Facebook Hastens U.S. Slide into Economic Eclipse

America’s long slide into economic eclipse continued this week with the announcement that Facebook is buying Instagram for $1 billion. What?  You’ve never heard of Instagram? It’s a photo-sharing application for  iPhones that was developed by two twenty-somethings. The company has about a dozen employees, no revenues nor even a business model, so it’s safe to say that Instagram has almost zero impact on the U.S economy. Let’s hope the venture capitalists and corporate insiders who have struck it rich with this deal spend their money – all of which will come from the pockets of infinitely greater fools – wisely. We only wish that Eastman Kodak had thought of Instagram first, since all of the patents the now-defunct Rochester company holds are unlikely to fetch anything close to a billion dollars.

Spreading the Wealth

Meanwhile, The Boyz on Sand Hill Road can only hope that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg continues to spread the wealth like so much litter on the sidewalk. Arguably, the billion he just dropped on Instagram is likely to reap greater returns than the hundred million dollars he donated to Newark’s school system.  In any event, the acquisition, if not the price, makes sense, since photo-sharing has been a key attraction of Facebook. And let’s not overlook the fact that Zuckerberg has one less would-be competitor to worry about. Not that anyone about to reap a multibillion-dollar IPO bonanza should be worried about anything.  It is America that should be worried as the May date approaches for Facebook’s IPO, an offering expected to be worth as much as $100 billion. How, we should ask, can a company that produces absolutely nothing be worth so much? Chalk it up to the madness of crowds.  Beyond the rhetorical question, however, there is an economic one:  With its reported 850 million subscribers, how much is Facebook actually worth?

In the 1950s and 60s, the same question was often asked of U.S. companies contemplating doing business in China.  Sell just one bottle of Coca Cola to every Chinese man, woman and child, the thinking went, and a company could hit the jackpot. Who knew that the Chinese would ultimately forge licensing agreements with the likes of Coke that ensured that most of the profits stayed in China?

Biggest Challenge

In trying to monetize 850 million pairs of eyeballs, Facebook will face a different kind of challenge – one perhaps even more daunting than hard-nosed deal-makers on the other side of the negotating table. Since most of their revenues will necessarily come from advertising – another business, by the way, that adds nothing of substance to the U.S. economy — Facebook can grow its relatively paltry bottom line only by getting in subscribers’ faces more and more aggressively. That’s not going to sit well with the desk-potato set – does not sit well with quite a few of them already. For in fact, subscribers’ personal data is being used in ways that would appall them if only they knew.  Let me illustrate.  On a recent morning, a thumbnail picture of three bikini-clad hotties (see above) appeared on my own Facebook page under the tagline, “Supermodels without photoshop (sic)”. It is unclear whether the Facebook friend who put it there even knew he was doing so; just as it is unclear, whenever we click on ANY item on ANY Facebook page these days, whether we are abetting the creation of a daisy chain of personal information of the sort that gives ad-men and marketing gurus wet dreams.

As for the three hotties, when I clicked on the picture to get a better look, a Yahoo! message appeared warning that an “app” would be downloaded onto my hard drive to collect my “basic info” (??), my e-mail address, birth date and Facebook “likes.” This might seem innocuous, especially to the teeny boppers who comprise Facebook’s core demographic. But the uses to which such data could be put, in conjunction with other data collected on us whenever we browse or click, boggles the imagination. We already described here how retailers have learned to “triangulate” discount-coupon data so that they can “detect” when a female shopper is in her first trimester of pregnancy.  Pretty clever, right?  This feat pales in comparison to what they’ll be able to do when Facebook et al. have had a few years to compile reams of data on individual users.

A Legal Firestorm Awaits

Our prediction for Facebook as an investment is that shareholders had better prepare for a firestorm of privacy suits. Although it seems unlikely that plaintiffs will lose any of these battles, heaven help us if they lose the war, since an unchecked Facebook would surely come to know each of us far better than most subscribers – even the young and ignorant – would care to be known. Legal issues aside, it will become increasingly obvious – and offensive — to subscribers that they are being scientifically packaged and sold to marketers in insidious ways.  It is predictable that a Facebook privacy scandal will shake the company to its core, causing customers to revolt and the stock to drop precipitously.  You read it here first.

***

(If you’d like to have these commentaries delivered free each day to your e-mail box, click here.)

  • owa web April 20, 2012, 2:55 am

    Wow, that’s what I was exploring for, what a data! existing here at this blog, thanks admin of this web page.

  • TC April 16, 2012, 5:11 pm

    All I know is everyone, everywhere was talking down the Google IPO, while everyone, everywhere was talking up the GM IPO. These things happen for a reason. ‘Nuff said.

