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."

Comments

Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[John Wiggenerstrom]

Both Facebook and Google share many business practices and monetizing practices. While Google had the unfortunate timing for their IPO (2004) after dot com bubble burst, the exact same thing could had been said about them. Many slashdotters, however, still believe that Google does the right thing.

For me the interesting thing is how similar these two companies actually are. Both companies base their revenue on advertisement and gathering user data, provide tons of open source contributions and are free for everyone to use.

What I cannot understand is why Google gets a free pass on this while slashdotters absolutely hate Facebook. Both Google and Facebook have done their mistakes, but only Facebook is constantly cried about. I can only guess it's because Facebook goes against slashdotters nerdy backgrounds. Gee, we have a place where every person can discuss, share their life the way they want to and be social.

It isn't the first time I've read how internet should be for geeks only and normal people not given access. And that right there shows some really horrible side of geeks. It's align the lines of hating gays because you can't stand someone being different from you. Yet geeks feel like everyone hates them for being different.

Maybe it's some traumatizing event from childhood or something, but after I realized this, I cannot think geeks as nothing more than the most hateful group of people towards people with other kind of thinking. This could also very well be the reasons why geeks are bullied - if you treat other like shit, you will be treated like shit. Be nice to them and they will be nice to you.

Facebook is still a young company. They have worked more on their grown rather than revenue by now, and it has worked very well for them. Unlike MySpace, I don't think Facebook will be going away anytime soon either. They have grown past that phase and are now the number one social network in every country. We used to have same kind of services in my country even back in 2000 - they're all now seriously in bad shape because Facebook took all the users.

I also don't see why Facebook would need to use any of this for privacy violation. Just like Google, their business depends on not giving out the information, but by establishing way for advertisers to use it via their platforms. Selling out info would kill them, and even more so than if Google did it. The information, users etc is the most single biggest asset they have. This is also why Google+ and Diaspora are losing heavily and will never amount to Facebook - they don't have the users, so no other users will come.

Working in investment industry, I would seriously suggest buying Facebook shares. It is, and will be, the internets social network. They will be heavily increasing their profits once they start working on it instead of growth. It will still also heavily grow when rest of the world gets online. Currently there are amount 800 million people (a very impressive number!), but there is room for over 6 billion more. And those won't be joining MySpace, Google+ or Diaspora, they will join Facebook because that's where everyone is.

Just my two cents,
John

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

because Google keeps your data in house, and facebook doesn't, pretty simply said.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Still waiting for someone to provide just one case of Facebook selling user data.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[John Wiggenerstrom]

Just like Google, Facebook keeps your data in house. Their privacy setting are working great now. At one point they were hard to use, but this is a problem with new services that aren't polished yet and when trying to get more users to share things to make it more interesting for others (to grown).

With that reasoning, if the IPO, beginning of monetization and Facebook's growth does something to privacy settings, it will only improve them.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

Google, unlike Facebook, actually makes money.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Many slashdotters, however, still believe that Google does the right thing.

No, seriously.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[NerdmastaX]

you are very misinformed, google came in a decade ago and helped the world rid itself of flashy graphic ads. google was faster on dialup as well. Facebook was a less flashy myspace with similar retarded games. Might i add that when facebook messes up they dont fix it till they get caught. when this ipo happens the money is gonna kill facebook

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, first time poster and you managed to get this giant diatribe about what a great investment facebook is posted in a matter of seconds. Impressive, astroturfer, impressive. Unfortunately, only morons listen to investment retards about technology decisions.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[AngryDeuce]

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.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Bob9113]

Both Facebook and Google share many business practices and monetizing practices. While Google had the unfortunate timing for their IPO (2004) after dot com bubble burst, the exact same thing could had been said about them. Many slashdotters, however, still believe that Google does the right thing.

I'm not sure who these "Many Slashdotters" are that you refer to -- some sort of expert panel on the morality of corporations I guess -- but they certainly are ignorant, and haven't been reading the website for which they are named. Google has become quite bent, particularly relative to their starting point, and that subject is discussed regularly and extensively on these forums (typically with a few ignorant twits starting the discussion by saying, "But you all love Google!" followed by a chorus of, "Are you daft? No we don't."). From cozying up to the U.S. surveillance state to embracing censorship in China, Google has become far more morally flexible since their IPO.

And bear in mind, Google started off as a hard-core moralist corporation. They were the poster-boys for "what a scientist/moralist company should be" until Eric Schmidt and the public shareholders came along. Facebook is starting with no discernible principles to act as a rudder.

Of course, I agree with your assessment of the investment potential. But that says a great deal more about the flaws in our economic policies than it does about whether Facebook is good for long-term United States growth.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Jeng]

I use google to do things

Facebook is a place you gather with your family and friends.

I guess it's kinda like the difference between using a prostitute at a motel versus bringing one home to meet the family, and then fucking in the living room in the middle of a family reunion that you also invited your friends over for.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[localman57]

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.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[AngryDeuce]

Facebook is starting with no discernible principles to act as a rudder.

Based on the history of the company, I wouldn't say that's true at all. They've got lots of principles, just not very many decent ones. Certainly not as regards those poor saps using the service.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[eepok]

Ya, only if you know HISTORY. But this about the future, man. Progress. You have to look forward. Seize the day. BUY BUY BUY!

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[ThatsMyNick]

The main reason is Google already has a business model (serving ads), when I dont see one for facebook. Google ads are far more effective than facebook. Google can serve ads, when you are really looking for something. You are about to buy a car, you are far more likely to google, and compare cars, than 'facebook' for it. Facebook would really have to start pushing it, if they want to sustain themselves on advertising, which would mean more shady practices (buying information from shady companys, etc).
PS: did you even read the article? Your point seems to be Google gets a free pass, so facebook should too. You dont even understand how different facebook and google are.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[hkmwbz]

John Wiggenerstrom? Heh. Hello there, astroturfer!

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try, Facebook promoter / private share holder.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[vlm]

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.

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".

Can someone with a FB account search for him on FB? I deleted my account well over a year ago so I can't search FB.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Jeng]

When Facebook makes a change to their privacy policy they are more concerned with getting that information to their customers rather than being concerned of the privacy concerns of their product.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[localman57]

Seriously. They'd be more credible if they posted AC. But apparently that's not how you run the AstroTurf playbook.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Xest]

Okay so I know you're just another of those high UID, never posted before anti-Google troll-shills but I can answer this question:

"What I cannot understand is why Google gets a free pass on this while slashdotters absolutely hate Facebook."

There are a number of reasons, but for me they are:

Despite all the FUD your PR company likes to spread, for all the theoretical things Google has done wrong over the years I've never actually suffered anything detrimental as a result of Google's theoretically evil actions. I've never suffered spam, I've never had any problems. Contrast this to Facebook and the theoretical problems turn into actual problems - I have had Facebook illegaly sell my data in breach of the UK's data protection act, I have had it recommend people who it could only have associated with me by illegaly gathering data from elsewhere. I know these things for a fact because we're talking about data which I have not stored on Facebooks systems, e-mail addresses that I have only used in certain places and so forth.

Further, whilst Google certainly does do wrong, it also often tries hard to do right, in contrast I can't think of anything positive that's over and above it's business interests that Facebook has done. I've also yet to see anyone quite as obnoxious and who quite so desperately believes his own bullshit as the guy following the discussion at about 49minutes into this documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeOlO_2nddY

Still, it's fun watching him squirm.

Oh, it probably doesn't help that Google came from a couple of guys doing some university research, whilst Facebook came from a guy who stole and cheated left right and centre either. That's not really the greatest starting point for a company who wants to get all our data, whether given it honestly, or whether it's obtained it illegaly. On the illegality thing, here's a hint as to what I'm referring to: under the data protection acts of many countries, including (all?) those in Europe, a third party cannot give a company permission to hold your data, yet Facebook uses EXACTLY this method to gather data on people. The previous automatic opt in on allowing apps to gather friends data even if those friends haven't used that app and hence have no relationship with the 3rd party company in question is an example of this.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Xest]

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.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[localman57]

Also, Google has a mobile strategy.

ZING!

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[FrankSchwab]

I thought exactly the same thing when Google went IPO and the Investment Industry was pushing a stock price of $75. I convinced our investment club (remember those?) that they didn't have a business plan, had no obvious source of sufficient revenue to sustain the share valuation that was being discussed, and that we shouldn't buy in.

