#thefacebook

[ivan-fyodorovich-k]

If you had to capture Silicon Valley’s dominant ideology in a single anecdote, you might look first to Mark Zuckerberg, sitting in the blue glow of his computer some 20 years ago, chatting with a friend about how his new website, TheFacebook, had given him access to reams of personal information about his fellow students:

Zuckerberg: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuckerberg: Just ask. Zuckerberg: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS Friend: What? How’d you manage that one? Zuckerberg: People just submitted it. Zuckerberg: I don’t know why. Zuckerberg: They “trust me” Zuckerberg: Dumb fucks.

That conversation—later revealed through leaked chat records—was soon followed by another that was just as telling, if better mannered. At a now-famous Christmas party in 2007, Zuckerberg first met Sheryl Sandberg, his eventual chief operating officer, who with Zuckerberg would transform the platform into a digital imperialist superpower. There, Zuckerberg, who in Facebook’s early days had adopted the mantra “Company over country,” explained to Sandberg that he wanted every American with an internet connection to have a Facebook account. For Sandberg, who once told a colleague that she’d been “put on this planet to scale organizations,” that turned out to be the perfect mission.

Facebook (now Meta) has become an avatar of all that is wrong with Silicon Valley. Its self-interested role in spreading global disinformation is an ongoing crisis. Recall, too, the company’s secret mood-manipulation experiment in 2012, which deliberately tinkered with what users saw in their News Feed in order to measure how Facebook could influence people’s emotional states without their knowledge. Or its participation in inciting genocide in Myanmar in 2017. Or its use as a clubhouse for planning and executing the January 6, 2021, insurrection. (In Facebook’s early days, Zuckerberg listed “revolutions” among his interests. This was around the time that he had a business card printed with I’M CEO, BITCH.)

And yet, to a remarkable degree, Facebook’s way of doing business remains the norm for the tech industry as a whole, even as other social platforms (TikTok) and technological developments (artificial intelligence) eclipse Facebook in cultural relevance.

To worship at the altar of mega-scale and to convince yourself that you should be the one making world-historic decisions on behalf of a global citizenry that did not elect you and may not share your values or lack thereof, you have to dispense with numerous inconveniences—humility and nuance among them. Many titans of Silicon Valley have made these trade-offs repeatedly. YouTube (owned by Google), Instagram (owned by Meta), and Twitter (which Elon Musk insists on calling X) have been as damaging to individual rights, civil society, and global democracy as Facebook was and is. Considering the way that generative AI is now being developed throughout Silicon Valley, we should brace for that damage to be multiplied many times over in the years ahead.

The behavior of these companies and the people who run them is often hypocritical, greedy, and status-obsessed. But underlying these venalities is something more dangerous, a clear and coherent ideology that is seldom called out for what it is: authoritarian technocracy. As the most powerful companies in Silicon Valley have matured, this ideology has only grown stronger, more self-righteous, more delusional, and—in the face of rising criticism—more aggrieved.

The new technocrats are ostentatious in their use of language that appeals to Enlightenment values—reason, progress, freedom—but in fact they are leading an antidemocratic, illiberal movement. Many of them profess unconditional support for free speech, but are vindictive toward those who say things that do not flatter them. They tend to hold eccentric beliefs: that technological progress of any kind is unreservedly and inherently good; that you should always build it, simply because you can; that frictionless information flow is the highest value regardless of the information’s quality; that privacy is an archaic concept; that we should welcome the day when machine intelligence surpasses our own. And above all, that their power should be unconstrained. The systems they’ve built or are building—to rewire communications, remake human social networks, insinuate artificial intelligence into daily life, and more—impose these beliefs on the population, which is neither consulted nor, usually, meaningfully informed. All this, and they still attempt to perpetuate the absurd myth that they are the swashbuckling underdogs.

Comparisons between Silicon Valley and Wall Street or Washington, D.C., are commonplace, and you can see why—all are power centers, and all are magnets for people whose ambition too often outstrips their humanity. But Silicon Valley’s influence easily exceeds that of Wall Street and Washington. It is reengineering society more profoundly than any other power center in any other era since perhaps the days of the New Deal. Many Americans fret—rightfully—about the rising authoritarianism among MAGA Republicans, but they risk ignoring another ascendant force for illiberalism: the tantrum-prone and immensely powerful kings of tech.

The Shakespearean drama that unfolded late last year at OpenAI underscores the extent to which the worst of Facebook’s “move fast and break things” mentality has been internalized and celebrated in Silicon Valley. OpenAI was founded, in 2015, as a nonprofit dedicated to bringing artificial general intelligence into the world in a way that would serve the public good. Underlying its formation was the belief that the technology was too powerful and too dangerous to be developed with commercial motives alone.

But in 2019, as the technology began to startle even the people who were working on it with the speed at which it was advancing, the company added a for-profit arm to raise more capital. Microsoft invested $1 billion at first, then many billions of dollars more. Then, this past fall, the company’s CEO, Sam Altman, was fired then quickly rehired, in a whiplash spectacle that signaled a demolition of OpenAI’s previously established safeguards against putting company over country. Those who wanted Altman out reportedly believed that he was too heavily prioritizing the pace of development over safety. But Microsoft’s response—an offer to bring on Altman and anyone else from OpenAI to re-create his team there—started a game of chicken that led to Altman’s reinstatement. The whole incident was messy, and Altman may well be the right person for the job, but the message was clear: The pursuit of scale and profit won decisively over safety concerns and public accountability.

Silicon Valley still attracts many immensely talented people who strive to do good, and who are working to realize the best possible version of a more connected, data-rich global society. Even the most deleterious companies have built some wonderful tools. But these tools, at scale, are also systems of manipulation and control. They promise community but sow division; claim to champion truth but spread lies; wrap themselves in concepts such as empowerment and liberty but surveil us relentlessly. The values that win out tend to be the ones that rob us of agency and keep us addicted to our feeds.

The theoretical promise of AI is as hopeful as the promise of social media once was, and as dazzling as its most partisan architects project. AI really could cure numerous diseases. It really could transform scholarship and unearth lost knowledge. Except that Silicon Valley, under the sway of its worst technocratic impulses, is following the playbook established in the mass scaling and monopolization of the social web. OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, and other corporations leading the way in AI development are not focusing on the areas of greatest public or epistemological need, and they are certainly not operating with any degree of transparency or caution. Instead they are engaged in a race to build faster and maximize profit.

None of this happens without the underlying technocratic philosophy of inevitability—that is, the idea that if you can build something new, you must. “In a properly functioning world, I think this should be a project of governments,” Altman told my colleague Ross Andersen last year, referring to OpenAI’s attempts to develop artificial general intelligence. But Altman was going to keep building it himself anyway. Or, as Zuckerberg put it to The New Yorker many years ago: “Isn’t it, like, inevitable that there would be a huge social network of people? … If we didn’t do this someone else would have done it.”