    Now, what if I was a Muslim billionaire looking to do business with an independent American investment analyst, and I came to this site to learn about your thinking, hoping I had reached my financial Mecca. Do you think you might value knowing my background, such that your commentary centering on the bikini clad ladies might have been replaced by something I might find less offensive (while still making the same point as you made on the matter of privacy)? Would you have “invaded” my privacy knowing my background to a degree allowing you to cater to my sensibilities as a Muslim?

    The privacy issue is blown out of proportion on a culture not far from the end of the road on the journey to police state. As we invariably reverse course, the manner in which employers today use social media to conduct intell gathering on applicants will prove feckless in a climate finding employers starved for more workers. Today’s cultural values driven by a philosophy of scarcity soon enough will be reversed in a climate driven by a philosophy of abundance. Then, your frequent use of the “C word” on facebook will not be so much perceived a potentially disruptive threat to the women in your company, but rather a hopeful source of comedy at your company’s annual picnic.

  • Robert April 12, 2012, 9:22 pm

    Lots of interesting discussion here regarding “privacy”…

    Funny how in a world where everyone is screaming for less “secrecy”, and more “transparency” from Governments and corporations; that they are simultaneously calling for these transparent and non-secret Governments to somehow preserve (and protect) their own personal “privacy” as a basic right.

    The limits and boundries of the 4th amendment seem to require expansion in thought.

    “Privacy” and “secrecy” are mirror-images of each other. Privacy is about the personal right to maintain secrecy (or protection from widespread public disclosure) about personal information you do not want shared in an open forum, yes?

    Now, we all know that said “private” info should not include past criminal transgressions (I mean, everyone wants to know if the “new guy” that moved in down the street is a paroled child molester, right?)

    BUT, what if he is a “secret” or “private” pedophile who has never acted on his “impulses”, nor ever been convicted of child or sexual abuse? Is his right to “privacy” regarding the demons in his head allowable and justified…?

    What if he also, coincidentally, just happens to be a Priest?

    The lines become a little more grey, don’t they?

    Privacy is a personal right. Secrecy is a personal right.

    PERSONal rights. Personal as in PEOPLE- INDIVIDUAL MINDS.

    Privacy should not a governmental right. Privacy should not be a corporate right.

    And, even the notion of personal privacy is, quite frankly, a Jacob’s ladder, an empty strawman, and an impossible dream.

    Learning about each other is part of the social experience. If Bob confides in Sam that he is gay, and Sam chooses to tell others, then should Bob be surprised at Sam’s “betrayal”…? Give me a break.

    My wizened grandfather used to say to me “Tell one, and you tell all” – truer words have never been spoken.

    It is very much as Orwell prophesied: People want the freedom to behave the way they want, with the simultaneous freedom to project the image upon others that they act in a completely opposite manner (the Pedophilic Priest is again the perfect representative of this point). The premise is ridiculous – you own your actions and behaviors.

    I suppose that’s why the “Conspiracy of Silence” did not surprise me when I watched it on Youtube.

    If you have something to hide, then you are probably acting on an impulse born of your instinctual pre-disposition toward self preservation.

    Does the squirrel actually “know” why he spends so much time hoarding and burying acorns in a hole that he never returns to again after he covers it over with leaves and soil..?

    The location of the hole and the acorns MUST be kept secret, yet nobody knows why… not even the squirrel.

    There really is no such thing as an emotionally “healthy” secret, is there?

    Just a little more “thought fuel” for the masses….

    • Benjamin April 13, 2012, 5:06 am

      Robert,

      I’m not sure I get what you’re getting at, so I’m just gonna fire away and hope I hit something!

      Okay, first things first… How information is gathered is in fact the issue concerning all this online spying. It’s one thing for Bob to state on his FB profile that he is gay. It is quite another for spyware, following his every move on his digital trail, to conclude that about him (accurately or inaccurately). It’s just as unlawful to give/sell that secretly/deceptively obtained info to an unknown number of unknowable parties.

      Second, whether in cyber-space or the real world, the conditions under which personal information is given matters as to whether or not one has a legal right to claim violation of privacy. If Bob agrees to tell Sam a secret upon the condition of confidentiality, then Sam can be held accountable for any damages caused to Bob from breeching that agreement (of course, Bob must show that it did, first). And if Tom overhears? Well, if he was listening in, then he knows whether or not if Bob sought confidentiality with Sam. So if Tom blabs, he can be held accountable should Bob suffer any proveable damages.

      Sub-part to that is that criminal actions cannot enjoy the protections of confidentiality agreementa. If Tom shows and tells me of his secret life of being a bank robber, I can tell his secret w/o worrying about breeching the previous agreement of confidentiality. He has no legal recourse in my reporting his crime(s).

