Comment by pron | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pron | Hacker News Reader

Oh those poor, poor sheep. It's funny how eagerly people are willing to give up their privacy and freedom for some marginal benefit. And Facebook's dangers will always vastly outweigh its meager benefits. A relative of mine was just denied residency at a prestigious hospital when the admissions committee found out through Facebook that she has children, and there are numerous other examples. And the root of the problem is more than Facebook's monopoly or terrifying business model; these will be somewhat mitigated when its services, which have proven so far to be essential, will be commoditized (just like e-mail) by the wonderful Diaspora* and others like it. The root of the problem is people's willingness to expose themselves. And maybe I'm wrong, and it's not a problem at all but a cultural shift, or maybe even a necessary outlet for a human desire that's always been there.

What I am certain of is that Facebook's IPO comes at a time of peak-Facebook. The ridiculous valuations Facebook and other web companies, and the outlandish profit multipliers analysts bestow on them never cease to amaze me. When companies grow so quickly it's hard to know when something really mirrors a true market shift or is just a fad. And even if it's not a fad, competitors can disrupt the market just as easily. After all, if investors expect upcommers to succeed so quickly, it must surely mean that they expect "established" companies to fail just as quickly; you can't have it both ways. Who could have predicted five years ago that Facebook will pose such a threat to Google (search)? Search seemed like it will forever be the preferred method of finding things online. And so will Facebook be displaced (or squeezed) by something new that comes along, or its product commoditized and Facebook turned into AOL circa 1994. The whole web economy is built on black swans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory).

But whenever Facebook's inevitable market decline arrives (and it will happen quite soon), the question remains whether people's extroversion or naivete will continue to be fodder for web corporations. I would like to hope that with time and with the proper lessons learned, this behavior, too, will decline.

Good article, BTW.

"A relative of mine was just denied residency at a prestigious hospital when the admissions committee found out through Facebook that she has children..."

Would you care to elaborate on that?

Well, I don't want to give too much information because that's a very well known hospital in a major US city, but after the interview, a contact of hers on "the inside" told her that he'd heard the interview had not gone that well because the panel didn't like that she was too concerned with the work hours. She, of course, never mentioned or asked anything about the hours (she's too smart for that), but then remembered that one of the interviewers told her that he'd looked her up online. She appears in her Facebook profile picture with her two small children. And it's a well known fact among young doctors that that particular hospital, an many other like it, does not care to hire residents with young children, esp. female residents.

Didn't they know her family situation and how many children she has before looking up the facebook?

No, and they're not allowed to ask either.

"but then remembered that one of the interviewers told her that he'd looked her up online"

Fine line relating to privacy there.. something perhaps to look into.

This is incorrect - they are allowed to ask whatever they want... they just can't use the information as part of their decision making process if it reveals membership in a protected class. So, there's no point in asking, but it isn't illegal for them to ask it.

The next two paragraphs are quoted from http://www.wageproject.org/files/tart_mart_Interview_Questio... :

In the Second Circuit (CT, NY, VT)[13] and Eighth Circuit (ND, SD, NE, MN, IA, MO, AR)[14], courts have found that an employer violates Title VII when they ask questions about childbearing plans, pregnancy, child care, and/or whether their husband approves of the job and its requirements. Courts in these circuits have found that those types of interview questions are discriminatory and directly affect the hiring decision in violation of Title VII.

However, courts are not as friendly in the Seventh Circuit (IL, IN, WS). There, a woman applied for a paramedic position and was asked during the interview, she was asked about the number of children she would have, her child care arrangements, and how her husband would feel about the job. The interviewer admitted that he did not ask male applicants the same questions. However, her claim failed because the court found that the evidence did not support the finding that her sex was a determining factor in the decision to hire a man. She failed to show substantial evidence that the interviewer relied on the gender stereotyping questions when making its decision not to hire her.[15]

So, check the court circuit you're in before you ask the questions which a large number people and online-resources assert is "illegal." Even if it isn't illegal in your state, you're going to run across candidates who think it's at least immoral and prima facie indication of discrimination.

I thought employers weren't allowed to ask about age, religion and family situations. I realize that finding it on Facebook is not the same as asking, but it strikes me as pretty shady if not a little overreaching. I could be wrong, though.

You're right, it's illegal to ask any of those personal questions. Although if she did make a big deal about the hours during the interview then it would be okay to reject over concern about "failing to meet required schedule" or something like that.

That's the beauty of Facebook, you get to find the answers to all kinds of illegal questions. Collateral information, if you will.

Why would that be a problem if we knew which hospital it was?

> Well, I don't want to give too much information because that's a very well known hospital in a major US city,

and the reason why you dont want to warn everyone against the hospital that seems to be prejudice and unlawfully asking questions it shouldn't is?

Disclaimer: I dont work/like Facebook, I dont use Facebook other than for some API testing projects. I use fake name, have one blurry photo and have only hand of real life friends mixed with strangers 20/80 ratio.

