Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Q1 2018 Earnings Slides [pdf]

investor.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 271 posts

Re: Facebook Q1 2018 Earnings Slides [pdf]

#121

Post by downandout »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #49
roddux wrote: post #14

My main takeaway from this is that #deleteFacebook has been a flash in the pan-- their active user count is still increasing across all regions. Also to note, FB only pay effectively 11% tax on some 12 billion dollars worth of revenue.

Yeah, I may have to eat some crow from an argument the other day with another HN user. Surveys and #deleteFacebook and protests and so forth seemed to indicate that people did finally start getting interested in their own privacy. But no. Somehow, even with a declining youth demographic and widespread reports of less time spent on site and the CA fiasco, they still ended up with a growth of users in all markets. I've…

I think it was probably me you were arguing with. I disagree that we live in a world where people don’t value privacy. Rather, I think that most reasonable people understand that not all data is created equal. They expect even more privacy today than they’ve ever had on things that everyone wants to be private - think medical records - but are quite happy to publicly share other data, such as what they had for lunch, and expect no privacy around this type of data. These two ideals can peacefully coexist.

So it is because Facebook is primarily meant for the latter type of data that most people outside of a very vocal minority don’t have a problem with their privacy practices. That, combined with legislation that will decimate any chance for the rise of a viable Facebook competitor (such as GDPR), is why their numbers will continue to grow for decades to come.

Re: Facebook Q1 2018 Earnings Slides [pdf]

#122

Post by quotemstr »

roddux wrote: post #14

My main takeaway from this is that #deleteFacebook has been a flash in the pan-- their active user count is still increasing across all regions. Also to note, FB only pay effectively 11% tax on some 12 billion dollars worth of revenue.

Internet outrage is _never_ as widespread or important as it looks.

The best way to predict the effect of any social media campaign against a person or organization is to evaluate the steadfastness of the campaign's target.

If you are the target of an internet mob and you blink, you're not only going to enact mob-demanded changes that are detrimental to your interests, but also broadcast weakness and attract further mob attacks.

If you instead stand your ground and refuse to be cowed by hashtag campaigns, the outrage mob eventually gets bored and finds another target. Your interests are preserved and you end up broadcasting strength and determination.

A lot of people are starting to figure out that internet mobs have no real teeth.

Re: Facebook Q1 2018 Earnings Slides [pdf]

#123

Post by putlake »

matte_black wrote: post #94
thaumaturgy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I may have to eat some crow from an argument the other day with another HN user. Surveys and #deleteFacebook and protests and so forth seemed to indicate that people did finally start getting interested in their own privacy. But no. Somehow, even with a declining youth demographic and widespread reports of less time spent on site and the CA fiasco, they still ended up with a growth of users in all markets. I've…

We are not heading to a post-privacy world. Post-Privacy means no one can get privacy even if they want it. That has never been the case. What you are merely seeing is people are ok with the amount of data that has been collected on them. The lack of true widespread outrage means we are either at the limit or we can still collect a bit more before users get really pissed.

> Post-Privacy means no one can get privacy even if they want it. That has never been the case.

We are already there.

3-letter govt agencies can listen track your calls, intercept your browsing and read your email.

Unless you pay in cash and shop only at your local mom and pop shop, your purchases are already being tracked and reported.

Your cellphone carrier is selling your information to third parties.[1]

You may not be on Facebook or WhatsApp but all your IRL friends and family are. They have your phone number in their contacts list and they have shared it with Google, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin and God knows how many other companies. They have taken your pictures and tagged you.

Other than a very small number of privacy-conscious people, which includes living-off-the-grid doomsday preppers, the rest of the country is already there.

1. https://www.csoonline.com/article/3233211/security/mobile-ca...

Re: Facebook Q1 2018 Earnings Slides [pdf]

#124

Post by drag0nballz »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #120
drag0nballz wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I struggled with this initially with FB and then decided all posts would be public. Never post anything that I wouldn't want public, and not allow on my timeline posts from other people that I don't want public (I know there are limits to this). Targeted ads are fine to me. My bigger concern is the vast amount of data sharing on the back end that is easily non-anonymized and FB is a huge part of the problem.

> Targeted ads are fine to me. This is actually the widespread attitude I imagine in a post-privacy world. It's different from people not understanding the implications of targeted ads and unknowingly accepting it. In this case, it's people that (presumably) understand this, and say, "well, that's okay."