      On the other hand, me and Tom can discuss a theoretical plan to rob a bank (who hasn’t, at one time or another?). But neither one of us can get away with slandering the other as a criminal because of it.

      And that’s it. Pretty dang simple. And because that is how it is (or should be), there is nothing at all “ironic” about the desire for more transparent government but greater protection of privacy. The former is necessary because to have it otherwise hinders or makes impossible government by consent of the governed. The latter is necessary because…

      “There really is no such thing as an emotionally “healthy” secret, is there?”

      If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear. So, be not sick with secrets, but rather healthy with open-ness! Or, expressed more strangely than you ever expected…

      http://www.coolminiornot.com/289139?browseid=1233499

      Now, if one is going to fitter away time, painting an awesome mini, in awesome fashion, is the way to go about it!

      Anyway, that demon-thing, known in some fictional world as a ‘Keeper of Secrets’, is the sum total of all secrets kept by humankind. Therefore, in that fictional world, it is punishable by death to keep secrets (especially from the witch-hunters and the Imperial Inquistors, but Keepers feed on all secrets, be they between neighbors or officialdom).

      Do you see what happens, Larry?! This is what happens, Larry! This is what happens when you keep a secret from a stranger’s ear!

      Of course, whether in the real world or a fictional one, that is utter nonsense, as the opposite is true. Where total openess reigns, the world is a sick place, rampant with such perverse “demons” as those Keepers. How very vulgar and, quite frankly, inhuman! By the same token, a world where “idiots” are punished for not “evolving” camoflage…

      That is why things like FB need to make it clear what its policies are. Kept in obscurity, presently and in the foreseeable future, the world and life itself are reduced to trash. Furthermore, it makes “right” the predatory might of another person/party.

      Some would argue that if you don’t want everyone to see “it”, then you shouldn’t, in any way shape or form, put it on the internet. And while I can’t and won’t argue the effectiveness of that tactic, it is a great failure in ethics and morals to see things that way. It should not depend on total invisiblity and utter silence. Rather, the policy of a site/company is what should matter (and, therfore, how thorough and clear that policy is stated matters even more than the policy itself).

      If I am wrong, then there exists no ground on which the words “honor” and “dishonor” can stand. The line between right and wrong is forced to disappear. With that gone, there can be no violations of any kind, either among people or people and governments. And so, the figurative demons come out to feast. With all of us on the menu.

      Keep that in mind the next time you say “give me a break!”.

    • Robert April 13, 2012, 9:22 pm

      Benjamin, the first 2/3 of your reply tried to blend ethics with legality just a bit too much.

      My point was that groups (corporations/governments) should not be entitled to privacy, nor should they be entitled to preserve the privacy of people’s actions when they are acting in official capacity on the corporation or government’s behalf – simple as that.

      The US Government has a mandate (via the 4th and 5th amendments) to preserve the privacy of the individual in order to defend us (as opposed to protecting us, which the Constitution does NOT do) from the blowback of the the several common sense scenarios you presented…

      Now- regarding some of your specific arguments:

      “That is why things like FB need to make it clear what its policies are. Kept in obscurity, presently and in the foreseeable future, the world and life itself are reduced to trash. Furthermore, it makes “right” the predatory might of another person/party. ”

      -Facebook’s policies are written in well formed legal language. Failure to understand the policy when you click the “I agree” button is your problem, not theirs.

      On a higher plane of existence, the fact that the vast majority of society does not comprehend what they are reading is indeed an issue that is tearing at the heart of society itself, but again – stupid people do stupid things. Expecting them not to is expecting them to be more than they are, which I agree is totally and completely unfair. However- the flipside can not be presented as the “more fair” solution (that flip side being that smarter people should be morally or ethically compelled to protect the stupid from their own stupidity and stupid actions…)

      Therin lies the clearest distinction between people who are smart and benevolent (non-predatory), versus those who are smart and predatory (and often castigated by society as “evil”)

      “Some would argue that if you don’t want everyone to see “it”, then you shouldn’t, in any way shape or form, put it on the internet. And while I can’t and won’t argue the effectiveness of that tactic, it is a great failure in ethics and morals to see things that way.”

      – I cannot even isolate the infinite nature of my disagreement with you on that point. The Internet is NOT a vehicle for person to person communication- it is a vehicle for MASS communication- just like cell phones, just like walkie-talkies, just like CB radios…

      If a trucker gets on the CB and tells “one” of his buddies about the hitch-hiker he just raped and killed, is everyone else on the CB morally bound to ignore it simply because the communication was not “directed” at them…?

