SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Instagram Co-Founders to Step Down From Facebook
The two co-founders of Facebook Inc.'s popular Instagram app are stepping down, a move marking continued tumult at the social-networking giant.
The co-founders—Kevin Systrom, Instagram's chief executive, and Mike Krieger, chief technology officer—clashed with Facebook executives over the extent of Instagram's autonomy in recent months, according to people familiar with the matter. Earlier this year, Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg shifted a senior Facebook executive, Adam Mosseri, over to Instagram in anticipation that the founders might leave, one of the people said.
Among other things, Facebook officials, including Mr. Zuckerberg, clashed with the co-founders over growth tactics and how to more rapidly expand the photo-sharing app's user base, another person said. Senior Facebook officials had known the two men were frustrated working within a large company and had begun making preparations for them to leave, another person familiar with the matter said.
Also at NYT, The Atlantic, and Gizmodo.
Related: Facebook's Instagram Valued at $100 Billion (It Was Purchased for $1 Billion)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @06:34PM (66 children)
Brian Acton gave up $850M in unvested stock.
What a moron!
Keep your fucking head low for the next 5 years or whatevs, and then leave with nearly a billion dollars to poor into your anti-Facebook campaign. Make Facebook pay to protest Facebook.
I swear. I have no idea how these people make it to such great heights. They can't see the massive opportunities right in front of them. It was totally selfish just to leave that money in Zuck's hands.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @07:08PM (11 children)
If it's 5 years, who knows if FB stock will be worth anything by then?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @07:16PM
I'm sure it will be worth much more than nothing.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @07:28PM (9 children)
Even if the value dropped 99% (99 fucking percent!), he would still receive 8.5 million dollars! And, he'd be getting a pretty good salary no doubt.
Goddamn. I'm surrounded by idiots.
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Wednesday September 26 2018, @07:34PM (5 children)
Yes, but who would invest 5 years of their life going to a job they hate, just so they can collect a few millions or hundreds of millions at the end ?
Don't be silly.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @07:35PM (4 children)
Most of the entire world's population. They do it everyday for less.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 26 2018, @11:37PM
This is why they don't do anything that may land them in the position of throwing away zillions, because they'll never do anything worth these money.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday September 27 2018, @01:02AM (2 children)
I disagree. Most of the world's population isn't even trying. There's a lot of people who'd love to spend that wealth, but there's far less people interested in sacrificing to build it up in the first place.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @08:45AM (1 child)
70-80% of the world lives on less than USD10 a day. The majority live on less than USD3 a day. Most of them are trying. Because they have very little choice - if they didn't try they or their family members could be dead before the end of that five years.
They're like someone thrown into the middle of the ocean (the many unluckier ones with weights attached), for them it's try or die. Whereas I'm in a comfy little boat... And some of you are in cruise ships working and trying hard to not get obese).
These poor bunch can try as much as they want but only an extreme tiny percentage will succeed to be "instagram CEO wealthy". Most of those success stories you see are survivor bias. There are far fewer bestseller books by those who "tried and kept failing and never succeeded and are now old and penniless".
I've seen people start businesses and fail, and it's not like they're doing stuff that's worse than those who succeed. In many cases their stuff is better, their prices are better. But they're "just unlucky". They've burnt their savings so they have to save up again, since they aren't rich, they don't get as many tries to succeed. There's no social security or pension schemes in many of these countries.
There are also some success stories where the person finally get success after > 60 years old. Well many poor people don't even live that long, or by the time they're 60 their health isn't good so they're unlikely to start and create a multibillion dollar empire by the time they're 80.
I'm a slacker and I can see that some worker in Bangladesh could work and try 10x harder than me but he has about as much chance of earning more than me as someone winning one of the easier to win lotteries. I'm just lucky to be born where I am, to a relatively rich family, with OK genes, a not too bad education, etc.
Look at Trump too. He's the President of the USA. There are plenty of poor people who work and try harder than him.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 28 2018, @04:43AM
So what? They have lower costs of living and they could have even more money, if they skipped raising a family. One can tell just how important people think money is by the choices they make both when earning and spending it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 27 2018, @01:01AM (2 children)
Maybe he thinks he can do a hell of a lot better than that by leaving Facebook.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:15AM (1 child)
There. Now you know the truth.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 27 2018, @04:00AM
(Score: 4, Funny) by ikanreed on Wednesday September 26 2018, @07:29PM (41 children)
I had a terrifying thought. What if they were a billionaire with some kind of ethical boundary.