Well, we are in a "post-privacy" world already. At least in the US. I'm not OK with that. I'm ok with the concept of anonymized targeted ads, but also realize that this attitude enabled bad actors and loose regulation to tear down that wall.

Re: Facebook Q1 2018 Earnings Slides [pdf]

#125

Post by burger_moon »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #49
roddux wrote: post #14

My main takeaway from this is that #deleteFacebook has been a flash in the pan-- their active user count is still increasing across all regions. Also to note, FB only pay effectively 11% tax on some 12 billion dollars worth of revenue.

Yeah, I may have to eat some crow from an argument the other day with another HN user. Surveys and #deleteFacebook and protests and so forth seemed to indicate that people did finally start getting interested in their own privacy. But no. Somehow, even with a declining youth demographic and widespread reports of less time spent on site and the CA fiasco, they still ended up with a growth of users in all markets. I've…

>Yeah, I may have to eat some crow from an argument the other day with another HN user. Surveys and #deleteFacebook and protests and so forth seemed to indicate that people did finally start getting interested in their own privacy.

I think it largely depends on who your friends are, and who you follow. All the people I follow on twitter for tech news were ranting and raving about all the FB scandals. Not a single one of my friends or people I follow outside of the tech bubble cared about it, most had no idea. If people spend their time on FB and insta, it's not hard to understand why they wouldn't even be aware of what was going on.

Re: Facebook Q1 2018 Earnings Slides [pdf]

#126

Post by gm-conspiracy »

putlake wrote: post #123
matte_black wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are not heading to a post-privacy world. Post-Privacy means no one can get privacy even if they want it. That has never been the case. What you are merely seeing is people are ok with the amount of data that has been collected on them. The lack of true widespread outrage means we are either at the limit or we can still collect a bit more before users get really pissed.

> Post-Privacy means no one can get privacy even if they want it. That has never been the case. We are already there. 3-letter govt agencies can listen track your calls, intercept your browsing and read your email. Unless you pay in cash and shop only at your local mom and pop shop, your purchases are already being tracked and reported. Your cellphone carrier is selling your information to third parties.[1] You may n…

Why do you assume everybody is using email, has a cellphone, and only buys goods from mega-corps?

Re: Facebook Q1 2018 Earnings Slides [pdf]

#127

Post by idoh »

sanderjd wrote: post #113
idoh wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing personal income tax rates to corporate tax rates doesn't really make sense. At the end of the chain, corporations are always owned by human beings, who must pay tax as well (albeit possibly in the form of capital gains or taxes on dividends). Point is, if you are upset, and I'm not trying to say that you shouldn't be, then the focus should be on the difference between tax on income vs capital gains / divide…

Something I've always been curious about: if capital gain taxes (for both individuals and corporations) were set to reasonable (high) levels, would there still be a strong argument for taxing corporate profits?

It depends on who you ask I suppose. I think it is reasonable to have 0% tax on corporations if the other taxes were correct. An issue is that under that regime many corps would choose to never pay a dividend, so that would have to be fixed somehow.

Re: Facebook Q1 2018 Earnings Slides [pdf]

#129

Post by aylmao »

carbocation wrote: post #74
scolson wrote: post #33

So wait... In the US, my "value" to facebook is about $100 a year? (~24/q rounded up) Can I subscribe to facebook and opt out of all advertising and any data sharing exposure with third-parties? That is totally worth $8-10/mo to me. Edit: I get it. You don't like this idea, or you don't think it will work, or you don't think facebook's investors will like it (full disclosure: I am one). Why on earth should that stop…

Since you are willing to pay $100/year not to see ads, you are probably the sort of person who is worth much more than $100/year to Facebook and its advertisers.

Wait, care to elaborate? I'd assume it's the other way around; people who don't want to see ads are probably less likely to click on them and drive revenue, no?

Re: Facebook Q1 2018 Earnings Slides [pdf]

#130

Post by snaveed »

spiderPig wrote: post #39

That's crazy. Their net income is almost the same as Google's with 1/3rd the number of employees. I am surprised that they have 25k employees now, wow!

Reported 2018 Q1 Net Income:

  Alphabet: $9.4 Billion [0]
  Facebook: $5.0 Billion [1]
[0] https://abc.xyz/investor/pdf/2018Q1_alphabet_earnings_releas...

[1] https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2018/Q1...

Post reply on HN