Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox Business)   Zuck will not be bullied by corporations, plans to keep Facebook as a haven for hate speech. Figures the ad money will return if he can help shape another election by spreading misinformation to older voters   (foxbusiness.com) divider line
    More: Repeat, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, newsworthy label, Facebook spokesperson, policy changes, kind of content, President Trump  
•       •       •

1560 clicks; posted to Main » and Business » on 02 Jul 2020 at 10:16 AM (12 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



79 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-07-02 12:15:14 PM  

firefly212: Facebook is well on its way to being the next MySpace... good riddance.


I swear the invisible hand of the market is mentally challenged
 
2020-07-02 12:17:38 PM  
The Zook's handlers have been trying to teach him how to smile normally.
Fark user imageView Full Size

Thus far they have been unsuccessful.
Still the Dark Prince of The Uncanny Valley.
 
2020-07-02 12:19:52 PM  

Alwysadydrmr: jso2897: Fox News has become like a big, stupid St. Bernard puppy that comes galumphing in excitedly with every dead animal it finds.

Don't farking insult St. Bernards like that. They're a million times better than fox will ever be.


Point taken.
 
2020-07-02 12:30:41 PM  

Daddy's Big Pink Man-Squirrel: TFA headline: Zuckerberg says advertising boycott won't change Facebook's principles

Can't change what you don't have.


Zuck stated his principles quite clearly in 2004:

"You can be unethical and still be legal; that's the way I live my life." - Mark Zuckerberg
 
2020-07-02 12:35:45 PM  

UberDave: The thing is, with most people, I don't think Facebook is "convincing" them of anything they didn't already subscribe to.


My parents were traditional conservatives in the George W. Bush variety. But they only became Trumpers after constant, repeated exposure to crap in their Facebook filter bubble. They were slowly pushed further and further right over the years and now believe crap that they had never believed before.

Constant exposure to propaganda over the long-term has a definite effect on people. Just see the documentary The Brainwashing of My Dad on how someone went from supporting Barack Obama to becoming insane after too much Fox News and the like.
 
2020-07-02 12:43:03 PM  
I find the ideas of free speach and the label of hate speech to be mutually exclusive.

If we do have free speech then all speech is just perfectly equally the same free speech, so go  pack your judgements and shove them back in your ass.

IF we have some speech that is bad ot have that is hate and needs to be labeled in away to say, the fook we want none of that....well then it's not exactly free to speak it, so you ain't giving the right to freely speech, which means we don't have the right to that then.

If Uncle sam won't put you in the house of pain for what you say, but you still wind up jobless or friendless or publicly ridiculed for what you said. then  the fook you don;t have no right to speak freely at all.
The govt not giving you the stick for what you say is only half the way to freedom of speech.
To actually have the right to freely speak HAS TO BE GIVEN BY EVERYONE AROUND YOU.


Don't get me wrong here, i'm not advocating ror the hate speech. i am saying the stupid monkey bairns don;t have the mental faculties to uphold the responsibility of granting that freedom to others or using that freedom themselves responsibly.

I think anyone that asks facebook/twitter/private corporation ____, to refuse the freedom of speech to some on their platform, while they would claim the govt can't interfere in the freedom of speech. WTF if that? You're just a total chicken shiat jack rag if you hide behind a corporate banner while you attempt to deny others the same freedom of speech you expect to have there.


Either be real and openly say: we should not have the right in the first place.
Or stop judging and trying to censor/supress what you do not like.

but this fooking bs of pretending to support with freedom of speech while you explicitly attempt to interfere with access to the freedom of speech tools, is some lame ass chit that makes it so i can;t tell the difference between a true trumper and any other rando authoritarian a hole.
 
2020-07-02 12:55:39 PM  
I haven't been on the book in a couple years, but back then the hate spewed by the right and left was getting pretty bad. I can only imagine it is much worse now.
 
2020-07-02 12:59:57 PM  

PvtStash: I find the ideas of free speach and the label of hate speech to be mutually exclusive.

If we do have free speech then all speech is just perfectly equally the same free speech, so go  pack your judgements and shove them back in your ass.

IF we have some speech that is bad ot have that is hate and needs to be labeled in away to say, the fook we want none of that....well then it's not exactly free to speak it, so you ain't giving the right to freely speech, which means we don't have the right to that then.

