Facebook, Amazon etc....
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
I know why they do it, but I want to to know how, as in how they get away with it!
I know WeWork somehow put themselves in the online space, so their EBITDA was closer to 20 rather than the 9.5 it technically should have.
@4bars I don't think companies can be valued on future expectations? If they can then it's surely only a matter of time before everything goes kapoot?
Sorry @yumtum I got lost in translation and I understood another thing. Yes, you are right nothing to do with the future
I was just about to post about the SWP accounts being banned from Facebook, but you got there first @Shamana
Apparently over 60 different accounts related to the organisation, their local chapters and even just some members have been removed without explanation.
So many leftist outlets have been getting content removed or outright banned from Twitter and Facebook - and it's ratcheted up since their last round of censorship was gleefully greeted with a million 'yassss kweens' because it inconvenienced the orange man.
Possibly even more shady is that Google and YouTube have now quietly changed their algorithms to 'highlight authoritative sources' (ie hello my fellow corporate mainstream kids). They realised that outright banning independent news organisations and content creators would cause at least some level of backlash so instead decided to kill them with algorithms.
Search, for example, for George Floyd, Donald Trump, Joe Biden on YouTube. It used to be you would get hundreds of different independent content creators and outlets in your results, based on the video's popularity. Now good luck finding anything but corporate mainstream anywhere close to the top.
Content creators like Kyle Kulinski, Michael Malice and Jimmy Dore have commented on this recently - saying that their new subscriber clickthrough rate has dropped to essentially 0 because unless you search for them by name, their videos will never show up prominently despite having more views than CNN, NBC, etc.
And they're all leftists... I imagine right wing creators are even worse affected, but I can't say for sure because I don't follow them.
Apparently over 60 different accounts related to the organisation, their local chapters and even just some members have been removed without explanation.
So many leftist outlets have been getting content removed or outright banned from Twitter and Facebook - and it's ratcheted up since their last round of censorship was gleefully greeted with a million 'yassss kweens' because it inconvenienced the orange man.
Possibly even more shady is that Google and YouTube have now quietly changed their algorithms to 'highlight authoritative sources' (ie hello my fellow corporate mainstream kids). They realised that outright banning independent news organisations and content creators would cause at least some level of backlash so instead decided to kill them with algorithms.
Search, for example, for George Floyd, Donald Trump, Joe Biden on YouTube. It used to be you would get hundreds of different independent content creators and outlets in your results, based on the video's popularity. Now good luck finding anything but corporate mainstream anywhere close to the top.
Content creators like Kyle Kulinski, Michael Malice and Jimmy Dore have commented on this recently - saying that their new subscriber clickthrough rate has dropped to essentially 0 because unless you search for them by name, their videos will never show up prominently despite having more views than CNN, NBC, etc.
And they're all leftists... I imagine right wing creators are even worse affected, but I can't say for sure because I don't follow them.
Do they need to give an explanation? This was the same argument thrown in by people when ol' Donald was removed from social media platforms.
They explained themselves when ol' Donald was removed from social media platforms.
True enough, however there's a bit of a difference between the President of the United States and an activist group.
Google threatening to remove their search engine from Australia if they're forced to pay for the content they steal from news organisations.
Highlights how much power these tech giants have amassed. They are trying to bully a major nation.
Highlights how much power these tech giants have amassed. They are trying to bully a major nation.
It was nice to see the PM basically tell them to f*ck off.
Feels to me less of an issue for Google, but that would be game over for FB as a news source. Which would obviously be most excellent.
Companies are definitely valued on future expectations, no? Or well, projected future earnings definitely plays a part in calculating the current value of a business.I know why they do it, but I want to to know how, as in how they get away with it!
I know WeWork somehow put themselves in the online space, so their EBITDA was closer to 20 rather than the 9.5 it technically should have.
@4bars I don't think companies can be valued on future expectations? If they can then it's surely only a matter of time before everything goes kapoot?
From what I've gathered it's their current yearly profit with their industry EBITDA multiplier?
Aaargh yeah usually a few valuation techniques are used. Future cash flows/profit predictions, discounted to present value is another - depending on company/industry etc.
I find it amazing that more people don't start companies, and I say that as a 30 year old who has never tried anything other than being a wage slave, just seems to make much more sense, but I guess mindset plays a huge role.
