Why Facebook will rule the world—and why it won’t

TOPH TUCKER ‘08

Facebook is one of those sites that changed the internet—and Beaver—forever. It’s not even four years old, and it has only been open to high schools for two years. Yet in that time, it has become ubiquitous. Once it may have looked like a fad, a lightweight site letting friends share messages and photos. Now it stands at the brink of total world domination. Sort of.

In mid-May, 2007, Facebook unveiled the Facebook Platform. In doing so, it took a giant leap forward in becoming a major force on the internet. Facebook was now a platform just like Windows or your cell phone. It wasn’t merely an online application; it was a stage upon which any developer could build something new and exciting. This may have gone unnoticed by many longtime members, but suddenly, Facebook was gaining incredible popularity with tech-savvy adults beyond the student sector. In that sense at least, it was no longer a Xanga or MySpace. It was a Google.

Facebook has long looked like a prime acquisition target for companies like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft. It made headlines in March 2006 by supposedly turning down a $750 million offer. At the time, that seemed generous; after all, MySpace (which dwarfed Facebook in user count, and still does) had sold for just $580 million. Facebook was reportedly holding out for a ridiculous-sounding $2 billion.

Things have changed. YouTube sold in October 2006 for $1.65 billion; suddenly MySpace seemed like a steal. Acquisition rumors continued, but founder Mark Zuckerberg wanted to keep the company independent. Still, speculation that Microsoft or Google would buy at least part of Facebook reached a new high last month. Sure enough, on October 24, the AP reported that Microsoft had landed a deal to buy 1.6% percent… for $240 million. (The deal also lets Microsoft serve all Facebook advertising worldwide.) Don’t feel like doing the math? All right: that values Facebook at $15 billion.

(Where’s the benefit to Microsoft? Many analysts saw this as a desperate move meant to just keep Facebook away from Google at all costs; one headline read, “Facebook Takes the Microsoft Money And Runs.” More on that later.)

The Facebook Platform was just the beginning. Armed with more cash than you or I would know what to do with, Facebook now wants to know everything you do.

And now, we move it to highly speculative territory.

All About The Ads

Google, it is often said, is not a web services company. It is an advertising company. Search, Gmail, Maps—it’s all just a way to keep your eyes on their ads. Advertising is how they make money.

“Making money,” once a staple of the business world, has been a tricky thing for some new internet companies. One might call it downright unimportant. In today’s climate, you can build something cool and make millions, even with negligible revenue and no monetization plan. People start businesses in the hopes of just selling out to Google. For a while, Facebook looked like it could be one of those companies. No longer. The fact that Microsoft only scooped up 1.6% is just further proof of that.

So how will Facebook make money? No, those $1 gifts won’t do it. It all comes down to advertising. And while traditional banner ads (like what Facebook currently runs) are all well and good, Facebook isn’t satisfied. Like Google, they know they have the chance to be an advertising platform unlike any other.

The key to attracting advertisers is information. Tons and tons of information. Google brought to the table unprecedented amounts of information. They know what you search for, what emails you get, what maps you look at. They can target ads extremely well, and thus sell ad space for much more money. They also provide invaluable information about the ads themselves: if people click on them, who clicks on them, when people click on them.

Now think about Facebook. Suddenly Google’s data about you seem trivial. The amazing thing about Facebook is that it merges reality and the internet. On Facebook, you’re not ILoveYoda235. You’re Toph Tucker. On Facebook, you don’t interact with whatever random Canadian happens to stumble upon your latest lip-synching video on YouTube. You interact with your real friends, from the real world.

And you share enormous amounts of information. Location, age, events, thoughts, photos, videos, favorite movies, and so on. Amazon.com is another site with fantastic information about you. Their product recommendations are eerily relevant already. Now imagine if everything could be brought together. According to one article, that’s what Facebook wants to do: unite their own information about you with information from various partners. Best ad network ever? You bet… and chances are, Microsoft’s in on it. (Incidentally, these items could also show up on your News Feed, if you let them—e.g., “Toph Tucker bought Transformers DVD at Amazon.com.” There’s also a chance that the plan could involve some form of revenue sharing with users.)

