Tag Archives: mark zuckerberg

On October 1, a new movie will premiere in theaters around the country and soon in the world that millions of people will find interesting in their lives. Why? Because it involves a product that they use practically on a daily basis: Facebook.

The Social Network claims to be an unauthorized telling of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s life and how Facebook came to be. After seeing it, I seem to have a new perspective on how everything came to be. Sure, a startup has a lot of blood, sweat and tears involved, but the way director David Fincher and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin portrays Mark Zuckerberg, Sean Parker, Eduardo Saverin and the Winklevoss twins is somewhat dark. In fact, one way to look at Zuckerberg is how tech commentator Leo Laporte puts it “socially inept nerd”.

Last Monday, I was fortunate enough to attend a private screening hosted by the social media blog Mashable where dozens of social media and industry professionals came out to watch what was claimed to be the movie of our generation. It seemed somewhat surreal seeing this movie about a product which had not yet reached its prime. In fact, it was like watching a movie about an event that happened just yesterday. Naturally it seemed to be appealing to those who use social networking tools like MySpace, Twitter, YouTube and, of course, Facebook and it might have some draw to non-social media users especially since the producers chose to focus on the beginnings of Facebook from the dorm room where Zuckerberg first got into trouble and then followed along as he dealt with all his legal issues. You’ll get to see his different interactions and the whole cast and crew that he affected and influenced since that fateful day at Harvard and wonder who was really the victim, the winner and villain – well, if there was one, that is.

So who showed up at the Mashable screening? Practically the who’s who of the social media scene, including Rafe Needleman of CNET, Debbie Landa of Dealmaker Media, Danielle Morrill of Twilio, Leo Laporte of TWiT.tv, Cathy Brooks, Eston Bond, Pete Cashmore, Lisa Bettany, Ben Parr, Jolie O’Dell, Karen Hartline, Daniel Brusilovsky, Derek Overbey, Marcus Nelson, Vanessa Camones, Brian Wong, Dana Oshiro, Tara Hunt and dozens more!

Would I recommend The Social Network to watch in theaters? If you’re an avid fan of social media and understand that this is an unofficial telling, then yes, I would. If anything, it’s quite entertaining to watch and see how manipulative everyone was in the movies and the anger that Zuckerberg exuded throughout that people might find would rub them the wrong way. The actors playing Zuckerberg and co-founder Sean Parker are pretty spot-on and the look behind the top social network in the world with over 500 million monthly active users is fascinating.

The Social Network is out in theaters on October 1.

Photo Credit: Sony Pictures Entertainment

By Miiko Mentz

The 2009 Crunchies award winners were revealed Friday night at the Herbst Theater in San Francisco. This was the third annual Crunchies Awards ceremony put on by TechCrunch, along with its partners GigaOm and VentureBeat. For a third straight year Facebook took home the Best Overall Startup Or Product Of 2009 award. Mark Zuckerberg was on hand to accept the award:

Zuckerberg also sat down for an on-stage interview with TechCrunch Founder and Co-editor Michael Arrington. They discussed Internet privacy and how Facebook has been aggressive on that front. They talked about the future of Facebook Connect and Zuckerberg said that this year Facebook will focus on making it easier for users and developers to use Facebook Connect because “much more is going to be developed outside of Facebook then inside.”

Arrington asked Zuckerberg if Facebook will get more aggressive on acquisitions, in which Zuckerberg commented on the motivation behind Facebook’s past acquisitions. He said the acquisitions “have been primarily to get great people to join the company” and then he went on to talk about each. Watch the full interview here:

And one of my favorite parts of the evening was the Richter Scales performance. Their performance was highly entertaining and lots of fun:

Like last year’s Crunchies Awards, the evening ended with a celebration at the Crunchies Awards after party across the street at San Francisco City Hall’s rotunda. Check out the pictures from the ceremony and after party: Crunchies2009′s photostream.

To see all the nominees, runner-ups, and winners, head on over to TechCrunch; and to watch the recording of the Crunchies head on over to the Crunchies page or TechCrunch’s Crunchies Ustream channel.

Follow me on Twitter: @MiikoMentz

Disclosure: In addition to being a contributor to Bubblicious, I also work at FutureWorks. FutureWorks was the video sponsor for the Crunchies and I was part of the video crew for last night’s ceremony.

Related Links:
GigaOM: DropBox, Foursquare, Facebook Winners at The Crunchies
TechCrunch: The Crunchies Photo Gallery
VentureBeat: Crunchies: Google Voice is coming to the iPhone “one way or the other”
VentureBeat: Crunchies: Zynga’s Mark Pincus sees a future for socially-conscious virtual goods
Bubblicious: A night of reflection and celebration at TechCrunch’s 2nd annual Crunchies

by Brian Solis

Shot at Mark Zuckerberg’s keynote at SXSW 2008

While Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has maintained a private account on Twitter (@zuck) for quite sometime, he has now officially  created a public-facing profile on Twitter.

Is that really news? Probably not.

However, it’s a big step for the social network visionary as he streams his outside activity back into the new Facebook News Feed aka activity stream.

It’s also a way for him to connect with those outside of Facebook whom are genuinely interested in staying up to date with his updates.

Connect with me on:
Twitter, FriendFeed, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Plaxo, Plurk, Identi.ca, BackType, or Facebook

by Brian Solis, via PR 2.0

All your face are belong to us! For those who don’t remember, or know, the significance of that statement, read about it on Wikipedia.