8 years later, it's above $600.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[gorzek]

People get paid to do this, obviously, and Slashdot tolerates it because they know what side their bread is buttered on.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Apu de Beaumarchais]

Just like Google, Facebook keeps your data in house

Unless you or one of your friends use any apps

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[who_stole_my_kidneys]

I would seriously suggest buying Facebook shares

That's only if your a short term investor who has the capitol to put up for a large buy, the regular people that don't have access to those types of funds should stay away as FaceBook as a long term investment, is insane. It will slowly die out just as Myspace did after it was bought and pressured to make more money. In the short term the price will continue to go up until something new pops up, users will mass migrate, and the revenues will dry up like grandmas vagina.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[localman57]

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.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit that was subtle; trolling is indeed a art.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Jeng]

Yes he was, and he would take your suggestions about his trolling seriously.

This guy though, no imagination, not even remotely entertaining, and will not take any constructive criticism. Hell, goatse trolls are more entertaining and add more to the conversation than this guy.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[timeOday]

Google, unlike Facebook, actually makes money.

In the year before its IPO (2003), google profited $106M.

In the year before its IPO (2011), facebook profited $1,000M.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Nerdfest]

Most of it seems to be not necessarily pro-FaceBook or Microsoft, etc, but anti-Google. Almost as if at least one of those companies were taking another run at spreading bad stories about Google.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[AngryDeuce]

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.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[KhabaLox]

Actually, Facebook's profit margin and debt-equity ratio are about the same as Google's. However, their revenue and profit are around 1/10 of Google (IIRC) while their estimated valuation is about 1/5 (?), so they are likely overvalued.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I shit on Google, too. They once had the world's best search for the www.

Now? Let us both laugh and cry.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone with a FB account search for him on FB? I deleted my account well over a year ago so I can't search FB.

You sure? I "deleted" mine as well but was able to log in later with no trouble. It seems it just logs you out and flags your profile so it doesn't show up in searches anymore.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the OP troll is correct and most posters here are Google fanboys and can't resist the reply button. Look how many idiots are biting on his post. Total ownage. Trolls humilate slashbots yet again.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

I shit on Google, too. They once had the world's best search for the www.

Now? Let us both laugh and cry.

There was a time when Google really did believe in "do no evil". Then the IPO happened and, well, infused by evil (greed), evil has taken hold.
Facebook, right now, is evil. After any kind of successful IPO, you can only expect them to get more evil. If the IPO flops, expect another slide in the tech bubble not seen since 2004.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Ihmhi]

I deleted my account well over a year ago so I can't search FB.

Don't worry, friend! Even though you "deleted" it, your Facebook account is never really deleted! For your convenience, of course! Just log back in and it's all still there, and now you're back whether or not you want to be! Hooray!

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

No doubt.

I hate 'em both.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[zlives]

i shun you and your reason laden statement!!

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

John,

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

regards,
Anon.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off, bonch

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Trunklebob]

Don't worry, friend! Even though you "deleted" it, your Facebook account is never really deleted! For your convenience, of course! Just log back in and it's all still there, and now you're back whether or not you want to be! Hooray!

I deleted my account about a month and a half ago. Facebook said they would keep it for 15 days, then it would be truly deleted. I waited about a month before I tested it, but it now claims to have no record of my login. My brother also reports that I don't show up as an inactive friend, but I can't verify that.

Mind you, I have no doubt that all of my information is still archived for eternity on their servers, but my account is for all practical intents and purposes deleted.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[s.petry]

Run for cover, the Water Army is coming next!

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

It's simple.

People are literally paid to watch sites such as this, refreshing non-stop, and to pounce on new articles the *instant* they show up. Probably some college student making $10 per post or something.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

So, it looks like it's been Facebook behind all these anti-Google shills recently. I figured they would have stopped when they got caught.

Google: Do No Evil.
Facebook: Ethics are for chumps.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[gatkinso]

Facebook will go the route AOL did soon enough.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

lol. FB makes about 10x the profit Goog did before their IPO. Get off the Android cock, who modded this nonsense up.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Wandering Voice]

fAOLbook already has.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, it's fun watching him squirm.

That is hilarious. The VP of Public Policy for Facebook choking when asked about the purpose and uses of the like button.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the Google black-ops team, trying to make everyone else in the world look bad so as to shore up their own "do no evil" image (which they themselves abandoned roundabout the time Gmail was made open to the public...).

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to see exactly what Slashdot could do about it.

Ban new users? Not a great strategy for the future. Restrict all first posts to saying "First Post!"? Yeah, that'd be an improvement.

Enforce a five-minute waiting period between the story going up and the comments opening? That would actually make it easier to astroturf - you wouldn't have to bother monitoring the Firehose.

Ban new users from making first posts? Trivially easy to work around.

Careful what you wish for.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

google came in a decade ago and helped the world rid itself of flashy graphic ads.

What...? You do realise that Google is the World's foremost server of flashy graphic ads, don't you?

Here, pick your preferred banner ad size. How about a nice 160x600 "Skyscraper"?

And you want flashy, too?

They can be still images or they can include animation and Adobe Flash elements.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[madprof]

Thing is, the real astroturfers all have accounts, do not make strange posts like the OP, and work in subtle ways to mould your thinking rather than just telling you what to think direct.
It's a well-understood thing.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[SnowZero]

their estimated valuation is about 1/5 (?)

Actually, ~1/2

FB is looking to land around 100B, as of today Google's market cap is $205B.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

A small percentage of IPO's are very profitable, but the vast majority are simply bad investments. The challenge is knowing the difference, and I won't even pretend to know on facebook.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC since this is a hot topic:

Lets look at what Facebook offers in the business that only FB can offer.

Four things:

1: FB apps.

2: FB is the current central "meeting place", with forums, private messaging, blogs, comments, and so on.

3: A backend infrastructure that puts the fault tolerance at a high level of the software stack.

4: All the data users put on FB.

Now lets compare that to Google. Google has released with Maps, Voice, e-mail, navigation, operating systems, two good attempts at social networks (Orkut and G+.)

I've never had an ad on Google's services serve up malware, where on other social networks, it was not uncommon to get stung in the honeypot VM with the antispyware scams.

FB has nowhere to go but down. Why?

Other countries are seeing how data privacy laws are ignored. Eventually they either will demand FB adhere to the laws, or outright block the site entirely.

FB isn't offering anything up and cool. It is a virtual watering hole, and the only major change recently was the "timeline" fiasco which most people dislike.

The dislike of the company by users.

Of course, the fact that anything put on FB will be run by a person's employer (or school administration), local DA, insurance analyzer, and anyone else who might profit from it. Already, people are feeling the "thoughtcrime" aspect there.

FB's eggs are all in one basket. The second people find a cool new social network, they are done for.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[tehcyder]

Facebook is like the Hotel California - you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[tehcyder]

I shit on Google, too. They once had the world's best search for the www.

Now? Let us both laugh and cry.

Isn't the problem that they still have the world's best search for the www?

I have no love for Google, but to choose some Bing-based alternative is even worse (on an ideological level).

Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO

[Specter]

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

Hah! FB's investment banks must be really concerned to have moved their pump-and-dump scheme to ./!

Unless you're already an insider stay far far away from this scam. Not convinced? Take a look at FB's P/E compared to Google or Apple. Now try a little though experiment: which one of these companies has the business model that would be the hardest to replicate? (i.e. who has least sustainable competitive advantage.)

Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[WillAffleckUW]

Will it make privacy worse?

Yes.

And here's why:

Read the fine print of the IPO - it says FB "will do evil whenever it can".

Now if that is not a slap in the face of Google, I don't know what is.

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[jaymz666]

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

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[WillAffleckUW]

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

Which will, of course, result in successful lawsuits and fines in Canada and the EU.

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[TubeSteak]

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

Do you know that Facebook will have 1 shareholder with 55.8% of the voting shares?
That shareholder is CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Zuckerberg e could do whatever he wants with Facebook after the IPO and never have to work another day in his life.
The only shareholder that matters doesn't need maximized profits.
How do facts jive with your "reduce privacy to maximise profits" ideology?

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[jaymz666]

considering THEY ALREADY DO IT and HAVE DONE IT, it jives pretty well.

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[Maltheus]

And if they drive users away in the process, how will that be fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility?