Technocracy first blossomed as a political ideology after World War I, among a small group of scientists and engineers in New York City who wanted a new social structure to replace representative democracy, putting the technological elite in charge. Though their movement floundered politically—people ended up liking President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal better—it had more success intellectually, entering the zeitgeist alongside modernism in art and literature, which shared some of its values. The American poet Ezra Pound’s modernist slogan “Make it new” easily could have doubled as a mantra for the technocrats. A parallel movement was that of the Italian futurists, led by figures such as the poet F. T. Marinetti, who used maxims like “March, don’t molder” and “Creation, not contemplation.”

The ethos for technocrats and futurists alike was action for its own sake. “We are not satisfied to roam in a garden closed in by dark cypresses, bending over ruins and mossy antiques,” Marinetti said in a 1929 speech. “We believe that Italy’s only worthy tradition is never to have had a tradition.” Prominent futurists took their zeal for technology, action, and speed and eventually transformed it into fascism. Marinetti followed his Manifesto of Futurism (1909) with his Fascist Manifesto (1919). His friend Pound was infatuated with Benito Mussolini and collaborated with his regime to host a radio show in which the poet promoted fascism, gushed over Mein Kampf, and praised both Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. The evolution of futurism into fascism wasn’t inevitable—many of Pound’s friends grew to fear him, or thought he had lost his mind—but it does show how, during a time of social unrest, a cultural movement based on the radical rejection of tradition and history, and tinged with aggrievement, can become a political ideology.

In October, the venture capitalist and technocrat Marc Andreessen published on his firm’s website a stream-of-consciousness document he called “The Techno-Optimist Manifesto,” a 5,000-word ideological cocktail that eerily recalls, and specifically credits, Italian futurists such as Marinetti. Andreessen is, in addition to being one of Silicon Valley’s most influential billionaire investors, notorious for being thin-skinned and obstreperous, and despite the invocation of optimism in the title, the essay seems driven in part by his sense of resentment that the technologies he and his predecessors have advanced are no longer “properly glorified.” It is a revealing document, representative of the worldview that he and his fellow technocrats are advancing.

Andreessen writes that there is “no material problem,” including those caused by technology, that “cannot be solved with more technology.” He writes that technology should not merely be always advancing, but always accelerating in its advancement “to ensure the techno-capital upward spiral continues forever.” And he excoriates what he calls campaigns against technology, under names such as “tech ethics” and “existential risk.”

Or take what might be considered the Apostles’ Creed of his emerging political movement:

We believe we should place intelligence and energy in a positive feedback loop, and drive them both to infinity … We believe in adventure. Undertaking the Hero’s Journey, rebelling against the status quo, mapping uncharted territory, conquering dragons, and bringing home the spoils for our community … We believe in nature, but we also believe in overcoming nature. We are not primitives, cowering in fear of the lightning bolt. We are the apex predator; the lightning works for us.

Andreessen identifies several “patron saints” of his movement, Marinetti among them. He quotes from the Manifesto of Futurism, swapping out Marinetti’s “poetry” for “technology”:

Beauty exists only in struggle. There is no masterpiece that has not an aggressive character. Technology must be a violent assault on the forces of the unknown, to force them to bow before man.

To be clear, the Andreessen manifesto is not a fascist document, but it is an extremist one. He takes a reasonable position—that technology, on the whole, has dramatically improved human life—and warps it to reach the absurd conclusion that any attempt to restrain technological development under any circumstances is despicable. This position, if viewed uncynically, makes sense only as a religious conviction, and in practice it serves only to absolve him and the other Silicon Valley giants of any moral or civic duty to do anything but make new things that will enrich them, without consideration of the social costs, or of history. Andreessen also identifies a list of enemies and “zombie ideas” that he calls upon his followers to defeat, among them “institutions” and “tradition.”

“Our enemy,” Andreessen writes, is “the know-it-all credentialed expert worldview, indulging in abstract theories, luxury beliefs, social engineering, disconnected from the real world, delusional, unelected, and unaccountable—playing God with everyone else’s lives, with total insulation from the consequences.”

The irony is that this description very closely fits Andreessen and other Silicon Valley elites. The world that they have brought into being over the past two decades is unquestionably a world of reckless social engineering, without consequence for its architects, who foist their own abstract theories and luxury beliefs on all of us.

Some of the individual principles Andreessen advances in his manifesto are anodyne. But its overarching radicalism, given his standing and power, should make you sit up straight. Key figures in Silicon Valley, including Musk, have clearly warmed to illiberal ideas in recent years. In 2020, Donald Trump’s vote share in Silicon Valley was 23 percent—small, but higher than the 20 percent he received in 2016.

The main dangers of authoritarian technocracy are not at this point political, at least not in the traditional sense. Still, a select few already have authoritarian control, more or less, to establish the digital world’s rules and cultural norms, which can be as potent as political power.

In 1961, in his farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned the nation about the dangers of a coming technocracy. “In holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should,” he said, “we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system—ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

Eight years later, the country’s first computers were connected to ARPANET, a precursor to the World Wide Web, which became broadly available in 1993. Back then, Silicon Valley was regarded as a utopia for ambitious capitalists and optimistic inventors with original ideas who wanted to change the world, unencumbered by bureaucracy or tradition, working at the speed of the internet (14.4 kilobits per second in those days). This culture had its flaws even at the start, but it was also imaginative in a distinctly American way, and it led to the creation of transformative, sometimes even dumbfoundingly beautiful hardware and software.

For a long time, I tended to be more on Andreessen’s end of the spectrum regarding tech regulation. I believed that the social web could still be a net good and that, given enough time, the values that best served the public interest would naturally win out. I resisted the notion that regulating the social web was necessary at all, in part because I was not (and am still not) convinced that the government can do so without itself causing harm (the European model of regulation, including laws such as the so-called right to be forgotten, is deeply inconsistent with free-press protections in America, and poses dangers to the public’s right to know). I’d much prefer to see market competition as a force for technological improvement and the betterment of society.

But in recent years, it has become clear that regulation is needed, not least because the rise of technocracy proves that Silicon Valley’s leaders simply will not act in the public’s best interest. Much should be done to protect children from the hazards of social media, and to break up monopolies and oligopolies that damage society, and more. At the same time, I believe that regulation alone will not be enough to meaningfully address the cultural rot that the new technocrats are spreading.

Universities should reclaim their proper standing as leaders in developing world-changing technologies for the good of humankind. (Harvard, Stanford, and MIT could invest in creating a consortium for such an effort—their endowments are worth roughly $110 billion combined.)

Individuals will have to lead the way, too. You may not be able to entirely give up social media, or reject your workplace’s surveillance software—you may not even want to opt out of these things. But there is extraordinary power in defining ideals, and we can all begin to do that—for ourselves; for our networks of actual, real-life friends; for our schools; for our places of worship. We would be wise to develop more sophisticated shared norms for debating and deciding how we use invasive technology interpersonally and within our communities. That should include challenging existing norms about the use of apps and YouTube in classrooms, the ubiquity of smartphones in adolescent hands, and widespread disregard for individual privacy. People who believe that we all deserve better will need to step up to lead such efforts.

