Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Adds 96 Million Shares, Will Privacy Get Worse After IPO?

AlistairCharlton writes "Facebook has made yet another amendment to its S-1 filing, adding a further 96 million shares, pushing its initial public offering up to a potential maximum of $18.4bn (£11.5bn). In what is the eighth amendment to its S-1 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Facebook has also increased the number of shares allowed for over allotment, up from 50.6 million to 63.2 million." Facebook will have a lot of pressure to increase revenue after it goes public. jfruh writes in with a story about how that will impact their privacy policies. "There's been a steady drumbeat of panics over the past few years involving how Facebook uses the personal information you give it; nevertheless, someday you'll look back at 2012 as the golden age of Facebook privacy. That's because, once Facebook has its IPO, it'll come under huge pressure from the markets to extract more revenue from its business. And with display advertising not generating game-changing amounts of money, Facebook has only one valuable resource: your data, which is going to be monetized as hard as possible."

12 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why. by jaymz666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximise profits, so of course they will do that by reducing privacy

  2. Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google, unlike Facebook, actually makes money.

  3. Re:is google any different? by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or else he did a search for Acura to find the dealerships. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  4. Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What the HELL is it with this trend of new people having multi-paragraph posts up at the exact same time the article hits. Check the timestamps -- there's less than a minute between this post and the article going up. It's this account's first post, it's paragraphs long, it's up at the same time as the article, and it's telling you to buy Facebook stock. Draw your own conclusions.

  5. Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Working in investment industry, I would seriously suggest buying Facebook shares

    When people in the "investment industry" start talking about buying shares in anything publicly, that's usually about the time the general public should run, screaming, in the opposite direction.

    You go ahead and buy yourself a few thousand shares, 'Mr. Investment Industry.' Good luck with your pumping and dumping.

  6. Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by localman57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't know about selling data, but their astroturfing unit seems to be running at full steam.

    Take a look at the original post. I SAID LOOK AT IT! Holy shit! IT'S FUCKING BEAUTIFUL. The grammar and punctuation is impeccable. It's the longest, most intensive, best edited FIRST POST! I've ever seen. Complete with embedded links! Almost as if he had it typed and ready to paste in advance of this story. Oh, and it's the only story ever commented on by a brand new ID. Get bent, astroturfer. We like Google better than you. Suck on it.

  7. Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh, and I forgot to add, perhaps it's also because Google doesn't need to hire shills to troll Slashdot?

    It's ironic, your very employment answers your own question - the reason people hate Facebook more than Google is precisely because Facebook hires too many people like you.

  8. Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can top that... google his name, it shows up nowhere on the entire internet except this /. story. If you're gonna astroturf, at least have the brains to use a name like "john doe" or "a5tr0turf3r".

    Actually, this time, he actually did just that. "John Wiggenerstrom" == "Waggener Edstrom".

    Trolling is an art. I miss the Chiropractor Troll, he was funnier.

  9. Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by localman57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And dozens of other companies that fit the same description are gone. Don't doubt yourself. Don't invest in a company if you don't understand how they're going to make money.

  10. Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Myspace launched in 2003, was bought by News Corporation in 2005 for $580 million, was totally irrelevant by 2008, and was sold again in 2011 to Justin Timberlake for only $35 million.

    It seems to me that Google is a huge exception to an otherwise pretty bankable rule.

  11. Re:Hateful geek comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People who are wondering about Facebook's end game can't see the forest for the trees. The IPO *is* the end game. The absurd valuation is paraded around like a supercar, like it's a sign of power and not of a huge loan that needs to be repaid.

  12. Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the OP typed up eight paragraphs in response to a Firehose submission just in case it got posted and then sat there ready to claim first post when it did, and he's not getting paid, he's just trolling, I think that's a good deal more self-humiliating than the people "falling for it".