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[AngryDeuce]

The only shareholder that matters doesn't need maximized profits.

Since when in the history of the world has anyone turned down increased wealth because they didn't need it?

Did I cross over into the mirror universe this morning?

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[alexander_686]

I love it when people use the hackneyed logic. Yes it is true – but it does not mean that a company hast to rape, pillage or commit short term fixes to make next quarter’s earnings. As long as the C.E.O. can stand up and say – with a straight face – that their actions is part of a plan for the long term good of the company their safe.

What this phrase means is that Zuckerberg can’t screw the minority shareholders because it’s inconvenient. If company X offered to buy out FB at a 20% premium, Zukcerberg must evaluate that offer in the interest of all shareholders – not on the basis that he would be kicked out of the door the following day.

And to answer the original question, I would not think the FB will change it’s privacy policy much. Yes, shareholders can bring pressure. But Zuckerberg controls over 50% of the voting stock and he has been exerting a lot of pressure to grow Facebook – so I don’t see the overall pressure, which is high, to change. (Which I thinks says something about my opinion about FB’s privacy policy – so take it with a grain of salt.)

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[Sir_Sri]

And might be why they won't do it.

Facebook has managed to behave the way it does for the same way Wiretapping laws didn't apply to Skype for a long time, as long as you're a bit player in the business no one gives a shit what you do. As Facebook has gotten big governments have started to take notice. The bigger they are, and the more public they are the more likely governments are to take notice, and if rules don't exist they'll write new ones.

Governments are slow to react to change, that's the nature of the beast, and they have a lot of things on legislative plates that always seem far more pressing than whatever problem I think they should be addressing today. But that's beside the point, piss enough enough important representatives with TSA groping, Privacy Violations (wait until some important senators kid gets stalked via facebook and see how quickly the rules change), or whatever else and see just how quickly government can write new laws. And being publicly traded valued at 100 billion dollars means you don't have a lot of excuses about 'we can't afford to run our business like that' and if you don't comply your shareholders and the government will not be pleased.

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[betterunixthanunix]

Do you know that Facebook will have 1 shareholder with 55.8% of the voting shares?

I am pretty sure that Facebook is required to maximize the profit of all its investors, despite the fact that one investor holds a majority stake. As CEO, Zuckerberg does have a duty to all of Facebook's investors, not just his own vision...

The only shareholder that matters doesn't need maximized profits.
How do facts jive with your "reduce privacy to maximise profits" ideology?

...except that Zuckerberg has already attacked privacy rights, both in statements and through Facebook's policies and design. So there is really no reason to think that he would not continue to do so.

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[Alien Being]

No, they have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the shareholders' best interests which is not necessarily maximizing profits. It's what they sell to shareholders in their prospectus that matters. Go read Google's prospectus to see what makes them different from most other companies, particularly the sections about "privacy", "evil", "long term" and "brand".

I don't work for Google or own any part of them.

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[betterunixthanunix]

People will only be driven away if they see their privacy being violated -- information exposed to friends, etc. Now, suppose that Facebook just conveniently sells more detailed information to advertisers at higher prices, without telling the users -- nobody will leave the site, and even if they are told what is happening they will just say, "Well so what, I am not that interesting so why should I care?"

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[Lucky75]

Warren Buffett comes to mind, but he's one of a few. Mainly philanthropists. Bill Gates, too.

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the shareholders. A corporation which does not serve the public good as well as the shareholders should not be permitted to exist. Its corporate charter should be revoked, its assets liquidated, and the stockholders should paid off with checks which say "Corporate Death Penalty" in the memo field.

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a number of people who turned down a management job that pays more, because they absolutely hate managing people, and loved the position they were currently in. Should I be offered management, I will as well turn it down, because I fucking hate dealing with people, even if they're employees I currently work with.

There's a line that some people draw between 'being happy' and 'being rich'.

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[tlhIngan]

As a future shareholder of facebook, I wil lbe encouraging it - I want access to all that sweet sweet data since I effectively own a part of it!

On a more serious note, there is no privacy on Facebook to begin with. The only reason for "privacy controls" is purely one of marketing - it's used to encourage people to spew their guts onto the site, under the guise of "privacy". Otherwise no site will be able to get much in the way of user data - unless you pretend there's some "privacy", people will be cautious.

And why "privacy"? It's easy. First, there's the adage "don't post online what you don't want the world to know". Second, these sites are "social" - you're supposed to share. And sharing with friends is the same as sharing to the world. (Try keeping news like a new bably, marriage, or divorce amongst "friends only" - you'll find a lot of non-friends would've spread the news). Third, if you're not sharing, for what reason are you telling facebook for? "Only me" is a stupid security setting because if it's only for you, don't post it online!

It's like keeping secrets. The best way is to not tell anyone.

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[oxdas]

This begs the question; when should they maximize profits, short-term or long-term? Long term shareholders don't care about the next quarter. They want to see money reinvested, talent retained, and the user base satisfied. Short-term shareholders want to see money paid out, staff fired, and the user base squeezed for the maximum amount today. These two interests are directly at odds in all companies. Therefore, "profit maximization" is really not possible for all shareholders.

As for the law, they have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize only long-term profits (in ways not in violation of their charter). If Facebook argued that by respecting the privacy of their users, they are preserving their user base and enhancing their long-term viability, I can't see a court in the United States ruling against them. That said, all companies face competing interests between long and short term shareholders. It does seem like the short-term shareholders get a lot more attention from the board these days.

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[swillden]

Do you know that Facebook will have 1 shareholder with 55.8% of the voting shares?

I am pretty sure that Facebook is required to maximize the profit of all its investors, despite the fact that one investor holds a majority stake. As CEO, Zuckerberg does have a duty to all of Facebook's investors, not just his own vision...

I think, more accurately, that Zuckerberg has a duty to do what was promised in the IPO filings with the SEC. I haven't read them, so I don't know what's in there, but they could say he's planning to drive Facebook's share value to $0, and he'd have a legal obligation to try to do just that, and could be sued for trying to increase shareholder value.

Now, that would obviously be silly, but the serious point is that if the plans laid out for potential shareholders to read include a focus on maintaining user privacy, or even just a focus on long-term value over short term value, then Zuckerberg would not be obligated to monetize as hard as he can. Rather he'd be obligated to balance the competing goals in accordance with shareholder expectations (which are defined by the filings). Even if they don't contain anything like that, it's still no slam dunk that he has to do whatever he can to maximize short-term profits. Abusing users' privacy too badly will erode the user base, which will damage the company long term.

With all that said, the pattern that has been established is that Facebook takes two steps forward into user privacy abuse, then takes a half step back. Lather, rinse repeat. What I expect is for FB to continue pretty much exactly like it has, with the net effect being a gradual erosion.

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[Applekid]

That's not turning away wealth, that's turning away discomfort.

Sort of like jumping into water just to jump into water, and jumping into water to put out your inconveniently burning body.

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[WillAffleckUW]

Citizens of certain countries have a constitutional right to privacy, specifically those citizens of Canada and the EU, even when they are in the US or have US FB "friends".

We have international data treaties about that.

Ignoring them does not decrease one's liability.

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only shareholder that matters doesn't need maximized profits.

Since when in the history of the world has anyone turned down increased wealth because they didn't need it?

Did I cross over into the mirror universe this morning?

I have met dozens of people who fit this description. You will never see them in the news, because they are:
  * Rich, but not uber-rich
  * Did not do anything controversial or hurt anyone to get rich
  * Don't flaunt their wealth

Perhaps you think everyone has an infinite appetite for wealth because those who do end up in the news more often?

Most of the people I know who meet this description got rich when their company got bought, and they stopped working for pay. Two of them ended up volunteering at the computer history museum in Mountain View CA about 30 hours per week. They could easily get a high paying job given their resume and skill set, but decided that they did not need the money. It's not distaste for work, because they put in enough hours to hold down a job volunteering, and they take their volunteer work seriously.

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[s.petry]

Oh yeah? We'll see your privacy lawsuit and raise you a CISPA!

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[drkstr1]

People will only be driven away if they see their privacy being violated -- information exposed to friends, etc. Now, suppose that Facebook just conveniently sells more detailed information to advertisers at higher prices, without telling the users -- nobody will leave the site, and even if they are told what is happening they will just say, "Well so what, I am not that interesting so why should I care?"

Because you don't want to get advertisements for butt plugs while checking your facebook at work?

