11 ms·

My main takeaway from this is that #deleteFacebook has been a flash in the pan-- their active user count is still increasing across all regions. Also to note, F

by roddux 8y ago

My main takeaway from this is that #deleteFacebook has been a flash in the pan-- their active user count is still increasing across all regions. Also to note, FB only pay effectively 11% tax on some 12 billion dollars worth of revenue.

loceng 8y ago
Who knows what gaming mechanisms they could have in place to artificially inflate numbers, it could even be a third-party that somehow knows how much of an increase in user signups they need to stay on an upward course. With the level of bad acting linked to Cambridge Analytica, really anything is plausible if it's a method to maintain control via manipulating appearances, etc.
- unit91 8y ago
  Maybe. What you're describing would mean prison for anyone involved, though, which makes me skeptical. Not saying it's definitely false (I have no way of knowing), and certainly white-collar crime happens. But that would be a very high-stakes move.
  - quickben 8y ago
    Eh, did you read what WF was found doing recently? When money matters, at executive level, it doesn't really look like they care about law, human lives (that FB memo), etc.
  - loceng 8y ago
    That's what I'm saying though, up until a month ago I would have been more skeptical and err on the side of doubt too, however did you see the hidden camera recording of the Cambridge Analytica CEO by Channel 4's investigation? I imagine comments like his, and hopefully evidence can be found, that will lead to prison time for him and others. There are clearly very intelligent people and seemingly without a conscience, and who even admit that they would do things in untraceable ways, including in part under and between different company names; not a stretch to imagine activities happen on no books with no trackable gain given in exchange -- or even in plain sight however people erring on the side of doubt and disbelief. We have the evidence smacking us in the face every day though. The result of Cambridge Analytica's activities, seemingly along with Russia's help - directly or indirectly I'm not sure, is getting someone like Trump into office, along with apparently winning elections in other nations around the world. I'd say very high-stakes they're playing for, positioning someone in as President of the United States to align with Russian motives, along with the shit going on with Syria and nerve agents actively being used. It's certainly rallying the world to align for good, to align for accountability - against those who are acting bad.
bertil 8y ago
I am not familiar with recent numbers, but most controversies and calls to stop patronising a service have a positive immediate impact on the numbers of most companies where I worked (and that included Facebook some years ago).
- p49k 8y ago
  It worked against Digg, but only because a reasonably well-known, functional equivalent existed that people could use instead.
  - kristjansson 8y ago
    Digg also (IIRC) wasn't an moral outrage against the company, but an reaction to the product itself.
- matte_black 8y ago
  This happens because of the publicity that companies get when new users find out about them this way. Everyone who gets this news knows Facebook by now, so there is no such effect in play here.
thinkcomp 8y ago
Perhaps this is related to why the company is being sued over its tax evasion strategies. https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/304jmbv5l/california-northern-district-court/united-states-of-america-v-facebook-inc-and-subsidiaries/ https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/304jmbv5l/california-north...
mtgx 8y ago
Facebook only started deploying its developer API and advertiser changes a couple of weeks ago, which means it already got most of its revenue, if not all of it (depending on how Facebook receives the money and accounts for it) by the time they closed the Q1 quarter. You also can't expect to see the full impact of Cambridge Analytica scandal so soon. Let's see what happens over the next 12 months. Facebook engagement was already in free-fall last year, and I imagine a lot of people disengaged with Facebook after this scandal, and they plan on using it much less in the future, even if they don't actually delete their accounts. Eventually all of these scandals (as well as the future ones) will catch-up with Facebook. http://buzzsumo.com/blog/facebook-engagement-brands-publishers-falls-20-2017/ http://buzzsumo.com/blog/facebook-engagement-brands-publishe...
hw 8y ago
I don't think the effects of the privacy issues are completely reflected, given they happened towards the tail end of the quarter. That said, I don't think it's going to make a huge dent in the user metrics. Advertising revenue and usage however will be interesting over the next few quarters.
thaumaturgy 8y ago