      Facebook (and most other authenticated websites) effectively declare that you are “broadcasting” your data by posting it to their site.

      “It should not depend on total invisiblity and utter silence. Rather, the policy of a site/company is what should matter (and, therfore, how thorough and clear that policy is stated matters even more than the policy itself). ”

      – The policies are there. Black and white. The Internet is a broadcast communication medium. Either live with it, or stop broadcasting…

      Now, in spite of all that, I actually enjoyed reading your retort until:

      “Where total openess reigns, the world is a sick place, rampant with such perverse “demons” as those Keepers.”

      – People like Steve Fair, myself, and some others recognize that this is not a 100% accurate statement.

      The immutable law only allows the murderer (or child molester) to act openly on his nefarious impulses ONE TIME.

      A morally healthy society makes 100% certain that said individual will never infringe on another person’s right to the pursuit of happiness ever again…

      You get where I’m going?

    • Benjamin April 14, 2012, 3:20 am

      Robert,

      Thanks for the comments and criticisms. But regarding the following quote and response, you forgot one point that I had earlier made clear…

      “Where total openess reigns, the world is a sick place, rampant with such perverse “demons” as those Keepers.”

      “- People like Steve Fair, myself, and some others recognize that this is not a 100% accurate statement.”

      I did say in the first part of my post that criminal actions cannot be considered the same way as confidential information (and thus, one cannot claim damages against their accussers, should they be convicted). We definitely see eye to eye, here.

      “A morally healthy society makes 100% certain that said individual will never infringe on another person’s right to the pursuit of happiness ever again…You get where I’m going?”

      Yes and no. As I said, we agree on things when it comes to criminal actions. But secrets in general? You didn’t seem to make a clear distinction in your OP, so I went on the attack. My mistake or yours, I still disagree that secrets in general are unhealhty. It’s our human nature that we keep things from each other. It’s also our human nature that we want to limit how much we know about whom. Or would you really feel so much better about life if you knew that I moon-lighted as a cross-dressing stripper (which I don’t!)? I hope not!

      But moving on, I say again…

      “It’s one thing for Bob to state on his FB profile. It is quite another for spyware, following his every move on his digital trail, to conclude that about him. It’s just as unlawful to give/sell that secretly/deceptively obtained info to an unknown number of unknowable parties.”

      Now, I admit that my criticisms are just repeats of what I’ve only read on the matter. Not having a FB profile, I couldn’t tell ya what their policy says. And computers not being my profression or hobby, I can’t say for sure just how all this spy-junk works. But again, from what I’ve read and what I do know (about the spy-junk), it doesn’t seem FB is being totally in the open about what it really does. And to my understanding, it’s not all about more sales for Target-marketed Product X.

      It’s also to my understanding that one can’t have that info removed should they want to quit. So barring the first point, there exists a rightful legal issue to be resolved. “Tough!” is not an answer, no matter how it is sliced.

      But stepping outside that, no, the internet is not just one big broadcasting station. While much of it is, that doesn’t negate the fact that there are many closed doors to be found on it, with many a policy being that of what happens in vegas, staying in vegas (for whatever reason). Those doors and policies must be respected (even if criminal activity might be taking place… No warrant? No peeky!).

      And don’t we have the courts to enforce our rights against violators and oath-breakers? And shouldn’t we have it that way? Of course we do. And yes, we should. But the 4th is not only a limit on government. It’s also a limit on people, among people. Hence it says…

      “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

      Instead of specifying from against whom (branch/level of government), the right is specified as to applying to all people, meaning no person can go peeking and prying at will. Regarding ones online presence, to the extent of the closed electronic door and the policy, it is an extension of their real-world closed doors and personal effects. No warrant? No peeky…

      …unless we just look at it as “one big public broadcast”, where the only answer to broken doors and oaths is “tough!” (DEA-style, baby!).

    • Robert April 15, 2012, 4:57 am

      Benjamin-

      Yes, I suppose we agree more than not.

      One minor thing for you to chew on regarding electronic communication versus the 4th:

      When you join a social media site (or any authenticated website, actually) you are IMPLICITY giving them your data. Once your data is saved to their servers it is THEIRS.

      When you click a web link and it downloads some spybot to your own machine without informing you, in order to read your address books and browser history, etc, then I agree- that is intrusion.

      The thing about electronic eaves-dropping is that the gov’t can’t enforce laws that it is guilty of itself. Just as wiretapping is prevalent on phone lines, so too is digital spying.

