251–260 of 271 posts
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.
Meanwhile the worker bees pay 35-50% in income tax and other withholdings between state and federal. That pisses me off so much
It slid in January of last year as well. Is it a seasonal effect? (can't find FB's older figures.. I'm not good in digging up this kind of information)
What if this is evidence that many people see Facebook as a bad habit, and start the new year determined to use it less?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Care to elaborate?
The costs to advertisers (per impression, click, action) are all much higher in the US market than EMEA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are missing a very important thing in this earning statement. The earning statement is for Jan 1- Mar 31 ONLY. The Cambridge Analytica story was released around March 18. So around 10-12 days of #DeleteFacebook would NOT have any noticeable effect on their earnings. What would actually be noticeable would be Q2 Earnings (Apr 1- Jun 30)
With our current news cycles and the speed at which sentiments spread nowadays 10-12 days is more than enough time for us to see negative noticeable effects. The fact is, if it hasn’t been observed by then it’s probably not happening at all.
That's a big assumption. The metrics we're shown might not have enough resolution to show the effects of 10-12 days of scandal. The fallout may be a much more gradual process than you assume.
For instance: take this scenario: someone decides to #deletefacebook, even though they use it daily as a communications tool. What do you think they'll do? You seem to assume they're ragequit immediately, but I think it's far more likely that they'll dial back their usage, explore replacements for certain features, exchange alternate contact info with FB-only friends, etc. Only much later will they actually delete or show a significant usage decrease.
That scenario isn't hypothetical, it's exactly what I'm doing. I've made the decision to disengage from Facebook, but I still show up as an active user because I'm not done with the process.
If you're going to measure a phenomenon with data, you have to understand what you're measuring and have an instrument that will detect that. Otherwise, it's just sciency voodoo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you assume everybody is using email, has a cellphone, and only buys goods from mega-corps?
Why do you assume they’re not? Constraining the discussion to America, you’d be far more wrong to assume someone doesn't use the internet[1][2] or a cellphone.[3][4] [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/05/some-america... - Only 11% of American adults don’t use the internet. Of 18-24 year olds, only 2% don’t. 2%. Holding narrowly onto your assertion, the numbers are higher for poor, rural, elderly and non…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It did work with EA's Battlefront 2 right? EA's stock value went down. Then sales of Battlefront2 wasn't as good as expected. Then there's now the hot topic of lootboxes being illegal. We'll need to exactly define and agree what it is to be achieve tho. In my view, I think the point has been made and have been heard successfully and have caused the desired punch in the face.
I'd argue that ballooned beyond "internet outrage" though; a lot of parents started seeing the loot boxes as slot machines. That gave the issue its "Is it legal?" and "PROTECT THE CHILDREN" angles. Honestly, people probably don't give enough credit to the MW2 "boycott"; it showed kids that they could organize if the company's practices got out of hand. I think the MW2 and BF2 issues were really part of a longer trend…
But I work adjacent to some video game industry business strategy folks... and I can say that the various EA/microtransaction/season pass/pay2win boycotts haven't convinced anyone that those are the wrong way to go.
People in the industry are generally convinced that the golden goose is getting people to pay more than full price and now there are just footnote conversations about "can we get away this"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile the worker bees pay 35-50% in income tax and other withholdings between state and federal. That pisses me off so much
Which worker bees are paying 35-50%? You just about have to make a million dollars per year in the US - and be in California or NYC - to pay 50%. One million dollars in income gets you to about 47% in LA, SF, or NYC. A quarter of a million dollar income will get you up to 35% - and those are the most expensive tax locations in the country. $50,000 (the US median full-time income) gets you a combined effective rate, b…
If the government here offered a quality of life equivalent to what I experienced living in western europe I'd be fine with it. But we are not getting my 35% worth of government service
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even making $100K+ in Cali puts you around 38% fed + state income tax.
> Even making $100K+ in Cali puts you around 38% fed + state income tax. No, it doesn't. It put you—in 2017, the number is lower in 2018—assuming no deductions—at a combined 37.3% marginal rate, but a substantially lower overall rate.