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[Anonymous Coward]

People will only be driven away if they see their privacy being violated -- information exposed to friends, etc.

I wish I could believe this. If my experience in a marketing department drilled anything into me, it's this: people will always give up a part of their lives for convenience. If something makes someone's life easier or happier or more convenient, then the loss of privacy is considered worth it.

Remember, humans are generally animals that live in the moment. Stuff happening behind the scenes does not always register the way it should. If someone is in your home making a note of everything you do, you might get upset. If a server-side program is doing the same thing, you tend not to care

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this not modded "Funny +5"?

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[kiwimate]

Zuckerberg e could do whatever he wants with Facebook after the IPO and never have to work another day in his life. ...How do facts jive with your "reduce privacy to maximise profits" ideology?

Okay, as you asked, here's a fact: The IPO will not make Mark Zuckerberg immediately fabulously wealthy. More accurately, on paper, yes. But he can't immediately convert that book value to real world cash. There are rules that state he must hold on to those shares for a certain period of time before he can trade them; these rules are put in place expressly to prevent such shenanigans. Zuckerberg sits back and lets Facebook go all burnt toast, and by the time he can sell his shares they're pretty well worthless. Not smart.

Not a fact, but question/opinion which I think is pretty logical: why would he want to go through an IPO if he was just going to let it spiral downwards, in light of my above comment? It's a hassle. You have to expose all kinds of information about your company that is so far as private as you want it to be (that's one of the reasons they call it "going public"). Zuckerberg may well have control, but that surely won't stop investors from playing hard ball. Look at how much control Third Point holds over Yahoo in the recent CEO scandal, and they "only" control six percent of the company.

Going public is such a hassle, in fact, with so many restrictions (like someone else said, they're very tied to their SEC filings, and those have to withstand close scrutiny - investors want to know what you're going to do with their money), that there's only one reason you do it. You want to raise significant funds so you can pour it back into the company and grow, grow, grow.

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[rtb61]

Facebook are already coming under income pressure http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/16/gm_drops_facebook_ads/. GM dropped Facebook adds because of poor response (that'll spread like a wild fire).

When people use Facebook they are very focused on their social relationships, the get in read what they have to, respond as they need to, maybe play a game and get out. They are never actually looking for anything, so adds are at complete divergence to their activity and ignorable background.

When people are searching obviously supplying adds tied to the search as long as they are relevant to that search will work. When people are reading content, tying adds to that content will work obviously because they are currently interested in that content. Facebook can only really advertise, the people you are currently interested in because you are communicating with them.

It's very much like two people having a conversation and a third person continuously chipping in with 'buy the new GM ????', they just ignore them and carry on with the conversation. Facebook adds would logically only really work when Facebook starts introducing artificial social contacts and, they insert buy comments into their virtual conversations. Watch out for when Facebook lists 25 billion members most of them will be fake, necessary to ensure everybody interacts with some of them, they must far outnumber real users.

Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why.

[radtea]

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

They do not have anything of the kind. This is a widely believed, widely promoted, lie that doesn't withstand the most trivial examination.

"Maximize profits over what timescale?" is one of the obvious questions that can be raised to challenge this false view. Without a specification of timescale--which is completely arbitrary, and "profit maximizing" on one timescale may be disastrous on another--the claim of fiduciary duty amounts to, "They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to do something." Because ANYTHING can be argued to "maximize profit" over some timescale: idiotic behaviour like laying off senior workers and replacing them with less competent cheaper ones, or a strategy of becoming an uber-conservative financial company that will last forever, and therefore maximize profits over millenia. And so on.

The only utility that the claim "they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximise profits" has is to clearly identify people who know nothing about law or business, and so have nothing useful to contribute to the discussion.

is google any different?

[alen]

other than tracking you on the internet google uses all kinds of other data it buys from third parties to figure out who you are to target advertising

my father in law is getting acura ads non-stop in his gmail
he barely knows how to use a computer
yet he has a 9 year old acura and is shopping for a new car. but hasn't done it online. he gets brochures from the dealerships

only explanation is that google buys up auto registration/sale data, matches it up with your IP and internet subscriber data to target ads

Re:is google any different?

[cpu6502]

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

Re:is google any different?

[MightyMartian]

Indeed, because the only other accusation is that Google is reading the old man's mind.

Re:is google any different?

[AngryDeuce]

Or else he mentioned his fucking car in an email once.

But no, you're right, they've probably got their agents infiltrating the DMV as we speak!!! OH NOES, THE GOOGLE SPIDERS!!!! AIEIEEEEEE!!!!!!!

Re:is google any different?

[Anonymous Coward]

and how does one match an address from an auto registry database to a typical IP address? Does the telco also share a list of IP address to physical address info? And if the IP address is dynamic, as most are, do they also time-stamp IP addresses for Google?

Or, as another poster mentioned, perhaps he googled Acura, or there's an email in his Gmail.

Re:is google any different?

[CanHasDIY]

only explanation is that google buys up auto registration/sale data, matches it up with your IP and internet subscriber data to target ads

Even though the vast majority of broadband customers have dynamically assigned IP's?

I've got it - witchcraft! We must burn Google at teh stake!

Re:is google any different?

[ThatsMyNick]

Google has enough resources to match IP address to a physical address. Most maps users, set their "default location" in google maps to their real home address. Also when you use, "My location" feature in maps, Google gets you location, and gets to associate with your gmail address.

Re:is google any different?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well ok, that's even simpler.

Re:is google any different?

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on past experience, Goodle is very different to Facebook.
We recently had the SOPA debacle. Who fought this through the courts? Was it Facebook? Nope. Microsoft? Nope? Apple? Nope. It was good old Google.
Now let's look at Facebook. Chequered history of stolen base product? Yep. Untested CEO. Yep. Hires PR company to discredit its competitor? Yep.
How can anyone that knows both companies eve remotely suggest they're in the same boat?
I can't guarantee that Google won't follow the IBM/Microsoft/Facebook "unethical" path, but the others have all proven themselves unethical -consistently- enough in their time.
Big enough difference for ya?
PS can't correct obvious typos as post was sent fro my iPhone which doesn't allow scrollback for corrections

Re:is google any different?

[Anonymous Coward]

In theory, he could have given his gmail address to Acura, who sold it to Google, who is using it to display ads within Gmail.

Possible, but it seems unlikely.

Re:is google any different?

[nedlohs]

"only explanation"???

You need to get back on your medication pronto.

Re:is google any different?

[blueg3]

Google has enough resources to match IP address to a physical address.

That's unlikely. The federal government and the RIAA both have to subpoena records from ISPs to map an IP address to a real address. I doubt Google can manage it unless you hand them that information.

Most maps users, set their "default location" in google maps to their real home address. Also when you use, "My location" feature in maps, Google gets you location, and gets to associate with your gmail address.

Most maps users don't bother setting their default location. The "my location" feature relies on IP geolocation or the location information your browser has access to. Unless you're using it from a smartphone or tablet, that means all its' got is IP geolocation. They don't need Maps for that at all, since they already know what IP address you log into Gmail from. But IP geolocation has no precision; for associating per-household data with Gmail accounts, it's completely worthless.

Re:is google any different?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that this is what they are actually using for their ads, but they can totally associate your location to your IP. Google cars gather wifi data. This associates an access point to physical locations. Then once you use something like the HTML5 geolocation API, the browser asks Google what your location is by sending it nearby access points to Google who in turn respond with a location.

Re:is google any different?

[idontgno]

Wait.

Wait wait wait.

At what step did Google get involved? It's like you've replaced the "???" step in the "Profit!" sequence with something involving Google.

For all you know, local dealerships or Accura Corp. have some kind of their own "Accura owner's database" and are using it to generate advertising. Google doesn't have anything obvious to do with it, unless you're going to say GMail... in which case, I have to ask... How much email does your father generate about his car? Google can't datamine contents from your email that aren't there.

Seriously. Google is pervasive and intrusive and borderline-evil (which side of the border is left as an exercise for the reader), but c'mon... they're not the NSA or KGB or something.

Accura already knows he owns an Accura, and I'm sure they are MORE than helpful in putting together prospect lists for local dealerships.

Occam's Razor. Don't bring Google into things unnecessarily. They deserve criticism and vigilance for enough as it is.

Re:is google any different?