Yeah, I may have to eat some crow from an argument the other day with another HN user. Surveys and #deleteFacebook and protests and so forth seemed to indicate that people did finally start getting interested in their own privacy. But no. Somehow, even with a declining youth demographic and widespread reports of less time spent on site and the CA fiasco, they still ended up with a growth of users in all markets. I've wondered sometimes whether we're headed towards a post-privacy world, and what it'll look like -- not just one in which there is little privacy, but one in which privacy is not something that most people think about or value.
- ASalazarMX 8y ago
  > I've wondered sometimes whether we're headed towards a post-privacy world If post-privacy worked both ways, I'm all for a future like that, it would be a transparency utopia.
  - x220 8y ago
    But it will never truly be post-privacy. As always, the rich and powerful will carefully guard their privacy all while saying to the rest of the world that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.
    - Silhouette 8y ago
      I thought the following was perhaps the most telling exchange of Zuckerberg's recent testimony before US Senators. Senator Dick Durbin: Would you be comfortable sharing with us the name of the hotel you stayed in last night? Mark Zuckerberg: Um... [Long hesitation] No. Senator Dick Durbin: If you messaged anybody this week, would you share with us the names of the people you've messaged? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, no, I would probably not choose to do that publicly here.
- matte_black 8y ago
  We are not heading to a post-privacy world. Post-Privacy means no one can get privacy even if they want it. That has never been the case. What you are merely seeing is people are ok with the amount of data that has been collected on them. The lack of true widespread outrage means we are either at the limit or we can still collect a bit more before users get really pissed.
samfisher83 8y ago
Maybe most people just don't care all that much about privacy. They just want to share their picture with friends.
- panic 8y ago
  I think most people do care about privacy, but they're not being given much of a choice here. Their friends are on Facebook, so the only way to share pictures with all of them is through Facebook.
  - matte_black 8y ago
    They care, but what they’ve shared is likely not what they actually care about keeping private.
  - batuhanw 8y ago
    From my point of view, I do care about privacy, beside I don't use mobile phone, I don't want to. Since whatsapp isn't an option for me, messenger app is only way to be in contact with friends, family. (I have iPod Touch) Considering I'm traveling often, I need to use it. I'm not fan of it, but I'm not against either. In the end we are product of Facebook and #deleteFacebook is a joke.
    - smichel17 8y ago
      You can use Signal on an iPod touch.
- rokhayakebe 8y ago
  Maybe most people just don't care all that much about privacy Not only that. Most people welcome the attention. The people who are fighting for privacy of their friends and family are the ones who don't get it. Friends and Family want to be out there, in the public eye, liked and commented on.
- snaky 8y ago
  Most people just don't care about almost anything.
andrewxhill 8y ago
While you are probably right, these numbers only account for the first 10-12 days of #deletefacebook, and those are only a few days over most of a quarter's worth of growth before them.
- matte_black 8y ago
  #DeleteFacebook is not a thing. Anyone who thinks it was going to affect Facebook doesn’t understand the fundamentals behind Facebook. It’s just some meaningless outrage porn for people to hang a hashtag off of and maybe increase their social currency. This stock is going to be back to its 190 price levels soon enough and anyone who isn’t on board is going to be left with the FOMO.
  - dboreham 8y ago
    Perhaps, but I have certainly noticed a significant downturn in the level of end user engagement on Facebook in recent weeks. Almost nobody is posting these days. Plenty of ads and commercial organizations in my feed but very little organic content.
    - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
      I've noticed this too. Thing is, the expectation seems to be users deleting their accounts en masse, while the reality is that people are just slowly drifting away from it (without going through the hassle of actually deleting their account).
  - wehere1 8y ago
    lmao what a loser
- instaheat 8y ago
  I agree with you, I don't think we can really glean anything meaningful from this information since it is only a fraction of the quarter after the information came to light. If we see a significant dip in Q2, then perhaps we can surmise that this impacted revenues negatively.
wlamont 8y ago
The decline may have a long tail. I was also blown away at their low effective tax rate.
tomc1985 8y ago
Meanwhile the worker bees pay 35-50% in income tax and other withholdings between state and federal. That pisses me off so much
- adventured 8y ago