If Uncle sam won't put you in the house of pain for what you say, but you still wind up jobless or friendless or publicly ridiculed for what you said. then  the fook you don;t have no right to speak freely at all.
The govt not giving you the stick for what you say is only half the way to freedom of speech.
To actually have the right to freely speak HAS TO BE GIVEN BY EVERYONE AROUND YOU.


Don't get me wrong here, i'm not advocating ror the hate speech. i am saying the stupid monkey bairns don;t have the mental faculties to uphold the responsibility of granting that freedom to others or using that freedom themselves responsibly.

I think anyone that asks facebook/twitter/private corporation ____, to refuse the freedom of speech to some on their platform, while they would claim the govt can't interfere in the freedom of speech. WTF if that? You're just a total chicken shiat jack rag if you hide behind a corporate banner while you attempt to deny others the same freedom of speech you expect to have there.


Either be real and openly say: we should not have the right in the first place.
Or stop judging and trying to censor/supress what you do not like.

but this fooking bs of pretending to support with freedom of speech while you explicitly attempt to interfere with access to the freedom of speech tools, is some lame ass chit that makes it so i can;t tell the difference between a true trumper and any other rando authoritarian a hole.


This confused me a little because you seem to be all over the place on this one. Please help me understand your position better.

You are correct in that currently the US abides by the First Amendment and does not have a legal definition of "Hate Speech" - whether something like that truly exists is a debatable exercise but irrelevant to the conversation because Social Media companies are A: Multi-National and B: Do not feel a need to base their terms of service around US Constitutional Law.

This is where the debate between Platform and Publisher begins...

The companies involved do not claim to support Free Speech, and this is why I am confused by your position. The companies involved are asking for Facebook to broaden their definition of "Hate Speech" so as to censor those ideas\arguments that they do not like. We saw this earlier this week when the other social media platforms took the sickle and hammer  (See what I did there) to their sites and banned a whole slew of content.

To be fair, many of those companies backed away simply because the atmosphere was too divisive and they didn't want to lose any portion of market share by being seen as actually taking a side, but it had the same effect.

So the two questions at hand are:

1: Do you believe there should be a legal definition of "Hate Speech"?
I say no.

2: Do you believe Social media platforms should be legally looked at as Publishers or Platforms?
A: I would like to see them both act and be treated as Platforms, but if they continue to censor based upon rules outside of the First Amendment then they are acting as Publishers and should be treated legally as such.

It is in this context that I support Facebook's stance on this issue.

What is your position?
 
2020-07-02 1:06:32 PM  
How many billions will Zuckerberg save if Trump is re-elected? Dems would eat him alive to redistribute his wealth. Facebook got trump elected the first time around. Zuckerberg alone controls around 60% of the voting shares. Absurd, the power he's holding. More than a normal billionaire.

CoC might not be approaching this from the right angle. Yesterday on Bloomberg, their spokesperson said Facebook need to 'meet a list of demands'. That doesn't sound like a conversation or negotiation to me.

I think Facebook will be regulated in the near future.
 
2020-07-02 1:36:02 PM  

ThieveryCorp: So you guys all realize this is a fake narrative right? Facebook has been notorious for disenfranchising the right on their platform. Now they're being accused of helping the right and disenfranchising the left? Something isn't right here. We are being lied to our faces. Who can really sit here and feel confident that these corporations really have us in mind, especially after keeping up with recent news cycles that have been contradictory to this manufactured narrative.


That's hysterically wrong. I guess you spend too much time on stormfront.
 
2020-07-02 1:40:39 PM  
Given that the definition of "hate speech" has been tortured to the point of meaninglessness, mainly by people with short attention spans, he's probably on to something.
 
2020-07-02 1:54:08 PM  

Ketchuponsteak: Sumo Surfer: Good. The liberal left has broadened their definition of "hate speech" to the point of absurdity, and freedom of speech is only okay as long as you agree with them.

I don't use Facebook nor care for Zuckerburg, but kudos to him for standing up against the stupidity and supporting free speech. He is correct and advertisers will be back. They certainly don't have a problem advertising in countries like China

People who are to moronic to understand a simple concept like Free Speech, are in fact, morons, like you.


It would sit better with me if Facebook made these changes voluntarily. Multi-billion dollar corporations holding another public company ransom until they literally 'meet your demands' is no way to approach a civilized conversation. Nobody wants to live in that world, I hope.

