Facebook is more than a fun place to stalk people: It’s a history of my life, and the basis of my social life. I plan just about every organized social activity on it—in fact, I would have a hard time throwing a party or even just finding things to do on the weekend without it.

This is True

The above quote is pulled from Simone Foxman’s recent Quartz article, “Facebook is a goldmine in the making.” I think Simone nails the reason why Facebook isn’t going anywhere, but both she and her colleague, Chris Mims, who wrote the counter argument, “Why Facebook will never make a significant profit,’ miss what I think will be the main source of Facebook’s revenue in the future, retail. 

Why dabble in a $30 million dollar advertising market instead of tackling a $200 million dollar Ecommerce market? Answer: There is no good reason to. Facebook has already dumped a good chunk of its inventory into an ad exchange, automatically cheapening the rest of its shit ad inventory, but making its remnant inventory easier to sell without a direct sales rep. This is happening as the company takes baby steps into the Ecommerce world. Gifts are just the beginning and, even if not a cash cow right now, remember, Facebook will be sticking around for a while. Sooner or later, Facebook will figure Ecommerce out. 

In 2016, the digital advertising industry is expected to be a $55 million dollar industry while Ecommerce is expected to hit $361 million. If you’re Zuck, the decision as to which one to focus on is easy. We should all expect to see Facebook change to facilitate that move, and yes, they’re going to make plenty of money because of it. 

Most critically, no advertising will be getting in the way. The decision on advertising was the hardest, because obviously it provides a vital revenue stream for almost all media products. But we know from your emails how distracting and intrusive it can be; and how it often slows down the page painfully. And we’re increasingly struck how advertising is dominated online by huge entities, and how compromising and time-consuming it could be for so few of us to try and lure big corporations to support us. We’re also mindful how online ads have created incentives for pageviews over quality content.

The Advertising Portion of Andrew Sullivan’s “We’re Going Independent” Post

There will be no advertising, at least in the onset. A bold component to a bold move by Sullivan and co. 

On Newsweek’s Tumblr, a Candid Discussion of its Digital Future
As everyone and their mother opined about Newsweek’s future in the wake of their digital only announcement last week, Newsweek itself had a pretty interesting discussion running on its Tumblr blog. Whatever your take on the whole situation, you have to be impressed with the candid and transparent way Newsweek handled the news.
Here’s one quote posted from blogger Andrew Sullivan:

Of course a weekly news magazine on paper seems nuts to me. But it takes guts to actually make the change. An individual can, overnight. An institution is far more cumbersome. Which is why, I believe, institutional brands will still be at a disadvantage online compared with personal ones. There’s a reason why Drudge Report and the Huffington Post are named after human beings. It’s because when we read online, we migrate to read people, not institutions.

If you’re interested in reading more about this, check out Newsweek’s tumblr blog:
Newsweek.tumblr.com
And, if you feel so inclined, here’s my post about it:
theoped.operative.com/newsweek-digital-future

On Newsweek’s Tumblr, a Candid Discussion of its Digital Future

As everyone and their mother opined about Newsweek’s future in the wake of their digital only announcement last week, Newsweek itself had a pretty interesting discussion running on its Tumblr blog. Whatever your take on the whole situation, you have to be impressed with the candid and transparent way Newsweek handled the news.

Here’s one quote posted from blogger Andrew Sullivan:

Of course a weekly news magazine on paper seems nuts to me. But it takes guts to actually make the change. An individual can, overnight. An institution is far more cumbersome. Which is why, I believe, institutional brands will still be at a disadvantage online compared with personal ones. There’s a reason why Drudge Report and the Huffington Post are named after human beings. It’s because when we read online, we migrate to read people, not institutions.

If you’re interested in reading more about this, check out Newsweek’s tumblr blog:

Newsweek.tumblr.com

And, if you feel so inclined, here’s my post about it:

theoped.operative.com/newsweek-digital-future

azmatzahra

I think that digital technology does flatten people. But it flattens more than just people. It flattens objects, concepts, publics, and relationships as well. And it’s not just digital technology that flattens things; the daily act of working, of day-to-day practical living flattens things too.

Reporters may go into journalism to be with the public; they eventually find beats and sources and the daily grind instead. Reporters may go online to find a community more responsive than the one they encounter in their daily work, but it’s a community that can be exhausting, pummeling, and not quite real. So get offline if you wish. Get online if you can. But in either case, never make the mistake in thinking that you’ve found a community, a public, a reality, that’s more authentic than the one you’ve left behind. We can’t will authentic community into being. It sort of sneaks up on us. And just as quickly — as soon as we turn our heads — it’s gone.

I was reminded of this old piece by C.W. Anderson tonight. It’s an important reminder, at least for people like me, of just how fleeting the authenticity of digital communities can be. (via azmatzahra)

I really like this line: "Never make the mistake in thinking that you’ve found a community, a public, a reality, that’s more authentic than the one you’ve left behind.”

When I was growing up in politics, the wisdom was to look for a 50-year-old mentor,” Trippi said. “Now, if you’re 50, you should be looking for an 18-year-old to help you deliver the message in a way that people will get it.

The World We Live In Now

Millions of dollars are pouring into politics focused tech startups this election season (and it may just be turning the game on its head). Check out Inc’s coverage: Tech Start-Ups Follow the Money into Politics

Related: Voted Up on Forbes

We will analyze millions of interactions a day, learning from terabytes of historical data, running thousands of experiments, to inform campaign strategy and critical decisions.

The Use of Data in Presidential Politics

The above quote comes from an Obama for America job posting found on data science website- KDnuggets. The ad leaves no doubt as to whether the campaign plans to use data to target voters and donors. They will use data and they will use it extensively. Terabytes of it. 

In my first post on the new Voted Up blog on Forbes.com I explore the world of data in electoral politics and focus on a new project by ProPublica, which is trying to figure out how the campaigns (and Super Pacs) tailor their email messages based on what they know about voters. This topic is going to be a major one in the 2012 election cycle and I plan on following it closely.

You can view the full post here: http://onforb.es/LK5ILL