  Which worker bees are paying 35-50%? You just about have to make a million dollars per year in the US - and be in California or NYC - to pay 50%. One million dollars in income gets you to about 47% in LA, SF, or NYC. A quarter of a million dollar income will get you up to 35% - and those are the most expensive tax locations in the country. $50,000 (the US median full-time income) gets you a combined effective rate, before deductions, of: 16% in Dallas, 20% in LA, 23% in Portland, 16% in Seattle, 24% in NYC, and 22% in Boise. In Seattle, Miami, or Dallas, you'll pay a combined 36% on one million dollars in income.
  - Matthias247 8y ago
    > Which worker bees are paying 35-50%? Lots of people in Europe. Which for sure is also a big market for FB. In Germany you are already have deductions of nearly 50% if your income is around 50000€.
    - Chickenosaurus 8y ago
      I do not see how a person making 50k € in Germany would have a gross/net difference of 50 %. According to [1], the gross/net difference would be about 34 % in the worst case (highest tax class, no children, not married etc.), which includes social security, health insurance and so on. The calculator gives realistic results for my own income. [1] https://www.brutto-netto-rechner.info/ https://www.brutto-netto-rechner.info/
      - Matthias247 8y ago
        If I enter 50k there, and a tax class 1, then I end up with Netto: 2.456,06 € 29.472,66 € which means 40% deductions. Which is approximately what I meant (yes, 50% was slightly too high).
gniv 8y ago
> FB only pay effectively 11% tax It's the same for Google. Might be a weird one-off due to the new tax law. https://abc.xyz/investor/pdf/2018Q1_alphabet_earnings_release.pdf https://abc.xyz/investor/pdf/2018Q1_alphabet_earnings_releas...
throwaway5752 8y ago
Tax is on profit, not revenue. Granted, still $5B. Also, the tax figures have seasonality. Q4 is highest, Q1 is lowest. This quarter's effective rate was up by 100 basis pts yoy.
Lionsion 8y ago
> My main takeaway from this is that #deleteFacebook has been a flash in the pan-- their active user count is still increasing across all regions I don't know. Think I've observed a general drop in engagement in my relatively well-off and educated social circle. If Facebook dies, it's not going to be sudden. #deletefacebook type-stuff may be more akin to lifestyle advertising than the buy-it-now kind.
chrischen 8y ago
DeleteFacebook is mostly western, specifically an American thing. Their user growth is most happening in other developing markets (non-Europe and non USA).
- evfanknitram 8y ago
  Yes. I'm from Sweden and have seen zero about this except for a in a few tech communities like parts of reddit and HN. From my outsider perspective it feels like people in the bubble thinking everyone is on board while in reality th large majority outside of the bubble doesn't even know there is a discussion.
- danieldk 8y ago
  In the Netherlands, it was definitely in the mainstream media. (Pushed by Arjen Lubach, a late night show host.) Some coverage, subtitled: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa-SzNepsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa-SzNepsA
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
quotemstr 8y ago
Internet outrage is _never_ as widespread or important as it looks. The best way to predict the effect of any social media campaign against a person or organization is to evaluate the steadfastness of the campaign's target. If you are the target of an internet mob and you blink, you're not only going to enact mob-demanded changes that are detrimental to your interests, but also broadcast weakness and attract further mob attacks. If you instead stand your ground and refuse to be cowed by hashtag campaigns, the outrage mob eventually gets bored and finds another target. Your interests are preserved and you end up broadcasting strength and determination. A lot of people are starting to figure out that internet mobs have no real teeth.
- Judgmentality 8y ago
  I thought the #deleteuber campaign was somewhat successful? My understanding is a series of unfortunate events, largely kicked off by that campaign, ultimately led to Kalanick's downfall. http://www.businessinsider.com/travis-kalanick-uber-takedown-untold-story-2018-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/travis-kalanick-uber-takedown...
  - shantanubala 8y ago
    Kalanick is still a very successful founder - not that I necessarily think he should be emulated. Regardless of what you think of Uber, Travis Kalanick started a very large company, and Uber is as entrenched as ever. So perhaps this actually is evidence in favor of the parent comment. Did Uber really suffer much at all? Or did they just reshuffle management, pay Kalanick billions to (kind of) leave, and continued business as usual?
    - mehrdadn 8y ago
      > continued business as usual? Citations? I haven't really heard about them pulling any shenanigans under the new CEO's watch.
      - nstart 8y ago
tintor 8y ago
Better metric than active user count is how much time those users spend on FB (and how many Ads they get shown). Many users don't delete their accounts, but keep using messenger only. Messenger still works even if you disable your account (but others will not be able to find you by search).
aphextron 8y ago
