as criminal, immoral and unethical.
Conflating Facebook with Drug cartels is conflating farmville with cocaine. It very clearly transcends all limitations on the immoral and unethical acts we would permit.
I happen to think that Zynga is a 21st century drug dealer. Their "games" are designed to turn people into clicking-addicted machines, slowly depleting their psychological until they start buying virtual gold. Plus, companies like Zynga target the most psychologically vulnerable members of society. Probably the worst is children.
Give it 15 years and Zynga-style behaviour will be subject to legal restrictions, I'd say.
Dude, you are cracking me up. And I know you're not joking either. Thanks for bringing some life to an emotionally bereft forum.
You are familiar with this term they have for the big spenders on Zynga? "Whales". What kind of person calls someone with an addiction a "whale"? Maybe some people are just too immature to be taking payments from users.
Oh, it's all good. We're making people happy.
No one is arguing for a "goody two shoes, save the world" standard that all web startups must meet. We're simply observing that certain "founders" obviously have no soul. And worshipping a sociopath like Zuckerberg is not a pleasant signal. We can do better.
Whales is a term thats been there from the Casino days of Las Vegas. You may know its other variant - High roller.
Its a historic term that has been re-purposed and used correctly for once.
It has nothing to do with maturity/immaturity OR addiction.
That out of the way, lets move on to addiction - Source.
Please show me where zynga gets most of its money from people who are addicted, and please also show me data on statistics on addiction in social games.
Instead try doing a search on "video game player personality types" and go from there. IIRC the magic the gathering guys had a great simple break up.
Heck reams of data have been generated on how the freemium system works from the days when western MMOs started learning from the Asian/Korean systems.
From the top of my head - if you arent a subscriber you are the content. Its the free players who support friend networks who bring in a few players who are able or interested enough to dump in large amounts of cash before moving on.
Thats their largest source of income. The cross section of income sources with addiction is tenuous and tangential.
Some of the stuff you are saying here is incorrect/not borne out by data.
>"Whales is a term thats been there from the Casino days of Las Vegas. You may know its other variant - High roller."
"Whales" is also used in the financial world for a person with lots of money and no knowledge of what to do with it. In other words, a mark for the clever financial "advisor".
Though, I suppose that in reality there's not much difference between the two definitions.
Let's assume the term whale is the same one that is used in casinos.
Do you believe that gambling is not an addiction?
I will defer to your knowledge on the history of online gaming. I'm not a gamer.
However I'm not sure you are doing much to advance the idea that Zynga is not making its money from capitalizing on addictive behavior that rises to the level of being unhealthy. Is that what you are saying?
That seems to be what the other commenter is arguing: the business relies on cultivating an (unhealthy) addiction. It seems like a simple notion. Can you prove him wrong?
What I do know is Zynga is not the type of company I would want to work for nor invest in. And their stock price is reflective of my concerns.
You don't have to "assume", just do a search. It is still common knowledge and hasn't wafted into apocrypha so even asking people would be effective.
As I said earlier: source. I can also come up with argumentative gambits easily, but this is a subject that I actually focus on, so I'd like to see the source which gives you your confidence.
AFAIK your statements can only be supported by the most edge case and liberal interpretation of the data.
-----
"Zynga is.... capitalizing on addictive behavior". source? From what I know that is not how the freemium model works, so I am curious as to where you got this data. I am eagerly awaiting your response since it would be news to me.
Your comment where you seemed to put words in my mouth are disconcerting. Answering it would be giving it more grace than it deserves, since I never stated what you imply.
Your last statement is also strange. The stock price, If anything, shows that your assumptions are wrong, as the sin industry is always profitable, and zynga's stock is dropping.
Which as I said is because people got bored and moved on.
I was not trying to bait you into a trap by mentioning gambling. I only wish to point out that the choice to take a term from the gambling industry (one that profits from an addiction?) might be interesting. It might be suggestive. Or it might be pure coincidence. But it's an interesting choice.
You have mentioned "the data" a few times. May we have a source?
The stock price is an indication of Zynga's popularity with Wall Street. It has no bearing necessarily on what corporalagumbo is saying. And I never suggested it did. I mentioned it because it's one thing a casual observer (e.g. me) might follow, along with their disclosures to the SEC.
I just wish someone would please think of the children...
Seriously though, we restrict slot machines in pubs in New Zealand. And now we have slot machines on computers. Some of the slot machines look like slot machines and some look like Farmville. No difference really. The legislation will catch up.
I understand the sentiment, I am unable to traverse your distance.
Firstly - I'm not sure if this is part of the topic at hand.
Secondly a good response is going to be pretty detailed, since you've touched on a huge topic.
Technology has moved faster than legislation. Which is fine and expected. The technology brings up intricate questions which take time to answer, let alone decide on what/how/if something is to be legislated.
Thats the part which is relevant to the original discussion. Technology may leap ahead, it doesn't mean that legal understanding wont catch up and be good at it drawing the line.
--------------
A more detailed response on your assertion that Zynga is a 21st century drug dealer. While I think social games do raise some important and concerning issues, I think the responses will fall short of the distance you travel.
Zynga's games, and a large group of social games for example; are cute skinner boxes. I don't see how legislating against that aspect will be viable.
At most I can see rules laid down to ensure that the slot machine/random aspect of it, has some clear cut pay out schemes that must be enforced.
Nor do I see how I can make a case where ".. are designed to turn people into clicking-addicted machines." Its a skinner box. People have an ancient immunity to things like this, namely boredom.
Over time, people get bored and drift away. Witness the share price of Zynga and dropping engagement rates.
I've also played with, and worked alongside a lot of those psychologically vulnerable members of society - they've all pretty much gone on to kick the 'habit' or manage it like entertainment.
I've also been looking at data or articles that come out on internet addiction and gaming addiction; most people can barely agree that this is a condition. Only a few people are categorized as being victims, compared to the large number of people who play video games or use the net.
But I didn't conflate. I specifically said I was not comparing the two. It is simply an example that fits within his definition: it brings wealth to a large number of people.
You are bringing in other definitions of capitalism. I'm only commenting on his definition.
I'm not taking a jab at capitalism. I'm taking a jab at a sloppy definition.
The top post shifts the focus from a blogger's (Greenspan's) account of his dealings with Mark Zuckerberg to "founders guilt".
And this comment is now addressed to the relative merits of Facebook.
The discussion moved from discussing Greenspan's account to discussing founder's guilt and the merits of social networking. How does this happen?
Those topics are not the point of Greenspan's post.
It's a simple tale of how one founder treated someone else, from whom he took advice and ideas.
It's a tale that's familiar (perhaps painfully familiar to some), because we've heard others tell it before as it also happened to them.
Keep changing the subject. Or trying to justify how Zuckerberg treated people by looking at the end result (which no one denies was due in part to great luck).
By all means do what Zuckerberg did and build something big. But don't screw other people over the way he did, call users "dumb fucks" and disregard their privacy as a trivial matter because you think that's a prerequisite to success. It isn't.