Posts tagged facebook
Where is the “don’t like” button?
You have to constantly remind yourself that in Obama’s rush to put the whole country under Obamacare and to make “everyone pay their fair share of taxes”, he never ever means to apply these things to himself, his friends or Liberals in general. In typical dictator style, it is only the honest, hard-working middle class folks like you and I that must pay for the bulk of everything.
From Business Week: It hasn’t drawn much attention, but Facebook’s first annual earnings report contains an accounting gem: a multi-billion-dollar tax deduction for the cost of executive stock options and share awards.
Even though Facebook (FB) reported $1.1 billion in pre-tax profits from U.S. operations in 2012, it will probably pay zero federal and state taxes—and even receive a federal tax refund of about $429 million—according to a Feb. 14 statement from Citizens for Tax Justice.
The tax-research and -lobbying organization says companies such as Facebook should treat stock options the same in their reports to shareholders as they do in their tax filings. Citizens for Tax Justice calls the tax footnotes in Facebook’s Jan. 30 financial statement “an amazing admission,” but there’s nothing illegal about the breaks the company is claiming. Companies like Facebook are allowed to treat the cost of non-cash compensation, such as stock options, as an expense that reduces profits, essentially the way they treat cash compensation such as salaries.
The difference is that Facebook—unlike, say, General Motors (GM)—relies heavily on stock options and restricted stock units as a form of compensation. It paid out a lot during its years as a private company that it must now recognize on its income statement and balance sheet.
You won’t find any $429 million tax refund in Facebook’s financial statements. Indeed, the company says it had a $559 million federal tax liability in 2012. But that liability isn’t an actual payment. In a footnote, the company also said that it had a $1.03 billion “excess tax benefit” last year related to “stock option exercises and other equity awards.” That benefit is what flips the federal tax liability into a refund. (A small portion is applied against state taxes.)
Facebook says that it anticipates reducing its tax liability in the future by an additional $2.17 billion by using further net operating loss carry-forwards that it has banked.
Facebook spokeswoman Ashley Zandy declined to discuss the tax break but pointed to the transcript of Facebook executives’ conference call with analysts. On the call, Chief Financial Officer David Ebersman cited the accumulated tax benefits and noted that the company ended the fiscal year with nearly $10 billion in cash and investments, “giving us great flexibility and risk protection.” source – Business Week
A little digging by Mashable has turned up a strange new initiative from Facebook. While you can already send a message for free to a friend — or a friend of a friend — the ubiquitous social network is now giving you the option to pay a hefty $100 to send a message directly to a total stranger’s inbox.
Without ponying up the cash, your message goes to the dreaded “other folder,” aka“Facebook’s dumping ground for all messages it guesses you won’t want to read urgently,” where it will likely be completely overlooked. (By the way, have you checked your “other” folder recently? Do so with caution.)
In December, Facebook announced it would be testing this pay-to-message feature, but for a much lower fee of just $1. Even that was met with mixed reviews. But bloggers discovered the new fee when testing a message to the founder himself, Mark Zuckerberg. And the fee prompt can be replicated with other popular accounts. The fee seems to jump from $1 to $100 when the person you’re messaging has a whole bunch of followers, or is a well-known public figure.
In a statement, a Facebook spokesperson says, “We are testing some extreme price points to see what works to filter spam.” In other words, the fee is an attempt to discourage people from sending annoying messages to people they don’t know. “But, it could also be seen as Facebook letting people pay to spam your inbox,” notes Josh Wolford at Web Pro News.
It will be interesting to see how long these fees stay in place, and who, if anyone, actually pays them. source – The Week
Over the weekend, Facebook took down a message by the Special Operations Speaks PAC (SOS) which highlighted the fact that Obama denied backup to the forces being overrun in Benghazi.
The message was contained in a meme which demonstrated how Obama had relied on the SEALS when he was ready to let them get Osama bin Laden, and how he had turned around and denied them when they called for backup on Sept 11.
I spoke with Larry Ward, president of Political Media, Inc — the media company that handles SOS postings and media production. Ward was the one who personally put the Navy SEAL meme up, and the one who received the warning from Facebook and an eventual 24 hour suspension from Facebook because Ward put the meme back up after Facebook told him to take it down.
Here’s what Ward told me:
We created and posted this meme on Saturday after news broke that Obama had known and denied SEALS the backup they requested.
Once the meme was up it garnered 30,000 shares, approx. 24,000 likes, and was read by hundreds of thousands of people — all within 24 hrs. On Sunday, I went into the SOS Facebook page to post something else and found a warning from Facebook that we had violated Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities with our meme. So I copied the warning, put it on the meme as as caption, and re-posted the meme to the Facebook page.
Along with the re-posted meme, Ward put a link to the Facebook “feedback comment” inbox so visitors to the SOS page could send a message to Facebook if they were as outraged over the meme being jerked down as he was.
Ward said Facebook pulled the re-posted meme down within 7 or 8 hours and suspended the SOS account for 24 hours.
In other words, Facebook put the Navy SEALS in timeout in order to shield Obama.