Our children are not data sets waiting to be quantified, tracked, and sold. Our intellectual output is not a mere training manual for the AI that will be used to mimic and plagiarize us. Our lives are meant not to be optimized through a screen, but to be lived—in all of our messy, tree-climbing, night-swimming, adventuresome glory. We are all better versions of ourselves when we are not tweeting or clicking “Like” or scrolling, scrolling, scrolling.

Technocrats are right that technology is a key to making the world better. But first we must describe the world as we wish it to be—the problems we wish to solve in the public interest, and in accordance with the values and rights that advance human dignity, equality, freedom, privacy, health, and happiness. And we must insist that the leaders of institutions that represent us—large and small—use technology in ways that reflect what is good for individuals and society, and not just what enriches technocrats.

We do not have to live in the world the new technocrats are designing for us. We do not have to acquiesce to their growing project of dehumanization and data mining. Each of us has agency.

No more “build it because we can.” No more algorithmic feedbags. No more infrastructure designed to make the people less powerful and the powerful more controlling. Every day we vote with our attention; it is precious, and desperately wanted by those who will use it against us for their own profit and political goals. Don’t let them.

#artificial intelligence

[okadadada]

プラットフォームはこのように滅びていく。まず、ユーザにとって良き存在になる。次に、ビジネス顧客にとって良き存在になるために、ユーザを虐げる。最後に、ビジネス顧客を虐げて、すべての価値を自分たちに向ける。そうして死んでいく。 私はこれを「メタクソ化（enshittification）」と呼んでいる。プラットフォームが容易に価値の配分方法を変更できることと、プラットフォームが買い手と売り手の間に陣取ってそれぞれを人質にし、両者の間を通過する価値のシェアをますます大きくする「両面市場」の性質によって生じる必然的な帰結である。 産声を上げたばかりのプラットフォームはユーザを必要とする。それゆえ、はじめはユーザにとって価値のある存在であろうとする。Amazonを思い出してほしい。Amazonは長らく赤字経営だった。資本市場へのアクセスを利用して、あなたが買うものすべてに補助金を出していたからだ。商品を原価割れで販売し、配送も原価度外視だった。さらに、以前のAmazonはクリーンで便利な検索機能も備えていた。ユーザが特定の商品を検索したら、その商品を検索結果の最上位に表示させることに全力を尽くした。 Amazonのユーザがとんでもない厚遇で迎えられていた時代があったのである。多くのユーザがAmazonを利用し、その結果たくさんの実店舗型小売業者が立ち行かなくなると、Amazon以外の店で買うという選択肢が失われていった。次にAmazonは電子書籍やオーディオブックを���売し始めた。それを購入するということは、DRMによってAmazonのプラットフォームに永久にロックインされることを意味した。つまり、Amazonで1ドルのメディアを購入すれば、Amazonとそのアプリから離脱する際にその1ドルを失うことになるのだ。さらにAmazonはプライムを売り込み、1年分の送料を前払いさせた。プライム会員はAmazonでばかり買い物するようになり、その90％は他の店舗で検索することはない。 こうして多くのビジネス顧客を誘引していった。つまり、マーケットプレイスの出品者たちは、Amazonが当初から約束していた「なんでも屋」にAmazonを変えてくれたのだ。サードパーティの出品者たちが次々と参入してきたことで、Amazonは補助金の使い道をサプライヤーに向けるようになった。KindleやAudibleのクリエイターたちも厚遇で迎えられた。Amazonはビジネス顧客の手数料を低く抑え、マーケットプレイスの出品者たちは膨大な消費者にリーチできるようになった。 こうした戦略の結果、買い物客はAmazon以外での商品探しが次第に難しくなり、Amazonでしか検索しなくなった。一方、販売者たちはAmazonで販売しなければならなくなった。 そうしてAmazonはビジネス顧客から余剰を収穫し、Amazonの株主に当てるようになった。今日、マーケットプレイスの出品者は、販売価格の45％以上をジャンク料としてAmazonに支払わされている。Amazonの310億ドル規模の「広告」プログラムは、出品者同士を対立させ、検索結果の上位に表示されるチャンスを競わせるペイオラ（訳注：賄賂）スキームなのだ。 Amazonで検索しても、検索ワードに最も適した商品が最上位に表示されることはない。そこに表示されるのは、検索結果の最上位に表示されるために最も高い額を支払った商品である。その手数料（訳注：広告料）は、あなたが購入する商品の代金に上乗せされる。Amazonから「最恵国待遇」を義務づけられた出品者は、他のストアでAmazonより安く販売することができないので、Amazonはすべての小売事業者の価格を押し上げてもいるのである。 Amazonで「猫用ベッド」を検索すると、最初の画面いっぱいに「広告」が表示される。その中には、Amazonが自社プラットフォームの出品者からパクった自社ブランド商品の広告も含まれているのだが、これが元々の出品者を廃業に追い込んでいる（外部の販売者は上位表示のために45％のジャンク料を支払わなければならないが、Amazonは自社製品の上位表示にこうした料金を請求しない）。「猫用ベッド」の検索結果の最初の5画面のうち、だいたい半分は広告である。 https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/28/enshittification/#relentless-payola 余剰は最初のうちはユーザに向けられ、ユーザの囲い込みに成功するとサプライヤーに向けられ、サプライヤーの囲い込みに成功すると株主に向けられる。そうして、プラットフォームは役に立たないクソの山になる。モバイルアプリストアからSteam、FacebookからTwitterに至るまで、これがメタクソ化のライフサイクルである。 キャット・ヴァレンテがクリスマス前のエッセイで記したように、Prodigyをはじめとするプラットフォームは、ソーシャルなつながりを求める場から、「おしゃべりをやめて、モノを買う」ことを期待される場に一夜にして豹変してしまうのだ。 https://catvalente.substack.com/p/stop-talking-to-each-other-and-start こうした余剰をめぐるペテンは、Facebookでも起こったことだ。当初、Facebookはあなたが好きな人、気になる人の投稿を表示してくれる良きプラットフォームだった。だがひと度、あなたの大切な人たちがFacebookを利用するようになると、事実上、そこから離脱できなくなってしまう。たとえわかりあえているはずの友達とでも、どの映画を見るか、どこに夕食を食べに行くかは、半分くらいはうまくまとまらない。それはさておき。 Facebookはその後、フォローしていないアカウントの投稿をフィードにプッシュするようになった。最初はメディア企業の投稿をユーザのフィードに埋め込み、新聞や雑誌、ブログへのアクセスを促した。 パブリッシャがFacebookにトラフィックを依存するようになると、Facebookはトラフィックを減少させるようになった。メディアがFacebookに投稿する記事要約とリンクから自社サイトへのトラフィックを絞り、メディアにFacebookの箱庭の内側に全文フィードを供給するよう誘導したのだ。 こうしてパブリッシャはますますFacebookに依存していくことになる。読者はパブリッシャのウェブサイトにアクセスしなくなり、Facebook内でその情報を取得するようになった。パブリッシャは読者を人質に取られ、読者同士も互いに人質に取られてしまった。Facebookはパブリッシャが投稿した記事を読者に見せることをやめ、パブリッシャがお金を支払って「ブースト」しない限り、記事が読者に届かないようにアルゴリズムを調整した。つまり、読者が明示的に特定のパブリッシャの投稿を見たいと表明していても、パブリッシャが金を支払わない限り、その読者には届かないようにしたのだ。 Facebookのフィードにはますます多くの広告が溢れかえっていった。読者が繋がりを求めたアカウントからの賄賂（payola）も、読者の注目を独占したい無関係なアカウントからの賄賂も同じように扱い出したのだ。これは広告主に大いに利益をもたらした。Facebookはあなたの同意なしに収集された個人データに基づいて、ターゲティング広告を安価に売り出したのである。 その結果、広告主もFacebookに依存するようになった。ビジネスがターゲティング広告頼みになってしまったのだ。そうしてFacebookは広告価格を引き上げ、広告詐欺を厭わなくなり、Googleと共謀して『ジェダイ・ブルー』と呼ばれる違法なプログラムを通じて広告市場を不正に操作するに至った。 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue 今日のFacebookは、ユーザにとっても、メディア企業にとっても、広告主にとっても、末期的なメタクソ化を果たした。この企業は、Facebookユーザの間で動画が人気だという間違った主張をもとに「ビデオへの転向（pivot to video）」を呼びかけ、Facebookに依存していたパブリッシャの大部分に壊滅的な打撃を与えた。メディア企業は（訳注：Facebookにそそのかされて）ビデオ配信に数十億ドルを投じたが、ユーザからは見向きもされず、多くの企業が倒産に追い込まれた。 https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/facebook-online-video-pivot-metrics-false.html にも関わらず、Facebookは新たな提案をしている。「Meta」と名付けられたソレは、足もセックスもない、厳重に監視されたローポリの子供向け番組のキャラクターとして余生を過ごすことを我々に要求する。 Metaは、メタバース向けアプリを制作する企業に、かつてFacebookがパブリッシャにしでかした酷い目には合わせないと約束している。その甘言に騙される企業がどれくらい現れるかはわからない。かつてマーク・ザッカーバーグは、ハーバード大学の仲間たちが個人情報を新興ウェブサイト「TheFacebook」に送信していることに驚いたと友人に語っていた。 理由はわかんないけど 彼らは「僕を信頼している」 バカなのかな