      The best defense is simply to be aware, and to follow Grandpa’s sage advice: “say nothing to anyone that you wouldn’t say to everyone…”

      Regarding secrets in general- Of course I agree that there things better left undisclosed- I don’t endorse wearing tee-shirts around that say “my ATM PIN is 1234” – my point was specifically about hiding personal attributes about who you are from people because you feel concern that they might not approve of you.

      Now, being as how I am statistically “normalized” in my behaviors, interests, and mannerisms, I suppose my point of view in this regard might be influenced by the fact that I’ve never seen the kind of bigotry and hatred from other people that statistically “less normalalized” people do… however I personally have never fealt what it means to believe that gay people are somehow inferior or more immoral than heterosexuals… homophobia is something my brain simply does not process.

      If you and I are friends, who share company and activity, then should I care about what you do when I’m not around…? Nope. Cross-dress away. Just don’t bring your hoop earrings on my boat for our next fishing trip- I wouldn’t want them to get caught on something and have your ear torn off…

  • C.C. April 12, 2012, 7:39 pm

    Quite a lot of this argument depends on the extent that an individual values their own liberty – in the context of what they think should be kept private/anonymous and the relationship between that expected privacy and the trend for companies to ‘share’ their personal information, along with government regulatory overreach and how that unholy alliance factors in.

    I could easily see a new ‘trend’ towards privacy/sharing sites as an alternative. Of course, that spanking new taxpayer $funded data-mining, crypto-fracking facility in Utah could put a dent in things, but oh well…

    Speaking of the dot.com days, my all time favorite was the dack.com web-economy bullshit generator. Anybody remember that…?

  • Oliver April 12, 2012, 7:13 pm

    One fine day a “facebook” will appear, which grounds its business model on privacy.
    Then you better run to short Facebook as it will be dead in a day.

  • Mercurious April 12, 2012, 7:08 pm

    Rick, I would agree with your Always A New Fad concept…I was trying not to mention Cam’s name when I disagreed about the threat of competition, but I actually happen to agree it’s value will diminish over time, and it very well may not take a wave of lawsuits to do it. But by the time the fans realize it, every scrap of data will be so irretrievably gone they might as well stay anyway.

    I can speak with some authority on this, having seen close up the value added you get with FB as an “essential” part of your communications strategy, at least in business. You know what you get? Excellent info going out in a channel that people focus on, with increasing amounts of time pissed away responding to a growing army of psychologically disabled inquirers. It makes these types totally dependent on their FB handler. A link to info they need will appear next to their question about it; they seem to be incapable of even clicking a link anymore. You are now the Reference Desk for all of life.

    Moderate the chronic complainers and downer types and you are filtering input…leave them on and normal folks get tired of the drumbeat of negativity. To me, the REAL Achilles heel is not privacy, it’s the interaction. What a company wants to do–besides sell sell sell– is put out relevant info that conveniently informs customers, diffuses complaints and presents a positive image of the company. All these things are handled quite well already by good web-based info, customer-centric support lines and decent advertising. The interactivity factor adds an avalanche of imbecilic requests generating nothing but wasted time and effort.

    I don’t think of it as nostalgia when I say that, at some point, I believe the old values will reassert themselves. Today’s youngsters are not so dumb that they won’t figure out it’s hard to make a bundle just following your friends’ restaurant recommendations. There will always be those whose lives are so devoid of meaningful activity that friending a plumbing supply company or ceramic starfish distributor seems uplifting. But it’s hard to visualize how that type can be monetized successfully.

    I get solicitations for webinars that tell me “social media is here to stay and you’ve got to have a place at the table.” Yes…or you could actually spend time and that money on R&D to kick your competitor/s ass. But I forget, it’s America. When you’re Number 1, all that’s left is to talk endlessly about it.

    • Rick Ackerman April 12, 2012, 8:53 pm

      Great post, Merc. I hadn’t realized you were in the thick of it, but I appreciate your insider’s view of the game.

    • Robert April 12, 2012, 9:47 pm

      Fantastic post, Merc.

      I also feel that FB’s potential as an ROI generator in business is being overblown to the Nth degree…

      The ability to widely deseminate information means that beneficial info will always be muddled together with complete crap.

      Discretion and discrimination of said info is such a colossal waste of time that eventually most people simply walk away and re-join the real world…

      I work in IT for a company that blocks FB (since it is a colossal waste of time and a proven productivity killer)- unless you happen to work in marketting where it is considered a highly valuable and extremely productive “tool” in the quest for ever more customers…

      Rather ironic, I’d say.

  • Terry S April 12, 2012, 6:18 pm

    Hey Mario – It’s not that you “kick his ass” – it’s that there are some arrogant SOB’s here. And, at times, it seems like anything goes.