[ThatsMyNick]

That's unlikely. The federal government and the RIAA both have to subpoena records from ISPs to map an IP address to a real address. I doubt Google can manage it unless you hand them that information.

Feds and RIAA need to get it right 100% of the time, google does not. Even a 50% accuracy would greatly improve google's targetting.

Most maps users don't bother setting their default location. The "my location" feature relies on IP geolocation or the location information your browser has access to. Unless you're using it from a smartphone or tablet, that means all its' got is IP geolocation. They don't need Maps for that at all, since they already know what IP address you log into Gmail from. But IP geolocation has no precision; for associating per-household data with Gmail accounts, it's completely worthless.

Anecdotal of course, but most people who rely on Google Maps for directions do set the default location, so that they dont have to bother typing it everytime. The "my location" does depend on the browser's implementation. But browsers do opt to outsource it to Google (atleast Mozilla and Chrome do). When you click on my location, the browser sends your IP address and the list of wifi networks around and their signal strength to Google, which uses it war driving/andorid data to usually very accurately pinpoint you (I have seen it to be accurate to 50m in most wifi dense locations).

Re:is google any different?

[ThatsMyNick]

Hell, google could mine your email for "Shipped to" and get your address right more often than not.

Re:is google any different?

[s.petry]

They turned me in to a newt!

.

.

I got bettah...

Re:is google any different?

[Anonymous Coward]

the browser sends ... list of wifi networks around and their signal strength to Google

Your browser does not have access to that information.

Re:is google any different?

[ThatsMyNick]

Firefox does. One can safely assume other browsers do too.

Re:is google any different?

[blueg3]

Feds and RIAA need to get it right 100% of the time

They don't have to, and they don't, but yes, it's much more expensive for them to be wrong.

Re:is google any different?

[cpu6502]

>>>We recently had the SOPA debacle. Who fought this through the courts?

Nobody because it never passed the legislature.

Re:is google any different?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the same AC, but way to completely miss the point (as usual).

That other AC was saying that facebook did nothing to combat SOPA, while google did a lot. Now granted, that other AC was wrong because facebook did push back against SOPA, but instead of addressing that, you decided to go the pedantic route and point out that google did not combat SOPA in the courtroom.

Until the rights to you are sold

[stevegee58]

Your mind is totally controlled
You have been stuffed into our mold
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold

Frank Zappa

Lie Lie Lie

[cpu6502]

I fill my profile with lots of fake data (such as the wrong city and birthday). Or just leave it blank (don't list my workplace or career).

Re:Lie Lie Lie

[sideslash]

I can picture your ads now: "Do you have compulsive lying disorder? Get relief now, ask your doctor about VeriPilium."

Re:Lie Lie Lie

[cpu6502]

hahahahahahahaa

Re:Lie Lie Lie

[AngryDeuce]

Hell, I'd bet a significant number of the profiles on there haven't even been accessed in months. As for false information, almost everyone I know has false information in their profile somewhere.

That's one reason why I think this whole IPO is going to crash and burn. Once shareholders start demanding the wringing of every piece of revenue out of the data they can, they're going to realize that a lot of the data is trash, which is going to affect the value of it, obviously. Then you're going to end up with Facebook doing retarded shit like Google's 'Real Name' policy to bolster their products value and alienate the user base even more, which is going to lead to even more abandoned accounts (because outright deleting them is a pain in the fucking ass) and bullshit lies.

Re:Lie Lie Lie

[vlm]

tinfoil ads. I look at it as I'm going to be spammed anyway, about a hundred spam per day in my gmail spam folder.

You know what I'd pay for? Real ads. Stuff I actually wanna buy.

GOOG please spam the heck out of me with cheap 3-d extruder printer/replicator thingies, new Spartan series FPGA boards, sales on 3/8 inch aluminum cutting endmills, books about scala and ruby, raspberry pi sellers who actually have the device and stock and aren't therefore gouging on price, everything Charlie Stross and Oreilly and Pragmatic and Jason Scott publishes and nothing packt publishes and add pr0n, lots of that. Hell I'd pay to receive advertising like that, in fact I do, that's basically make magazine a little more fine tuned to my interests thus I'd pay even more (well, its MAKE aside from the pr0n part... although as a gimmick they should start centerfolds) How come no one is willing to send me that kind of spam/advertisement/banner, its all junk ads?

I've got all this stuff up on G+, step up to the plate GOOG and send me the good spam, ok?

Re:Lie Lie Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

I did this once, and the ads started telling giving me dating sites that had "active seniors in your area"
I nearly threw up, and immediately deleted the account.

Re:Lie Lie Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

However I can also picture the ads, "Do you have a compulsive stalking disorder? Get changed now, and ask your doctor for help."

Re:Lie Lie Lie

[bsane]

Works great until people wish you happy birthday...

Re:Lie Lie Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, you could just go look for what you want to buy and not get spam. It's the internet, they have websites with catalogues and reviews and everything.

There is no such thing as good spam.

Bing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook has a deal with Bing, everything you upload gets copied to Bing. They don't necessarily redistribute it or make it searchable, but it's all stored away on Bing hard disks. Every word, every picture, everything.

Why is there so few comments today?

[Anonymous Coward]

Diablo III

Re:Why is there so few comments today?

[idontgno]

More like, "Waiting for Diablo III to let me log in."

Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

... nobody talks about the solution.

Re:Meanwhile...

[dehole]

That is just a simple message board, worse than reddit.

People still use facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a pretty techie guy (embedded programmer by trade) and I don't use facebook. Nobody I know at work or my family uses facebook.

Well, not entirely true. My single-parent, out-of-work aunt and her kid do. They play a *lot* of farming ville. Of course, they also watch a lot of TV - "Sorry we can't come to the family picnic; my show is on tonight." I guess facebook will do okay. After all, money from dumb people is still money.

Re:People still use facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just how "pretty" are you?
skype tonight?

Re:People still use facebook?

[CanHasDIY]

I guess facebook will do okay. After all, money from dumb people is still money.

Hi, you must be new here:

Welcome to "capitalism!" Iz goot zyztem, eh comrade?

Re:People still use facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a pretty techie guy (DBA by trade) and I use facebook. Almost everyone I know at work and most of my family uses facebook.

Well, not entirely true. People without computers/internet connections at their houses don't. They "play" through dumpsters for food a *lot*. Of course, they also tend to sleep outdoors - "Sorry we can't come to the family picnic; but we have no car & this other bum wants our box."

About as useful as your anecdote parent. Douche.

Re:People still use facebook?

[gatkinso]

A DBA you say? How quaint.

Ticketing, apps, subscriptions

[Rob Kaper]

Facebook is not just a social network, it's consumer groupware. Compare it to television or telephone, not to Myspace and other previous offerings focusing solely on the social factor.

I expect the following:

- provides ticketing for events.
- a store for media content and app content.
- even a premium subscription model to remove ads (hi Slashdot!).

Re:Ticketing, apps, subscriptions

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect the initial investors to cash out (and they've already announced when...) and the stock to tank within the next five years. There's no growth potential, people are still not looking at ads, it's beginning to lose the "new smell" and companies are learning that "Facebook friends" are about as valuable as visitors to their Second Life branch office. The IPO is the second part of buy low, sell high.

Tricky question

[cheesecake23]

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

Another question I've been mulling over lately is: will Kim Kardashian become less private now that she's dating Kanye West?

Monetizing Mobile

[Apu de Beaumarchais]

I'm pretty interested in how they're going to try to monetize mobile after spending a ton of money on Instagram and other mobile companies. Finishing up my own mobile app, I decided to not put ads in part because Facebook and Google don't have them on mobile, but mostly because the interface is already so limited and I didn't want it to be incredibly frustrated trying to use it without accidentally click ads all the time.

I think they'll have a very difficult time creating a mobile app with ads which doesn't completely alienate their user base.

Re:Monetizing Mobile

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Another advantage you have by not using any of the numerous mobile ad frameworks/apis is that you're not giving away your users' usage patterns and other unknown data. Good choice!

That's something that has always irritated me about the ad-sponsored apps: the app developers (usually) have no concept of how that data is getting used -- and they seem to be ignorant of the fact that multiple app developers using the same framework means that the providers get to build quite a profile. All tied to a specific user by phone number or email address.