https://p2ptk.org/monopoly/4366

[wafflezcourtney]

I hear of so many parents calling facebook "the facebook" and their kids correcting them when facebook was originally called that anyway. It was called "thefacebook" back in 2005

[fakeoldmanfucker]

IM SORRY IVE BEEN SO QUIET MY LIFES BEEN SO HECTIC LATELYYY

but oh my god I've read the first two chapters so far and 😭😭😭 Dustin mother hen Moskovitz and Mark being absolutely insane about fencing is sonethwt that can be SO personal to me I swear to GOD I'm trying not to find this adorable but I so am, just a little bit

“Later Moskovitz and the others banned fencing from the house.” ASHSEIBEDUJEHDIEHE THATS SO

Also Mark being distracting while fencing when talking with Sean? Should've been in the movie

Also ““Pretty soon they were naming the servers on which Thefacebook software was running after characters in Tom Cruise movies. “Where is that script running?” “It’s running on Maverick.” “Well, run it instead on Iceman, I need Maverick to test this feature.” THATS SO TO <3 I'm currently majoring in compsci and I find this so adorable

And ““I need servers as much as I need food. I could probably go a while without eating, but if we don't have enough servers then the site is screwed.” Maaaark. Maaaaaaaaaaark. Thats not how that works. Not how any of that works.

I think the part that got me the most was “Interviewed by the Harvard Crimson a few months later, Zuckerberg explained why he'd increased Moskovitz’s stake: “Everyone else was like, ‘What the fuck are you doing?’ And I was like, ‘What do you mean? He clearly does a lot of work.’”

FIRST OF ALL OH MY GOD THEYRE SO TO. wow. trying not to cry and cry a lot they make me SO…. the part about Dustin going home to learn PERL in a weekend even though the Facebook was originally written in php makes me so. that was so fucking sweet I'm melting

also mark swearing sends me idk why. it ALWAYS catches me off guard

I CANNOT WAIT TO READ MORE IM SO SORRY FOR RAMBLING work suxs and im actually writing my first tsn!mark/dustin fic so this has been my little treat SHSHSHDHD

I SWEAR the image of Mark just half-ignoring Sean while practicing fencing...and there is So Much that happens in just that one sentence about putting a stop to the fencing inside and I need to know everything lol.

And this book. The perl/php story never fails to get me.

I forget when the Adam D'Angelo story about Dustin comes up, maybe it already has, but that one truly takes me out. The dedication that Dustin shows...Mark does not deserve him and it is very interesting to watch their....everything.

👀👀 I support every mark/dustin fic, and if you want a beta or someone to look over it I am offering my services.

Also no no don't be sorry for rambling!!! I am loving the update, feel free to continue.

#asks #kazutoes #zuck posting #the facebook effect #up til now david kirkpatrick has been the only one who understood me (/j) #now another has joined!

[nakanohajime]

かつてマーク・ザッカーバーグは、ハーバード大学の仲間たちが個人情報を新興ウェブサイト「TheFacebook」に送信していることに驚いたと友人に語っていた。 > 理由はわかんないけど > 彼らは「僕を信頼している」 > バカなのかな

メタクソ化するTiktok：プラットフォームが生まれ、成長し、支配し、滅びるまで | p2ptk[.]org

[cine-cuisine]

映画「ザ・ソーシャル・ネットワーク」をモチーフにした料理レシピ『ミルリオネアコード・サラダ』｜あらすじ・キャスト・原作の情報も

映画「ザ・ソーシャル・ネットワーク」のあらすじ 映画「ザ・ソーシャル・ネットワーク」は、マーク・ザッカーバーグがハーバード大学時代にFacebookを立ち上げ、世界最大のソーシャルネットワーキングサイトを築き上げるまでの軌跡を描いたドラマです。 情熱と才能を持ち合わせたマークは、友人エドゥアルド・セベリンと共にFacebookの原型「thefacebook」を始動させます。しかし、事業が軌道に乗るにつれ、複数の訴訟が発生。ベンチャー投資家への売り込み、恋人との確執、そして友情に裏切られる経験など、若き天才が直面するさまざまな試練が描かれます。 最終的には巨万の富を手にするも、彼は本当に成功したと言えるのか―。インターネットがもたらした新時代の、刹那と孤独を内包したストーリーが、見る者の心に強く訴えかけます。 今夜の映画レシピは「ミルリオネアコード・サラダ」 レシピの詳細 「ミルリオネア…

View On WordPress

[mariacallous]

It’s been 20 years since Harvard sophomore Mark Zuckerberg released a program called Thefacebook to his college community, launching a company that would capture over 3 billion users, flirt with a trillion-dollar valuation, and make so much money that it’s now kicking back a dividend to shareholders. And what better way to celebrate than raising your hand in a congressional hearing like a mafia boss or tobacco executive? “You have blood on your hands,” Lindsey Graham, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee told Zuckerberg this week. “You have a product that is killing people.” Cheers erupted from the gallery behind him, containing families who believe his creation helped kill their children.

