Interesting Links for 8-1-2011

[andrewducker]

• Radiohead: are they any good? (A sceptic listens to the first five albums - funny and well written)
  (tags: music radiohead reviews)
• The S stands for Simple (Thankfully I don't have to work with SOAP, but if you ever have, this is hilarious)
  (tags: humor xml programming software web soa soap)
• The cowardly fudge behind the rhetoric of Control Orders (This being the bit that worries me about today's speech)
  (tags: law uk rights freedom government)
• Nick Clegg's speech on civil liberties. More of this please - reminds me why I couldn't vote for Labour last time around.
  I'm nervous, of course, of what the actual laws will be. But this is generally pointing in the right direction.
  (tags: uk government law rights freespeech libel terrorism)
• Glasgow pantomime dress broke Geneva Convention
  (tags: law uk)
• Facebook made profits of $350m in 9 months. Valued at $50Bn. Not sure that multiplier makes sense to me...
  (tags: facebook business web2.0)
• Harry Potter plagiarism case dismissed. (They claimed that she copied the idea of wizards travelling on trains. WTF?)
  (tags: harrypotter law books)

Comments

[birguslatro]

Facebook. "Not sure that multiplier makes sense to me..." Maybe the multiplier's a simple $10 per account?

[andrewducker]

Are they going to start charging that? Because if they can find a way to make $10 off me this year, I'll be surprised...

[birguslatro]

Look at how many of your recent posts have been for other people's media, include ones with subjects like 'I want to see this very badly'.

No, they're not going to start charging $10 a year. But there's no doubt some advertising rule of thumb for how much a successful social media site is worth based on how many members it has, and it wouldn't surprise me if it's $10 per member, just to keep the number nice and round.

But then, not all members would post regularly about stuff that's for sale and only a small number of those would have an exceptional number of friends. So some would be worth way more than $10 a year to Facebook's advertisers.

This is a sucky system, as it not only means those providing the content the advertisers feed off aren't getting any of the cake, but the hardest working of them are the ones making the most for the advertisers.