It defies all reason, but just imagine, it'd be fucking crazy. I genuinely don't think it's likely, but what if facebook were doing something that was so bad it was more important than money?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 26 2018, @07:33PM (35 children)
I bet they could do a lot more about it from the inside of Facebook than as penniless outsiders. Just look at how many leaks have come out of Google lately.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @07:55PM (34 children)
Guys, language is meant to put one person's thoughts into another person's head.
This thread here is talking about ONE MAN. When you say "they", nothing makes much sense, especially when you mix it with singular forms such as in "What if they were a billionaire"; that makes no sense—my mind tries to re-write it as "What if they were billionaires" (you know, because it looks like the description is supposed to involve plurality).
Let me help you out here: "He" et al. are gender-neutral pronouns for referring to people; "it" is meant for referring to non-people (or infants, frankly); "she" et al. is meant to refer to special, precious things such as a woman or a boat, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @08:00PM (6 children)
That last sentence should be:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @11:15PM (5 children)
iow, property?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @11:21PM (4 children)
"Is your wife special to you?"
"Yes."
"Is your boat special to you?"
"Yes."
"Misogynist! Have you stopped beating your wife yet?!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @12:09AM (3 children)
Are you proposing that the speaker to refer the speaker's son as "she" because the son is precious to the speaker?
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:22AM (2 children)
The English language reflects a very important historical fact about humanity: Males are disposable, and society works best when females are put atop a pedestal so that young men have something to fight wars for. This is even the case among Muslims, who believe that Islam requires a woman to be covered in public not because she's worth so little but rather because she's worth so much, and her honor must be protected.
Traditionally, males don't qualify for the angelic description "she". Feminism isn't bringing females up to the status of males, but is rather pulling females down to the status of males, and it's making everyone confused and irritable. Young men no longer have anybody to impress with their achievements, and women no longer get a pass for their relative ineptitude.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:58AM (1 child)
so... property?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @03:45AM
So... no.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 26 2018, @08:08PM (22 children)
I assumed ikanreed was talking about multiple hypothetical Facebook insiders.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @08:22PM (21 children)
"What if there were a billionaire with some kind of ethical boundary?"
People forget (read: don't know) that the singular present subjunctive mood of "to be" is "were", not "was", making the above re-interpretation quite plausible.
So, basically, I was stuck re-reading the remarks, trying out different approaches. What a drag.
Folks, singular "they" is SHIT.
(Score: 3, Informative) by acid andy on Wednesday September 26 2018, @10:47PM (11 children)
FTFY. It's an incredible handy gender-neutral pronoun that's been in use as such for a long time. You can't escape the fact that the word "he" does have some associations with masculinity, regardless of whether or not you choose to use it as a gender-neutral pronoun. The singular "they" just does not have that problem and when used carefully there need not be any ambiguity.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @11:17PM (10 children)
The explosive usefulness of modern, variable-based mathematical logic can be traced back to this revelation: Making a statement about a single object is far superior to making an Aristotelian statement about a group of objects.
Stupid, mundane communication can bear singular "they", because it's easy enough to fix it on the fly into something actually intelligible. However, when it comes to communicating a complex thought, it's the dregs.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @11:53PM (6 children)
Um... your understanding of algebra is... unique.
May I blow your mind? Allow me to introduce you to the set of real numbers, which we may call ℝ for shorthand. In middle school algebra, x ∃ ℝ. Thus any statement concerning x is a statement concerning a group of objects.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @12:34AM (5 children)
All you've done is revealed that you are a sloppy thinker, which is fine enough for mundane purposes in life, but not for much else. That's why you've never noticed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @01:29AM (4 children)
Do you have a counterargument, or...?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:24AM (3 children)
Your statement is false outright; it's not a logical fallacy that can be pointed out—it's just wrong.
Write a sentence with "x", and we'll discuss it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:37AM (2 children)
Ok. The x is blue. Enlighten me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:51AM (1 child)
I don't need to enlighten you, because you enlightened yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @03:17AM
Objection! Parent comment does not provide any enlightenment or discussion! Immediately provide discussion, or I will be forced to refer this matter to the infinite contract-enforcing turtles!
