Good news for Facebook, which has had some very difficult months lately, with the Cambridge Analytica fiasco. But it seems that the entrepreneurship he attributes to the social network does not stop with anything…
Facebook announced last Wednesday earnings in the last quarter. The company reported a profit of 1,69 per share, which means revenue of 11,97 billion dollars for the quarter, much better than Wall Street estimates.
In particular, revenue growth increased by 49% compared to the same quarter last year, indicating that despite the adverse conditions created by the company's behavior, the social network managed to survive not only unsustainably but also with much more profits .
User development in the Facebook database was also solid. The company has 49 million daily users and today 1,45 billions of people use the service every day.
All of the above can confirm that Mark Zuckerberg's negative response to Senator Lindsey Graham's question is probably not true:
Senator Lindsey Graham asked Zuckerberg:
"Who is your biggest competitor?"
The CEO tried to answer the question, citing Google, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft as an "overlap" to Facebook.
"If I buy a Ford, and it does not work well, and I do not like it, I can buy a Chevy. If I'm disappointed with Facebook, what is the corresponding product I can subscribe to? ” Graham asked, interrupting Zuckerberg.
When Zuckerberg tried to resolve the different types of Facebook services, Graham repeated his question.
"I am not talking about accusations. I'm talking about the real competition you face. Because car companies face stiff competition. They make a faulty car, it goes out into the world, and people stop buying it and buy another one. Is there an alternative to Facebook? ”
Zuckerberg went on to say that the "average American uses eight different apps" to connect with their friends, trying to frame Facebook as one of the many apps on the market. Shortly afterwards, Graham interrupted him and asked him if he believed Facebook was a monopoly.
"I certainly do not think so," replied Zuckerberg.
A company that survived a scandal of this magnitude probably has nothing to fear anymore. The fact should concern many of the users themselves (they can judge) to the regulators (who do not have financial interests). The unmanageable upward trend of the social network brings to the fore a power of the future that will not have political or social values but is listed on the Stock Exchange.
We are now talking about stock market values, which leave no room for social policy and interest in the individual and his privacy. What we are beginning to observe and may later "grow up" is that governments, but also the stakeholders themselves difficult to demarcate large online companies (see Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc.). Of course, all of us or most of us know what's going on with the giants of the Internet and our personal information, but we show an unmistakable tolerance.
Maybe what we are seeing happening right now is the harbinger of the Internet and the society that is coming, when we "ancient" (Digital Immigrants according to Tsiopella) who have these outdated memories of a time that did not exist cell phones.
I quote a bit of it Digital Indigenous People of Dimitra Tsiopela
Digital Indigenous people live most of their lives online without separating online from offline. Rather than confronting their digital identity and identity in the real world as separate things, they have only one (with representations in two, three or more spaces). They do not regard hybrid lives as something peculiar. Through social networks, they connect, talk and share photos with friends from around the world. They may still work creatively or politically in ways that would have been impossible thirty years ago. But in this course of relentless connectivity, the essence of relationships - even what it means to be "friends" with someone - changes. Online friendships rely heavily on the same elements based on traditional friendships - common interests, frequent interaction, etc. - but they also have a very different feature: They often disappear, it is easy to get in and out of them without even a goodbye. And it may also be lasting in ways we still have not understood.
The brain of the person who grows up in the video games and the virtual digital world is used to saying: "I can give up what I want from what I do" and "I want a reward here and now! I do not like the long-term effort that will compensate me in the distant future ". For a person who is accustomed to reading according to the F-standard, it is very difficult to read even one page of a book giving the necessary attention to the whole text. These are all factors that affect children's behavior and performance in the classroom and teachers should now take them into account. "We have a brain that is open and even changing and a technology that requires us to become faster and more automatic. The natural consequence of this is to increase the likelihood of making mistakes, "said Laura-Ann Petitto, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Toronto, a pioneer in research into speech disorders.
The pessimistic scenario says we are downgrading verbal and computational skills to "low level knowledge," while upgrading our information gathering, pattern recognition and space control capabilities, backed up by the many hours ahead of the computer screen. This will be the first step in a series of downgrades that will follow the Digital Indigenous to the Lyceum and the University until everyone comes out of the Googling doctoral education process. The optimistic scenario tells how the generation of the Digital Age will be the most creative and communicative of all. It will change the world and culture in ways we have not imagined and will give equal opportunities to more people by providing free and unlimited access to all kinds of information.