>Also to note, FB only pay effectively 11% tax on some 12 billion dollars worth of revenue. Interesting this is the exact same number Google posted yesterday. I guess I should just incorporate myself for tax purposes. Sure must be nice.
- Erik816 8y ago
  That would be a great way to subject yourself to double taxation.
1024core 8y ago
Well, even though I did not delete FB, my usage has gone way down. I reckon I spend about 5 minutes/day on FB today, down from about 30 min/day a year ago.
- lallysingh 8y ago
  Still have those cookies active when browsing normally?
bamboozled 8y ago
There's no such thing as bad publicity, the latest incidents are no exception. This has probably been a benefit to the company overall as I feel it was becoming less of a focus in peoples lives until we all had to discuss the platform again.
acchow 8y ago
I think the #deleteFacebook thing will blow over. But we have yet to see its impact. The Cambridge Analytica story happened near the end of the quarter and we don't yet know its real impact.
throwaway13456 8y ago
It doesn't work that way. I learned it the hard way. I run a successful s/w company that was recently under targeted attacks by one of these hashtag campaigns. The gist was we wrote something about why we refused to hire women simply to improve the % of females in tech and why we want to hire the best people for the job irrespective of their gender. The goal of the post was to help people correctly contribute to gender ratio problems instead of blanket hiring, which is sexism by itself. However, this backfired and a lot of feminist groups targeted us with hashtags and some even accusing us of things we never said/done (the blog post has been removed since). They created memes, fake citations of stuff me and my company staff didn't say and they revolted heavily. At first I was really shocked as this was my first time experiencing something like this and I almost thought my company and brand name was doomed. However, I decided to take control and published a follow up post of things we said, we did, we didn't do and we decided to stand by our words. The hashtags multiplied, some even threatened us legal action. Many created fake accounts on our blogs and commented bad stuff about us everywhere. Some of them even sent emails directly to our customers! But, I didn't give in. A week went by and things started looking better. The hashtags dropped, but the good thing was, from those hashtags, we got a LOT of new page-views and signups. We lost two customers who didn't want to be associated with our controversy, but we got 8 new ones after this campaign. The biggest take away - 1) If you believe in something, don't give in to threats and disrespectful demands. It's almost like supporting extortion. 2) Any free marketing is good marketing. I suppose this was no different for Facebook.
- avip 8y ago
  Why did you write that blog post to begin with? Sounds like a terrible issue to write about if your goal is positive PR.
  - needToSay 8y ago
    Lol what a coward you are
- epanchin 8y ago
  Those really shouldn’t have been the biggest takeaways. Cure vs prevention. If you write a blog on behalf of a business, perhaps ask someone to read it over - preferably someone who holds the views you seek to attack.
airstrike 8y ago
They also probably haven't repatriated most of the cash earned overseas (on which they paid the low taxes) so they can't really use it. If they did, you'd see a different effective tax rate.
tomglynch 8y ago
You're totally right. The issue is although people are promoting #deleteFacebook, there's no other alternatives with widespread adoption to replace each person's Facebook network. Having said that, there's movers in the space - we just need more adoption. I'm looking at a new wave of products like Sociall to step up: https://www.producthunt.com/posts/sociall https://www.producthunt.com/posts/sociall Though maybe there's already existing products out there that could pivot to claim some of facebook's space.
textmode 8y ago
According to this, Wall Street is still concerned: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/24/facebook-may-make-tons-of-money--but-this-timewall-streets-worried-about-engagement.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/24/facebook-may-make-tons-of-mo... Facebook has begun running TV ads to counter anti-Facebook sentiment: https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/25/17280902/facebook-ad-about-spam-fake-news-data-misuse https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/25/17280902/facebook-ad-abou... They have also replaced their chief privacy officer with a former FCC chairman.
zjaffee 8y ago
I don't think that information can be clearly determined yet, we need to wait until Q2 earnings as the big push of people deleting facebook happened after Q1 ended.
mk89 8y ago
It would be interesting to know the active amount of users per day. I connect to fb once a month, so even a person like me, not using it at all except to see if someone has sent a message or so, is in the stats. However, I can't see how I increase their revenues with that one 60 seconds (or less) session per month. And I am quite sure there are lots of people doing the same.

