I care less about what Mark Zuckerberg says, than about the corporate culture that's crystallized under him. Having worked directly with a CIO, it's astonishing how big the gap is between their...
I care less about what Mark Zuckerberg says, than about the corporate culture that's crystallized under him.
Having worked directly with a CIO, it's astonishing how big the gap is between their vision and what the marketplace lets them realize.
If Zuckerberg was genuinely concerned about the values he's propounding, he'd take the company private and moderate the indiscriminate fostering of ad revenue at all costs.
People can't just take a public company private willy nilly nor at the drop of a hat, and not even Zuck can afford to do that with Facebook. Facebook has a $463.92B market cap (outstanding shares...
If Zuckerberg was genuinely concerned about the values he's propounding, he'd take the company private
People can't just take a public company private willy nilly nor at the drop of a hat, and not even Zuck can afford to do that with Facebook. Facebook has a $463.92B market cap (outstanding shares * current share value), and Zuck's net worth is only ~$60-70B, the majority of which will not be liquid. He might be able to somehow line up enough other insanely wealthy private investors or convince a bunch of hedge funds/banks to give him enough to enact a management buyout or tender offer to take the company private, but I honestly don't think for a company of Facebook's size and value that is at all likely or even really feasible.
My apologies for the hyperbole and generally pointless pissiness - completely agreed that it's an insane ask at the present ridiculously inflated share price. Facebook isn't going away or...
My apologies for the hyperbole and generally pointless pissiness - completely agreed that it's an insane ask at the present ridiculously inflated share price.
Facebook isn't going away or meaningfully changing, any more than broadcast television was going to vanish after a few people started complaining about exploitive practices and manipulative ads.
No worries... the frustration and anger at Zuck and Facebook is totally understandable. I personally think they very well may be the most the harmful multinational in the world right now, and...
No worries... the frustration and anger at Zuck and Facebook is totally understandable. I personally think they very well may be the most the harmful multinational in the world right now, and that's saying a lot with the likes of Monsanto/Bayer and Nestle still up to their usual evil.
I'd dispute that Facebook is the most harmful multinational in the world. Amazon, Walmart, Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Rio Tinto, Koch Industries,...
I'd dispute that Facebook is the most harmful multinational in the world.
Amazon, Walmart, Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Rio Tinto, Koch Industries, Nestle', Goldman/Sachs, Monsanto/Bayer, Union Carbide, Asia Pulp and Paper, Philip Morris, Altria, Halliburton, a myriad Chinese state-run enterprises...
I got rid of my Facebook profile last year after the Cambridge Analytica scandal. I don't regret it, and it's made me grow a lot more suspicious of Facebook as a whole, but also of Google, of...
I got rid of my Facebook profile last year after the Cambridge Analytica scandal. I don't regret it, and it's made me grow a lot more suspicious of Facebook as a whole, but also of Google, of which I use a ton of services. I dislike Facebook's practices in a lot of areas, and the fact that the vast amount of my smartphone communication goes through Facebook (via WhatsApp) is a cause for concern.
However, I find myself agreeing with Zuck that enabling people to pay for additional privacy is a really dumb move. Probably not for the same reasons that he does, admittedly. Privacy should not be the purview of those who can afford it; the playing field should be level for all.
I care less about what Mark Zuckerberg says, than about the corporate culture that's crystallized under him.
Having worked directly with a CIO, it's astonishing how big the gap is between their vision and what the marketplace lets them realize.
If Zuckerberg was genuinely concerned about the values he's propounding, he'd take the company private and moderate the indiscriminate fostering of ad revenue at all costs.
People can't just take a public company private willy nilly nor at the drop of a hat, and not even Zuck can afford to do that with Facebook. Facebook has a $463.92B market cap (outstanding shares * current share value), and Zuck's net worth is only ~$60-70B, the majority of which will not be liquid. He might be able to somehow line up enough other insanely wealthy private investors or convince a bunch of hedge funds/banks to give him enough to enact a management buyout or tender offer to take the company private, but I honestly don't think for a company of Facebook's size and value that is at all likely or even really feasible.
My apologies for the hyperbole and generally pointless pissiness - completely agreed that it's an insane ask at the present ridiculously inflated share price.
Facebook isn't going away or meaningfully changing, any more than broadcast television was going to vanish after a few people started complaining about exploitive practices and manipulative ads.
No worries... the frustration and anger at Zuck and Facebook is totally understandable. I personally think they very well may be the most the harmful multinational in the world right now, and that's saying a lot with the likes of Monsanto/Bayer and Nestle still up to their usual evil.
I'd dispute that Facebook is the most harmful multinational in the world.
Amazon, Walmart, Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Rio Tinto, Koch Industries, Nestle', Goldman/Sachs, Monsanto/Bayer, Union Carbide, Asia Pulp and Paper, Philip Morris, Altria, Halliburton, a myriad Chinese state-run enterprises...
It's a stiff competition.
I got rid of my Facebook profile last year after the Cambridge Analytica scandal. I don't regret it, and it's made me grow a lot more suspicious of Facebook as a whole, but also of Google, of which I use a ton of services. I dislike Facebook's practices in a lot of areas, and the fact that the vast amount of my smartphone communication goes through Facebook (via WhatsApp) is a cause for concern.
However, I find myself agreeing with Zuck that enabling people to pay for additional privacy is a really dumb move. Probably not for the same reasons that he does, admittedly. Privacy should not be the purview of those who can afford it; the playing field should be level for all.