I have been reading The Facebook Effect for the last 2 days now and I am already tired of Kirkpatrick (author) repeating time and again that Zuck's (Mark Zuckerberg) intention was never to make money. OK, we get it, but does this have to be repeated like a ton of times!? It appears like Kirkpatrick is Facebook's fanboy.
Isn't describing Facebook as a tool to bring about "world peace" (how tacky?!) is stretching it a bit too far? Or may be I just lack the vision to see Facebook in that light? As I see it, Facebook's majority users are those who look to Facebook for FUN than anything serious. I love Facebook for making things around us more transparent but I am unable to concur it's larger role in society. (One million voices against FARC did put Facebook in that perspective but I have never heard since then of any other major movement. It's always Farmville or Mafia Wars on my news feed. Maybe I just need more serious friends on my network? haha.)
Despite some of these minor irritants, I have liked it so far (and that is probably why am continuing to read it). My only disappointment being I expected this book to be an objective view of Facebook than only painting the biased view. I wanted to know the mistakes, trials and tribulations and honest opinions of Facebook's foundation and growth as seen by both Facebook loyals and rivals. Isn't journalism all about that? Perhaps that would have made it more of an interesting read?
Ok, enough said. This book is definitely recommended despite my critique for the general perspective on startups, marketing/advertising and passion to build on your ideas. Like Kirkpatrick quotes the former Intel CEO - "Only the paranoid survive"