by roddux 8y ago

loceng 8y ago

Who knows what gaming mechanisms they could have in place to artificially inflate numbers, it could even be a third-party that somehow knows how much of an increase in user signups they need to stay on an upward course. With the level of bad acting linked to Cambridge Analytica, really anything is plausible if it's a method to maintain control via manipulating appearances, etc.

unit91 8y ago
Maybe. What you're describing would mean prison for anyone involved, though, which makes me skeptical. Not saying it's definitely false (I have no way of knowing), and certainly white-collar crime happens. But that would be a very high-stakes move.
- quickben 8y ago
  Eh, did you read what WF was found doing recently? When money matters, at executive level, it doesn't really look like they care about law, human lives (that FB memo), etc.
- loceng 8y ago
  That's what I'm saying though, up until a month ago I would have been more skeptical and err on the side of doubt too, however did you see the hidden camera recording of the Cambridge Analytica CEO by Channel 4's investigation? I imagine comments like his, and hopefully evidence can be found, that will lead to prison time for him and others. There are clearly very intelligent people and seemingly without a conscience, and who even admit that they would do things in untraceable ways, including in part under and between different company names; not a stretch to imagine activities happen on no books with no trackable gain given in exchange -- or even in plain sight however people erring on the side of doubt and disbelief. We have the evidence smacking us in the face every day though. The result of Cambridge Analytica's activities, seemingly along with Russia's help - directly or indirectly I'm not sure, is getting someone like Trump into office, along with apparently winning elections in other nations around the world. I'd say very high-stakes they're playing for, positioning someone in as President of the United States to align with Russian motives, along with the shit going on with Syria and nerve agents actively being used. It's certainly rallying the world to align for good, to align for accountability - against those who are acting bad.

bertil 8y ago

I am not familiar with recent numbers, but most controversies and calls to stop patronising a service have a positive immediate impact on the numbers of most companies where I worked (and that included Facebook some years ago).

p49k 8y ago
It worked against Digg, but only because a reasonably well-known, functional equivalent existed that people could use instead.
- kristjansson 8y ago
  Digg also (IIRC) wasn't an moral outrage against the company, but an reaction to the product itself.
matte_black 8y ago
This happens because of the publicity that companies get when new users find out about them this way. Everyone who gets this news knows Facebook by now, so there is no such effect in play here.

thinkcomp 8y ago

Perhaps this is related to why the company is being sued over its tax evasion strategies. https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/304jmbv5l/california-northern-district-court/united-states-of-america-v-facebook-inc-and-subsidiaries/ https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/304jmbv5l/california-north...

mtgx 8y ago

Facebook only started deploying its developer API and advertiser changes a couple of weeks ago, which means it already got most of its revenue, if not all of it (depending on how Facebook receives the money and accounts for it) by the time they closed the Q1 quarter. You also can't expect to see the full impact of Cambridge Analytica scandal so soon. Let's see what happens over the next 12 months. Facebook engagement was already in free-fall last year, and I imagine a lot of people disengaged with Facebook after this scandal, and they plan on using it much less in the future, even if they don't actually delete their accounts. Eventually all of these scandals (as well as the future ones) will catch-up with Facebook. http://buzzsumo.com/blog/facebook-engagement-brands-publishers-falls-20-2017/ http://buzzsumo.com/blog/facebook-engagement-brands-publishe...

hw 8y ago

I don't think the effects of the privacy issues are completely reflected, given they happened towards the tail end of the quarter. That said, I don't think it's going to make a huge dent in the user metrics. Advertising revenue and usage however will be interesting over the next few quarters.

thaumaturgy 8y ago

Yeah, I may have to eat some crow from an argument the other day with another HN user. Surveys and #deleteFacebook and protests and so forth seemed to indicate that people did finally start getting interested in their own privacy. But no. Somehow, even with a declining youth demographic and widespread reports of less time spent on site and the CA fiasco, they still ended up with a growth of users in all markets. I've wondered sometimes whether we're headed towards a post-privacy world, and what it'll look like -- not just one in which there is little privacy, but one in which privacy is not something that most people think about or value.

