Mark Zuckerber from The Social Network
Yes he's in a robe and wearing slippers. So what?

The new movie about Facebook, The Social Network, was supposed to portray Mark Zuckerberg as a cold, arrogant backstabber and perhaps leave me walking out of the cinema cursing his name. For me, it had the opposite effect. It was a pretty good ad. Whoever thought they were doing character assassination with this movie failed pretty hard as far as I am concerned. 

First off, I realize this movie wasn't necessarily an entirely accurate and balanced portrayal of everything that happened, albeit from what I've been reading about the history of Facebook it's not far from the truth. Its world and the real world are not too far apart.

What was especially exciting about it is that it was about something that was almost a hobby project just five years ago, and is now an ubiquitous worldwide phenomenon and a household word that pretty much defines our time. It is almost like experiencing a life time within just five years and then watching a movie about it. If so much change can happen in just five years, and there are presumably decades of life left to experience, then what else are we in for?

That is one of the things that hits me hardest with The Social Network: what amazingly interesting times are we living in!

That said, what probably struck me most was the movie version of Mark Zuckerberg himself. He was indeed quite cold and uncaring throughout the movie, in addition to all the typical traits that nerds and geeks tend to have, but there is a bright side to some of that which I believe played a key part to his success. 

Perhaps being cold and uncaring towards everyone is bad, but being cold and uncaring towards some is probably a great thing if you want to accomplish something, because there are always going to be plenty of people who will put you down at first, and then as you get more successful try to get in on the action for free only to ruin what you've envisioned. It is good to coldly ignore those kinds of people and not give in to any of their trappings.

Giving naysayers and freeloaders a cold treatment, however, was just one significant part of the picture. What matters most perhaps is his willingness to do what it takes. When Sean Parker came into the picture and essentially "seduced" Zuckerberg, indicating common vision and a common way of thinking, he didn't hesitate for long before moving to Palo Alto, into a location that essentially acts as an incubator of successful technology enterprises, to continue developing his business.

What I think best portrays what I'm talking about is the contrast that was portrayed between Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin. While Zuckerberg was focused on improving Facebook, rapidly increasing the number of members, and going to investors who could provide the real boost in funding Saverin was busy with what is in some circles known as a "slowlane" approach.

He was very much "in-the-box", following procedures and acting like a good suited businessman, something that really impresses very few in the new generation, and is actually quite pathetic, as the movie I believe shown pretty well, even though that might have been with the intent of making the audience feel sorry for poor Saverin much in the same way one might feel sorry for a poor dog left in the rain.

Compared to Saverin, Mark Zuckerberg was on the roll, not just due to sheer luck, but because he let himself be on the roll, following where his gut led him, daring to have fun, daring to go for the money shot instead of pretty crumbs along the way, not running around begging people while pretending to be something he's not.

It's a difference few seem inclined to understand, which is probably why those who do seldom bother to explain it, therefore coming off as cold and cruel to the world, pursuing only their selfish interests while running over everyone who gets in the way. Why would we bother? What is it exactly that we owe to people who seem to be nothing more than busybodies that can't wait for an opportunity to ask for free stuff they supposedly have the right to?

There are losers in this world and there are winners, and the only difference between them is the attitude, something that everyone has the tools to change. The winners envision what they want and go for it no matter what, and no such thing as failure really exists to them. It's just one step on the road to success, barely even a detour. They don't ask for a hand out. They don't need your support. They don't need you to like them. Their products will speak for themselves, and the number of people to whom they provide value.

In the case of Mark Zuckerberg there were quite a few of those who thought he stole something from them, an idea, something immaterial and meaningless without its expression and execution, something that by its very nature cannot be stolen. Ideas may be the most powerful thing in the world, but if you don't do anything about them, or you do a bad job at executing its content then you failed to release that power. It's like having a tool you don't know how to use.

I very much doubt anyone on Harvard truly had the original Facebook idea. Social networking sites like Friendster already existed, and in retrospect the time was ripe for something like Facebook to arise. Nobody can really take the credit of coming up with Facebook first, and it doesn't even matter. What matters is the execution, the implementation, turning the idea into something solid, and something that will matter to a lot of people. It was clear who the winner was.

I admire the insight Zuckerberg, at least in the movie, had about the nature of ideas, as expressed in the statement: "Does a guy who makes a really good chair owe money to anyone who ever made a chair?". You know the answer.

The losers of the world, and they unfortunately seem to be in the majority judging from how widespread the entitlement mentality is, tend to think that everything bad that happens to them must be someone else's fault. They then come up with "noble causes" that target these supposed culprits. Not enough money? Blame the rich people! Afraid for your privacy? Blame Facebook whom you yourself signed up for and gave free information to! No matter what, there's always someone to blame but yourself, the only one actually in the drivers seat of your life!

The privacy outcry over Facebook is actually a decent example. It's become such a popular noble cause, but few seem to acknowledge the fact that nobody who is on Facebook is strong-armed into being its member. They act as if Facebook is this newfound world authority that you have no choice but to serve, and then ask for more leniency with regards to the terms of servitude. There are such authorities, but they are not the likes of Facebook, Apple or Google whom at least grant you the decency of choice. They are the governments, with whom the only choice if you don't like it is to move out of the country. Compare that to deleting your Facebook account or choosing not to sign up in the first place.

Yet the government is actually the number one reason why anyone should really worry about some company knowing too much about them. The government is the only organization with the power and supposed authority to force the likes of Facebook to hand over your private data to them. It is then quite strange to me that people are so quick to cry foul about Facebook while barely flinching when it comes to a much more significant threat posed by government.

But that is the mentality of the losers. They're not inclined to blame the government because the government is the tool they use to force others to give them what they feel entitled to.

And this is why I actually like Mark Zuckerberg from The Social Network. This project of supposed "character assassination" works only in the world populated by people trained to resent those who dare to succeed without bowing to social norms designed to keep everyone a loser. If that makes me an a–hole, I guess I'm in good company!