Re:Monetizing Mobile

[Apu de Beaumarchais]

I didn't expect the data to be too bad. I was originally looking at using Google's admob since the site already uses adsense. After reading you post I decided to see what data Google actually gets and although it gets a good chunk of information on the client, all it really takes from the page is the URL. So Google only gets that URL which they can then try to crawl, but that's only available if the user is public and it's not a page that requires the user to be signed in. Do you have reason to believe the mobile ad networks take much data?

Re:Monetizing Mobile

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Just the permissions they seem to require on Android - unlimited access to Internet and device information opens the door to a lot of data siphoning.

My point was more that developers should take the time to be aware of this; and many do not even consider the ramifications of including those kind of third party components (ad networks, usage monitoring, etc) gathering data across multiple applications.

Rules of Effective Astroturfing:

[CanHasDIY]

Step 1: Change the subject: Let's not discuss X, let's discuss Y instead!

Step 2: Play the 'victim.' - waaa, those evil privacy advocates are ruining teh internetz!

Step 3: Point the finger - 'we may be bad, but we're not as bad as *gasp* Google!

Step 4: If all else fails, insult the audience - "This could also very well be the reasons why geeks are bullied - if you treat other like shit, you will be treated like shit."


Well played, sir, well played...

Who's buying?

[escay]

The interwebs is filled with stories, articles and opinions about why getting in on the Facebook IPO is such a bad idea. I can't find a single piece that argues for buying FB shares now (if you do, can you please share?). So I'm wondering, if there is such an overwhelming negativity against the shares, what's driving this demand up and making fb add more shares?! brokerage firms are offering pre-orders for pre-screened buyers with a minimum number of orders and still are not guaranteeing issuance of shares. If so many people are saying don't do it, who are all the people who are doing it, and why? I find it hard to believe that so many people are actually ignoring the news and willing to put money down - surely there's something we're missing?

what's the pro argument for fb shares?

Re:Who's buying?

[KillaBeave]

Sadly it seems to me that it's the same people that thought pets.com or whatever.com were were good bets, but only now they're slightly more informed. Back in the 90's it was "They're on the INTERNET! That's the FUTURE! CAN'T LOSE!!"

Now it's "Wow they've got the web 2.0, app store, iWhatever and wear hoodies. The kids love them and there's billions of users ... CAN'T LOSE!!"

Nevermind that the beauty of the web is a lack of lock-in ... especially for these free services. A new one will inevitably come out, and all it'll cost people is a few minutes to fill out a new profile. Hell this "new Facebook" will probably be seen as a great way to cull your friends list once and for all ... at least until the "new new Facebook" comes out.

Wait a sec? Isn't Facebook just the new MySpace? So the "new Facebook" will really be the "new new MySpace?"

Re:Who's buying?

[vlm]

what's the pro argument for fb shares?

Note I'm not buying and not seriously advocating, but paraphrasing a lot of sites I've seen:

1) If the stock price reflects a price per user around $120 each, which seems to be the consensus view, and the earnings per user is known to be about $1.40 per user per year, that's a 1% rate of return. I wish I had a bank account with that high of return. Of course when investing you need to worry about return OF capital before you worry about return ON capital, if you know what I mean...

2) Gaming on FB can probably do better than Zynga, can't it? I mean everyone seems to agree its awful, but its also popular, which implies they almost inevitably have to hit that out of the park someday, don't they?

3) Corporate background checks seem to run in the hundreds. IF FB can take over that market, or even a good hunk of that market, that $120/user is a great price if they get $200/user every time someone gets hired. Essentially a FB hiring tax will be imposed. "You hired someone without paying for a FB background check? Are you crazy?". Then people without FB profiles will need one to get hired, making them more valuable, etc.

4) A somewhat overly optimistic view that FB search might replace GOOG search someday. When the walled garden gets bigger than the wilderness, then... So a valuation around the size of the mighty GOOG seems reasonable, plus or minus an order of magnitude.

Re:Who's buying?

[rev0lt]

The interwebs is filled with stories, articles and opinions about why getting in on the Facebook IPO is such a bad idea.

Because you are probably looking only to the interwebs appealing to a typical slashdot user. The kind of user that understands the consequences of misuse of personal data, and already knows several examples of big internet-related companies that went under. Also, it is easy to understand how facebook value is largely overrated - the _real_ payday is probably now, but only for (not so few) investors. Those are the same investors financing the stories about the opportunity that investing in Facebook is, and how it will be the largest IPO and how it is the next big thing.

so many people are actually ignoring the news and willing to put money down - surely there's something we're missing?

Smart investors will not buy on IPO. Smart investors will _sell_ on IPO (there are a lot of investors shielded as a single entity that will get a piece of the pie). Other smart investors will wait (at least)a week or two until the price settles and there is a clear tendency (both to buy or to decide to sell). Lots and lots of investment portfolio subscribers will make their money (or lose their money) on high-frequency trading and short-selling. Either way, there is plenty of money to be made. Stock exchanges aren't about the companies, they are just another form of gambling brokers.

Re:Who's buying?

[dehole]

Perhaps one pro would be that you could dump them for a pretty penny just when the Social Media bubble bursts. There were plenty who did the same with the .com bubble, but many who lost a lot. My guess is investing newbs, people who would not ordinarily invest, will buy fb shares, and they will be left holding them when the price crashes.

Re:Who's buying?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) If the stock price reflects a price per user around $120 each, which seems to be the consensus view, and the earnings per user is known to be about $1.40 per user per year, that's a 1% rate of return. I wish I had a bank account with that high of return. Of course when investing you need to worry about return OF capital before you worry about return ON capital, if you know what I mean...

1% rate of return is pretty poor for a stock. Ally Bank's savings accounts (highest a quick Google search finds) are currently at 0.84%. And that's because interest rates are really, really low right now due to the poor economy.

My biggest worry (hope?) about Facebook's long term viability is that something like the MySpace to Facebook transition could happen again. It will look a lot different because Facebook seems to really have more or less everyone willing to use social networking, but their only actual value is in being the social network that everyone uses. You don't need a lot of infrastructure to do that (if you allow for federation), just brand recognition, and like everyone migrating away from MySpace, it's quite possible to lose brand recognition very quickly. I hope they will get replaced by something non-centralized, although I can't actually see that happening any time soon.

Re:Who's buying?

[alexander_686]

I think you are mashing two different ideas in your first point.

The standard way to value a stock is the P/E ratio. If FB makes $.59 per share next year and the stock is priced at $37.50 that would give us a P/E ratio of 63. If you take the inverse of the P/E ratio you get a simple rate of return of 1.6%. This is a better way to calculated then your method.

Which moves us to $120 price per head. This is a hoary method of valuating stock, normally used when the growth of a company is unpredictable. This was used in the early days internet bubble #1, when Google bought YouTube, NewsCorp and MySpace and again during Internet 2.0. What you are saying here is that we have a large core of passionate users. We donâ(TM)t know how to exploit / monetize them â" but we will figure it out. And this method kind of worked at the tail end of the first internet bubble. People had figured out that if we get X eyes viewing ad banners, content and servers cost Y, we should be able to make profit Z. Because at that point people knew how much ad revenue to expect. (Of course, being able to put a value on something does not mean things will work out well. MySpace did deliver the profits to NewsCrop as long as the delivered the eyeballs required â" and when the eyeballs stop showing upâ¦..)

Which brings us to your points 2 to 4. A P/E ratio is not exactly safe number. The only reasons why one would buy FB at that value is because 1. You think FB is going to get a lot more users and/or 2. FB is going to be able to generate a lot more revenue from the existing users. (Selling better data to advertising and search agencies, (up)selling better games, etc)

I am not saying you are wrong â" I am just pointing out that the items 2 to 4 can be boiled down to getting more money per user.

Re:Who's buying?

[montyzooooma]

The interwebs is filled with stories, articles and opinions about why getting in on the Facebook IPO is such a bad idea. I can't find a single piece that argues for buying FB shares now (if you do, can you please share?). So I'm wondering, if there is such an overwhelming negativity against the shares, what's driving this demand up and making fb add more shares?! brokerage firms are offering pre-orders for pre-screened buyers with a minimum number of orders and still are not guaranteeing issuance of shares. If so many people are saying don't do it, who are all the people who are doing it, and why? I find it hard to believe that so many people are actually ignoring the news and willing to put money down - surely there's something we're missing?

what's the pro argument for fb shares?