> What I am certain of is that Facebook's IPO comes at a time of peak-Facebook.

you may be certain of that if you assume that Facebook monetary mission was to connect all humanbeings, or at least most of it. You cant make enough money off of it. But I think you wrong if you think that Facebook customers are users -- they are advertisers. Zuck said it himself years ago that stage 1 is to sign up everyone and thats only beginning of his idea. Now since he got everyone signed up its time to treat billion people like a test rabbits and see how to maximize revenues per user without pissing off too many of them at the same time. In this case, possibilities are almost endless and I think you will see five years of strong monetary grow until, of course, everyone will jump ship for something new, more exciting. Further, Facebook IPO comes in a perfect time. Zuck proved to investors that his idea is sustainable. Now its time to reward those who worked hard to achieve it and use stockpile of cash to accelerate and execute "milking cows" ideas. Brilliant!

> The ridiculous valuations Facebook and other web companies,

Facebook numbers came out. $1B profit. I think trading them 23x is reasonable.

> When companies grow so quickly it's hard to know when something really mirrors a true market shift or is just a fad.

2004-2012 thats 8 years of a grow. I fail to recognize it as "fad" since all FB numbers grow users and revenue wise. Is Google a "fad" ? they grew similarly fast, and what? Still in business...

> And even if it's not a fad, competitors can disrupt the market just as easily.

Well, so far we dont have "another" Facebook, because Facebook based its success on a fact that humans, in general, are lazy. Nobody will be willing to switch unless you can benefit something out of it that outweigh reason to drop all your friends and start rebuilding your network all over again, somewhere else. Until then, Facebook is safe.

> by the wonderful Diaspora*

where is the asterix leading? you work at Diaspora?

> Who could have predicted five years ago that Facebook will pose such a threat to Google (search)?

I think majority still search with Google and socialize with friends over Facebook. If you want to point threat to Google, point at Pinterest. Instead of Googling "cool bathroom ideas" and clicking "images", I go to Pinterest and have more pictures of beautiful inspirations for bathroom than I could ever analyze. This is a serious threat to Google.

> But whenever Facebook's inevitable market decline arrives (and it will happen quite soon),

can you shed some light? What do you see that we dont?

> I would like to hope that with time and with the proper lessons learned, this behavior, too, will decline.

So basically you claim that everything related to Facebook is evil. I disagree and billion naive sheep can back me up. Look, I know most hackers here are programmers. Most of us could write Facebook overnite today, and as a weekend project in 2004. This didnt happen. Facebook happened and one guy is worth $25 billion. I get it. Money-wise it hurts me sometime too. But the bottom line is, that you are trying to go against trend and your bitching is not different when 80years old librarian claimed that internet is evil and will kill libraries. Would you like internet to never happen because eventually libraries would be closed? If you go even more back in history, think about horse versus cars. I am pretty sure when cars came out, people riding horses were saying something: "oh, look at that piece of metal! it uses oil, produces deadly fumes and look how fast it goes! But everyone loves them! What a clueless sheep! I am sure it will take some time until enough people will kill themselves for everyone to realize horse-riding is more safe and secure and eventually everyone will switch back from cars to horses". Well, as we know history, this never happened and cars are here to stay. You see my point?

> Facebook numbers came out. $1B profit. I think trading them 23x is reasonable. Facebook's IPO valuation was $75-100B, not $23B. That's a 75x-100x multiplier.

> In this case, possibilities are almost endless and I think you will see five years of strong monetary grow until, of course, everyone will jump ship for something new, more exciting.

I'm not saying Facebook will not be able to squeeze a healthy profit in the next 5 years or or so, but I don't think they'll justify the multiplier - maybe their stock will rise in the short term, but not enough in the long run.

What I'm "seeing" is that for Facebook's future plans to work their market penetration has to maintain itself at the current levels. If Google+ or Diaspora* and whatever other competitors that join the game take even a 25% market share, then plans that require "almost everyone" to have a Facebook account (like other services that use a Facebook-only sign-on) will no longer be viable). And, of course, the next big thing will inevitably arrive. Like I said, this is a "black swan" market, and the point is that you can't exactly see what it is that will cause the decline, but investors assuming super-fast growth must also expect a decline among the successful. And, again, the question is not whether or not a company will do well, but how it will perform relative to expectations.

> Is Google a "fad" ? they grew similarly fast, and what? Still in business...

Yes, they are in business and doing well, but have already begun to disappoint the analysts. Also, Google has many products (many of them unsuccessful), and there were very few successful companies in history that continued to show good growth with only one product (oil companies, perhaps). By this time, Facebook should have had at least one more product that's showing a promise. They have none - all of their offerings are strongly tied to their social network, while Google's products (like Google Docs or GMail) are not directly tied to the success of search.

> where is the asterix leading? you work at Diaspora?

Diaspora* (with the asterisk) is the name of the project.

> So basically you claim that everything related to Facebook is evil. I disagree and billion naive sheep can back me up... Well, as we know history, this never happened and cars are here to stay. You see my point?

While I indeed think that Facebook and its business model do a lot of harm to people, I'm not saying the same about the idea of virtual social networks in general. I believe that Facebook has shown that the social network to be an essential service in the internet age, so, just like e-mail, it will be commoditized, with many different vendors with different offerings and different business model, will provide social network services all compatible with one another.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com