Google isn't a paragon, and it's alarming (to me) that Google is building a universal panopticon too. But these two companies, despite the similarity in their business models, appear very different with respect not just to how they collect data, what they collect, how much they sell, and what breaches or not-breach breaches have occurred, but also how forthcoming they are about all this, and whether they act like they've got something to hide. Facebook used tricks[1] to run their iPhone app in the background when requested not to, and only backed this out when the new iOS “battery shaming” feature outed them; they uploaded Android call history with text that mislead the user into thinking they were just uploading contacts. Google has made mis-steps and knows a scary amount about us, but I don't recall this kind of systematic boundary-pushing and post-discovery obfuscation and denial.
Or contrast Lyft and Uber.
These differences in behavior aren't from a difference in business models. They are from differences in “corporate DNA”, or culture. Zuckerberg was a teen when he wrote these messages[2], but most people I know don't speak or act like that even at that age. Some people advance to a different moral stage even at the end of, or after, their teen years; it looks from a longer pattern of evidence, only some of it recent, like Zuckerberg and his company may not have done so. Yes, business incentives are a factor, but explanations don't begin and end with “money made me do it”.
[1] http://pxlnv.com/linklog/facebook-background-data/
[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/exclusive-mark-zuckerbergs-se...
Corporate culture is a structure build on-top of their business, nobody has ever changed their business to adapt to their culture, they just get a rebranding and hire a PR team if the two happen to run into conflict.
That's clearly incorrect. Both Walmart and Costco are in the same retail business, but their corporate cultures are quite distinct.
Companies aren't individuals. They are aggregates, and (absence some major force, e.g. like Gates in MS or Jobs in Apple, or some important founding principles) aggregates tend to go to some mean, which in the case of companies includes profits above all.
There's a difference between "we did it because we were legally obligated" and "we did it because Zuckerberg wanted to". The myth of profit maximisation being an absolute legal duty is much too kind to Facebook here; they're not just a victim of our late capitalist system.
> It simply would not be a billion dollar business otherwise.
Right. Which is why their largest shareholder and CEO is going to ensure they do it, not because he's being forced by the spectre of shareholder lawsuits.
> Hobby Lobby or a car manufacturer might find a way to combine civic duties with corporate profits, social media will never be able to.
Certainly not if we continue to give them a pass when they fail to do so.
the company does whatever those that control the majority of the shares want it to do. Absolutely no one else, unless the company engages in illegal activity has any say. Corporations are democracies with the rules of majority that are spelled out in their documents.
The sad specter of case law dating at least as far back to Dodge v Ford [1], is that legally the only relationship that has to matter to a (US) business is its relationship with its shareholders. Consumer protections have only ever barely been carved out with regulatory action.
> How do non-ad-buying users matter as customers to Facebook
They are literally all Facebook has, eyeballs.
Snowflakes don't matter, if only one Facebook user cares about their privacy, then Facebook shouldn't care. Is it a perfect system? No. But it is democratic.
But I also think that Facebook is already on its way down, people seem to have moved on. At least according to their numbers they still seem to grow or at least remain stable but I would guess that this is mostly due to expansion into new markets and if people there go through a similar trajectory it is only a question of time until the last new market starts and eventually stops using Facebook.
Here in Germany MeinVZ [2] was the dominant social network until people started moving to Facebook and now MeinVZ is just a ghost town. And it pretty much feels the same with Facebook now, actually already for the last five or so years, people come back and engage more and more infrequently until they eventually disappear. It is much slower as compared to MeinVZ but I am pretty sure it is essentially the same thing.
I am not sure where they are all going, maybe Instagram for the younger generation, maybe just WhatsApp for friends in my age, so Facebook the company might just be fine for some more time even if Facebook the network dies. But things have certainly changed from this madness of, I don't know, somewhere between five and ten years ago, when Facebook became inevitable, when it was constantly in thew news, when every ad poster featured a Facebook link.
I would neither be surprised if it turned out that Facebook was an essentially quite short-lived onetime phenomenon and people were not that interested in a global community as the social media proponents would want you to believe, nor would I be surprised if every generation had its own Facebook even if just to set themselves apart from the older generation. Why would we even assume that social media is more than a fluke and does not die away just like many things before?
Only if enough of your friends were on it to make it worthwhile, the danger is that many of your contacts would disappear, which would lessen the value of facebook for even more people, leading to a vicious cycle. And even if it didn't happen to your social circle it would stem the inflow of young people even more than is already the case).
Then it's not much of a business, period.
In my ideal world, we'd only have businesses where the costs are open and direct (e.g. no "user is the product" or selling of personal data, or even "ad-based").
If they can't make it in this way, then, sorry, they don't have a business model.
Well, if there are no buyers, then why have a product?
Hobby Lobby or a car manufacturer might find a way to combine civic duties with corporate profits, social media will never be able to. Their entire business model is based on squeezing as much value as possible out of the limited attention span of consumers.