The people paying for the shares don't read tech stories off the Internet. The brokers punting the share to their customers make a commission regardless of what happens to the share after IPO. Obviously some investors will actually be hoping to make a quick buck by turning the shares around same day - and the demand suggests this will be very possible. Groupon and Glencore (mining firm) both closed above offer price on the day of their IPO, but look at them now. Of course that doesn't answer the question why so many investors are bullish on Facebook - even the fact the company is releasing more shares, when they can't possibly NEED the extra money, suggests they may see this as the optimum time to maximize their return. When tech shares fall, they fall hard.

Fake profile data and idle chatter

[swb]

Almost all of my profile data is fake, much of it obviously ludicrous (my college is right, my degree in "Bible Sexuality" not so much, my occupation in the "Salt Mines" is factually incorrect but metaphorically true...). The only profile picture I've ever had that was actually a photograph of me was when I was 6 years old (40-odd years ago). There are no photos tagged of me.

I don't really understand how they will plan to make money off this.

Re:Fake profile data and idle chatter

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe they think they will profit by showing you ads for tinfoil hats, conspiracy theory books, and apartments (so you can move out of the basement).

OK, just joking - I actually share a lot of your habits when it comes to FB. I don't log on to it very often, but it also does not know correct information for me. And I never have figured out how it can make money. I've never seen an ad on there - I use adblock.

Re:Fake profile data and idle chatter

[s.petry]

Ads, and app fees is all I can think of. I'm sure Zynga has to pay them a few pennies on every luser that buys "Farmville"

Hateful geek comment

[pesho]

Currently there are amount 800 million people (a very impressive number!), but there is room for over 6 billion more. And those won't be joining MySpace, Google+ or Diaspora, they will join Facebook because that's where everyone is.

Last time I checked 800 million is way less than 6 billion (about 13% of 6 billion), which kind of contradicts the statement that 'that's where everyone is'

Working in investment industry, I ...

Oh is that where the fuzzy math comes from?

Before I reach for my wallet, could mister financial industry explain how facebook's revenue (around 1bilion) justifies the current valuation of 100 billion? Short of making every single living person on the planet a facebook member and then quadrupling their net income per user (currently at about $1) I don't see how any investment made now will break even in the next 5 years.

Re:Hateful geek comment

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Demand is high

[betterunixthanunix]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f8d58f0-9ed8-11e1-a767-00144feabdc0.html

Here is one view to think about:

âoeWe want to dump a lot of money into Facebook,â one says, citing peersâ(TM) activity on the site as evidence of its longevity. âoeYouâ(TM)re on Facebook half your day, if not more. Itâ(TM)s a necessity. Itâ(TM)s water, itâ(TM)s death and now itâ(TM)s Facebook.â

People have high hopes for Facebook.

Probably

[ambidextroustech]

I am personally going to leave Facebook after the IPO; it's the safest way to leave it. However, the data that they already have from my account will still be accessible by them for a long while.

It's rather agitating that they don't offer shares to Facebook users first since they're going to be the ones shafted if anything happens. And I am certain that several wouldn't mind investing in protecting the online environment.

Re:Probably

[bipbop]

Can you explain why that's the safest way? It's not obvious to me, and I'm curious.

That's just the free float

[JazzHarper]

By increasing the size of the IPO, they are offering closer to 15% of the shares, rather than 10%.

At a price of $34/share, the market cap will be north of $120 billion, and the price on Day 1 could spike much higher than that, when all the rubes jump into the secondary market.

Facebook may never again have a market capitalization greater than it will on its first day of trading.

Let me ask the complementary question.

[idontgno]

Does anyone think Facebook's privacy will be improved by a massive infusion of investment?

There's a hard upper limit to facebook's growth

[Surt]

Worldwide ad spending. The only thing they can sell right now is ... you. But the buyers are spending less than a trillion worldwide annually. That's the total market. Their annual revenue is already about 4B. Realistically, they should be able to grab no more than about double their attention share, and what is that, maybe 5% (generously). That puts about a 25x growth cap on facebook, and assumes that they successfully reach basically everyone who ever sees advertising.

Personally I'll be shocked if they can grow revenue 10x.

Re:There's a hard upper limit to facebook's growth

[vlm]

IF they never sell anything but advertising.

But what if they start selling background check services to corporations? Or live monitoring of employees/customers/competitors/whatever?
"Peeking" into teens life for parents (and teachers?) for a hefty fee. Fear sells!
Market research is valuable (FB what car colors do people prefer? or whatever)
Style. Like zynga's virtual stuff, maybe your fb profile can look like an old myspace page full of animations if you send FB $5 for each little animated taggy / yellow ribbon to show your support of Chinese yellow ribbon mfgrs or whatever that moronity is supposed to mean.

If you go newspaper model, then yeah all they have is ad sales. But they can sell a whole lot more than that.

Re:There's a hard upper limit to facebook's growth

[Anonymous Coward]

They could sell polygons and allow you to build a 3D world on virtual land. I should patent that idea! I'm gonna be rich!!!1! Captcha: Sell fish, no, selfish.

Re:There's a hard upper limit to facebook's growth

[pureevilmatt]

What if they become a bitcoin exchange?

Re:There's a hard upper limit to facebook's growth

[gatfirls]

A whole lot of people seem to forget that there's a ton of cash floating around FB for the games. I recal reading they get like a 30% rip on every zynga transaction so it's probably the same for all others. Just zynga alone makes up like 15% of their revenue. I don't think they will grow all that much going forward personally but I wanted to point out that ad revenue is not their only source.

Re:There's a hard upper limit to facebook's growth

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't see that really working. I feel like users that are okay with their data being used for targeted advertising and law enforcement still don't want to be so explicitly spied on.

Re:There's a hard upper limit to facebook's growth

[knorthern knight]

> But what if they start selling background check services to corporations?
> Or live monitoring of employees/customers/competitors/whatever?
> "Peeking" into teens life for parents (and teachers?) for a hefty fee. Fear sells!

Those sevices would become worthless in a few months, once it became widely known they do this. People will start getting more discreet, or dumping Facebook altogether. Remember the recent rash of stories about prospective employers wanting access to job applicants' Facebook accounts? Every highschool and university student advisor and every job board will be advising applicants to scrub their profiles squeaky clean. Some applicants will go even further, and delete their Facebook accounts altogether.

Re:There's a hard upper limit to facebook's growth

[Surt]

It's an interesting idea. I had to consider it for quite a while. Ultimately, I think that's a losing play for facebook. When facebook sells your information to advertisers, you get targeted advertising. A minor annoyance, and one you can easily tune out. Heck, for some more targeted advertising could actually be beneficial (no more ads for feminine hygiene products!).

But screw with teens ability to have a private life? The 'it' set will move on.

Screw with someone's ability to get a job? Everyone will become more and more guarded on facebook, undermining the core business for a small margin business, and again, driving people to a competitor.

And the market research dollars are wrapped up in the advertising budget I quoted, so there's no more to be gained there.

But the yellow ribbon sales are a possibility I'll admit. There's some money to be made there. I suppose they could look to displace amazon. But threaten amazon's core business and they wake up a giant software company with no current desire to compete with facebook. Amazon could build a facebook clone as a loss leader.

The online games market seems like their safest bet. But I don't think there's that much more money to be made there.

FB is going down. Hard.

[spirit_fingers]

Facebook is caught between a rock and a hard place with regard to user privacy. They already take a lot of flack from users who don't like what they perceive as Facebook's lax privacy protection. Facebook can't simply dilute it further without risking a flood of protest from its users. It can't afford that. That's not to mention the various state and federal privacy regulations already in place that will also constrain them.

Oh, and don't count out Google+ as competition just yet. Google isn't going to declare defeat in the social media space any time soon. They recently completely revamped the Google+ interface and have shown that they're in it for the long haul. They will be waiting for Zuckerberg & Co. to stumble and give users an excuse to jump ship. I suspect they won't have to wait long.

Of course, the investors will be howling for Facebook to bring in the numbers, especially now that GM has announced yesterday that they are cancelling all of their advertising on FB due to its lack of effectiveness. You can bet that move has caught the attention of every other large advertiser. Facebook is in trouble. They have very little maneuverability to enhance their revenue stream and a lot of pressure to do so. Something's got to give and I predict it will not be pretty for either FB's bottom line or their stock price.

Re:FB is going down. Hard.