Looked up some of the EBITDA multipliers for my last post, seems the medical industry is at 25x - guessing a fair few medical company CEO's will be better off after this pandemic...
Yeah I suppose the stress of starting and growing a business is not for the majority out there & it’s as much luck/networking as it is a great idea and good management.
Yep, the gap between rich and poor would have just grown bigger at the end of this pandemic.
no they dont, it is private property.
I don't believe they should be considered such. Social media platforms are the modern equivalent to a public square and should be regulated accordingly.
Even now, the only reason they receive legal protection from being sued for user content is the agreement that they maintain a public forum, with limited editorial oversight - only removing the most egregious/violent content. That isn't being done. They're very clearly curating their sites based on politics. Look at Reddit, for an obvious example of this. The_Donald got banned for 'calls for violence against police' which was and is absolutely comical, given that they overwhelmingly worshipped cops to a creepy degree. Reddit never provided any evidence for these threats, other than Steve Huffman saying on a podcast that 'we saw a few posts'. A few posts? Look at literally any thread about police that reaches the Front Page on Reddit and it's filled with anti-police, ACAB, fry-em-like-bacon rhetoric. It's a clear double standard that violates the Section 230 protections.
Imagine if you tried to call someone and received an automated message saying "We're sorry, the person you were trying to reach has had their services terminated by Vodafone for sharing unacceptable political opinions on this line". Imagine then that this person is also banned from O2, 3, EE - every platform - on the same day... because that's what's been happening with social media banwaves. There's been clear and obvious collusion between the 'competitors'. Is that acceptable because they're a 'private company'? What makes a phone line more of a public utlity than Twitter or Facebook? How about the same example but with banking instead of phone companies?
Social media platforms are public utilities and should be regulated as such.
Even ignoring that argument though... just because a private business wants to do something doesn't mean they should be allowed to. Paying pennies for labour or segregating your business is illegal, because even though it's your private property, there are still things we expressly forbid businesses from doing because they're harmful practices.
Last edited:
is/ought! just saying that they are pvt right now, and that means something.
i think there's valid arguments to nationalise it, but i don't see anyone doing that. the biggest impetus for the right to do it is them getting banned - but they got banned the moment they lost power, so now they can't do it. for the liberals is because they think social media + russia = trump, but now he's gone from power and from twitter, and q is being purged, so that urgency will be gone too. the left should want to do it out of principle but it doesn't exist. and the supreme court has mostly chosen business over the opposing side regardless of culture war issues, so even if the dems try...
i think it's valid to compare them to utilites, but the private monopoly utility company here has a crazy profit margin and dodgy environmental record, and that's accepted as the status quo of the world.
Calling them utilities just to gain regulation is pointless. They're not utilities. People can delete or sign out of social media platforms and still live a normal life. Stopping true utilities like water, electricity, transport has an impact to life and are as such defined as an essential public service.
What some groups would like is some kind of editorial control, similar to what TV and newspapers would fall under (Ofcom or IPSO regulations in the UK) but then what editorial standards should be set? If these political parties or activists groups don't like when terms of service of a private platform , then they're absolutely free to start up their own social network to deliver their own views.
Not sure why Amazon is being lumped together with FB for example. They are two completely different businesses.
I use Amazon but completely dislike FB. A good friend of mine daughter was subjected to ongoing bullying through FB which resulted in attempted suicide. And FB did nothing at all to help her.
I use Amazon but completely dislike FB. A good friend of mine daughter was subjected to ongoing bullying through FB which resulted in attempted suicide. And FB did nothing at all to help her.
Amazon Is Forcing Its Warehouse Workers Into Brutal ‘Megacycle’ Shifts
The company has been quietly transitioning warehouse workers at Amazon warehouses nationwide to a 10-hour graveyard shift, known as the "megacycle."
On January 25, hundreds of workers at an Amazon warehouse in Chicago were presented with a baffling choice: sign up for a ten-and-a-half-hour graveyard shift, or lose your job.
Management informed workers that their warehouse, known as DCH1, would be shut down, and they were being offered a shift that runs from 1:20am to 11:50am, which is known as "megacycle," at a new Chicago warehouse.