How low can you go? source – Breitbart
U.S. Ambassador Terry Kramer warned on Friday that a proposal to give a United Nations agency more control over the Internet is gaining momentum in other countries. Proposals to expand the U.N.’s International Telecommunications Union’s (ITU) authority over the Internet could come up at a treaty conference in Dubai in December. European telecommunications companies are pushing a plan that would create new rules that would allow them to charge more to carry international traffic.
Kramer said the idea of an international Internet fee is “gaining more interest in the African states and also in the Arab states.”
He said the United States delegation to the conference will have to redouble its efforts to convince other countries that the proposal would only stifle innovation and economic growth.
“We support efforts to grow broadband markets—not just divvying a static pie of revenue between operators and governments,” Kramer said in a speech in Washington hosted by the Telecommunications Industry Association.
Democrats and Republicans in the United States are united against proposals to increase international control of the Internet. Congress passed a non-binding resolution earlier this year urging the United States delegation to “promote a global Internet free from government control and preserve and advance the successful multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet today.”
But Kramer warned that the United States is gaining a reputation of stubbornly opposing any changes to the ITU treaty. He said the United States will have to engage in negotiations with other countries to address their concerns.
He acknowledged that many countries are struggling to secure their networks from hackers and cybercriminals. He said the United States opposes international cybersecurity regulation but supports efforts to help poorer countries expand their ability to combat cyberthreats.
“The U.S. is open to dialogue in ways to make such cooperation more comprehensive, building on work by existing institutions,” he said.
Kramer explained that the United States will not have to sign on to any treaty that it objects to, but he warned that if a majority of countries at the Dubai conference adopt an overly regulatory treaty, it could reshape the open, international nature of the Internet. source – The Hill
NEW YORK (CNN Money) — It’s finally happened: Facebook exceeded 1 billion users.
Co-founder and Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg announced Thursday that his social media site had hit the milestone.
“This morning, there are more than one billion people using Facebook actively each month,” he said. “Helping a billion people connect is amazing, humbling and by far the thing I am most proud of in my life.”
Topping the 1 billion mark means that Facebook now reaches one out of every 7 people on the planet.
The ubiquitous social media giant that was famously created in a Harvard dorm room hasn’t had much trouble attracting new members.
While its growth in North America and Europe has leveled off, Facebook continues sucking in new users throughout Asia and the developing world. It has a presence in more than 200 sovereign territories, according to stats tracked by All Facebook, which draws on data Facebook provides to advertisers, and an empire that stretches from a mere 20 users in Vatican City to more than 166 million in the United States.
It took Facebook six years to hit the 500 million user mark and barely two to double it. Facebook’s total membership grew nearly 30% over the past year, but in hot regions like Brazil, its membership doubled. (Sorry, Orkut.)
From a money-making standpoint, not all of those users are created equal.
Less than 20% of Facebook’s users live in the U.S. and Canada, but those users account for 48% of the $992 million in advertising revenue that Facebook took in last quarter. Facebook makes an average of $3.20 each quarter in revenue off its North American users, versus just 55 cents from those in Asia. source – CNN Money
RELATED STORY: The Mark of the Beast
Cookies are tiny bits of software that web pages drop onto your device that identify you anonymously but nonetheless signal useful behavior about your background interests to advertisers who might want to target you.
Critics call this spying. Advertisers call it targeting.
In an email to Business Insider, Abine privacy analyst Sarah Downey explained why users should pay more attention to trackers, and block them:
In addition to invading your privacy, these tracking requests can consume large amounts of data. And transferring lots of data takes time. Generally, the more tracking requests on a website, the slower that website loads. That’s why DNT+ gets you surfing at 125% of the normal speed and with 90% of the bandwidth, compared to a browser without DNT+ running.
Equipped with this insight, an inquisitive Facebook user might be wondering why they wouldn’t block all trackers and cookies alike.
With a slightly harsh tone, the Facebook page cautions:
Technologies like cookies, pixel tags (“pixels”), and local storage are used to deliver, secure, and understand products, services, and ads, on and off Facebook. Your browser or device may allow you to block these technologies, but you may not be able to use some features on Facebook if you block them.
There is certainly truth to this statement, not all cookies are used for tracking. Many are simply placed in order to store information for later use. But it is the broader scope of “requests” that present the larger issue. In simple terms, Downey explained that when you navigate to a website, your browser constructs that site by communicating back and forth with the server where the site information is stored. These communications are the “requests.”
But it isn’t just the website you are visiting that makes requests for information: online trackers from other companies hidden on the site do it, too. They act as third parties on your computer: you can’t see them without privacy software, you probably wouldn’t expect them to be present, and you probably don’t intend to share your information with them.
They request information like your geographic location, which other sites you’ve visited, what you click, and your Facebook username.
So, we set out to see just how much Facebook is watching our internet browsing activity. Using the Abine software, we tracked to what extent Facebook trackers increased for each new click. We started by cleaning out the browser cache and search history, and then went about using the browser like it was the start of a typical work day …
To see all DNT+ Do Not Track test results, click here…