Zuckerberg doesn't like being held at dollar-point apparently. Ironically, money is the last thing on his mind - nothing can hurt him financially at this point. With complete control of the company, whatever he says, goes. A single person running a platform of billions, and being able to manipulate those people (as they've publicly admitted) scares the shiat out of me, but its better than the highest bidder being in charge.

I applaud them for not selling out to pressure from extortionists.
 
2020-07-02 1:55:18 PM  

indy_kid: inglixthemad: That's a nice brave act boyo. We'll see if you keep saying that when the share price is going down hard. My guess is you'll knuckle under to stay rich.

I hope the Board of Directors will step in soon.  FB has already lost something like $60B in market capital, and the BoD has a fiduciary duty to rein in a rogue CEO.  They don't act, they get sued by the other shareholders.  Zuck won't pay; the Directors will.

Oh, to see Zuck booted as the CEO of his baby...


Zuck personally has  a controlling interest in the voting of FB stock. He personally does, not just him and the other holders of Class B shares. Each of those shares gets 10 votes for every one vote of a Class A share. Class A shares are the stock price you see quoted and what the general public and mutual funds can buy. It is essentially a private business controlled by Zuckerberg that gets the financial windfall of being a publicly traded company.
 
2020-07-02 2:02:13 PM  
I love the quote that the advertisers are pulling their ads to save money.

No, dumbass, advertisers buy ads because they believe there will be a profit return greater than the ad expense.  They are actuslly losing money by pulling ads.
 
2020-07-02 2:02:55 PM  

indy_kid: inglixthemad: That's a nice brave act boyo. We'll see if you keep saying that when the share price is going down hard. My guess is you'll knuckle under to stay rich.

I hope the Board of Directors will step in soon.  FB has already lost something like $60B in market capital, and the BoD has a fiduciary duty to rein in a rogue CEO.  They don't act, they get sued by the other shareholders.  Zuck won't pay; the Directors will.

Oh, to see Zuck booted as the CEO of his baby...


Zuckerberg controls 60% of the voting shares. The board is advisory at best.

He made sure to keep at least 51% in the IPO. Smarter than your average bear. I was shocked when it went public
 
2020-07-02 2:10:05 PM  

CanisNoir: AmbassadorBooze: Time to stop using face book.  If you are anti trump, and you should be, you MUST delete your Facebook account.  And if you are in a state like CA, have FB erase your data.

Is there a reason your natural inclination was to tell everyone else what to do and how they should be thinking instead of just expressing your view and assuming everyone else on this site has their own agency and can make decisions on their own?


Because people are still on face book.  If all the good people deleted their accounts, Facebook would crumble.  So, since Facebook still exists, it must mean good people don't know they can just delete their accounts.  Facebook is a tool of faciasts, billionaires, mega corps, and the trump.  Good people should delete their accounts, maybe they just don't know it is possible.  Like people who think "I have to be in credit card debt up to my eyeballs because if the Joneses see that I don't have 13 jet skis, they might not like me".
 
2020-07-02 2:36:53 PM  

AmbassadorBooze: Because people are still on face book. If all the good people deleted their accounts, Facebook would crumble. So, since Facebook still exists, it must mean good people don't know they can just delete their accounts. Facebook is a tool of faciasts, billionaires, mega corps, and the trump. Good people should delete their accounts, maybe they just don't know it is possible. Like people who think "I have to be in credit card debt up to my eyeballs because if the Joneses see that I don't have 13 jet skis, they might not like me".


Can you define for me who these "good people" are that you are talking about and by who's definition are you labeling them "good"?  The Christian definition, Muslim, Socialist, Capitalist?

Everybody will have a different definition of "good" based upon their individual experience and what they deem more valuable and moral to them. Which person are you claiming has the ultimate moral authority to define "good" so that you feel justified in telling the entire site of Fark what to do and what to think?

Do you believe your mindset in any way demonstrates just a whiff of Authoritarianism?
 
2020-07-02 2:51:33 PM  

bostonguy: UberDave: The thing is, with most people, I don't think Facebook is "convincing" them of anything they didn't already subscribe to.

My parents were traditional conservatives in the George W. Bush variety. But they only became Trumpers after constant, repeated exposure to crap in their Facebook filter bubble. They were slowly pushed further and further right over the years and now believe crap that they had never believed before.