    • Robert April 12, 2012, 9:31 pm

      Bah-

      Arrogance is simply the art of choosing minimalist and non-abiguous language in the expression of well formed thought; grounded in self assuredness and confidence.

      Arrogance is not a crime, nor is it non-virtuous or unethical.

      The choice to dismiss, or ignore, the arrogance around you, is yours…

      LOL, This coming from the guy who is probably most often “guilty” of the infraction you denigrate… 🙂

    • Mario cavolo April 13, 2012, 8:28 am

      Thanks Terry,…..nice definition Robert!…..arrogance can be quite profound and eloquent and fabulously well done even when we are really in fact just enjoying pounding the other guy just for the fun of it or somehow has it coming…hah that’s the arrogance of it! And of course in doing so we know we’re right with that self-assured confidence you speak of.

  • Benjamin April 12, 2012, 4:11 pm

    I thought some alternative expressions of the numbers would be fun…

    How much are 800 million eyeballs worth? First, let’s be ultra-conservative, and say that only 10% of that is active facebook accounts. If FB were to charge but $1 per account, per year, it would rake in $80 million.

    Now, as many readers are probably aware, there was a recent record lottery/mega-millions prize of ~$600 million.

    If I had managed to snag $80 million of that and spent half on gold bullion, at an average price of $4,000/oz, I could’ve had 10,000 oz. Assuming that I blew the other half of the winnings, and my annual expenditure thereafter was 2 gold kilobars per year, I’d have enough gold to last me 150 years.

    A $100 billion facebook is 2,500 times more than that. But even if facebook were to simply charge $1 per account/year, it would still be 10 x Insanity (i.e. One year of providing a frivolous service would generate 15 years of retirement funding!).

    “It is predictable that a Facebook privacy scandal will shake the company to its core, causing customers to revolt and the stock to drop precipitously.”

    As much as I would like to agree, Rick, I’m just not sure that will happen. Think of two possibilities…

    Liberal think-tanks and media would love nothing more than to be able to say that 80% of registered republicans spend 1 or more hours on porn sites. Vice versa, republicans would noting more than to say that… a) 80% of American kids become homosexuals every year and b) that 80% of homosexuals favor legalizing pedophilia.

    Gotta keep the monsters around to keep the divided bases united! Not that any of it need be true, though. I still recall the article you posted in the last facebook commentary. All it takes is enough invisible associations (keywords, time of day, location, search querries etc) and the spyware reports can spit out all manner of probabilities. And given that we’re still living in a world where 10x Insanity is still a common occurance, well… ya know!

  • chuckster April 12, 2012, 3:47 pm

    There already was a pre-facebook, it was called myspace. It didn’t have the privacy intrusions that FB had. Another VERY intrusive software gimick/corporation is Groupon. WHATA POS.

  • Mercurious April 12, 2012, 2:04 pm

    I have to disagree with the idea that FB needs to look over its shoulder for a competitor without the privacy baggage. If anyone thinks dyed in the wool Facebookers (Bookees? Bookettes?) are going to jump ship, lose their history (timeline…YES!) and relationships over something so silly as personal privacy, you must be talking about the over-55 users MAYBE…the rest couldn’t care less. FB has the ultimate first mover advantage here.

    What can a competitor give away that FB already doesn’t do that is wanted? If it’s privacy, you never would have been seen in the neighborhood in the first place. What it can give that no one else offers is the eternally valuable “Visit us on Facebook!” tag that seems to suggest I would want to friend things like peanut butter and feminine hygiene products.

    The entire dynamic of FB to me is cannibalizing in the sense that time is lost from doing something even mildly productive and spent in endless “sharing” of life’s little moments that no one else really, truly gives a sh1t about. I see endless pages of “Samantha from Canoga Park Likes Your Comment” dropping into the cesspool of responds I have to monitor. That and 25 cents will buy me exactly nothing.

    BTW Once you’re out there on FB, good luck reeling it all back in to move to another, more privacy-friendly site. Mark will be very helpful in letting you gut his empire when you tire of the commercial assaults. What do they say about unicorns and Skittles…?

    &&&&&&&

    You come close to saying there will be no Next Big Thing, Merc, and there I would have to disagree simply because the world wide web itself is just a series of passing fads. This is notwithstanding the fact that Facebook is so deeply entrenched at the moment that one cannot even access one’s online WSJ account any longer without using a Facebook sign-on.

    Concerning young people and their privacy, I agree that it is of scant concern to them. But my point was that it could all of a sudden become a concern, since Facebook is capable of hatching a privacy scandal so egregious that even the youngsters will understand that privacy does matter. RA

  • Cam Fitzgerald April 12, 2012, 10:31 am

    Keep taking the other side of the trade Mario. You are always one or two steps behind no matter what you say. And no offense, but you are rarely connected to what is happening.