[game kid]

Facebook is caught between a rock and a hard place with regard to user privacy. They already take a lot of flack from users who don't like what they perceive as Facebook's lax privacy protection. Facebook can't simply dilute it further without risking a flood of protest from its users. It can't afford that. That's not to mention the various state and federal privacy regulations already in place that will also constrain them.

No, they simply cannot dilute it further because it's as diluted as it could possibly be, if this comment on msnbc.com is to be believed.

(I thought that was below even Facebook to do, so I was floored when I read that. I guess the "cookies" Chris mentions could be a rogue keylogger system or Evercookie from some ad or whatever, but that's more my desperate hope for Internet users' sake than a hypothesis.)

Re:FB is going down. Hard.

[DerekLyons]

Oh, and don't count out Google+ as competition just yet.

I haven't counted them in as Facebook competition yet. G+ is more a competitor to Twitter than it is to Facebook, given it's near complete lack of any features beyond the ability to share posts.
 

They recently completely revamped the Google+ interface and have shown that they're in it for the long haul. They will be waiting for Zuckerberg & Co. to stumble and give users an excuse to jump ship.

The term you're looking for isn't "revamping the user interface", it's "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic". Users are extraordinarily unlikely to jump ship to G+, as there's pretty much nothing to attract them. No games. No groups. No business or fan pages... Just a bare-bones and very feature incomplete site.
 
As with most Google offerings... it's a day late, a dollar short, and a distant and lagging third in the marketplace. Really all that Google leads in are Search and Maps - and they're driving people away from Maps.
 

Of course, the investors will be howling for Facebook to bring in the numbers

The investors can howl all they want - as with Google, the game is rigged such that Zuckerberg has voting control and the investors have nothing.

Re:FB is going down. Hard.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even a cursory glance at G+ cleary shows a "games" button, but dont let reality get in the way of a good ol' fashioned troll

Re:FB is going down. Hard.

[Anonymous Coward]

They already take a lot of flack

The word is actually flak, abbreviated from Flieger Abwehr Kanone ( Air Defence Cannon ).

Re:FB is going down. Hard.

[Anonymous Coward]

I always wondered why Slashdot was so popular. When you look at it, users are only allowed to share text with each other. Where's the joy in that?

And, forget the business pages I set up, they don't exist. When you search in Google for them, they don't appear in Google's search results. Neither do the business leaders like Branson. Fan pages for games, bands and movies don't exist either. Oh no.

G+ for the win.

integer wrap

[orange_account]

Things will get much, much better. They are already well into the negatives for anything privacy related, so if they go further the integer will wrap and they'll find themselves well into the positives. This was a brilliant move by Facebook and should make the users very happy. Users will just have to hope they're using 32 bit integers instead of 64 or it could take a while longer.

Re:integer wrap

[Anonymous Coward]

have you just learned about integer overflows? normally i wouldn't be such a jerk about it but that was so unbelievably forced and unfunny i feel compelled to insult you.

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure there's a good chance there's 96million people (aka shareholders) that don't give a d*mn about your privacy. Playing with number of a popl. of 6billion, that's 2% of the world's population.

If loss of privacy == cash, then I can easily see 2% of the population greedy enough to take advantage of it.

Who buys all this shit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, nevermind. Who cares about FB anyway.

Accidently of course

[renegade600]

I bet you will be seeing more of their so called "accidental releases" of personal data in spite of the members privacy settings.

Difference between shareholder and part owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had bought 10% of Facebook at the start, I expect to own 10% no matter how many shares are issued. Where are these shares coming from, MZ's own portion?

Re:Difference between shareholder and part owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

Him and a few of the early venture capital investors. Peter Thiel is cashing out, for example. Anyone buying this IPO is a grade-A sucker.

Re:Difference between shareholder and part owner?

[montyzooooma]

If I had bought 10% of Facebook at the start, I expect to own 10% no matter how many shares are issued. Where are these shares coming from, MZ's own portion?

Doesn't work like that. You invest early and own 10% of the shares. Company runs out of money and needs more investment, say. Your 10% investment now become 10% of a company that won't stay afloat without more money, so you bring in a second round investor and your share gets diluted. Happens all the time. The real joke is that there's a ten to 1 bias against new shares when it comes to voting rights, so investors are effectively paying for a stake in a company that the majority of paper share-holders could still have no control over. So MZ has a large minority share-holding but 56% of the voting rights - hence the stunning Instagram decision. I really can't wait for this IPO to happen - it will be epic.

How FaceBook could end

[NotPeteMcCabe]

When a company is as successful as FaceBook, it can sometimes be hard to imagine how they could fail. But an IPO suggests at least one possible scenario: To "maximize shareholder return," as US public corporations are required by law to do (caveat: IANAL), they start charging for something. This pisses everybody off, but most people go along with it at first because there's no alternative. Then they start charging for a bunch of things. They they start charging for everything. And more and more people get pissed off, until some tipping point is reaches, and suddenly everybody switches to some free alternative. The end.

@#7

[Anonymous Coward]

So facebook take you info sells, then turns around become publice so stupid people will buy stock in a company who just screwed its user over on many levels. Makes sense. right. want to get a better price on th ipo stocks. Concince user to stop using faebook for a period of time loss in acces loss in data lower the ipo may go.

IT World Syndication

[Anonymous Coward]

Did slashdot recently connect firehose to the 'inflammatory' category feed on IT World? I've stopped reading.

Overvalued

[Conspire]

OK, for a nice summary analysis of Fadbook, have a look here: http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/worlds-first-phenomenally-forensic-facebook-analysis-what-you-need-you-invest-pt-1

Now, for me its pretty simple:

1. 1 billion users, valued at 100 USD per user is absurd. I don't see them being able to monetize traffic better than Google does, especially international. They are locked out of China too, so forget that market growth. FB is way too faddish. You will see major attrition over time without the addition of real services that people need. Instagram is a perfect example of what to expect of the company, just see what happens to that service over the next 2 years.

2. 25X revenues is absurd. That's a PE multiple not a REVENUE multiple. ~500X PE is not just overvalued, its extremely overvalued and even comical. I don't see the plan to get the growth needed to justify this valuation.

3. Insiders selling lots of shares, and increasing the number up to IPO date. Wow, this is a pretty good clue.......

Curses

[shiftless]

Wow, first time poster and you managed to get this giant diatribe about what a great investment facebook is posted in a matter of seconds. Impressive, astroturfer, impressive.

And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you damned kids..

Facebook is irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

GM is pulling out their advertising campaign on FB, because it doesn't work.

A pizza joint in New Orleans spent 200+ USD for each new customer. How many pizzas does that person have to buy?

Advertising is lame and doesn't work. Even less so in a "social context". The problem is the world is saturated with advertising and people are just fucking fed up with hearing lies disguised in funny/sweet/cute/annoying/artistic/dumb/weird presentations. The last thing they need is to hear that same lame crap from their "friends", imaginary or real.

"the market demands"?

[j-beda]

Not that anyone will ever see this, being posted at a the end of a gazillion other posts.

I've never really understood why it is felt that the stock market/share price has such a direct influence on a business' behaviour. The market valuation of a company should make almost no difference in the day to day running of the business except in the most extreme cases. If Widget Inc. is trading for 1 billion on Monday and 2 billion on Tuesday, that just means a bunch of people think it is worth that much, but it has no impact on the business practices other than indirectly. If it is "under priced" investors have incentive to buy; if "over priced", incentive to sell, but why should the people running the company care who owns the shares or how much they are worth?

I suppose if the share owners all think the company is being run poorly they (through the board) can make changes in management, but it seems like this "distance" between shareholders and management would moderate knee-jerk reactions to fluctuations in market valuation.

Are the pundits overstating the influence the market has on business practices? Has the influence grown just because the media has repeatedly said that the link is strong? Did "the market" historically have the same effect on business practices? Has regulatory or other changes impacted this relationship over the years?

Maybe I should take an economics degree.

Facebook isn't "cool" anymore...

[Anonymous Coward]

There, someone HAD to say what we've all been thinking for some time now.

Facebook will be worth as much as MySpace in 3...2...1...

Just sayin'

Facebook IPO is a total sham

[Anonymous Coward]

This Facebook IPO is a farce... this company is over-valued by many times. What a joke. Full analysis: http://www.singledudetravel.com/2012/05/why-facebook-isnt-worth-100-billion-or-anything-close-to-it/