Hacker News Reader

Have his actions done anything to show it's not relevant? He lead the company as a young man and is still pretty young.

Reckless disregard for privacy has been a hallmark of his tenure.

The decade immediately after you’re teens is a time period with a lot of change. Many people find career paths, spouses, and have children. Also worth considering is that FB is a much different company — structure-wise — than when it was just a social media site servicing Harvard students.

Sure, it's possible that he's stopped having a callous disregard for other people's privacy in those ten years, but all of his actions seem to demonstrate otherwise.

Is it a company with much more integrity? I think not.

It is a company with many, many more employees, executives, and shareholders. In that respect, your rhetorical question doesn't make sense to me, because I don't think of companies as large as FB (today, or in 2010) as having traits as easily quantifiable as they are for individual humans. Whether Zuckerber had his own road to Damascus moment is only part of the equation -- his innate desire to commit felony-level hacking may also be curtailed by his realization that his actions receive far more scrutiny than they did back when FB did not answer to nor have the attention of shareholders, regulators, and policymakers.

> Have his actions done anything to show it's not relevant?

Where did I say it's not relevant?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com