Come on Zuck, do you really mean it?

29 thoughts on “Come on Zuck, do you really mean it?”

  1. Basically the same way Wikipedia did with it’s community. They came together and as a community worked out the most appropriate response. I think you are completely right that the response from Facebook really is too little too late and a mere PR exercise. As a leading destination on the internet they should also be a leading voice.

  2. I appreciate what you are saying, and the cynic in me suspects the same.

    However, in terms of effectiveness, I think the sheer number of people using Facebook to talk about SOPA, share all these other blackouts (etc) speaks far more volumes and possibly has more of an effect when it comes to awareness, than a protest (whether black out or notice) forced on its users, top-down.

    1. Agreed. But that said, I would love to see Facebook create a simple graphic and making sure everyone was aware of the SOPA issues. There is a lot more education they could have done than this mealy mouthed response. I think if you believe in something you figure out a way to make your point and opinions known.

      But hey, that’s just me.

    2. I suspect some wag went to Mark with some metrics about how many posts are going up about the protest (my newsfeed is full of them), which led to an “official” chiming in. As Om says, they already knew which way the wind (of their user base) was blowing.

      Funny thing is, a lot of the posts on my news feed are from content originators like musicians and writers. The very people the legislation is supposed to be protecting. If you’ve played video games, watched TV or movies, you’ve heard some of these people who are paying the rent from the royalties they receive. And they know that this isn’t going to improve their world one bit. Only make it harder for them.

      1. Silent, but hardly surprising. Apple is no friend of the open internet, and has been assiduously working with Murdoch and the rest of the SOPA-PIPA in crowd to move everything possible into their walled garden.

    1. Apple is one of the largest publicly-traded companies in the world. Facebook is still a private company. There is a huge difference.

      Apple’s officers are constrained by something called fiduciary duty. All of their actions must be in the best interests of the shareholders or they can wind up in a lot of trouble. If Apple thinks that the net impact of SOPA and PIPA would hurt Apple’s share value, then they are almost *required* to speak out against it. On the other hand, if they feel that speaking out against SOPA and PIPA might damage their relationships with the studios and therefore Apple’s business results, they can get in a lot of trouble for speaking out. I hate this fact, but I think that’s how our corporate regulations work.

      Facebook is a private company and has none of these issues.

      1. Ah, so Steve Jobs was doing his “fiduciary duty” when he told Isaacson he didn’t care if Apple had to spend its entire (then) $40billion in cash to kill Android?

        Fiduciary duty or not, Apple’s interests clearly align with the SOPA-PIPA crowd. No need to get all fiduciary about it. I’d be willing to take out a Romney-sized wager at least that nobody would sue Apple if they came out against SOPA-PIPA. If they had the guts to state they were for it, it would probably hurt Apple a lot more with the internet-savvy component of their customer base than coming out against it would hurt them with the Murdoch crowd. So they’ll take the fifth, that’s their right too.

        Of course, the behavior of the Wall St. crowd over the past decade or so has made a total joke of the whole “fiduciary duty” thing, but that’s another story.

  3. I know that I am a bit of a naysayer on this one, but while there is ZERO doubt that if SOPA + PIPA passes it would be hugely destructive to the Internet economy, there is an aspect of the ‘blackout’ that is so PR-charged that it’s reminiscent of the “red ribbon” episode of Seinfeld, where Kramer gets attacked by an angry mob at an AIDS rally for refusing to wear the Red AIDs Ribbon. How dare he! (http://youtu.be/rGaqI20WHyk)

    My only point is that one gets the sense that companies like Facebook and Apple have herd-mentality antibodies that sometimes makes them look like jerks, but it’s just not in their nature to get sucked into the adornments that the crowd expects, which is ironic given how central their roles are in the daily goings of that same crowd.

    That may may not make them warm/fuzzy, but you sort of know that what they say and what they do are usually going to be in the same ballpark.

  4. Facebook is spineless. How dare they have values that don’t agree with everybody. I really wish the actual Zuck was more like the character in the social network as that guy had balls and this Zuck is a eunuch.

