Message 00971 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00970 Message: 2/8 L1 [In date index] [In thread index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: Rcee: [jox] A response to Michel and Jakob

Hi Michel and Jakob,

why do you think that it is difficult to explain the facebook business model in the very old terms of "investment" and "return on investment" in a dynamically (!) changing new technological field?

The more, since such a story telling was not a problem for, e.g. Tim O'Reilly, already 7 years ago

The more, since at least beginning with the hype about diaspora it is very clear that the facbook "cloud computing model" will not be the last technological word - see, e.g.

Jakob, what do you mean if you write "rent"? In Marx' notation it is part of the Trinity formula and clearly leaves the frame of a _labour_ value theory due to a certain phenomenon that he (I think, temporarily - note the editional history of vol 3 of the Capital) could not describe in those terms. This doesn't mean that it is impossible.


Am 23.03.2012 12:38, schrieb Jakob Rigi:
Now, I think that the claim that Facebook is selling attention to
advertisers is categorically mistaken. No. Facebook is letting pieces of
virtual space to advertisers and receive rent for it. The law of rent is
the same in virtual and physical spaces. The more attractive a space,
for whatever reasons, is, the amount of rent is higher. Who does pay the
rent? Advertisers. From where do the advertisers get the money that they
pay as rent to fcaeebook? That money is part of the surplus value that
they extract from wage labor which is exchanged with capital.Bauwens?
and Beller?s mistake may stem from the fact that there is a direct
relation between the number of clicks by users and the amount of rent
that facebook extracts....


Thread: joxT00970 Message: 2/8 L1 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00971 [Homepage] [Navigation]