Facebook

[SnoBrdr]

If he planned it over time with a transition to another head of the company and a slow but regular divestment of his shares over time I bet it could be done without the stock taking a huge nosedive. With Zuck's level of popularity (or lack thereof) it actually might help the stock price

But I get what you're saying. It's not like he could just come up with $77 bil in cash overnight or even next year. Wouldn't be hard for him to come up with $3 bil in cash though if he needed it I suspect.

Prob has that in the couch cushions.

[Highway Star]

He'll fully cash out for about $5-10B after the stock craters in the next 5 years or so.

Don't believe me?

https://www.aol.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Highway Star]

Unbelievable.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-t ... 1533564049" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The social media giant has asked large U.S. banks to share detailed financial information about their customers, including card transactions and checking account balances, as part of an effort to offer new services to users.

Facebook increasingly wants to be a platform where people buy and sell goods and services, besides connecting with friends. The company over the past year asked JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and U.S. Bancorp to discuss potential offerings it could host for bank customers on Facebook Messenger, said people familiar with the matter.

Facebook has talked about a feature that would show its users their checking-account balances, the people said. It has also pitched fraud alerts, some of the people said.

Facebook can't die soon enough.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Unbelievable.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-t ... 1533564049" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unbelievable? A business seeking more avenues to increase its sales? I think that's completely believable.

[Highway Star]

Unbelievable.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-t ... 1533564049" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unbelievable? A business seeking more avenues to increase its sales? I think that's completely believable.

https://www.lifeinvader.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A company where people are the product? Seems legit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Highway Star]

Ah, sounds like Facebook is well on its way to creating a Ministry of Truth.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/us/p ... dment.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[madhatter]

Ah, sounds like Facebook is well on its way to creating a Ministry of Truth.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/us/p ... dment.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yep...

[Kpdemello]

The article talks about the first amendment and social media... um, the first amendment has nothing to do with social media? It only protects against the government trying to abrogate free speech. Last I checked, Facebook was a private company that can do whatever they want to restrict what gets posted on its web site, right?

[madhatter]

help me understand liberal logic here. Because I can guarantee that the majority here simultaneously hold two opinions that, placed side by side, appear evidently contradictory.

Opinion 1: We need net neutrality because the government has to force internet service providers to treat all content producers equally. We can't allow big corporations to control what we can and can't get access to online, so the government needs to regulate the ISPs to make sure this never happens.

Opinion 2: It is a good thing when major content sites like Facebook and YouTube ban content producers like Alex Jones. We need to encourage them to engage in more policing of their platforms to make it harder for extremists like this to get their message out to the public.

Surely I'm not the only one who sees this?

[XtremeJibber2001]

help me understand liberal logic here. Because I can guarantee that the majority here simultaneously hold two opinions that, placed side by side, appear evidently contradictory.

Opinion 1: We need net neutrality because the government has to force internet service providers to treat all content producers equally. We can't allow big corporations to control what we can and can't get access to online, so the government needs to regulate the ISPs to make sure this never happens.

Opinion 2: It is a good thing when major content sites like Facebook and YouTube ban content producers like Alex Jones. We need to encourage them to engage in more policing of their platforms to make it harder for extremists like this to get their message out to the public.

Surely I'm not the only one who sees this?

Apples to oranges.

[madhatter]

help me understand liberal logic here. Because I can guarantee that the majority here simultaneously hold two opinions that, placed side by side, appear evidently contradictory.

Opinion 1: We need net neutrality because the government has to force internet service providers to treat all content producers equally. We can't allow big corporations to control what we can and can't get access to online, so the government needs to regulate the ISPs to make sure this never happens.

Opinion 2: It is a good thing when major content sites like Facebook and YouTube ban content producers like Alex Jones. We need to encourage them to engage in more policing of their platforms to make it harder for extremists like this to get their message out to the public.

Surely I'm not the only one who sees this?

Apples to oranges.

WRONG....it's a DIRECT comparison...

[Kpdemello]

Not really. They are two completely different things. Facebook is one web site among millions, and frankly their goal is to ban misleading content. Not sure how that is a bad thing. In any case, anyone who gets banned from Facebook can post their stuff on their own web site or various others at extremely minimal cost.

Net neutrality has more to do with the economics of the internet and a lot less to do with the content itself. It's about preventing service providers from extorting money from larger players and/or discriminating against smaller players who don't have the money to pay to play. It's somewhat technical and not easily understood or well reported on by media with little technical expertise.

As per usual, things are more complicated than they seem and simplistic answers don't address the nuances.

[madhatter]

Not really. They are two completely different things. Facebook is one web site among millions, and frankly their goal is to ban misleading content. Not sure how that is a bad thing. In any case, anyone who gets banned from Facebook can post their stuff on their own web site or various others at extremely minimal cost.

Net neutrality has more to do with the economics of the internet and a lot less to do with the content itself. It's about preventing service providers from extorting money from larger players and/or discriminating against smaller players who don't have the money to pay to play. It's somewhat technical and not easily understood or well reported on by media with little technical expertise.

As per usual, things are more complicated than they seem and simplistic answers don't address the nuances.

so can the phone company ban you from using their infrastructure if they deem your content inappropriate...I really am beginning to truly despise you left wing @ssholes...yer fvckign delusional hatred of trump and anyone on the right enable you to believe your ends justify the means...you don't give one sh!t about anything but your fvcktarded agenda...

[Kpdemello]

so can the phone company ban you from using their infrastructure if they deem your content inappropriate...I really am beginning to truly despise you left wing @ssholes...yer fvckign delusional hatred of trump and anyone on the right enable you to believe your ends justify the means...you don't give one sh!t about anything but your fvcktarded agenda...

I'm not sure what your raving and ranting is about. The phone company banning you from using their infrastructure is a vastly different concept from one web site banning content.

To boil it down to it's simplest form, if Comcast decided to ban Facebook, users would have no recourse because in many areas (like where I am in Killington) there is literally no alternative to get high speed internet. If Facebook decides to ban Alex Jones articles, Alex Jones can (and does, actually) have a web site where he can post whatever he wants. That alone makes these very different things.

But again, it's more complex than that. Comcast and other providers aren't trying to ban specific content. They are trying to charge companies like Google and Netflix more than they charge other providers to deliver their content because the providers have a monopoly and Google and Netflix have a lot of money. That is what net neutrality is about, despite what people might write and say. It has little to do with freedom of speech or content restrictions.

[Kpdemello]

By the way, I'm not saying I'm for or against "net neutrality" as there are valid arguments for and against the government regulations commonly described as net neutrality rules. I'm just pointing out that net neutrality is a vastly different concept than Facebook trying to ban certain content from it's web site.