Constant exposure to propaganda over the long-term has a definite effect on people. Just see the documentary The Brainwashing of My Dad on how someone went from supporting Barack Obama to becoming insane after too much Fox News and the like.


Offering myself and my story up here as a counter point to illustrate that this brainwashing goes both ways. It has a lot to do with Facebook's algorithms and the fact that social media tends to be an echo chamber.

I have always been a primarily left leaning independent person. I'm a feminist that grew up in a middle class multi racial family and I'm not straight. Science, equality and tolerance  were very big deals in my house. Healthcare is probably my number one issue. I'm sick of seeing people bankrupt because they get sick.

Facebook started turning me into a very mean person that I didn't like. Because I'm obviously against incels and misogyny, I had joined a few groups that were fairly anti-male. These groups posts started showing up on my timeline more and more. This started to feed into my offline life where instead of just being a normal feminist wanting equality, I was becoming unnecessarily mean and prejudice against men in my daily life. Even ones I knew were good people.

I also began getting more active in anti-Trump movements. I'm still anti-Trump but I found myself more and more getting my news from obviously biased left news sites and memes instead of sites like Reuters that tend to just report straight facts without emotional language. I began getting increasingly angry and lashing out at people who were moderate, undecided voters or third party people who were truly conflicted (almost all of whom have now decided to choose Biden).

I did not like the irrational person I was becoming. I wasn't making choices with my brain anymore, I was becoming reactionary with my emotions just like the right wingers I was so against.

There is a right way and a wrong way to end up on the correct side of history. You don't persuade people to your side by name calling, angrily accusing them of things they maybe didn't do (or at least intend to do),  and otherwise giving them excuses to go on the defensive. Most things aren't that black and white. The shades of grey are where progress is made. Have conversations, educate people, try to understand perspectives and context and realize that you are never going to see eye to eye with everyone all the time. You'd be amazed how willing people can be to open up to things when you present it calmly and rationally; during my time on FB, I somehow got a bunch of animal rights folks/rescuers to change their perspective on the use of real fur in coats (by talking about recycling vintage ones or only using animals that died naturally or accidentally.) And most of all, pick your battles. You can usually tell who is a troll and who is just clueless.

Anyway, leaving social media, I started seeking my news from the most bland sources possible and started finding myself thinking more, jumping to fewer conclusions and becoming less angry.
 
2020-07-02 3:12:37 PM  

DevilGirlFromMars: Anyway, leaving social media, I started seeking my news from the most bland sources possible and started finding myself thinking more, jumping to fewer conclusions and becoming less angry.


To me Social Media is a double edged sword because with it we do tend to gravitate towards echo chambers, but if we resist that urge and challenge our own opinions it can also be an amazing way of communicating ideas. To me the bigger problem is people not being willing to have their own beliefs challenged which allows them to reach those beliefs without having fully rationalized them out.

A hair stylist who some consider a philosopher recently stated "There's no safe spaces in self reflection" and that struck me as a pretty relevant statement in today's culture.

On the topic of "brain washing", have you noticed how the word "equality" has subtly been replaced with the word "equity" recently?   - Just some food for thought :)

In my opinion it is none of our places to tell each other what to think or even how to think, but I do believe it's important to remind people, well, to think.
 
2020-07-02 3:17:45 PM  

DevilGirlFromMars: bostonguy: UberDave: The thing is, with most people, I don't think Facebook is "convincing" them of anything they didn't already subscribe to.

My parents were traditional conservatives in the George W. Bush variety. But they only became Trumpers after constant, repeated exposure to crap in their Facebook filter bubble. They were slowly pushed further and further right over the years and now believe crap that they had never believed before.

Constant exposure to propaganda over the long-term has a definite effect on people. Just see the documentary The Brainwashing of My Dad on how someone went from supporting Barack Obama to becoming insane after too much Fox News and the like.

Offering myself and my story up here as a counter point to illustrate that this brainwashing goes both ways. It has a lot to do with Facebook's algorithms and the fact that social media tends to be an echo chamber.

I have always been a primarily left leaning independent person. I'm a feminist that grew up in a middle class multi racial family and I'm not straight. Science, equality and tolerance  were very big deals in my house. Healthcare is probably my number one issue. I'm sick of seeing people bankrupt because they get sick.

