Oh, would you please just let this guy be?

Duncan Riley, I love you man...but ya really have to remember that Zuckerberg is 23. He has some very big responsibilities to live up to now, and giving brilliant interviews may not be what he's out there to do. And how do you turn down an interview from 60 minutes, anyway?! Did he go ask for it, or did they come get him to parade him as the cute, pimply, arrogant, bratty founder of Facebook.com?

Yes, his answers totally got on my nerves too, but then I don't think Lesley Stahl should've been asking him dumb shit questions like: "Have you changed your lifestyle? Are you buying the things you should be....". C'mon, Microsoft just valued him(well, FB) at fifteen billion good United States dollars, and if the man wanted to go out there and buy a new pair of shoes, it's really nobody's business but his.

And you know what...I don't think the statement about the Brin-twins(or the Page-boys, depending on how you look at it) was a question either.
Lesley said: "You seem to be replacing Larry and Sergey as the people out here who everyone's talking about"- it clearly was NOT a question and more of a comment(based on god-knows-what, because I've heard speak of Zuckerberg, and I've heard speak of the Google-Twins, but I've never heard speak of one replacing the other. Except in certain circles where the booze flows like water and .....enough said).

I think he was bang on in asking if it was a question because to the casual observer, it seemed, at its holiest, a very casual and personal observation.

All in all, I thought the interview, barring a few odds and ends, was a really stupid one, and 60 minutes ought to re-think its Q&A strategy...these meaningless questions leave us completely uninformed, and talking about all the wrong things.

Speaking of wrong things, I think that "Beacon" perspective of yours was a real cheap shot. You quoted him out of context and Red Bull is no excuse, mate.
What he said was: "I actually think that this makes it less commercial. I mean, what would you rather see? A banner ad from Bloomingdale’s or that one of your friends bought a scarf?" implying that Beacon's less commercial(and a lot more personal) than a banner ad.
Sure...maybe having it show up on news feeds isn't such a brilliant idea, but I think it's an interesting step to monetization. Sure....maybe it ought to be an opt-in service, instead of an opt-out one, but in even its opt-out state it beats all the other opt-in services I am sometimes faced with, including the page on which your post resides, showing me a shit load of ads right where I would hope to find navigation links to different parts of TechCrunch. How come I can't opt out of that? I think it's 115% useless to me and would rather the space be used to guide me around your website better.

Now, I'm just going to not click(obviously) on any of those dumb ads, and leave Techcrunch, whereas if I just found out that my buddy just got himself a pair of sneakers, at a steal, and it showed up on your site as a very personal ad, I'd be clicking on that ad, brother. I may not have bought sneakers, but you bet your patookus that I'd be on Nike.com browsing their "Facebook deals" section.....and no way the "Rackspace Managed Hosting" ad on your page claim that sort of reach. And FB-Beacon can.
So let's not speculate about the privacy implications(and you -are- speculating about the implications) without giving the technology the necessary leeway to grow.

Plus, I really think we need to re-think the reasons we yell about privacy- if a youth could be outed and harassed as a result of having seen Brokeback Mountain, then I think it's a matter of the youth having to be secretive about his sexual preferences, and that's the real issue we need to solve.

And I don't know about the rest of you, but if I know I'm getting a gift, or get a hint that I'm about to be gifted something, I just stay quiet and wait it out until I actually get a/the gift, or not.
If Shannon Lane found out about the ring(despite Sean's valiant cover up attempts...and now I'm suddenly curious...!), then her natural reaction ought to have been to feign ignorance(while feeling that warm Christmas glow inside). Why would she be instant messaging Sean about it instantly?

Unless, of course, Sean screwed up and the ring WAS for someone else. And sensing the instant heat, he pulled a "wasn't me"...and Shannon's bullet went 'n hit Zuckerbuerg on the shoulder. How's that for speculation?

So I think all of ya'll(and that includes you, dear FSJ) in the blogosphere need to totally chill out and let this guy be for a bit. Granted, he makes mistakes, and granted he's too young to be a CEO, but at least he's thinking about trying something new. Will FB be the next Friendster? I don't know. And you don't know. And when we don't know, we ought to observe, and maybe comment on.....not assume, and definitely never misrepresent.

Because we have some real problems of our own. Like how I had to "right click" and Add "blogosphere" to the dictionary, and if you haven't figured yet, I'm on blogger.com....the center of the blogosphere if there was one.

Parting words of wisdom for Mark Zuckerberg: get a pretty PR lady involved and make that 401 mouths to feed. Will save you a lot of heat, and you can get right back to your "operashunal shtuff". ;)