Now, don’t get paranoid. Facebook does its best to be enormously respectful of privacy. Take a nice long look at the Privacy page some time. What other web site gives you that level of control? With great power comes great responsibility; Facebook seems to take that to heart. As long as you pay close attention to those settings, you can make as much or as little information public as you want. So don’t think about this from your perspective. Make that page your best friend and don’t worry. Just think about this from Facebook’s perspective.

Checkmate?

Google, for one, has certainly given this plenty of thought. They are rarely beaten, and the fact that Microsoft got the Facebook deal was quite a surprise. They’re no dummies; they don’t want to be outmaneuvered.

So, six days after Facebook’s big deal with Microsoft, Google fought back with “OpenSocial.” The gist of it, in the context of this article, was that a dozen or so players in the social-networking field were teaming up on Facebook by coming up with a standardized system for developing applications and sharing data. Then, on November 1, MySpace joined the party, along with two other guys you don’t care about. Popular technology news site TechCrunch declared ‘checkmate.’

Suddenly, in a matter of days, Facebook seems to have gone from tech darling to social networking pariah. Association with Microsoft tends not to help your reputation in the blogosphere, and having Google so obviously target you is often the nail in the coffin.

But Facebook is resilient. Whatever deals Google makes with MySpace, the fact of the matter is that Facebook is now very firmly entrenched. It’s much harder to switch away from it than it would be to switch away from, say, Google, because there’s no easy way to transfer all your friends, photos, applications, message history, and so on. (With Gmail, at least you could archive your mail and export your contact list.) Facebook has the momentum.

(It’s also worth noting that the first OpenSocial application was hacked within 45 minutes.)

—and why it won’t.

So will Facebook rule the world? Will it know everything you do, and use that to target advertising like never before? Does it have the opportunity to unseat Google and control the entire internet?

Well, no. Not really. It’s a significant player to be sure, and it is certainly a threat Google (and anyone else that gets in its way). But these sorts of companies come and go. The only way to see how it’ll pan out is to wait.

Amazon.com, Google, MySpace, YouTube, Facebook—they’re all huge (especially Google + YouTube). But none of them rules the world. Indeed, Facebook has a long way to go before it even reaches the Amazon.com/Google level. It’s easy to forget that MySpace is still significantly larger, with 107 million unique visitors in September, compared to Facebook’s 73.5 million. Facebook has been gaining quickly, but OpenSocial very well might reverse that trend.

The next few weeks will probably say a lot about where all this is going. Facebook is poised to announce their advertising plans as early as Tuesday. The OpenSocial initiative is only just getting started, and it’s possible that Facebook itself could join at some point. If one thing seems clear, it’s that no one is even close to checkmate.

Update: 2 Dec. 2007

Sure enough, on November 7, Facebook launched a number of new features that more or less amounted to what was expected. It launched new advertising tools (though the ads only run on facebook.com, and Microsoft is uninvolved) and "Facebook Beacon," which brings information from outside web sites into your News Feed. The features are taking a lot of heat--the ads for being cluttersome, and (even more so) Beacon for invading privacy.

Further reading:

TechCrunch
Facebook Takes the Microsoft Money And Runs.
Details Revealed: Google OpenSocial To Launch Thursday
Checkmate? MySpace, Bebo and SixApart To Join Google OpenSocial (confirmed)
First OpenSocial Application Hacked Within 45 Minutes
Facebook, Your Move
Facebook’s Social Ad Network: What We (Think We) Know So Far
Ok Here’s At Least Part Of What Facebook Is Announcing On Tuesday: Project Beacon

Other
Wikipedia: Facebook
AP: Microsoft Deal Values Facebook at $15B
allfacebook.com: Facebook Launching the Google Adsense Killer
Scobleizer: Back into the walled garden

Read more!

