> That's beyond unfair; it's absurd. But yes, of course calling individuals psychopaths with no substantive basis is a personal attack, and a nasty one
I personally think monetizing via advertising is unethical, but I'll concede on this point. I realize I'm in the minority here so I accept that by currently ruling norms advertising is not a psychopathic activity.
> I'd say the odds of this type of thinking arriving at truth aren't high, but I don't know, and neither do the commenters. The stuff simply isn't verifiable.
Here, I strongly disagree. This stuff is very verifiable... by just going to news outlets (prestigious, established outlets, not just blogs) which have verified documentation of chats in which Zuck calls users of his site "dumb fucks" for having trusted him with private photos, SSNs, etc. We have documented proof of Evan persuading drunk women to perform sexual favors for his friends (no, it's not referring a friend to a friend, it's not innocently hooking up a date, it's getting drunk women to "give blowjobs" to his friends), in chats he is describing peeing on women, doing cocaine, about installing strip poles in places he owns, etc. This is documented in places like NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/magazine/whats-really-at-s...
What's more, Spiegel himself admitted this, Zuck similarly has recognized the chats to be true (not that such proof was needed -- it was validated by prominent journalists independently).
These folks need to be called out. At present we see a pattern of young brash founders who are misogynistic and disrespectful getting their way. Per the persistence of the patterns this kind of behavior is becoming normalized as being okay in society's eyes, one way to stop this is to do anything we can to stigmatize the non-consensual peeing on women, the violation of people's privacy, etc. It's by saying it's bad. Otherwise, what would-be entrepreneurs are internalizing is they can get away with this, that hustling in this way is just part of the game, that it doesn't matter that you're living life without recognizing others' dignity.
I personally think monetizing via advertising is unethical, but I'll concede on this point. I realize I'm in the minority here so I accept that by currently ruling norms advertising is not a psychopathic activity.
> I'd say the odds of this type of thinking arriving at truth aren't high, but I don't know, and neither do the commenters. The stuff simply isn't verifiable.
Here, I strongly disagree. This stuff is very verifiable... by just going to news outlets (prestigious, established outlets, not just blogs) which have verified documentation of chats in which Zuck calls users of his site "dumb fucks" for having trusted him with private photos, SSNs, etc. We have documented proof of Evan persuading drunk women to perform sexual favors for his friends (no, it's not referring a friend to a friend, it's not innocently hooking up a date, it's getting drunk women to "give blowjobs" to his friends), in chats he is describing peeing on women, doing cocaine, about installing strip poles in places he owns, etc. This is documented in places like NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/magazine/whats-really-at-s...
What's more, Spiegel himself admitted this, Zuck similarly has recognized the chats to be true (not that such proof was needed -- it was validated by prominent journalists independently).
These folks need to be called out. At present we see a pattern of young brash founders who are misogynistic and disrespectful getting their way. Per the persistence of the patterns this kind of behavior is becoming normalized as being okay in society's eyes, one way to stop this is to do anything we can to stigmatize the non-consensual peeing on women, the violation of people's privacy, etc. It's by saying it's bad. Otherwise, what would-be entrepreneurs are internalizing is they can get away with this, that hustling in this way is just part of the game, that it doesn't matter that you're living life without recognizing others' dignity.