>There part you are glossing over is that before FB it was viable. After FB it was no longer viable. It was founded in 2007, so I don't know what you're talkin

>There part you are glossing over is that before FB it was viable. After FB it was no longer viable. It was founded in 2007, so I don't know what you're talking about. >Before the internet they would have made money at Mad magazine or similar publications. This is just speculation. >This isn't an argument about economics though. Really? >This is an argument about the kind of society we want to build and live in.The author doesn't want to build a society where Facebook determines what is a viable business model or not. And for the most part Facebook is in fact who determines what is a viable business model. So, it is an argument about economics. But, I was addressing a specific poster, who said: >Is it not, in some sense, bad that Facebook is capable of monetizing the product and the people who made it aren't? It seems like you're just arguing that might is right. So, show me where I mischaracterized the author's position. I don't like FB, and it's sad to me that so many artists sold their agency for eyeballs, but let's not pretend that there aren't other avenues or that the problem is with FB itself. It's a societal problem. Most people are stupid, lazy, and ignorant. Funny or Die is more of a symptom of this than an anecdote.