Editor’s note: Defining a Generation

DANIEL KATZ '08

We are a species that needs and wants to understand who we are. Sheep lice do not seem to share this longing, which is one reason why they write so little.
- Anne Lamott

In an op-ed piece from the May 26th issue of the Boston Globe, author and journalist Thomas Friedman attempted to define our generation of youth. He eventually referred to us as the “Quiet Americans.” I suppose the label itself seems a bit harsh, so he went on to clarify his thoughts: “They are young people who are quietly determined not to let this age…take away their hopes or steal the America they are about to inherit.” Yet, even after his explanation, I was left oddly bewildered. I suppose that I would never characterize our generation as passive.

The whole idea of defining a generation is often overdone. It is human nature to feel the need to put a label on every aspect of life, and organize it chronologically. When we locate something that may seem indefinable, meaning it does not fit into any of our predetermined manila folders, human nature forces us to identify it as either supernatural, misunderstood, or religious. The fact is that it is comforting to state an identity: despite how superficial and unauthentic labeling generations may be.

I have heard our generation branded in a handful of ways: from generation 9-11, to generation-X. Recently, I even heard it referred to as generation ADD, which makes more sense than I would have initially expected. However, the idea that our generation is “quiet” seems a bit out of line. Perhaps we are not parading in the streets, burning effigies and bras, but I believe that our voice as a collective youth is stronger than any generation before us. A simple search on the internet (arguably the most significant identification of the generation) proves how lively we truly are. Showing discontentment and civil disobedience has never been so simple, neither has sharing and promoting ideas. We are a generation of Americans defined by our redefinition of the norms. We are undoubtedly, and notably, open to new and innovative choices. We push the limit, and we disregard timidity. We crave additional knowledge. Considering the record size of America’s graduating high school class, I believe we have come to view education as the gateway to progression. It is becoming more and more the norm to move on to a higher education after high school, which logically results in a brighter and more knowledgeable generation. But quiet? No, we are not quiet.

When walking through the halls of this school, it is clear just how loud we truly are. We all have opinions on how this school, and every aspect of this world, is run and we are not afraid to allow our voices to peak through the cracks. While all of the opinions may not be productive, it is important to open our minds to every angle of a subject. Perhaps there is a point to the entire ADD generation philosophy. We get tired and bored by systems and robotic protocols almost instantly, and we struggle to pursue positive progression because of our restless nature. Our hands shake at the sight of a policy we choose not to comply with, and we act – often in a collective force of some sort. A teacher of mine recently stated that her only complaint here at Beaver was that the students do not take assignments and grades passively and quietly; instead, Beaver students question the authority of the teachers, and choose to argue in order to attain academic satisfaction. She seemed discouraged by the characteristic. I was proud, and I still am proud of the ideas our student body promotes, and the actions that result.

It is because of that very pride and recognition of the potential of our student body that I take great pleasure in introducing you to the new Beaver newspaper. Together with Co-Editor in Chief Jessica Penzias, I am proud to dispatch to the Beaver community a safe and effective medium for expressing discontentment and debating issues. If something bothers you, write an editorial about it. If something interests you, convince us why we should care at all. This is your chance to have a voice, and acknowledge the voices of your fellow peers. Take the initiative to show just how loud and insightful you can be. Inspire, and allow yourself be inspired. Respond to other student’s opinions, and learn from other student’s experiences. Complain if you feel the need, but explain to us why the matter is worth whining about. Embrace this new addition to the Beaver community. Define your own generation.

Welcome to The Beaver Reader: Student run, student written, and student fueled.

Quiet generation? We’ll just have to see about that.

Daniel Katz
Co-Editor in Chief
Read more!

On Torture

JESSICA PENZIAS '08

In America, all people are entitled to human rights and basic protection under the law no matter what their beliefs. Torture is inhumane and unethical. Torture compromises not only the human rights of the person being tortured but also the foundation of our legal system. An American who is empowered to pursue justice should abide by the high standards he is working to protect. By torturing another human being, he is lowering himself to inhumane standards. He is degrading himself, and as an American, he is degrading American integrity as well.