The hearing, dubbed Big Tech and the Online Child Sexual Exploitation Crisis, was a reminder to Zuckerberg that after 20 years his company is still, despite his excitement about creating metaverses and artificial general intelligence, at its heart a social network. There is an urgent need to address how his platform and others affect child safety and well-being, something Congress has fulminated about for years. The Judiciary Committee has drawn up several bills to force the companies to do better, including ones that demand better content policing and make it easier to enact civil and criminal penalties for social media companies. In addition to Zuckerberg, this week’s hearing called Discord’s Jason Citron, X’s Linda Yaccarino, Snap’s Evan Spiegel, and TikTok’s Shou Zi Chew, in theory to solicit testimony that could advance those bills. But the hearing was less about listening to the executives than flogging them for their sins. As Graham put it, “If we’re waiting on these guys to solve the problem, we’re going to die waiting.”

Indeed, legislators should stop wasting time with these evasive moguls and should simply pass the laws that they believe will save the lives of young people. Instead, they repeatedly moaned during the hearing that they cannot do their jobs because “armies of lawyers and lobbyists” are standing in the way. Funny, I don’t remember lobbyists being a required part of the process in my junior high school textbook How a Law Is Passed. Still, senator after senator complained about congressional colleagues who were passively blocking the bills, implying that they valued tech company support more than preventing teenagers from killing themselves. At one point Louisiana senator John Kennedy called on majority leader Charles Schumer ”to go to Amazon, buy a spine online, and bring this bill to the Senate floor.” Maybe the next hearing should have Chuck himself under the bright lights. I can imagine it now: Senator Schumer, is it true that one of your daughters works as an Amazon lobbyist and another has spent years working for Meta? Yes or no!

OK, let’s stipulate that, as the senators see it, the US congress doesn’t have the stones to pass social media child-safety legislation unless the companies call off their dogs. That would mean that the Senate has to work with the companies—or their armies of lobbyists—to find compromises. But the committee expended little effort on finding common ground with the companies. More than one senator thought it would be constructive to force each CEO to say whether they supported this bill or that as written. Almost universally, the CEOs attempted to say that there were things in the bill they agreed with but others they objected to and needed to work with lawmakers on. They could hardly get out a sentence before they were cut off, as Graham did in his interrogation of Discord’s Citron. “That’s a no,” he said, not giving him a chance to say what was needed to make it a yes. The Dirksen Office Building saw a lot of that kind of grandstanding this week.

One key tension between Congress and the tech industry is the status of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which holds users responsible for content on platforms, not the companies running those platforms. Nearly two hours into the hearing, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse finally asked the execs what modifications to Section 230 would be acceptable to them. But he apparently didn’t want that discussion to take time away from the main event—posturing, chest-thumping, and ritual humiliation—and asked them to send their thoughts in writing after the hearing. I would have preferred a genuine discussion, right then. Is it possible to reform Section 230 to make social media companies accountable for real negligence or misdeeds, without putting them out of business and killing off swathes of the internet? What are the free-speech implications? How does this relate to some state laws—now under consideration by the Supreme Court—that force platforms to display certain content even if they feel it violates their standards? Believe it or not, fruitful dialog is possible in a congressional hearing. We had one recently about AI where witnesses and senators actually dug into the issues, with no accusations that the witnesses were killing people. Even though AI might kill us all!

One potential solution to the social media problem mentioned by multiple senators was to make it possible to sue platforms that moderate content poorly. That would be all of them, according to Whitehouse, who told the CEOs, “Your platforms really suck at policing themselves.” (Isn’t that sentence itself toxic content?) Families who have filed such suits have had difficulty making progress because Section 230 seems to grant platforms immunity. It does seem fair to modify the rule so that if a company knowingly, or because of conspicuous negligence, refuses to take down harmful posts, it should be responsible for the consequences of its own actions. But that might unleash a tsunami of lawsuits based on frivolous claims as well as serious ones. For Republican lawmakers in particular, this is an interesting approach, since their party’s votes pushed through a 1995 law that did the opposite for an industry whose products lead to many more deaths than social media. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act banned victims of gun violence from suing munitions manufacturers. I would like to hear legislators grapple with that paradox, but I don’t think I’d get an answer without subpoena power.

A subplot of this week’s hearing was the opportunity to pummel TikTok CEO Chew about how much the platform is supposedly influenced by its Chinese ownership. We didn’t learn much, except that he is from Singapore, not China. In any case, that repartee was a distraction from the stated topic of child safety. Meanwhile, no one bothered to ask the executives what they were doing to make sure AI technologies in the hands of bullies and pedophiles would not make things worse.

Meanwhile, Zuckerberg’s presence showed that the company cannot easily step away from its 20-year legacy of controversy. When he promoted Nick Clegg from being just a humble VP to president of global affairs two years ago, it was surely in hopes that the former UK politician would represent the company in uncomfortable hearings like this one. That would leave Zuckerberg to concentrate on the parts of the company that excite him—mixed reality and, more recently, the quest for general artificial intelligence. The founder and CEO had seemed to move on to concentrate on the emerging technologies he saw as defining the future of both his company and humanity. Not to mention his hobbies of mixed martial arts and raising macadamia-fed Wagyu cattle on his secret Hawaiian compound.

Instead, Zuckerberg was dragged back to Capitol Hill and shamed into standing up and facing the aggrieved mourners of young people lost by suicide after awful experiences on Facebook and Instagram. He blurted out an apology, “I’m sorry for everything you have all been through,” as some of the families held up photos of lost loved ones for him to see. “No one should go through the things that your families have suffered, and this is why we invest so much and we are going to continue doing industrywide efforts to make sure no one has to go through the things your families have had to suffer.”

If Zuckerberg’s dreams of AGI come true, prose and pictures generated by robots, not our friends and family, may populate our news feed. Certainly his tepid mea culpa in the hearing room sounded like it could have been generated by Meta’s large language model Llama 2. But before we move on to Meta’s future, there’s too much that needs fixing in its present business. Also in need of a fix is a US Congress that pleads helplessness because of all those lobbyists. Happy anniversary, Zuck!

[wausaupilot]

Today in History: Today is Sunday, Feb. 4, the 35th day of 2024.

On this date: In 2004, Facebook had its beginnings as Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg launched “Thefacebook.”

By The Associated Press Today’s Highlight in History: On Feb. 4, 1945, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Josef Stalin began a wartime conference at Yalta. On this date: In 1783, Britain’s King George III proclaimed a formal cessation of hostilities in the American Revolutionary War. In 1789, electors chose George Washington to be the…

View On WordPress

#afternoon update #Milestones #today in history

[speedyposts]

Facebook turns 20: How the social media giant grew to 3 billion users

In 2004, as broadband was replacing dial-up internet and mobile phones with colour screens were gaining popularity, on February 4, a social network, named “TheFacebook”, was launched by 19-year-old Mark Zuckerberg and his college roommates at Harvard University.