ASalazarMX 8y ago
> I've wondered sometimes whether we're headed towards a post-privacy world If post-privacy worked both ways, I'm all for a future like that, it would be a transparency utopia.
- x220 8y ago
  But it will never truly be post-privacy. As always, the rich and powerful will carefully guard their privacy all while saying to the rest of the world that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.
  - Silhouette 8y ago
    I thought the following was perhaps the most telling exchange of Zuckerberg's recent testimony before US Senators. Senator Dick Durbin: Would you be comfortable sharing with us the name of the hotel you stayed in last night? Mark Zuckerberg: Um... [Long hesitation] No. Senator Dick Durbin: If you messaged anybody this week, would you share with us the names of the people you've messaged? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, no, I would probably not choose to do that publicly here.
matte_black 8y ago
We are not heading to a post-privacy world. Post-Privacy means no one can get privacy even if they want it. That has never been the case. What you are merely seeing is people are ok with the amount of data that has been collected on them. The lack of true widespread outrage means we are either at the limit or we can still collect a bit more before users get really pissed.

samfisher83 8y ago

Maybe most people just don't care all that much about privacy. They just want to share their picture with friends.

panic 8y ago
I think most people do care about privacy, but they're not being given much of a choice here. Their friends are on Facebook, so the only way to share pictures with all of them is through Facebook.
- matte_black 8y ago
  They care, but what they’ve shared is likely not what they actually care about keeping private.
- batuhanw 8y ago
  From my point of view, I do care about privacy, beside I don't use mobile phone, I don't want to. Since whatsapp isn't an option for me, messenger app is only way to be in contact with friends, family. (I have iPod Touch) Considering I'm traveling often, I need to use it. I'm not fan of it, but I'm not against either. In the end we are product of Facebook and #deleteFacebook is a joke.
  - smichel17 8y ago
    You can use Signal on an iPod touch.
rokhayakebe 8y ago
Maybe most people just don't care all that much about privacy Not only that. Most people welcome the attention. The people who are fighting for privacy of their friends and family are the ones who don't get it. Friends and Family want to be out there, in the public eye, liked and commented on.
snaky 8y ago
Most people just don't care about almost anything.

andrewxhill 8y ago

While you are probably right, these numbers only account for the first 10-12 days of #deletefacebook, and those are only a few days over most of a quarter's worth of growth before them.

matte_black 8y ago
#DeleteFacebook is not a thing. Anyone who thinks it was going to affect Facebook doesn’t understand the fundamentals behind Facebook. It’s just some meaningless outrage porn for people to hang a hashtag off of and maybe increase their social currency. This stock is going to be back to its 190 price levels soon enough and anyone who isn’t on board is going to be left with the FOMO.
- dboreham 8y ago
  Perhaps, but I have certainly noticed a significant downturn in the level of end user engagement on Facebook in recent weeks. Almost nobody is posting these days. Plenty of ads and commercial organizations in my feed but very little organic content.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    I've noticed this too. Thing is, the expectation seems to be users deleting their accounts en masse, while the reality is that people are just slowly drifting away from it (without going through the hassle of actually deleting their account).
- wehere1 8y ago
  lmao what a loser
instaheat 8y ago
I agree with you, I don't think we can really glean anything meaningful from this information since it is only a fraction of the quarter after the information came to light. If we see a significant dip in Q2, then perhaps we can surmise that this impacted revenues negatively.

wlamont 8y ago

The decline may have a long tail. I was also blown away at their low effective tax rate.