Facebook started turning me into a very mean person that I didn't like. Because I'm obviously against incels and misogyny, I had joined a few groups that were fairly anti-male. These groups posts started showing up on my timeline more and more. This started to feed into my offline life where instead of just being a normal feminist wanting equality, I was becoming unnecessarily mean and prejudice against men in my daily life. Even ones I knew were good people.

I also began getting more active in anti-Trump movements. I'm still anti-Trump but I found myself more and more getting my news from obviously biased left news sites and memes instead of sites like Reuters that tend to just report straight facts without emotional language. I began getting increasingly angry ...


Thank you for sharing your story. Yes, it's true that the far left and far right have their own filter bubbles now.

The saddest thing is that, once upon a time, we had a collective agreement on the facts. If, say, the NYT or WP reported something, everyone accepted it. But now, everyone has their own media outlets that are biased. There is no agreement on the facts. We all live in different realities.

I don't know how we fix that.
 
2020-07-02 3:20:33 PM  

UberDave: The thing is, with most people, I don't think Facebook is "convincing" them of anything they didn't already subscribe to.  It just allows people with dip-shiat, emotionally driven beliefs to group together and embolden each other.  And that group becomes so solid that no actual facts or proof or logic will penetrate it.  Even if one of them, a family member, friend from high school, whatever, is arguing the negative against five people in a news feed, they *know* the group is there for them to fall back to.


There is a very specific psychological term for what you have described above. It's worth exploring this phenomenon further as I feel it will help people understand the herd mentality very well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_​p​roof
 
2020-07-02 3:41:11 PM  

bostonguy: The saddest thing is that, once upon a time, we had a collective agreement on the facts. If, say, the NYT or WP reported something, everyone accepted it. But now, everyone has their own media outlets that are biased. There is no agreement on the facts. We all live in different realities.

I don't know how we fix that.


Which is coincidental because I had the same feeling recently and have started using my own personal Facebook page to explore the situation in a form that my circle of friend can understand so that an actual conversation could be had.

It's not that we live in different realities, it's that there are two visions of what reality being debated and most people don't have the time, bandwidth or even interest to understand it. My goal is not to tell my friends which one is right or wrong but to define the two versions of reality and explain how they play a fundamental role in the current issues that we are debating.

This goes back to the question of "Is Science the search for the truth or the search to disprove the truth"

Those who believe that reality is made up of social constructs believe that science is the search to disprove the truth and those who believe that at it's core, reality is objective believe that Science is the search for the truth.

One of the examples that Ibram X. Kendi uses in defining "Anti-Racism" is the change from an Earth Centric solar system to the Copernican model of Heliocentrism. He points out that before the Copernican theory, the "Truth" was that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and that after  the Copernican Theory, the "Truth" was that the Earth revolved around the sun. It is with examples such as this that the idea that "Truth" is a social construct is born.

Now that is the foundational principle behind everything we would today label "SJW" and why many people feel that we live in different realities. So before a debate can be had on any other subject, we first need to identify which worldview and version of reality the other person is operating out of. If we disagree with that version of reality we can at least begin a civil debate there in order to lay a firm foundation for later debates.

My largest problem with this particular worldview is that it doesn't hold up in the real world. In order for it to do so, you would also have to believe that prior to the Copernican theory, the Sun actually did revolve around the Earth, and only upon the Social Construct being changed did the Earth begin to revolve around the sun.

So while I believe that things such as social constructs exist within reality, I do not believe they define reality. This is also why, despite Webster's dictionary saying otherwise, I will never define Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a White Supremacist.

Again, I'm not saying which side of the debate you should fall on, that's for you to decide, but at least you will have a common framework of "reality" with which to attempt discussion.

/Sorry for chiming in but the breakdown of civil discourse is a big pet peeve of mine.
 
2020-07-02 4:35:17 PM  
Awww, farkers can't haz safe space...
 
2020-07-02 5:33:54 PM  

Mister Peejay: I love the quote that the advertisers are pulling their ads to save money.

No, dumbass, advertisers buy ads because they believe there will be a profit return greater than the ad expense.  They are actuslly losing money by pulling ads.


They are getting free advertising by advertising that they aren't advertising.  It's a one time only trick, though.