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Thursday September 27 2018, @12:53AM
Are you ever going to give us an example of non-stupid or non-mundane communication? Because nothing you've said to date has been worth the fuss. "They" works for much more complex communication than anything you've said to date.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday September 27 2018, @12:50PM (1 child)
When used in the singular form, "they" does refer to a single object and not a group of objects, a bit like how the gender-neutral form of "he" does refer to someone of an unspecified gender and not necessarily a male. The reason the singular "they" is better is because you can almost always distinguish it from the plural "they" just by looking at the verb. Conversely, there is often no evidence presented in a sentence to distinguish between the masculine "he" and the gender-neutral "he".
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @03:43PM
There is just feminine "she". Everything else is merely non-feminine; there's the definite feminine, and then there is everything else, which depends on context—a special place is given solely to the feminine.
Your singular they is a failure of the mind [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @11:41PM (8 children)
Somebody got triggered.
The only grammatical error in "What if they were a billionaire with some kind of ethical boundary." is the punctuation at the end. What is a question word, so the terminating punctuation should have been a question mark. Languages change over time. Deal with it, cupcake.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @11:52PM (7 children)
Language is a protocol, and a protocol requires agreement.
In mundane cases, one participant in the protocol can just re-write mistakes on the fly with little worry; that's the only reason singular "they" appears to work—it's always being re-written behind the scenes.
You have provided yet another interpretation; we've already seen from the replies here that nobody is really talking about the same thing, because everyone is re-writing it in slightly different ways. But, he, diversity is a strength, amirite?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @12:02AM (4 children)
I am sorry that you suffer from autism. It must make many activities that neurotypical people take for granted very difficult. I have heard promising things about the application of cannabis bud in cases of autism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @12:31AM (3 children)
It has made me very rich.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @01:14AM (2 children)
Allow me to imitate the UN delegation.
*snort* lol!
Just to be clear, I am laughing at you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:56AM (1 child)
So, laugh away if it makes you feel better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @03:20AM
It does, thank you. Laughter has many benefits that are documented in the relevant medical literature. I appreciate your services as court jester. I really do! You're special to me! I will refer to you as she from now on. You've earned it!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 27 2018, @01:36AM (1 child)
Not from you, it doesn't. Your toddler has to agree because you have the terrible power of the fridge and the car keys.
They would anyway. So many people here aren't actually responding to what you write in the first place. Particularly, the sort that starts posts with "So what you're saying is..."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:27AM
Or are you just a parrot he's trained well?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 27 2018, @01:15AM (3 children)
No. "He" is masculine. "One" is gender-neutral of the appropriate singular form. One often tends to sound a little pretentious when using it though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:33AM
Hmm... one does not recall a specific antecedent. Does it? Do you have a usage example of one referring to an antecedent?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:40AM (1 child)
English only has the "precious" form, which we call "feminine", because among humans, women are considered the height of preciousness. If there are "masculine" forms, it's only because they aren't "feminine" forms.
Do you think, for example, that so many laws were written strictly for men? Of course not; it's just that the non-"feminine" forms are what actually apply to everyone, and "he" is singular and therefore much more precise than "they" (and "one" is both cumbersome and imprecise, and "it" applies to non-people, which is important, because most language is meant to convey what "he" and "she" did with "it" in front of "them"—human language evolved to relay information about humans interacting in the world). Indeed, one could also tie this back to the pedestal on which women are naturally placed: Crime is something expected of men due to their sinful nature, not women and their angelic nature.
As usual, the giant sociopolitical movements are based on the exact wrong interpretation of history. It's not the case that women have been oppressed to benefit men, but rather that men have been oppressed to benefit women. Language reflects this fact. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @03:28AM
Ah, I think I get it!
Anarcho-capitalism is feasible after all, once men have been made extinct. Silly me! We might have trouble convincing some of the women on this board, but I am certain that your eloquence will convince them to come around to this profound truth.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 27 2018, @01:06AM (4 children)
Why would it defy all reason? Billionaires are people too. And lot's of people have ethical boundaries. Maybe you need to let that brain out more? It seems to have trouble with this exercise.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:09AM (3 children)
Dubious, see talk page.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 27 2018, @04:04AM (2 children)
(Score: 3, Touché) by ikanreed on Thursday September 27 2018, @04:10AM (1 child)
I'm trying to riff on "citation needed". There was a far less popular template on wikipedia for when the interpretation of a citation was heavily disputed on the talk page. You'd get a little blurb that looks like [Dubious, see talk]
I'm here for any other obscure wiki jokes no one gets you want.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 28 2018, @12:12PM
My take is it's not any different from any other unpleasant, but well-paying job where someone has decided for whatever reason that the negatives outweigh the positives. Maybe the person decides the job isn't worth it. Maybe they think they can do better or get richer faster out from under the thumb of Facebook. Maybe they don't have that long to live and want to spend that five years doing something else. Maybe the person is doing so out of some sense of ethics or maybe not.