tomc1985 8y ago

Meanwhile the worker bees pay 35-50% in income tax and other withholdings between state and federal. That pisses me off so much

adventured 8y ago
Which worker bees are paying 35-50%? You just about have to make a million dollars per year in the US - and be in California or NYC - to pay 50%. One million dollars in income gets you to about 47% in LA, SF, or NYC. A quarter of a million dollar income will get you up to 35% - and those are the most expensive tax locations in the country. $50,000 (the US median full-time income) gets you a combined effective rate, before deductions, of: 16% in Dallas, 20% in LA, 23% in Portland, 16% in Seattle, 24% in NYC, and 22% in Boise. In Seattle, Miami, or Dallas, you'll pay a combined 36% on one million dollars in income.
- Matthias247 8y ago
  > Which worker bees are paying 35-50%? Lots of people in Europe. Which for sure is also a big market for FB. In Germany you are already have deductions of nearly 50% if your income is around 50000€.
  - Chickenosaurus 8y ago
    I do not see how a person making 50k € in Germany would have a gross/net difference of 50 %. According to [1], the gross/net difference would be about 34 % in the worst case (highest tax class, no children, not married etc.), which includes social security, health insurance and so on. The calculator gives realistic results for my own income. [1] https://www.brutto-netto-rechner.info/ https://www.brutto-netto-rechner.info/
    - Matthias247 8y ago
      If I enter 50k there, and a tax class 1, then I end up with Netto: 2.456,06 € 29.472,66 € which means 40% deductions. Which is approximately what I meant (yes, 50% was slightly too high).

gniv 8y ago

> FB only pay effectively 11% tax It's the same for Google. Might be a weird one-off due to the new tax law. https://abc.xyz/investor/pdf/2018Q1_alphabet_earnings_release.pdf https://abc.xyz/investor/pdf/2018Q1_alphabet_earnings_releas...

throwaway5752 8y ago

Tax is on profit, not revenue. Granted, still $5B. Also, the tax figures have seasonality. Q4 is highest, Q1 is lowest. This quarter's effective rate was up by 100 basis pts yoy.

Lionsion 8y ago

> My main takeaway from this is that #deleteFacebook has been a flash in the pan-- their active user count is still increasing across all regions I don't know. Think I've observed a general drop in engagement in my relatively well-off and educated social circle. If Facebook dies, it's not going to be sudden. #deletefacebook type-stuff may be more akin to lifestyle advertising than the buy-it-now kind.

chrischen 8y ago

DeleteFacebook is mostly western, specifically an American thing. Their user growth is most happening in other developing markets (non-Europe and non USA).

evfanknitram 8y ago
Yes. I'm from Sweden and have seen zero about this except for a in a few tech communities like parts of reddit and HN. From my outsider perspective it feels like people in the bubble thinking everyone is on board while in reality th large majority outside of the bubble doesn't even know there is a discussion.
danieldk 8y ago
In the Netherlands, it was definitely in the mainstream media. (Pushed by Arjen Lubach, a late night show host.) Some coverage, subtitled: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa-SzNepsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa-SzNepsA

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

quotemstr 8y ago

Internet outrage is _never_ as widespread or important as it looks. The best way to predict the effect of any social media campaign against a person or organization is to evaluate the steadfastness of the campaign's target. If you are the target of an internet mob and you blink, you're not only going to enact mob-demanded changes that are detrimental to your interests, but also broadcast weakness and attract further mob attacks. If you instead stand your ground and refuse to be cowed by hashtag campaigns, the outrage mob eventually gets bored and finds another target. Your interests are preserved and you end up broadcasting strength and determination. A lot of people are starting to figure out that internet mobs have no real teeth.

Judgmentality 8y ago
I thought the #deleteuber campaign was somewhat successful? My understanding is a series of unfortunate events, largely kicked off by that campaign, ultimately led to Kalanick's downfall. http://www.businessinsider.com/travis-kalanick-uber-takedown-untold-story-2018-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/travis-kalanick-uber-takedown...
- shantanubala 8y ago
  Kalanick is still a very successful founder - not that I necessarily think he should be emulated. Regardless of what you think of Uber, Travis Kalanick started a very large company, and Uber is as entrenched as ever. So perhaps this actually is evidence in favor of the parent comment. Did Uber really suffer much at all? Or did they just reshuffle management, pay Kalanick billions to (kind of) leave, and continued business as usual?
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    > continued business as usual? Citations? I haven't really heard about them pulling any shenanigans under the new CEO's watch.
    - nstart 8y ago

tintor 8y ago

Better metric than active user count is how much time those users spend on FB (and how many Ads they get shown). Many users don't delete their accounts, but keep using messenger only. Messenger still works even if you disable your account (but others will not be able to find you by search).

aphextron 8y ago

>Also to note, FB only pay effectively 11% tax on some 12 billion dollars worth of revenue. Interesting this is the exact same number Google posted yesterday. I guess I should just incorporate myself for tax purposes. Sure must be nice.

