Last week, Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger, the co-founders of Instagram, announced that they were leaving Facebook, where they had worked since co-founder Mark Zuckerberg bought their company six years ago.
“We’re planning on taking some time off to explore our curiosity and creativity again,” Systrom wrote in a statement on the Instagram blog. “Building new things requires that we step back, understand what inspires us and match that with what the world needs; that’s what we plan to do.”
Quite so. It is always refreshing when young millionaires decide to spend more time with their money. Facebook paid US$715 million for their little outfit when it acquired it — Instagram had 13 employees at the time.
However, to those of us who have an unhealthy interest in what goes on at Facebook, the real question about Systrom’s and Krieger’s departure was: What took them so long?
Since they are smart lads, one imagines they must have realized that what they were trying to do within the Facebook empire was doomed to fail.
They evidently hoped to continue to run Instagram as a distinct entity while harnessing the engineering and global computing infrastructure of Facebook to enable it to grow more quickly than it would have done as an independent company.
In that, at least, they were right. Instagram has grown like crazy. In June, it reached the 1 billion user mark. This year, it is expected to bring in US$6 billion in advertising revenue, which means that it is the biggest revenue generator within Facebook after the main news feed.
One analyst has estimated that Instagram would provide Facebook with US$20 billion by 2020, or about a quarter of the company’s total revenue.
If Systrom and Krieger imagined that they would be left alone to run such a money pump within the Zuckerberg dictatorship, they were delusional, especially given that for some time there were intimations of things to come.
Earlier this year, for example, Facebook removed a shortcut link to Instagram from its bookmarks menu inside the Facebook app, thereby eliminating traffic that flowed from Facebook to Instagram.
Whereas Systrom and Krieger originally reported directly to the “Supreme Leader,” a few months ago, Zuckerberg installed a layer of management between them and himself, with the result that the boys found themselves reporting to chief product officer Chris Cox.
At which point it must have been clear that the writing was on the wall. All of which is par for the Facebook course.
In 2014, the company paid a staggering US$19 billion for the messaging app WhatsApp, whose co-founder Jan Koum always vowed that its users’ privacy would be paramount.
“Respect for your privacy is coded into our DNA,” he wrote in a blog post after the Facebook acquisition had been announced.
“And we built WhatsApp around the goal of knowing as little about you as possible. You don’t have to give us your name and we don’t ask for your e-mail address. We don’t know your birthday. We don’t know your home address. We don’t know where you work. We don’t know your likes, what you search for on the Internet or collect your GPS location. None of that data has ever been collected and stored by WhatsApp and we really have no plans to change that,” he wrote.
Reading that at the time, one wondered what Koum had been smoking if he believed that he would be able to stick to those lofty principles within a corporation whose business model depends on knowing all those things about its users.
Within Facebook, Koum tried to run WhatsApp on his lofty principles. He even provided end-to-end encryption for users to make sure that their messages could not be monitored for targeting purposes.
However, Zuckerberg, who had left WhatsApp untouched and independent for some years, finally snapped.
The service would have to start making real money, either by weakening encryption or by some other means such as mapping users’ networks.
In April, Koum announced his resignation from Facebook and departed, a sadder, wiser (though much richer) man.
So the only surprising thing about the experiences of the fco-ounders of Instagram and WhatsApp is that anyone should be surprised by what has happened to them.
Facebook is a data vampire; the only thing it does is suck people’s life data to paint targets on their backs for the benefit of advertisers.
All that sanctimonious guff about “building a global community “ is just corporate cant.
Any start-up founder hoping to be acquired by Zuckerberg’s empire ought to remember former British prime minister Winston Churchill’s definition of appeasement as “feeding a crocodile in the hope that he will eat you last.” Because he will.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS