In the midst of a Eurozone manufactured "crisis", Facebook went public today. Closing at near the introductory value, there are those that are cheering and those that are jeering. I, for one, am taking a "long view" here...a "big picture" perspective.
From what I've observed, there's a "fad" element at work, but it's the "fad" of hating Facebook that will fade soon. The very people that gripe and complain about the Stock Market and Wall Street and their immoral greed are the first to denigrate Facebook as a "sellout". Of course, that also assumes that Facebook has no intention of reforming the traditional values of profit over the social compact. Whether by design or not, Facebook has the potential to reform Wall Street by virtue of it's incredible value. Poo-pooing the Internet Standard in Social Media is pretty much cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Let's take a brief look at a few basic values at play, shall we? Zuckerberg is not a money-hungry zealot of Capitalism. In fact, he's pretty much the opposite. While there have been notable issues of "privacy" concerns, Facebook has generally responded to those concerns by weighing privacy against the basic concept of being "accessible". Too much privacy and there's no real value in the marketplace, after all. Face it, without the potential for marketing the whole idea of Facebook becomes little more than a hobby. And while it may be "cool", it's not viable. It's also important to note that, being a "Tech" business, the executive group is comprised mostly of innovators with an interest in alternative energy and improved access to high-speed internet and other "liberal-friendly" concepts.
So how does this marketing aspect "trickle down"? To say Facebook only creates 3200 jobs is a flat out lie or an opinion drawn from ignorance. Facebook provides job opportunities for game creators, app creators, nonprofit orgs, etc. But there are so many potential avenues for monetizing that it seems very narrow-minded to suggest that Facebook only represents a "concentration of wealth". That is clearly an ideologically driven conclusion that has no merit on it's face or in it's assumptions. It essentially ignores the very real concept of wealth creation and assumes a stagnant money AND "value" supply.
Lastly, Facebook reminds me of the early days of Television. Who would invest in THAT?! Silly comedy shows? Sure they are fun to watch, but what is the "value"?