DCH1 has been the target of protests, walkouts, and petitions organized by workers that have changed Amazon's nationwide policies for its warehouses. Its closure will force workers to choose between their lives outside of Amazon and keeping their jobs in the middle of a pandemic.
"[This decision] is cruel and the antithesis of family-friendly corporate responsibility," organized workers at the facility who go by DCH1 Amazonians United, told Motherboard.
"The new schedule is unworkable particularly for many mothers, those who care for elderly relatives and others who need to be home in the morning hours," they continued. "In this COVID-19 environment, kids are home and learning virtually and a parent needs to be with them."
More at source: https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3g...brutal-megacycle-shifts?utm_source=reddit.comNot sure a 10 hour shift is “brutal” ffs
Well whether it's brutal or not, I think everyone can agree that a 10 hour shift starting at 1.20 AM in a warehouse is few people's idea of a dream job, can't we?
And when we're talking about a company forcing people with care commitments onto it with the threat of job losses during the middle of a pandemic it seems particularly inhumane.
I had to do 10 hour shifts at UCi Cinema for a student job I had and you were on your feet the whole time. They were 12:00-22:00 and sometimes got extended till midnight.
Doing that as a junior doctor would genuinely be brutal.
Doing that as a junior doctor would genuinely be brutal.
I do 10/11 and 12 hour days in a physical job without Any break apart from driving from one to another job and I won’t see 60 again.
Latest update on the ongoing saga of India becoming a police state
https://m.timesofindia.com/india/go...r-non-compliance/amp_articleshow/80804008.cms
https://m.timesofindia.com/india/go...r-non-compliance/amp_articleshow/80804008.cms
Very interesting what just happened in Australia
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...australia-woke-up-to-a-facebook-news-blackout
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...australia-woke-up-to-a-facebook-news-blackout
Christ I fecking hate Facebook. Seems so insane that anyone would rely on it for actual news. If the whole thing was switched off tomorrow the world would be an infinitely better place.
As much as I despise Facebook those two things aren't even remotely comparable.
One is cross referencing a list of known media companies / news sites and the other is creating an algorithm good enough to analyse the detail of every post in Facebook by every person on the entire platform and presumably checking the results before taking offline.
Sure. I know. I just like the idea of the stupid poxy thing being shut down with the push of a button.
But we love Big Tech, don't we? Stop complaining.
Unfortunately I do use it a lot to stay in touch with friends and family. I am a member of some really useful groups too. I never use it solely for news though so would have no problem if that aspect of it was eliminated.
You and I are old enough to remember when it started and the original concept worked great. I had recently emigrated so was a handy way to feel close to distant friends and family.
It’s all the absolute bullshit that’s built up around that core idea that makes it insufferable to me. Plus even the keeping in touch with friends thing went tits up after one or two friends started spamming the shit out of it, to the exclusion of everyone else.
I've just accepted that Adam Curtis is right and politicians are out of ideas and offer us no future. The tech companies will become the new benevolent dictators. So long as we feel safe and able to buy useless shit, watch cat videos and boast about our holidays we will accept that.
Can’t remember which sci fi book it was in (maybe Altered Carbon?) but by the end of the next century nation states had become irrelevant and the only seats of power that mattered were in massive tech corporations that divided up the planet’s fast depleting resources between them. Looks like we might be getting there ahead of schedule.
It was an interesting revelation from Curtis, in that I hadn't thought about it much, that in the past pols derived their power from labour with people organizing to get better conditions. Now that has pretty much been totally nullified and pols have switched their allegiance to money and business. They hold their noses and beg us to elect them every few years but their first loyalty is to money now.
I really can't envisage much else causing people to mobilise enough to completely reverse that situation. Tech is gaining more and more power and the ability to resist pols reining them in. Facebook taking on a country now!
You can de-activate your account whilst keeping hold of Messenger. It's not a perfect solution, for obvious reasons (you'd lose the groups) but it gets rid of 99% of the bullshit and still keeps you in touch.
Good for Australia.
What happened is our Tories (The LNP) made a shit law making facbook/google/other platforms give money to Murdoch media for the "right" to post their links on facebook.
Murdoch media and other outlets act as a propaganda racket for the LNP so they support each other and this rule was to get them easy money via clicks, facebook called their bluff and nuked us, and also they would have been concred about New media blowing old media (their racket) out of the water.
Government wanted to make Rupert happy over the people.