    Cheers.

    • Mark Uzick April 12, 2012, 1:36 pm

      Cam, Mario agreed with you; he only made his point “for argument’s sake”. True, it was legal argument in response to your public perception argument, so it’s not a very convincing one but the tone of your response is inappropriate to his attempt to get the conversation rolling.

    • mario cavolo April 12, 2012, 4:47 pm

      thank you Mark…I agreed with you Cam and your reply was making me wonder “huh,where did that come from?” You must be sore that I kicked your ass in our last China argument 🙂 Cheers, Mario

  • Cam Fitzgerald April 12, 2012, 8:43 am

    Facebooks Achilles heel is a competitor that comes on the scene and offers to not do all of the things that Facebook does that give the creeps to its millions of users. If only such a competitor existed. I am quite sure we would all willingly sign up. Zuckerberg may make a mint in the meantime. His concept is certain to cannibalize itself though as the public awareness of their loss of personal identity to a corporate overlord gains steam. Incredibly, I have been hearing some very, very good commentary lately on the risks to personal privacy posed by those willingly giving up private information to corporations. Just in the nick of time? Not likely. Investors will snap this one up like so many others that came before it but because the model is so blatant in its data collection efforts it will ultimately be rebuffed and rejected by the public. Just one or two well spun news stories about Facebook ruining a young persons life and the model is a wreck looking for salvation and alternatives. Ya, you heard it here first.

    • mario cavolo April 12, 2012, 9:04 am

      Hi Cam, all true, well and good. However, for the sake of argument I’ll take the other side and suggest that when the news media gets hold of the story of the person’s life who got ruined, somehow there will be a spin that “they knew” and so its still ultimately their own fault. The super high level of awareness on the online lack of privacy and data mining related issues particularly headlined by FB and Google are now completely public knowledge, so a person can’t make the excuse anymore that they didn’t know. I can hear this argument loud and clear and it will probably hold up in both court and public opinion when all is said and done…..who knows….

      Cheers, Mario

  • Rich April 12, 2012, 8:30 am

    Dot.com deja vu indeed JJ:
    http://huff.to/HCQo6q

    Some back page confessions:
    Worked at Palo Alto and Sand Hill long before I realized they were mostly not adding value, but rearranging cash flows to fund their VC Matrix fantasies.

    Survived high tech bubbles crashes from 1976 to 1983 to 1987 to 1990 to 1994 to 2000 to 2003 to 2007 that came faster and more furious.

    Wrote newspaper articles and held hands of too many clients, including senior citizens who plunged into high tech wrecks and lost it all.

    Even made a few civil and criminal referrals for egregious unsuitability cases and served as an expert witness.

    Was Merrill’s Mutual Fund Coordinator when Sci Tech came public in 1983, a record $1 B IPO fund with so much demand it eventually raised $2 B in a crush as we were swamped by a blizzard of long-lost friends of friends who had to get in no matter what the consequences.

    Granville called them Bagholders.
    Today BAC, GS or JPM call them muppets and trade against them.

    Thank G-d for unsolicited orders, warnings and prospectuses with 1932 enforced rules, regulations and quiet periods back then, something not in evidence today with FB, or I would have gone from drinking too much and divorcing to slashing my wrists or jumping off Sea Cliff like a talented Fidelity boutique broker friend.

    Speaking of it all, although I was an AAPL, CBM, CMPQ, CSCO, DELL, GOOG, HP, IBM, INTC, LTUS, MSFT, ORCL and VCLC seller at mostly the right times, like most busy people I did not have the discipline, patience or temperament to buy and hold on to the real money mega trends back then like Warren.

    Today in the mountain retreat by The Lake is another story.

    More to the point Rick raised re violations of privacy, Social Network the movie told us something about FB and MZ when it showed the dating, NSA meeting and Twin brother scenes. I’d really like to know how many of the 850 reported subscribers sign in regularly after they realize the privacy compromises that set them up to be racked, rolled and robbed.

    InQTel was a CIA VC firm for espionage turned loose on American citizens and the world, using hunger, naivete, terrorism fears and false flags to put US on a permanent PsyOp war footing like 1984.

    People casually ruined themselves with self-compiled FB dossier profiles routinely violated by employers and law enforcement despite Maryland’s new law. Try leaving ADBE, FB, GOOG, MSFT, ORCL for good without those “updates.”

    Not everyone knows cops now have the chutzpah and technology to demand citizen cell phones to stop recording and download their contents at riots, traffic stops or arrests.

    Truly the mark of the beast in the last days.