Erik816 8y ago
That would be a great way to subject yourself to double taxation.

1024core 8y ago

Well, even though I did not delete FB, my usage has gone way down. I reckon I spend about 5 minutes/day on FB today, down from about 30 min/day a year ago.

lallysingh 8y ago
Still have those cookies active when browsing normally?

bamboozled 8y ago

There's no such thing as bad publicity, the latest incidents are no exception. This has probably been a benefit to the company overall as I feel it was becoming less of a focus in peoples lives until we all had to discuss the platform again.

acchow 8y ago

I think the #deleteFacebook thing will blow over. But we have yet to see its impact. The Cambridge Analytica story happened near the end of the quarter and we don't yet know its real impact.

throwaway13456 8y ago

It doesn't work that way. I learned it the hard way. I run a successful s/w company that was recently under targeted attacks by one of these hashtag campaigns. The gist was we wrote something about why we refused to hire women simply to improve the % of females in tech and why we want to hire the best people for the job irrespective of their gender. The goal of the post was to help people correctly contribute to gender ratio problems instead of blanket hiring, which is sexism by itself. However, this backfired and a lot of feminist groups targeted us with hashtags and some even accusing us of things we never said/done (the blog post has been removed since). They created memes, fake citations of stuff me and my company staff didn't say and they revolted heavily. At first I was really shocked as this was my first time experiencing something like this and I almost thought my company and brand name was doomed. However, I decided to take control and published a follow up post of things we said, we did, we didn't do and we decided to stand by our words. The hashtags multiplied, some even threatened us legal action. Many created fake accounts on our blogs and commented bad stuff about us everywhere. Some of them even sent emails directly to our customers! But, I didn't give in. A week went by and things started looking better. The hashtags dropped, but the good thing was, from those hashtags, we got a LOT of new page-views and signups. We lost two customers who didn't want to be associated with our controversy, but we got 8 new ones after this campaign. The biggest take away - 1) If you believe in something, don't give in to threats and disrespectful demands. It's almost like supporting extortion. 2) Any free marketing is good marketing. I suppose this was no different for Facebook.

avip 8y ago
Why did you write that blog post to begin with? Sounds like a terrible issue to write about if your goal is positive PR.
- needToSay 8y ago
  Lol what a coward you are
epanchin 8y ago
Those really shouldn’t have been the biggest takeaways. Cure vs prevention. If you write a blog on behalf of a business, perhaps ask someone to read it over - preferably someone who holds the views you seek to attack.

airstrike 8y ago

They also probably haven't repatriated most of the cash earned overseas (on which they paid the low taxes) so they can't really use it. If they did, you'd see a different effective tax rate.

tomglynch 8y ago

You're totally right. The issue is although people are promoting #deleteFacebook, there's no other alternatives with widespread adoption to replace each person's Facebook network. Having said that, there's movers in the space - we just need more adoption. I'm looking at a new wave of products like Sociall to step up: https://www.producthunt.com/posts/sociall https://www.producthunt.com/posts/sociall Though maybe there's already existing products out there that could pivot to claim some of facebook's space.

textmode 8y ago

According to this, Wall Street is still concerned: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/24/facebook-may-make-tons-of-money--but-this-timewall-streets-worried-about-engagement.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/24/facebook-may-make-tons-of-mo... Facebook has begun running TV ads to counter anti-Facebook sentiment: https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/25/17280902/facebook-ad-about-spam-fake-news-data-misuse https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/25/17280902/facebook-ad-abou... They have also replaced their chief privacy officer with a former FCC chairman.

zjaffee 8y ago

I don't think that information can be clearly determined yet, we need to wait until Q2 earnings as the big push of people deleting facebook happened after Q1 ended.

mk89 8y ago

It would be interesting to know the active amount of users per day. I connect to fb once a month, so even a person like me, not using it at all except to see if someone has sent a message or so, is in the stats. However, I can't see how I increase their revenues with that one 60 seconds (or less) session per month. And I am quite sure there are lots of people doing the same.