splicetoday.com — Why aren’t we outraged? Why aren’t we asking why they get away with making such high profits on something they don’t inherently own (for the sake of argument we’ll ignore the fact that the TOS removes your rights to the information)? Why aren’t we asking how much more invasive their collection practices will get in the interest of increasing revenue for shareholders? When is the U.S. government going to slap down a lawsuit ordering the cease of this IPO? It won’t, because this is he same government that made welfare a right for millionaires. The same government that found Microsoft
Feb 3, 2012 View in Crawl 4
cavimikeFeb 4, 2012
I don't use FaceBook and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
craig1958Feb 3, 2012
Why be outraged? If you don't like their business model, don't use their service and don't buy their stock. If they can make money with this product, good for them. I don't think I would buy their stock, but that's my choice.
openthinkFeb 3, 2012
have to say, this argument is kind of absurd. don't like facebook's privacy policies?...don't use the free service. and the idea of whining about facebook creating a business around a "free" service...seriously? you'd rather the company charge customers too--and then turn it into a big business, like phone companies, cable cos, etc. Of course, facebook has tons of issues and there are many reasons to criticize to, but these reasons -- as a basis to oppose to their ipo?....weak.
blinker1315Feb 3, 2012Submitter
Here's the "right" question, Openthink: Why do so many people waste so much time on Facebook? That gets to the heart of a diminishing popular culture, where instant gratification rules.
I think Zuckerberg's advisers learned the lesson from the government's action against Microsoft in 2000: getting chummy with power brokers in DC, spreading some dough around in lobbying and giving to charity is a lot less expensive than antitrust litigation.
What I'm most interested in is how, say three months after FB goes public, the price of the stock settles in. I wouldn't touch it.
openthinkFeb 3, 2012
agree, that's an excellent question, and one that could (probably should) be applied to all kinds of instant gratification, real time "communication"/virtual life (or "real life" substitute) activities. thing is, think it's less a question of assessing the "merits" of a company/business than of the values of our culture and consumers that seem to increasingly demand those things. facebook does what it does well -- and, if anything, it's been late to the already sickeningly crowded washington, d.c. party of corporations lobbying and sucking up to (and paying) politicians to do their bidding...
garhentFeb 3, 2012
The real question is why is the cost of business in US the cost to buy Senators, Congressmen, Judges and State Politicians to allow your company to be able to sell in the US?
If a company does not employ lobbyists, its competitors will and then the company not using lobbyists will be lobbied out of existence.
Welcome to the USA, where the barrier to entry is the wall of cash you competitor gave to politicians and judges.
garhentFeb 3, 2012
The writer is an idiot. The shareholders will have NO SAY on what Facebook does, instead it will be Zuckerberg. Hell, Zuckerberg even put in a clause that he could name his successor.
So no, the evil shareholders won't have a say on how Facebook is run, instead it will be run by engineers. I know, how evil is it that nerds built something that is useful and they didn't sell out to do it, they control it.
Closed AccountFeb 4, 2012
What world do you live in?
Shareholders have a way of exerting pressure on company boards, especially major stakeholders. And if those major stakeholders are businesses that benefit from more intense marketing practices and more invasive data mining - it will certainly have an effect.
Run by engineers? I find that highly doubtful.
garhentFeb 4, 2012
Ghost,
You are commenting on things you honestly have no clue. Did you even bother to read the thousand's of articles about the IPO and how Facebook will handle shareholders? NO you didn't.
Here is a gem from an article for you:
"We have a dual class common stock structure, which provides Mr. Zuckerberg with the ability to control the outcome of matters requiring stockholder approval, even if he owns significantly less than a majority of the shares of our outstanding Class A and Class B common stock."
Your ignorance on Facebook is impressive. Zuckerberg is in control. Next you will be writing how Google isn't run by engineers. Do you even work for a firm in the valley?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57370345-501465/mark-zuckerbergs-kung-fu-grip-on-facebook/
Closed AccountFeb 4, 2012
Yawn. Yes, I actually have been reading a few of these articles, thanks.