  5. Tons of Facebook pages are landing pages that their customers are paying lots of $$ to drive traffic to… and many of those are SOPA supporters.
    Unlike many sites, Facebook pages in iframes can use javasccript and have a huge amount of design flexibility, thus all those page owners are free to make whatever protest they want.

    Freedom is also freedom of choice… lets let Facebook fight SOPA in whatever way they feel is appropriate for thier business… especially in the runup to their IPO

  6. It’s really amazing that the owners of some of the large popular internet sites think they need to tell people how to think.

    Let me get this right, up till now they don’t provide one ounce of content, not one ounce, it all comes from the 99%. But now here comes the content, and it’s editorializing from their rather large soapbox. Its telling people how to think. The billionaires want to tell you how to think.

    The big internet concerns are infringing on the public trust by injecting editorial content. Please, lets not pretend these people are creating jobs and freedom. They are an interest group and they use lobbyists and their own medium to control their message.

    Their reactions are immature, strictly capitalistic, and rely on fear mongering. This is a sad day indeed.

  7. Facebook would never dare blackout for 24 hours out of fear of losing revenue – as if 24 hours of duckfaced tween attention whores being forced to go outside would hurt Facebook’s “Bottom Line” or drive people to Google+.

    Seems to me that they’re doing all they can to preserve an eventual IPO – which means they’d have to be a lot more public and at the beck and call of shareholders.. so I think this whole IPO stuff is hot air spewn to get investors and advertisers excited about jumping on the Facebook Train while they still can.

  8. I was really surprised, myself, that Zuckerberg started talking about SOPA/PIPA at 10 am PST. I too thought it was a bit odd, especially considering that the only other company in the World that eclipses them, Google, was already acting the night before.

    What had alarmed me, as a close follower of the music and tech space, was the lack of urgency coming from artists or major blogs like Pitchfork and Stereogum – the former blog finally addressed SOPA this morning while the latter still hasn’t. A quick look at other major entities shows a lack of support or spreading of awareness. It’s an issue that has been addressed on hypebot – how do we get more musicians and their ilk involved?

    I guess my point is, this black out that happened today has gotten influential companies like TopSpin speaking out about the implications of these bills (they have the best call to action I’ve seen yet) and hopefully after today, awareness will continue to spread in a community that will most drastically be impacted if these bills do happen to pass. I guess my point it, better today than never. 🙂

  9. As seen on reddit 25 days ago in a discussion about Facebook’s supposed stance against SOPA and Jimmy Wales upping the anti with the suggestion of blacking out Wikipedia: “Jimmy Wales, big balls. Zuckerberg, not so much.”

    Zuckerberg’s late to the party, fluffy response should come as no surprise to anyone. Facebook/Zuckerberg hasn’t, doesn’t, and probably won’t ever put it’s customer base first.

    1. If the definition of “customer” is the people giving you money for your services, then Facebook is putting their customers first. If you think all the folks with user accounts are the customers, you’d be mistaken.

  10. “What makes up social companies like Facebook and Twitter is we the people — not the software, the hardware and the data centers they own. It is not the money but the people who make a place vibrant, exciting and livable.”

    And it’s “we the people” who are the product being sold by Facebook.

  11. Om I completely disagree. Firstly, as you say “What makes up social companies like Facebook and Twitter is we the people — not the software, the hardware and the data centers they own. It is not the money but the people who make a place vibrant, exciting and livable.” Facebook is merely a platform. We can create hundreds of groups, pages, notes, etc. talking about how we oppose SOPA, but FB on its own is merely a platform. Secondly, even Zuck speaking out isn’t really FB speaking up. While Zuck and FB are two sides of the same coin, Zuck (for all intents and purposes) is just another FB user, hence his post is akin to any one of us posting and saying we oppose SOPA. Finally, I agree that FB should have at least an explanatory note on SOPA somewhere since virtually everyone uses it.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.