Facebook was named after the physical student directory distributed at universities at the start of the academic year, commonly known as a “face book”.

.adtnl6r-container { display: flex; flex-direction: column; align-items: center; width: 80%; max-width: 600px; margin: 20px auto; background-color: #FF3300; border: 1px solid #ddd; border-radius: 10px; overflow: hidden; box-shadow: 0 0 10px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); } .adtnl6r-banner { width: 100%; max-height: 250px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid #ddd; } .adtnl6r-banner img { width: 100%; height: auto; max-height: 250px; } .adtnl6r-content { width: 100%; padding: 20px; box-sizing: border-box; text-align: center; } .adtnl6r-title { font-size: 1.8em; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 10px; color: #fff; } .adtnl6r-description { font-size: 1.2em; color: #fff; margin-bottom: 15px; } .adtnl6r-learn-more-button { display: inline-block; padding: 10px 20px; font-size: 1.2em; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; background-color: #0066CC; color: #fff; border-radius: 50px; /* Pill style border-radius */ border-color: #0066CC; transition: background-color 0.3s; } .adtnl6r-learn-more-button:hover { background-color: #45a049; color: #000; } .adtnl6r-marker { font-size: 0.8em; color: #fff; margin-top: 10px; }

Your Path to Online Virality! Reach people through websites, mobile apps, blogs, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn, etc.

Advertise Everywhere!

Take Action

Ads by Adtional

Within a few years, the platform exploded in popularity, becoming the world’s largest social media network, with more than three billion monthly active users today.

The idea behind Facebook was an offshoot of one of Zuckerberg’s previous projects called Facemash, a “hot-or-not” website used to rate female Harvard students’ faces side-by-side.

To obtain the photos used on the site, Zuckerberg hacked into the university’s security system and copied student ID images without their permission. This prompted the university to shut down the platform within days of its launch and led to disciplinary action against Zuckerberg.

Yet, just a few months later, Zuckerberg and his roommates launched a new networking site that enabled Harvard students to connect with their peers using their “.edu” email address.

The social network was a big hit and soon spread to other college campuses across the United States.

Within its first year, the platform grew to one million users, and in August 2005, it was renamed “facebook.com”.

By the end of 2006, anyone above the age of 13 with internet access could join. The number of users jumped from 12 million in 2006 to 50 million in 2007, which doubled to 100 million by the end of 2008.

In 2012, the year Facebook reached one billion users, it went public, valued at $104bn. Facebook made its initial public offering (IPO) at $38 a share and raised $16bn. The platform’s market share has since grown nearly 12 times, to about $474 at the closing on Friday.

On October 29, 2021, Zuckerberg announced the rebranding of Facebook, Inc to Meta Platforms, Inc. The company owns and operates Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp, among other products and services.

With three billion active monthly users, Facebook remains the world’s most popular social media platform, accounting for more than half of the world’s internet users and more than one-third of the world’s population.

To put 3.03 billion users in perspective, that is more than the population of India (1.4 billion), China (1.4 billion), and Bangladesh (173 million) combined.

In 2023, Facebook’s biggest audiences included: India (385.6 million), followed by the US (188.6 million), Indonesia (136.3 million), Brazil (111.7 million) and Mexico (94.8 million).

According to Datareportal, an online reference library, among Facebook’s global users, individuals aged 65 and above (5.6 percent) outnumber those aged 13-17 (4.8 percent).

Debra Aho Williamson, an analyst with Insider Intelligence who has followed Facebook since its early days, notes that the site’s younger users have been dwindling.

“Young people often shape the future of communication. I mean, that’s basically how Facebook took off – young people gravitated toward it. And we see that happening with pretty much every social platform that has come on the scene since Facebook,” Williamson told The Associated Press news agency.

Facebook’s largest audience group, with just below a third (29.9 percent) of all users, is 25-34 years.

Facebook has encountered numerous data privacy and user safety issues over the course of its 20-year existence.

One of the most notable issues occurred in 2018 when it was revealed that a British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica used 87 million Facebook users’ personal information without permission in early 2014 to build profiles of individual voters in the US to target them with personalised political advertisements.

Zuckerberg attended his first congressional hearings at Capitol Hill, Washington, DC where he was questioned about his data privacy practices. The Meta boss agreed to pay fines and said he would enhance privacy regulations on the platform.

On January 31, 2024, Zuckerburg, along with CEOs of TikTok, X and other social media platforms, were asked to testify before the US Senate Judiciary Committee.

In a rare show of unity, Republican and Democratic senators grilled the CEOs about how social media companies have not done enough to curb the damage their platforms do to the health and wellbeing of children and teenagers.

Zuckerberg apologised to the parents of the victims. “I’m sorry for everything you have all been through. No one should go through the things that your families have suffered,” he said, adding that Meta continues to invest and work on “industry-wide efforts” to protect children.

Child health advocates say that social media companies have failed repeatedly to protect minors.

Despite government scrutiny, and a dwindling younger audience, Meta on Thursday reported a revenue of $40.1bn and a profit of $14bn for the fourth quarter of last year – far surpassing analysts’ forecasts.

Meta, like many other tech giants, has been investing heavily in boosting its computing power to support its ambitious artificial intelligence (AI) plans.

According to Reuters, Meta is gearing up to unleash its own AI chips, referred to internally as “Artemis”, later this year to be used in energy-hungry generative AI products it plans to integrate into Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

.adtnl6r-container { display: flex; flex-direction: column; align-items: center; width: 80%; max-width: 600px; margin: 20px auto; background-color: #FF3300; border: 1px solid #ddd; border-radius: 10px; overflow: hidden; box-shadow: 0 0 10px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); } .adtnl6r-banner { width: 100%; max-height: 250px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid #ddd; } .adtnl6r-banner img { width: 100%; height: auto; max-height: 250px; } .adtnl6r-content { width: 100%; padding: 20px; box-sizing: border-box; text-align: center; } .adtnl6r-title { font-size: 1.8em; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 10px; color: #fff; } .adtnl6r-description { font-size: 1.2em; color: #fff; margin-bottom: 15px; } .adtnl6r-learn-more-button { display: inline-block; padding: 10px 20px; font-size: 1.2em; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; background-color: #0066CC; color: #fff; border-radius: 50px; /* Pill style border-radius */ border-color: #0066CC; transition: background-color 0.3s; } .adtnl6r-learn-more-button:hover { background-color: #45a049; color: #000; } .adtnl6r-marker { font-size: 0.8em; color: #fff; margin-top: 10px; }

Your Path to Online Virality! Reach people through websites, mobile apps, blogs, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn, etc.

Advertise Everywhere!

