I’m not sure that this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook) bothers me.
So, facebook has shareholders that I don’t share politics with.
This is an industry writeup of the company and how it’s grown http://www.crunchbase.com/company/facebook
On the left side, you can see where/when/who they have gained their money.
I suspect that if we analyse the ownership/share structure of any significant company we would find things that we don’t agree with. Are you going to stop using your fridge because Westinghouse make nuclear reactors (http://www.westinghousenuclear.com)? Did you know Samsung make self-propelled artillery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Techwin)? I don’t see how the VC’s that fund Facebook are trying to spread their ideology, they’re trying to be purist about advertising, and hey, I think people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks. He’s living off the Guardian teat just as much as everyone is trying to make a buck.
I may not agree with all the beliefs of all the shareholders, but I believe in the utility of the tool. The guy who writes the article in the Guardian probably doesn’t use a mobile phone either, I mean, why would you call someone on a phone when you could walk/cycle over and visit them?
I am fine with the discussion of the people and the personalities that are part of the venture capital universe. I think the authors real beef is with advertising. He should go and live in a test somewhere where he won’t be assailed by the travesty of nature that is city-living.