Point is that they're a human making human choices. The amounts of money involved don't change that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @07:56PM (2 children)
What makes you think he is a moron?
Money is not a measure of all things, I'm quite certain that 5 years worth of time is far more valuable then 850 mill usd.
Doubly so if one has freedom to NOT suffer useless demagogues (like you) , of which Silly Valley seems full of.
Also, what great heights? This dude made an app...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @09:33PM (1 child)
The whole point of money is to help people measure all things.
Life is about allocating resources to this or to that. To help you decide, you need a way to make measurements; money is that measuring technology—which is why governments are so keen to grab or keep absolute control over it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @05:04PM
while i understand why you think this way, my beliefs about the role of money in human society are somewhat different.
The discourse around the money is that it is as you say a "measure of all things", i agree.
But trouble with measures, KPI, and such is that they eventually _replace_ the territory they claim to measure, wouldn't you agree?
So, it seems logical to me that an idea like that is not "a measuring tool", but rather a tool of control and oppression, that has been forming and has formed hierarchical societies for some time now.
Basically, in my worldview, money is one of many things that does more harm then good, by existing.
One can allocate ressources just fine without money, its the countries and armies, that cannot function without the money... see where i'm going?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 27 2018, @12:59AM (5 children)
That's not accurate. As has been noted, Facebook stock may faceplant some point in the next five years before vestment, meaning the actual return is much lower. We also have to consider other factors: 1) What are the odds that Mr. Acton will still be employed by Facebook in five years? He's routinely butting heads now. 2) How rich is Mr. Acton currently? Five years chasing $850M (especially with those risks) may not be a good use of his time even from the limited profit-only point of view. He might be able to make more wealth by abandoning Facebook.
Let me guess. You're one of those people who whine about the psychopathy of rich people, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:47AM (4 children)
Faceplant more than 99%? What are the chances of that do you think? And, surely his contract allows him to take the shares should Facebook fire him of its own accord; otherwise, Facebook would just fire him and save the money.
Secondly, you're absolutely wrong in your estimation of me; I spend a fuck load more time than you on this website defending wealth creation, inheritance, and Capitalism, the sanctity of private property, and indeed the virtue of self-interest. How could you be so wrong? Well, I'll tell you: Your personal philosophy is inconsistent, and thus you are led easily to poor conclusions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 27 2018, @03:59AM (3 children)
Well, since you asked, 100% is quite possible. Stockholders are at the very bottom of the bankruptcy food chain.
Higher for companies where insiders are leaving. Just saying.
If you really did, then you would know there's no such thing as an I-win button in such a situation. There are always downsides. And if he's turning down $850 million, it's probably because he knows a lot more about the situation and his personal priorities than you do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @05:12AM (2 children)
It's right there:
The OP is saying that Acton thought to himself "850 million? I'm a billionaire almost 4 times over. I don't NEED this trouble; I quit." It would have been much more selfless and much more aligned with his disdain for Facebook if he had instead gritted his teeth and stomached the pain for however long it took to get his hands on that 850 million, and thereby have an enormous war chest to help pay for undoing that damage that he admits he helped cause. Instead, he's off not only soothing his own needs, but leaving that large some of resources in the control of Facebook.
DO YOU GET IT YET?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:06PM
It would have been selfless to engage himself against what he's determined his best self-interest is?! Some defender of the "virtue of self-interest" you are!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 28 2018, @04:23AM
Stupid != selfless.
Yes. I get that is a really dumb argument.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday September 27 2018, @03:24AM (2 children)
A man who has put a value on his morals and ethics.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @06:50AM (1 child)
"I hate what you've done, Zuck! Here, have a billion dollars! That'll teach you to do right by people!"
WTF is wrong with you people?
You know what a real hero would have done? He'd have stuck around, quietly, dragging his feet on disagreeable goals, and then absconded with a billion dollars to fund efforts to reverse the overall damage caused by selling out in the first place.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 28 2018, @04:47AM
Unless that plan falls through for a variety of reasons already stated. This is a dumb argument.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @06:59PM
At least jmorris will be very happy about this.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday September 26 2018, @10:24PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaF-nRS_CWM [youtube.com]