Paul GrahamVerified account

Another angle is that the decisions he has made to get fb’08 to fb’18 is what is receiving scrutiny. It didn’t just happen to get here with everything as it was 10 years ago

"Attackable" probably made it sound, to many, like you point him out as the sole victim, without context. Ie that the attacks are meaningless and bad, not that their trend is meaningless as to whether Zuck has become more or less of a "devil"

Size is definitely a factor, but you portray it as a force ma·jeure, that their size made it inevitable to be under attack. Growing to that size requires responsibility and a moral compass that they didn’t develop as fast as their growth hacking strategy. That is a big difference

Regardless of size, when you have the ability to experiment on 700k people in 2014 and not learn from your mistakes, clearly, shows negligence.( They were half the "size" in 2014, than presently) Shouldn't we scrutinize what is wrong, regardless of size? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/02/facebook-apologises-psychological-experiments-on-users …

Whether you are right, wrong, or neither, this is a self serving narrative and that is why you are taking heat