paprika

So Instagram was sold for $750m and not $1bn. Majority of $300m went to investors.

It's a great story to read (and maybe Ashton Kutcher can play Systrom as well, or at least Nicholas Hoult... Hunter Parish to play Krieger and it's time that Michael Cera debuts at Zuckerberg) but I can't help but think it would've been so much better for us, users, that Twitter bought them.

I see it as a perfect social network - Vine for video sharing, Instagram for photo sharing, Twitter as a connecting platform with numerous additions - Radio, ...

I just don't get Facebook anymore. Sure, a few years ago we were mad about it, spending days on it but I sense that hype is gone. Honestly I don't know why I'm still on it - stories from liked pages are the same as on my Twitter feed, I use Instagram to share my photos. Surely if you're serious about keeping in touch with people from the past, you already have their email or phone number.

All in all, bad darts from Unicef as 'likers' donate as well. Basically they say we don't want likes, just money please.

The solution is simple. The platform (in this case Facebook) has enough money to step up and give 0.01$/0.1$/1$ for each like of the photo/page.

I am pretty sure it wouldn't be a significant dent for Facebook's finances, actually with proper campaign it could go in their favour via stocks.

But then again, Unicef isn't the only charity in the world and supporting one and ignoring the others isn't fair as well.

No sign of them.

Very trivial (or maybe not?) to illustrate that kind of money next to one single human being. Interesting though.

Something similar - Greek's debt illustrated on trucks of cash: http://demonocracy.info/infographics/eu/debt_greek/debt_gree...