Regardless of the new arcane fine print of this IPO and Facebook's re-structuring - just the fact of shareholders changes the manner in which a business is run on a fundamental level.
Tout your insider status all you like, I'm talking about basic business principles, hence all this "reassuring" of investors that f**kerberg will be running the show. Investors change the game by definition and shareholders are going to be looking for dividends, obviously.
From the link you provided:
"We can only hope that the Facebook co-founder is emotionally invested enough in his company that he won't let profits rule over value."
You don't see this as evidence of influence?
Dual structuring a public outlay is nothing new. While it gives a small group of people more percentage of authority with less equity in the company - it doesn't erase the existence of shareholders and a stock that will help or hinder the company depending on its share price, i.e., the market value of the company. And that effects any company's outlook
Facebook is many things - a giant advert, a political tool, a lifeline for dissidents at times, a popularity contest, and a social network. It also happens to be an invasive, virulent data-mining scam that is changing the very nature of privacy with little oversight and lots of hype.
Dream your little dream about software engineers saving the world for Nerdkind with Facebook, but really, it's just the same s**t as Friendster, MySpace, et al. You act like they cured f**king cancer.
Nerds have built plenty better things than Facebook.
"Didn't sell out?" FB was a sell-out from the moment it came into being. Zuckerberg hacked into Harvard's restricted network to pull the original data for FaceMash and is lucky he did't get expelled for it. Not to mention ripping off the Winklevoss brothers, and Ed Saverine.
Save the narrative, amigo. Facebook has its use. The market will decide if this IPO is worth the paper it's printed on. And we'll see what happens to the commodity of privacy when FB has to create dividends every quarter from now on.
garhentFeb 4, 2012
Nice trolling really, but your prattle is useless. Do some reading before posting. You'll understand that Zuckerberg retains complete control over Facebook including naming his successor.
Before you post an opinion, at least read about an issue so you have something to back it up.
Closed AccountFeb 4, 2012
Trolling?
It's called a coherent argument, Encyclopedia Brown.
And your hilariously arrogant assumption of my reading comprehension fails to brush aside my real world concerns - concerns shared by many people, as all of this hype about Zuckerburg's control CLEARLY demonstrates - despite your childish, romantic ideas about how business is conducted in the modern world.
A public offering that requires 150 page registration statement to reassure investors of the "integrity" of the Zuckerburg organization and explain it's mission for future earnings - written with respect to shareholders. Have you even read the S-1 filing documents?
http://clientvideos.justia.com/onward-justia-com/2012-02/facebook-registration-statement.pdf
J.P. Morgan Securities, Morgan Stanley, Barclay's, Merrill Lynch, and Allen and Co. are the underwriters. Do you honestly believe that these companies have ZERO influence on Facebook now? All of them will be buying large amounts of stock at reduced rates - explained in the terms of he SEC filing statement.
You claim that Zuckerburg retains "FULL" control of FB when it's clearly written that shares of Class A common stock have voting power on the board. Less than Class B stock but voting rights nonetheless. How much power? Depends on who buys and how many shares.
What world do you live in where this isn't true?
In the end I don't give a flying f**k what happens to FB, as I think it's total s**t. But dismissing my opinions as uninformed, when you lack the basic knowledge to understand an SEC filing or the fundamental business principles of public stock offerings?
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
Major007Feb 4, 2012
Somebody came up with a Good Idea but then why are we agaisnst it when we have used it ourselves for somany years.
octo8saktulosFeb 4, 2012
Could it be argued that since the user's of facebook are the only reason facebook is worth anything, they are entitled to shares/wages/monetary gains? Similar to how Youtube shares ad revenue?
dissidentFeb 4, 2012
facebook provides a service that is in demand, the ability to advertise oneself and show off online and stay connected. Just because you don't find the idea attractive doesn't mean others don't.
dualaudiFeb 4, 2012
Wow, this author doesn't know s**t. Go back to school.