On Corporate Profit Motives in the Social Networking Space

In its seemingly desperate search for those 'elusive' revenue growth opportunities, presumably to justify its 70 billion (albeit, fast eroding) market value, Facebook is now looking into "Allowing Children younger than 13 ways to access Facebook, with parental supervision".  Apparently Zuckerberg & Co. want to make money off of pre-teens and their desire to be 'hip', and 'connected', and their ability to make parents melt to layout cash - so kids can play games, and partake in other Facebook goodies.  Zuckerberg got married recently, and presumably does not have any minor biological children of his own.

I was doing some targeted FB people searches yesterday, and happened to come across a bunch of profiles that were under "full lockdown" - you cannot see anything other than a name, and a profile picture (at times, no picture).  I was looking to confirm if a certain individual, a paroled inmate, convicted for child abuse, and aggravated battery against a child, had a FB page.  Turns out he might.  But everything on his FB page is locked down.  Probably for a good reason.  I could only get close to confirmation.

I have no doubt there are thousands, if not millions, of predators and sex offenders on FB.  There is also an active movement, on behalf of currently incarcerated felons, to allow prison inmates access to FB.  I will reserve opinion on this one, for now.

The internet is, intrinsically, not a safe place because people and personas can easily be manipulated from behind the confines, and privacy, of an offender's apartment or house.  The dangers, particularly for minor children, are real and imminent.

I am not sure what to make of Facebook Inc.'s latest revenue model gyrations.  Sometime back, I recall, an adult woman went out on a first date, with some one she met on match.com.  To make a long story short, the man in that case, as I recall, had a rap sheet of violence and assaults a mile long.  The woman was lucky to get out of the situation, alive, though roughed up.  She sued match.com, and accepted a settlement whereby match.com agreed to background check every match.com user, male or female.  I do not know if match.com is actually doing so, or not.

Facebook may consider background checks - but invasion of privacy, and the sheer cost of vetting 900 million plus users will likely result in a "robo-signing" type operation, if at all, not unlike what we have seen in US foreclosure proceedings - Banking Corporations, much larger than Facebook, failed to apply a reasonable level of care and diligence in enforcing foreclosure proceedings, sometimes even against borrowers who were current on their loan!

I am vehemently against any such moves by FB.  A future 'slap-on-the-wrist', or civil fines of hundreds of millions (which FB can easily afford to pay), does nothing for the individuals, and their families, if some were to become just yet another statistical data point.

Mark Zuckerberg and company have to do that which is right - for society.  After all, Facebook is a Social Network.