Mark Zuckerberg: The Friend Everyone Loves to Hate Part 2

And..... exhale! The second part of my pro-Zuckerberg rant is here. The first part, posted earlier this week can be found here. If you haven't read it yet, do so now because I'm going to dive right in.

Facebook's origins are undeniably intertwined with a project that Mark Zuckerberg agreed to work on with his Harvard classmates, the Winklevoss twins. After the fact, the twins claim that they had the idea for the site. Zuckerberg holds that their site was more of a dating site than a social network. The truth undoubtedly lies somewhere in between. Regardless, the fact that the twins had an idea in the same realm as Facebook in no way implies that they would have built an online empire worth $70 billion--that creation is uniquely Zuckerberg's. The twins were fortunate to settle for $65 million though they claim vehemently that they sued out of principle. Technology journalist Kara Swisher echoes my sentiments: "They got paid $65 million for one, medium idea that they never could have made into anything." This from someone who uncharitably refers to Zuckerberg as the "toddler CEO."

The Social Network movie poster

Zuckerberg's treatment of his friend and cofounder Eduardo Saverin is another focal point for public acrimony. This conflict, which features prominently in the movie The Social Network, was almost certainly another one of his mistakes. However, like most of the movie, it is doubtful that the conflict played out in real life like it did on the silver screen. First of all, Saverin spent the pivotal summer when Facebook moved to Palo Alto working a financial internship in New York. This was a critical period in which Facebook built its competitive advantage, and Saverin was decidedly not as committed as other members of the team. After Saverin's departure from Facebook, he won a %5 stake in the company through legal action. This slice is now valued at $3.5 billion--ample compensation for his contribution.

Perhaps the most telling indicator that Zuckerberg isn't the callous monster genius the media shows us is the fact that profiles such as the Time Person of the Year piece portray him as a well intentioned, well balanced leader. The main difference between the Time piece and the vast majority of other coverage is the lack of agenda. The Time Person of the Year award goes to the person or idea that "for better or worse, has most influenced the events of the preceeding year." With a declared purpose such as this one, the magazine has no requirement to portray the winner in anything but an accurate light.

The author of the extensive article spent more time close to Zuckerberg than perhaps any other journalist. The author describes his elevated carriage of his chin and writes, "In the movie, this played as him looking down his nose at you, but in real life it's more like he's standing on his tiptoes, trying to see over something." Clearly another example of some innocuous detail becoming the genesis of some negative character trait--in this case condescension--trumpeted in the media.

I have no access to Mark Zuckerberg other than what I can get through the media and film (I know it's surprising. The Carpe Daemon name doesn't carry that much clout... yet). However, by considering portrayals of the Facebook CEO and evaluating the motivation each has for perpetrating a particular agenda, I have come to believe that he's much more the awkward, genuine, ambitious entrepreneur and much less the kniving, greedy, megalomaniac. Hopefully, after this post, I don't stand alone.