So there’s trouble in the world of billionaire frat-boy Mark Zuckerberg and his information brokerage company that appears as a social media giant.
There have been whistleblowers and leaked documents that show that people working for Facebook have been using their precious computer algorithms to stoke the fires of hate and division and misinformation in order to keep people hooked to their services. First came the damning interview on the CBS show “60 Minutes”, then came the public testimony from that same whistleblower in the halls of Congress. And now there are the infamous “Facebook Papers”, thousands of pages supposedly documenting how the company has put their profits over public safety, the wellness of teenagers, and even possibly fanned the flames of insurrection in January 2021.
Things do not look good for Facebook or for Zuckerberg. There are calls for Congress to force Facebook to break up its conglomerate. There is talk of legislation and regulation that could limit Facebook and companies that actually engage in social media.
So what does Zuckerberg do?
Does he and his info-brokerage company bring changes to the company or to their business model that make their services less addictive? Do they corral the hate and divisiveness?
Well… it doesn’t appear so.
Instead, what Zuckerberg and his company have decided was that “Facebook” is “toxic”, so they’re going to change the name of their conglomerate from “Facebook” to “Meta”.
Now… people have made comparisons of Zuckerberg’s decision to that of another tech giant, namely Google. Years ago, Google changed the name of their overall conglomerate from “Google” to “Alphabet”. Oh, the Google search engine still exists as Google, and Google Chrome and Google Chromebook still call themselves the same, but the corporate umbrella that encompasses all of it along with YouTube and Blogger and all of the other services now exists as Alphabet.
There is a big difference, though. Google’s creation of “Alphabet” to envelop all of their products wasn’t done amidst allegations of putting profits over people and mayhem and acts of domestic terrorism and helping to spread a global viral pandemic. Facebook is. “Alphabet” wasn’t created to counter calls of breaking up the conglomerate. “Meta” seemingly is.
There’s another reason why changing the company’s name amidst its bad practices is bad. This isn’t how legitimate businesses operate. When confronted with their bad or abusive practices, legitimate businesses try to make the changes needed to quell the calls for government action. In the 1950’s, the comic book industry did so with their self-regulatory Comics Code Authority. The movie studios did so with their ratings system. Firearm manufacturers changed some of their products. The fast food companies have been trying to make things “healthy”.
Do you know who consider changing names as a solution to bad practices? Con artists. Fraudsters.
CNBC’s “American Greed” is full of stories involving supposed “genius businessmen” who come up with schemes that bilk gullible customers, and then, when those become too “toxic”, they simply whip up the same scheme under a different name. “Acme Financial” failing? Too toxic to invest in? Well, just switch everything over to our new “Act on Me Financial” service. And when that goes bad, just move everything over to “A-Me-Three”. Same scheme, same people, just a different name.
This is the kind of thing that Enron did to hide their growing debt. They shifted it from one company into a new one. This went on and on, coming up with companies that existed on paper only so they could shift their debt and disguise it as “loans”. They did it until they couldn’t anymore, and then it all came down.
Let’s get brutally honest here… Facebook is still “Failbook” no matter what they call themselves. Changing their name doesn’t fix the problems that exist. If they want to get rid of the “stigma” or the “toxicity” that exists, then they need to actually change their practices. They can call themselves “Meta” or “Mega” or “Bob” or, my favorite, “Dick”, and it’ll still be the same. If they don’t change their ways, then a year or two from now, “Meta” or “Mega” or “Bob” or “Dick” will be in the same hot water, and Zuckerberg will once again be facing calls for regulation and legislation and breakups.
It’s ironic that Zuckerberg chose of the name “Meta” as it’s similar to the Hebrew word for “dead”. While it may not mark the “death” of Facebook, it certainly spells doom for the idea that they can simply repackage itself under a new name and all of their problems would magically go away. An information brokerage company that uses social media to collect information is still what it is, no matter what you call it.
Personally, I will refer to it as Dick. It just fits.
No comments:
Post a Comment