The United States is fighting a war on terror. Therefore, our country needs to clearly define its position against the terror and fear instigated by torture. As a prosperous nation, the United States serves as a role model to other nations. Outside nations follow our example. If we want to continue to be a role model, we must avoid torture at all costs and in doing so, not only set a moral precedent for the rest of the world but also protect our own troops. We should not subject anyone from any country to torture if we, in turn, do not want our troops to be treated brutally and to be stripped of their human rights. Currently, our troops are overseas. Our country would be devastated if our own soldiers were subjected to electric shocks or other popular forms of torture. We must safeguard our moral values in order to safeguard our country.

We can try to gain information ethically using informants. However, in Trevor Paglan’s Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA’s Rendition Flights, Paglan discusses the fact that because of our efforts to gain information through torture, we have a harder time gaining voluntary information through informants. Informants do not want to fight for a hypocritical country that condones torture and fights terror at the same time. By defining and keeping an unwavering stance against the degradation of human rights we will clarify our position in the world and set a precise example for other nations.

Despite my personal beliefs, I do understand and respect the rational argument to torture a person when innocent lives are at stake. However, one must ask, where do you draw the line? Indeed, it is clear that torture might prove beneficial in a limited number of situations. However, torture is not always a rational solution. For instance, torture is not humane when it is used to acquire information from a person after a crime is committed. In this situation, we are neglecting the process of a fair trial and also using torture as a means to punish a criminal. If America allowed the use of torture for limited ethical cases, how can we place necessary restrictions on the law? What situation truly warrants torture? In Michael Levin’s essay promoting torture entitled, “The Case for Torture,” he writes about many hypothetical situations that would cause torture to be acceptable. While I agree that these imaginary situations would warrant torture if they came to pass, who would authorize this torture?

When reading an editorial from The Economist, I was intrigued by the idea of “torture warrants.” Many people who condone torture believe that it would be effective for warrants to be given to certain people in restricted situations in which torture is deemed necessary. But what constitutes a moral case in which torture is acceptable? Where could the authority figures who are handing out these “torture warrants” draw the line? If these warrants are only requested in situations where human lives are in jeopardy, who has the right to decided when one life is more important than another? Furthermore, after the time it takes for a warrant to be issued, would the innocent victims still be alive? While Levin’s cases are valid, I question whether or not he truly examined the situations he proposed to their full extent. Later in his essay, Michael Levin draws his own line by writing, “torture only the obviously guilty, and only for the sake of saving innocents, and the line between Us and Them will remain clear.” One must question how one would determine who the “obviously guilty” are. In the hypothetically dire situations he describes, there is no time to pursue a fair trial in the American court system that we, as a nation, pride ourselves on. In America, we say, “Innocent until proven guilty.” When protecting our country from dangerous terrorists it is important to also protect these core values. For these reasons, it is clear that condoning torture in America, outright or with limitations, is an irrational and poorly developed idea.

Another important idea that I would like to present is this: torture does not always provide correct information. Putting human beings through excruciating pain, we are liable to obtain false information. There have been situations when the United States has had guilty people in custody who, under torture, provided incorrect information. A situation such as this, arouse before the current war on terror. In Torture Taxi, Paglen mentions a circumstance when a person being tortured corroborated the fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This assertion helped instigate a war, even though the information was false. Similarly, when torturing a member of Al Qaeda, the United States gained false information that Saddam Hussein was helping Al Qaeda. Colin Powell then addressed the United Nations with this incorrect information. In cases like these, torture once again proved ineffective and it even created new problems for our country.

America is a country founded upon strong moral values. It is important for us to abide by our morals by refusing to torture other human beings Doing so only degrades both them and ourselves. We must continue to set a high standard for the rest of the world and live by our unwavering values. Torture cannot be condoned without jeopardizing our nation’s values and national well-being. By outlawing torture, we are simultaneously protecting the innocent and asserting our values.

------------
Image from: http://www.whitehouse.org/
Read more!

Submit an Editorial

This section of the newspaper is all about opinions. We on the staff have many of our own, but we'd also like to hear from you! Teachers and students alike are welcome to submit--just contact one of the editors, Jessica Penzias '08 or Dan Katz '08. Write about a school issue, a world issue, or whatever strikes your fancy. It could end up right here!
Read more!