Take Action

Ads by Adtional

[blognews24]

Facebook compie 20 anni: il social network che ha cambiato il modo di vivere

Facebook, il social network creato da Mark Zuckerberg, compie 20 anni il 4 febbraio 2024. In due decenni, la piattaforma ha raggiunto oltre due miliardi di utenti attivi al giorno, ha acquisito altre app popolari come Instagram e WhatsApp, ha lanciato nuovi servizi come Marketplace e Metaverse, ha affrontato scandali e polemiche, ha influenzato la politica, la cultura, l'economia e la società. In questo articolo, ripercorriamo la storia di Facebook, i suoi successi e le sue sfide, e analizziamo come ha cambiato il modo di vivere delle persone.

Come è nato Facebook: dalla Harvard al mondo

Facebook è nato nel 2004, come un progetto di cinque studenti della Harvard University: Mark Zuckerberg, Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz e Chris Hughes. L'idea era di creare un sito web che permettesse agli studenti di Harvard di connettersi tra loro, condividendo informazioni personali, interessi, foto e messaggi. Il nome originale era TheFacebook, ispirato ai libri con le foto degli studenti che venivano distribuiti nelle università americane. In poco tempo, il sito divenne popolare tra gli studenti di Harvard e si espanse ad altre università degli Stati Uniti, come Stanford, Yale e Columbia. Nel 2005, Zuckerberg e i suoi soci decisero di cambiare il nome in Facebook e di aprire il sito a tutti gli studenti e i dipendenti di alcune grandi aziende. Nel 2006, Facebook divenne accessibile a chiunque avesse almeno 13 anni e un indirizzo email valido. Da allora, la crescita di Facebook è stata inarrestabile: nel 2008, il social network raggiunse 100 milioni di utenti; nel 2010, 500 milioni; nel 2012, un miliardo; nel 2017, due miliardi. Oggi, Facebook conta 2,11 miliardi di utenti attivi al giorno e 3,07 miliardi al mese.

Come ha cambiato Facebook il modo di comunicare: da social network a ecosistema digitale

Facebook non è solo un social network, ma un vero e proprio ecosistema digitale, che offre una varietà di servizi e funzionalità ai suoi utenti. Oltre a permettere di creare un profilo personale, di aggiungere amici, di pubblicare post, di commentare e mettere mi piace, di inviare messaggi privati e di partecipare a gruppi e eventi, Facebook ha introdotto nel corso degli anni molte altre novità, come: - Le pagine, che consentono a personaggi pubblici, aziende, organizzazioni e media di avere una presenza online e di interagire con i fan e i clienti. - Le storie, che permettono di condividere foto e video che scompaiono dopo 24 ore, ispirate all'app Snapchat. - Il marketplace, che consente di comprare e vendere oggetti usati nella propria zona, in concorrenza con siti come eBay e Subito. - Le dirette, che permettono di trasmettere video in tempo reale, in competizione con piattaforme come YouTube e Twitch. - Le watch party, che permettono di guardare insieme a altri utenti video selezionati da Facebook o caricati dagli utenti stessi. - Le reaction, che permettono di esprimere diverse emozioni oltre al classico mi piace, come amore, divertimento, stupore, tristezza e rabbia. - Le sondaggi, che permettono di chiedere l'opinione degli utenti su vari argomenti, con la possibilità di aggiungere foto, gif e video. - Le raccolte fondi, che permettono di creare e sostenere campagne di crowdfunding per cause sociali, umanitarie o personali. - Il dating, che permette di trovare e contattare potenziali partner romantici, in alternativa a app come Tinder e Badoo. - Il metaverse, che permette di creare e esplorare mondi virtuali in 3D, in collaborazione con Oculus, l'azienda di realtà virtuale acquisita da Facebook nel 2014. Inoltre, Facebook ha acquisito nel tempo altre app molto popolari, come Instagram, il social network dedicato alle foto e ai video, nel 2012; WhatsApp, l'app di messaggistica istantanea, nel 2014; e Giphy, la piattaforma di gif animate, nel 2020. Queste app, pur mantenendo la loro autonomia, sono integrate con Facebook, permettendo agli utenti di condividere facilmente contenuti tra le diverse piattaforme.

Come ha cambiato Facebook il modo di vivere: tra opportunità e rischi

Facebook ha cambiato il modo di vivere delle persone, offrendo loro opportunità e rischi. Tra le opportunità, possiamo citare: - La possibilità di mantenere i contatti con amici e parenti lontani, di ritrovare vecchie conoscenze, di fare nuove amicizie, di condividere esperienze, passioni, hobby, interessi, emozioni, pensieri, idee, consigli, suggerimenti, informazioni, notizie, curiosità, umorismo, creatività, arte, cultura, sport, musica, cinema, libri, viaggi, cibo, moda, bellezza, salute, benessere, animali, natura, ecologia, scienza, tecnologia, innovazione, educazione, lavoro, imprenditoria, volontariato, solidarietà, attivismo, politica, religione, spiritualità, filosofia, psicologia, sociologia, antropologia, storia, geografia, lingue, letteratura, matematica, fisica, chimica, biologia, astronomia, astrologia, esoterismo, mistero, fantasia, magia, sogno, amore, amicizia, famiglia, coppia, sessualità, genere, identità, diversità, inclusione, tolleranza, rispetto, dialogo, pace, libertà, giustizia, democrazia, diritti, doveri, valori, principi, etica, morale, legalità, civiltà, umanità, eccetera. - La possibilità di accedere a una vasta gamma di servizi e funzionalità, che facilitano la comunicazione, l'informazione, l'intrattenimento, l'apprendimento, la formazione, la crescita personale e professionale, la collaborazione, la partecipazione, la condivisione, la creazione, la produzione, la distribuzione, la promozione, la vendita, l'acquisto, la donazione, il supporto, l'assistenza, la consulenza, la mediazione, la risoluzione, la valutazione, il feedback, la reputazione, la visibilità, la popolarità, l'influenza, il guadagno, il risparmio, l'investimento, il divertimento, il relax, il benessere, la salute, la sicurezza, la protezione, la privacy, la trasparenza, la fiducia, la qualità, la soddisfazione, la felicità, eccetera. - La possibilità di scoprire e sperimentare nuove realtà, culture, persone, luoghi, eventi, prodotti, servizi, opportunità, sfide, problemi, soluzioni, progetti, iniziative, cause, missioni, visioni, obiettivi, strategie, azioni, risultati, impatti, cambiamenti, trasformazioni, evoluzioni, rivoluzioni, eccetera. Tra i rischi, invece, possiamo citare: - La possibilità di incorrere in fenomeni negativi, come la disinformazione, la manipolazione, la propaganda, la polarizzazione, l'odio, la violenza, il bullismo, il cyberbullismo, l'harassment, lo stalking, il revenge porn, il sextortion, il phishing, lo scam, il furto. Read the full article

#20annifacebook #compleannofacebook #facebook

[circularbdnews2023]

মার্ক জুকারবার্গ এর সফলতার গল্প, মার্ক জুকারবার্গ এর আয় কত? মার্ক জুকারবার্গ এর সেরা 1০ উক্তি , Mark Zuckerberg success story, Mark Zuckerberg income?

