You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
When a startup is small, it seems cute and the press writes encouragingly about it. When it reaches the size where they can get attention by attacking it, they do that instead.
The founders, who've been the same people all along, find their personas have been switched from "plucky young founder trying to make new idea work" to "evil plutocrat bent on destroying the world." Whatever people can get attention by portraying you as, you'll be portrayed as.
This also applies to people/celebrities, at least in the British press
Has the press ever attacked Dropbox? Actually, yes. I remember now they caught some flak for adding Condoleeza Rice to the board. https://www.theverge.com/2014/4/11/5605734/dropbox-ceo-defends-adding-condoleezza-rice-to-board … That begs the question, though: At what point is it ok to attack a startup?
Downside of maturing in life ...
This is a straw man that obscures the fact that some large tech companies create enormous ecosystems whose societal impact isn't clear until they're huge.
If we are talking about Zuck, FB is not what we thought it was. Companies evolve. Missions evolve. So do people. Founders who become great may change directions, but never their soul. I love this video of Steve Jobs. He never left his mission for greed. (Next tweet)
Zuck was hired to create something like FB, quit, and started FB. It's a blatantly stolen idea. Zuck in college created the facemash app that violated all kinds of privacy policies at Harvard. He's brilliant but he's always been a horrible person.
“Good” is subjective.
(Cont) Love this video of Steve Jobs. He is all about detail of mission: https://youtu.be/YM4If6YHN3s
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