Shot at SXSWi 2008

A few news outlets reached out to me for comment regarding the uproar sparked by the recent change to Facebook’s Terms of Service (ToS). It inspired a public response as I am not only someone who spends a significant amount of time in the online social field studying digital anthropology and new marketing, I’m also a willing participant in and contributor to the Facebook economy.

So, why is everyone upset?

When you read the new ToS, it’s actually quite alarming…

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.

If you were to summarize this section, it basically screams that your content is theirs to use when and how they want.

Naturally, bloggers, reporters, analysts, and influential Facebook pundits collectively responded in outrage and surprise. The news continues to draw angst, frustration, and also sparking debates as it permeates real world communities outside of Techmeme. Famed celebrity gossip blogger, Perez Hilton recently called for a boycott to the globally dominating social network.

Now, confused, somewhat hostile, and critical Facebook constituents have solicited a very human response from Zuckerberg. In it, he attempts to provide a deeper explanation and meaningful rationale behind the ToS modification. It is this response that is potentially difficult for everyday people to comprehend and accept as it is a stark reminder that the social web, is well, social.

“People want full ownership and control of their information so they can turn off access to it at any time. At the same time, people also want to be able to bring the information others have shared with them—like email addresses, phone numbers, photos and so on—to other services and grant those services access to those people’s information. These two positions are at odds with each other. There is no system today that enables me to share my email address with you and then simultaneously lets me control who you share it with and also lets you control what services you share it with.”

Mark Zuckerberg basically attempts to extinguish the flames of his critics by asking us to “trust his team” that our content will not be used in any way that we would disapprove. The ToS language is explicit in its design and ambition that could serve as the flashpoint for something not yet visible or public. However, their is a potentially disastrous risk involved for any company with a multi-billion dollar valuation and how it uses personal content. For this reason, Facebook’s actions are governed by the market and its ability to dictate the future success or failure of the network.

But to be honest, we should be worried less about how Zuckerberg and co. will use our content when compared to the bigger threat and perils associated with publicly sharing content in general.

His explanation essentially serves as a wake up call to users of all social networks and other forms of social media that what we share online is now shared not only with those we know and trust, but those we don’t know. And, trust is moot when content can freely traverse network to network and person to person without feedback, knowledge or insight until something or someone potentially forces a new revelation wrapped in unsolicited context. Trust gives way to blind intent.

What you share online, from pictures to updates to virtual gifts to videos, paints a picture of who you are and what you represent, regardless of your intentions. Everything accumulates into one vault that ultimately represents your social capital and Facebook, and any other social network – including Twitter – is merely providing you with the ability to define the impressions you feed, the perception you shape, and the personal brand that results from your online participation and contributions across the entire social web.

As Kara Swisher so brilliantly educates us, “Here’s the key definition of interactive: ‘Mutually or reciprocally active. That means once you send something to others, it is out there in cyberspace forever, never ever to return. And that goes double on social networking sites, where–let’s be honest–people egregiously overshare and then get all righteous when it is explained to them that sharing means, um, sharing. As in: You cannot take it back, if you have shared with 476 of your closest “friends,” your bikini shots from Cabo.”

Read the full post on PR 2.0.

Connect with me on:
Twitter, FriendFeed, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Pownce, Plaxo, Plurk, Identi.ca, BackType, Jaiku or Facebook

by Brian Solis (for a deeper discussion on the subject, please visit PR 2.0)

Mark Zuckerberg

Kara Swisher FTW – again!

During the Web 2.0 Summit, John Batelle interviewed Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg and if you listened closely enough, it was clear that Batelle was prodding Zuckerberg to validate the rumors that Facebook was exploring the possibility of acquiring Twitter.

With a teasing smile, Zuckerberg described Twitter an “elegant model” and professed that he was “ impressed by what they’ve done.”

Following the session, attendees poured into the hallways dissecting the dialogue to support or discount the prospect of such a bold acquisition.

Kara Swisher has confirmed the rumors, however, an acquisition is not imminent – at least not yet.

Twitter has grown by over 600% in one year. From a business perspective, I can understand why Facebook would consider engaging in negotiations. Twitter is currently reporting six million registered users and last month, the micro community experienced its greatest traffic to date – no doubt bolstered by the 2008 Election.

The deal was close to finalization, but (thankfully) fell apart for very valid reasons.

According to Kara Swisher’s post, Facebook was attempting to acquire Twitter for $500 million in a pure stock deal based on Facebook’s disputed $15 billion valuation. Analysts peg the true estimate of Facebook’s market value closer to $5 billion, which would have positioned Twitter’s sale price at roughly $150 million – a number that investors, the board, and the company’s founders believe is far too low.

Twitter wanted cash and that’s understandable in this market. And there’s a pervasive sentiment that the company might just have a run at generating revenue while continuing to grow the community and how its users communicate with each other in the process.

From Facebook’s perspective, the stock offer was reflective of a conservative approach that reflects the reality that Twitter is not only generating $0 revenue, but its basically a substantial cost center at the moment. At the moment, Twitter pays for SMS fees associated with each text-based update. Facebook estimates that this could cost the company upwards of $75 million annually.

Connect with me on:
Twitter, FriendFeed, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Pownce, Plaxo, Plurk, Identi.ca, BackType, Jaiku or Facebook

Subscribe to the bub.blicio.us RSS Feed.