মার্ক জুকারবার্গ, ফেসবুকের সহ-প্রতিষ্ঠাতা এবং সিইও, নিঃসন্দেহে প্রযুক্তি শিল্পের সবচেয়ে সফল এবং প্রভাবশালী ব্যক্তিত্বদের একজন। 1984 সালে জন্মগ্রহণকারী, হার্ভার্ডের ডর্ম রুম থেকে বিশ্বের অন্যতম ধনী ব্যক্তি হয়ে ওঠা জাকারবার্গের যাত্রা ব্যতিক্রমী কিছু নয়।

****জুকারবার্গের সাফল্যের গল্প:

2004 সালে, হার্ভার্ড বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ে পড়ার সময়, জুকারবার্গ এবং তার রুমমেট ডাস্টিন মস্কোভিটজ, এডুয়ার্ডো সাভারিন এবং ক্রিস হিউজ "TheFacebook" নামে একটি সামাজিক নেটওয়ার্কিং ওয়েবসাইট তৈরি করেছিলেন। এটি শুধুমাত্র হার্ভার্ড ছাত্রদের জন্য একটি প্ল্যাটফর্ম হিসাবে শুরু হয়েছিল কিন্তু দ্রুত অন্যান্য আইভি লীগ বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় এবং অবশেষে মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়গুলিতে প্রসারিত হয়েছিল।

ফেসবুক জনপ্রিয়তা অর্জন করার সাথে সাথে, জুকারবার্গ হার্ভার্ড প্ল্যাটফর্মে ফুল-টাইম ফোকাস করার জন্য বাদ পড়েন। কোম্পানিটি উল্লেখযোগ্য বৃদ্ধি পেয়েছে, লক্ষ লক্ষ ব্যবহারকারীকে আকৃষ্ট করেছে এবং ভেঞ্চার ক্যাপিটালিস্টদের কাছ থেকে যথেষ্ট বিনিয়োগ পেয়েছে। জুকারবার্গের নেতৃত্বে, Facebook একটি বিশ্বব্যাপী সামাজিক মিডিয়া জায়ান্টে রূপান্তরিত হয়েছে, যা বিশ্বব্যাপী কোটি কোটি মানুষকে সংযুক্ত করেছে।

আরও পড়ুন 

#mark zuckerberg #mark zug #mark zukerburg #mark zuckerberg succsee #facebook

[teamtrigma]

Unleashing Your Startup's Potential: The Power of MVP Development

Leveraging MVP (Minimum Viable Product) development is a game-changer for startups aiming to expedite their business growth. It is an efficient and cost-effective approach where a new product is developed with sufficient features to satisfy early adopters. MVP development focuses on core functionalities, enabling startups to quickly launch their product to the market, gather valuable user feedback, and iterate based on real-world insights. This lean methodology reduces risks and investment, ensuring the product aligns with consumer needs before committing to full-scale production. Thus, MVP development is a powerful tool for startups to validate their business ideas, optimize product-market fit, and accelerate their trajectory towards business growth.

The Power of MVP Development: Accelerating Startup Growth through Iteration and Validation

Notable companies have demonstrated the power of MVP development by starting small, learning from their user base, and continuously iterating. For instance, Dropbox started as a simple demo video explaining its concept. The overwhelming positive response gave the founders confidence to build the full product, eventually becoming a leader in cloud storage.

Similarly, the social media giant Facebook started as an MVP called 'Thefacebook', initially available only to Harvard students. Based on user feedback and acceptance, it gradually expanded to other universities, before becoming the global platform it is today.

Uber also began as an MVP, initially offering only black luxury cars in San Francisco. As the concept of ride-hailing gained acceptance, Uber broadened its services, ultimately disrupting the global transportation industry.

In each example, MVP development allowed these startups to validate their ideas and refine their products based on real-world feedback before expanding their offerings. These success stories underline the potential of MVP development in accelerating startup growth.

Benefits of MVP Development for Startups

Implementing MVP development in a startup's growth strategy presents numerous advantages.

Firstly, cost-efficiency; building an MVP requires less capital compared to full-fledged product development, making it a financially prudent decision for startups.

Secondly, it enables fast market entry; the development period for an MVP is significantly shorter, allowing startups to launch their product quickly and gain a competitive edge.

Thirdly, MVPs facilitate risk mitigation; by testing the product in the market at an early stage, startups can identify potential issues and rectify them before investing in full-scale production.

Lastly, MVP development fosters user-driven product evolution; startups can use the feedback from the MVP to refine their product, ensuring it meets the customers' needs and expectations. In essence, MVP development empowers startups to build products that are more likely to succeed in the market.

Also read: 9 Benefits of an MVP in Software Development

MVP development is a powerful tool that enables startups to quickly enter the market, efficiently use resources, and produce a product that resonates with the consumer. Instead of spending time and resources on potentially unproven concepts, MVPs allow startups to validate their product idea with real-world feedback and adapt accordingly. The success stories of world-renowned companies like Facebook, Airbnb, and Uber underline the potential of this approach. With MVP development, startups have a concrete, data-driven foundation to scale their business and accelerate their growth trajectory. By focusing on the essential features, gathering user feedback, iteratively refining the product, and persistently pursuing innovation, startups can significantly enhance their chances of success in the competitive business landscape.

You may also like:

MVP Development vs. Full-Scale Product Development

#mvp development #startups #business #mvp development services

[bgugliel]

Passé Connecté : FaceMash de Mack Zuckerberg

Mon Carnet, le podcast · {BONUS} – Passé Connecté : FaceMash de Mack Zuckerberg En 2004, Mark Zuckerberg lance “Thefacebook” depuis sa chambre d’étudiant à Harvard. Mais un an plus tôt, tout avait commencé avec “FaceMash”, un site controversé de jugement de photos d’étudiants.

View On WordPress

[lastscenecom]

ウィキペディアのインターフェースが大幅に変更されたのは 2004 年のことです。Mark Zuckerberg が TheFacebook を立ち上げたばかりで、Gmail が登場したばかりで、スマートフォンもありませんでした (最初の iPhone は 3 年後に登場します)。

2023 年のウィキペディアの再設計に関する設計上の注意事項 | アレックス・ホレンダー | | 2023年3月 | UXコレクティブ

[fakeoldmanfucker]

"It was three or four years ago" - Mark referring to his agreement with ConnectU, signaling his disinterest in the discussion since he doesn't know the exact date (also a nice way to shift the blame off of him re timeline stuff)

"At a party at AEPi...it was Caribbean night." - Mark referring to the first time he talked to Eduardo about Facebook (sorry, thefacebook) and giving the exact day.

I'm just going to let that speak for itself.

#actually no i can't resist rambling about it #he can't feign disinterest in eduardo #even in the middle of the lawsuit. even after all this time. he can't do it #he can't do it!! #eduardo is actually better at this than he is #up until the 'i was your only friend' moment #and that's only on the second day #the social network #mark zuckerberg #eduardo saverin #markwardo #tsn live blog #finn's flailings

[idunidunidun]

TheFacebook

#brief4