    Sadly, Congress, Courts and Executive Branches did not prove up to their Constitutional responsibility of preserving, protecting and defending our Bill of Rights liberties, so it is well past time for another Declaration of Independence Incumbent Revolution 236 years later, Ron Paul or no. It ain’t over until Tampa delegates vote, and RP has the hearts and minds and half the NV delegates and more elsewhere, no matter who monopoly media crown.

    Fortunately, our internet campaign blog is gaining top 13 internet traction on searches, with requests from Cox Cable et al to record 24/7 insurgent campaign statements, make too many appearances and a one-month whistle stop America tour on Amtrak to DC and points north, south and west.

    (Click on Rich above or http://richardcharles.blogspot.com/ to see what’s going on with Current Events or Campaign to donate and join the Movement for a New Congress.)

    While we have to by law report names, emails and donations over $100 to the FEC, we do not sell your info down, out or up.

    One of the reasons we prospered was we kept good valuable secrets in confidence…

    • TC April 16, 2012, 4:29 pm

      Great post, but how many centuries must go by before Americans uniformly realize Thomas Jefferson was wrong in his battle against Alexander Hamilton re: the national bank? Truth is on the domestic front Ron Paul would prove entirely ruinous a la Andrew Jackson were his Jeffersonian ideas pertaining to the nation’s finances to sway Congress. The Great Depression would be like a walk in the park in comparison. That said, at this moment there is not a qualified candidate running for President of the United States, while the incumbent should be impeached, with the charge in Congress in fact led by Ron Paul. Yet where is the self-appointed “Constitutionalist” on the President’s illegal war in Libya, and his ordering the murder of three American citizens in Yemen via drone? Playing politics, as I understand it — building his portfolio of zero credibility like so many others in Washington.

  • max lopez April 12, 2012, 7:02 am

    well one of the readers got it rite. not to overgeneralize but i dont believe that most under 30 really care what info is collected about them, or even understand how orwellian it really is. or who orwell is.
    as for good or bad invenstment. maybe one needs to look at what is face book really. one might argue it is a very powerful vehicle for driving or influencing thought , ideas and culture… as the visa add said , pizza and beer with friends, 20 bucks. night at the ball game with kids 75,… being able to influence which pizza you buy and which ball game you go to….. priceless…

    • John Jay April 12, 2012, 2:30 pm

      Max,
      Wow, pizza and beer $20.
      More inflation to an old timer like myself.
      I remember paying $.99 for a pitcher of draft beer when I was in my early 20s. And I think a six pack of Carling Black Label was about the same price back then.
      I always thought all the wonderful rock groups from the 1960s were made possible by how cheap rents, food, beer, etc. were back then. You did not have to work a lot to survive, so there was plenty of free time to write music and practice.
      Then came Vietnam, LBJ, inflation, and the end of USA post WWII prosperity.
      Now the Treasury is planning floating rate bonds to appeal to the players who don’t want to take a 50% hit if interest rates come back to reality.
      Maybe Bernanke knows he is fresh out of rabbits in his magic hat.

  • John Jay April 12, 2012, 4:40 am

    Here is a nice link to the biggest dot-c0m losers from back in the day:http://tinyurl.com/7c3ry44
    Lots of them I never heard of, but epic pump and dump for sure.
    Did you ever hear of InfoSpace?
    Went from $1305 a share in March of 2000 to $22 in April of 2001.
    Quite a list, it is like all the Triple Crown race results since 1875 to a Thoroughbred fan.
    Who knows about Facebook, remember Time Warner and AOL?
    Anything is possible, but I remember looking at way out of the money puts on some dot-com stocks not being very cheap. Those market makers were not fools, then or now too most likely.
    It’s all quite a show in any case.

    • Robert April 12, 2012, 6:55 pm

      Infospace = Myspace 1.0

      Rememember Myspace? From way back in 2010?

      It was “the one” that was ultimately dethroned by Facebook.

      These social network sites are all testament to the fickle nature of human tastes and preferences.

  • gary leibowitz April 12, 2012, 2:40 am

    While I dislike Zuckerman and am too old to appreciate Facebook I can see the logic in the purchase. In fact Instagram in 2 short years has 31 million users. It is considered the Facebook for pictures. It draws the appeal to use Facebook that much more.

    The notion that it is a bad investment with possible law suits and failed expectations is open to debate. I side with your analysis. I don’t however share your notion that subscribers care whether they are “commercialized” or not. This new generation seems to thrive on it. As an investment with this current valuation it would have to dominate for a long while and outspend anyone else with deep pockets trying to compete. Not an investment I am willing to take. For a trader and short sights it might make sense.