LOOK AT ME! I AM GOOD CORPORATE PERSON! PURCHASE MY GOODS AND SERVICES!  SEE ME, I ARE ETHICING!
 
2020-07-02 7:29:23 PM  

CanisNoir: AmbassadorBooze: Because people are still on face book. If all the good people deleted their accounts, Facebook would crumble. So, since Facebook still exists, it must mean good people don't know they can just delete their accounts. Facebook is a tool of faciasts, billionaires, mega corps, and the trump. Good people should delete their accounts, maybe they just don't know it is possible. Like people who think "I have to be in credit card debt up to my eyeballs because if the Joneses see that I don't have 13 jet skis, they might not like me".

Can you define for me who these "good people" are that you are talking about and by who's definition are you labeling them "good"?  The Christian definition, Muslim, Socialist, Capitalist?

Everybody will have a different definition of "good" based upon their individual experience and what they deem more valuable and moral to them. Which person are you claiming has the ultimate moral authority to define "good" so that you feel justified in telling the entire site of Fark what to do and what to think?

Do you believe your mindset in any way demonstrates just a whiff of Authoritarianism?


Not bad people.  People who are anti Nazi, anti trump (but I repeat myself), and people who are pro science and  don't believe in sky wizards.  Oh, and not white people.  They have the sin of slavery and Nazi in their genes.
 
2020-07-02 7:30:49 PM  

bostonguy: DevilGirlFromMars: bostonguy: UberDave: The thing is, with most people, I don't think Facebook is "convincing" them of anything they didn't already subscribe to.

My parents were traditional conservatives in the George W. Bush variety. But they only became Trumpers after constant, repeated exposure to crap in their Facebook filter bubble. They were slowly pushed further and further right over the years and now believe crap that they had never believed before.

Constant exposure to propaganda over the long-term has a definite effect on people. Just see the documentary The Brainwashing of My Dad on how someone went from supporting Barack Obama to becoming insane after too much Fox News and the like.

Offering myself and my story up here as a counter point to illustrate that this brainwashing goes both ways. It has a lot to do with Facebook's algorithms and the fact that social media tends to be an echo chamber.

I have always been a primarily left leaning independent person. I'm a feminist that grew up in a middle class multi racial family and I'm not straight. Science, equality and tolerance  were very big deals in my house. Healthcare is probably my number one issue. I'm sick of seeing people bankrupt because they get sick.

Facebook started turning me into a very mean person that I didn't like. Because I'm obviously against incels and misogyny, I had joined a few groups that were fairly anti-male. These groups posts started showing up on my timeline more and more. This started to feed into my offline life where instead of just being a normal feminist wanting equality, I was becoming unnecessarily mean and prejudice against men in my daily life. Even ones I knew were good people.

I also began getting more active in anti-Trump movements. I'm still anti-Trump but I found myself more and more getting my news from obviously biased left news sites and memes instead of sites like Reuters that tend to just report straight facts without emotional language. I began getting increasingly angry ...

Thank you for sharing your story. Yes, it's true that the far left and far right have their own filter bubbles now.

The saddest thing is that, once upon a time, we had a collective agreement on the facts. If, say, the NYT or WP reported something, everyone accepted it. But now, everyone has their own media outlets that are biased. There is no agreement on the facts. We all live in different realities.

I don't know how we fix that.


All out hot shooting war.  We find out what side is correct through blood and fire.
 
2020-07-02 10:30:01 PM  
Austistic boy wrecks democracy.
 
2020-07-02 11:19:13 PM  

DaWormyPimpsta: Facebook is an echo chamber, not a think tank. Zuck's right about the advertisers returning. They're playing the virtue signaling game to keep activists off their a$$e$ for a month while they save some money on digital ad spends. All of this will be smoke by mid-July.


Except that if anything, advertisers leaving is accelerating.  And advertisers also like the 18-35 demographic, and that demographic ain't that stoked about Facebook to begin with.  At least the big companies might find that leaving Facebook doesn't affect their bottom line, and gives them better PR with the group of people who WILL be buying their products in their future.

The big companies are maybe 20 percent of their revenue, but losing 20 percent.of their revenue isn't a little thing.
 
2020-07-03 10:59:53 AM  
That's what a board of directors who have shareholders' interests at heart in a publicly traded entity are for, zuck.
 
Displayed 29 of 79 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.