I think this lacks a bit of compassion. It's one thing to have some idea, not work on it, and then later see someone who made it happen. It is another thing entirely to work on an idea for years, bring someone into the group that is working with you on it (or at least advising) and then have them roll off with it and become one of the richest people in the country. Sure a zen master might take some comfort in validation of your ideas, but man it has to really hurt to not be a billionaire. That can really screw over your psyche in a bad way.
I know I would be pretty bitter in a similar situation.
I'm never going to be a billionaire. I would prefer that billionaires not get themselves elected President to cut the top tax rates, but that's about as far as it goes. We are sailing on an ocean of executable ideas, and we've got some of the best winds we've had in 10-15 years. Who has time to write 3000 words on someone else's "unjustified" success?
Tally up how many words you type into HN each day. Is it close to 3000?
I think he said at one point in the IM's to Zuckerberg Greenspan said that he writes stuff to vent. And Zuckerberg said he could understood the need for that, but kept such thoughts to himself. (See e.g. Greenspan's White Paper enronforkids.pdf)
Generally I agree with this philosophy except that in this case Aaron had been executing on this idea, and had a lot of it up and running. If the narrative is accurate he has cause to be bitter. Had he not done anything with this great idea he felt he had I would be more sympathetic to the 'ideas are worth nothing' theme.
It's one thing to study others' work and take ideas from it. Everyone does that.
It's another thing to actively engage others, talk to them as if you are friends or enter into agreements to work together, and then take ideas from their work. It's the betrayal of people's trust that's gotten him the reputation for being a con and a thief.
In one of the most telling IMs of their entire correspondence (see page 62 of The Complete Timeline), Zuckerberg stated: "i kind of view you as a friend." This came up when Zuckerberg was annoyed that Greenspan made a security hole public. Greenspan handled the situation with immense professionalism, while Zuckerberg simply could not accept responsibility. Mark's friends are only entitled to the appellation when it's convenient for Mark.
Glad to see someone else caught that. But by the same token we have to consider that Greenspan may have hand-picked these IM conversations. It does not appear he's giving us a data dump. More like another one of his White Papers where he is venting.
None of this should be even remotely interesting until you consider hundreds of millions of people have sent their personal information to the manipulative kid in the IM's. Crazy.
I agree that we're only getting limited information. I'd love to see his personal IMs, because I think those would shed even more light on his character. It's curiously ironic how the man who has access to the secrets of millions of people has revealed so little about himself.
Well put. While he may be simply "telling his side of the story", Aaron Greenspan comes off in his own writing as a sanctimonious, sour-grapes-y, whinger.
I disagree. For someone at the very least arguably cheated out of a lot of wealth and at worst simply deceived and mistreated in a very nasty way by another human being, I think Greenspan writes with a tremendous amount of calm and balance, and also I don't think he is writing simply to vent bitterness or jealousy.
I believe the greatest con of all was likely in reference to this line:
He may, in fact, be the greatest con of all time, having effectively convinced an entire nation, including the President of the United States, to believe in his extremist philosophy of radical openness.
It isn't clear if getting someone to believe in your 'extremist philosophy of radical openness' is necessarily a con, unless of course you yourself don't believe in it and/or are doing so only in furtherance of some other interest which you are obscuring.
"It isn't clear if getting someone to believe in your 'extremist philosophy of radical openness' is necessarily a con, unless of course you yourself don't believe in it and/or are doing so only in furtherance of some other interest which you are obscuring."
I do believe this is what Greenspan was getting at.
I thought the same thing. As you see him listing the logs of every Zuckerberg login to houseSYSTEM in the pdf you think "Geez, this is a bit much." And then you consider that sort of snooping is Facebook's core business. They love this sort of information and their engineers have zero conscience about working with it. In fact their logs are probably much more detailed (device, geolocation, etc.) The irony is incredible.
