> And what he is doing is aimed right at us. No, most likely he isnt in this to make something for a maybe 100,000 tech/start up geeks.

> So saying he's "one of us" is partly a loyalty thing, he's not going to forget us or sell out because he made it big. No, this is completely irrational view point

> It's also cultural: his priorities for where the world should be going are similar, and his ideas on how to get there are like ours. No, his priorities probably are nothing like the majority of people here, and his ideas on how to get there are probably not like them

down-voted because the comment was deleted. Are we not amongst friends here?

>lots of us would love to do what he's doing

A lot of us would like to run an advertising company?

Google is also an "advertising company". That characterization provides no useful information in this context.

An advertising company that focuses on delivering up impressionable 13-21 year old eyeballs, no less.

Why don't we call television networks advertising companies? Because it isn't a cultural signal for "I am sophisticated" on tech message boards.

Television networks are responsible for finding and signing their own programming, and that garners more creative respect.

That said, people do (myself included) lump Facebook into roughly the same category as network television and phone book salesmen.

Because it's an erroneous analogy? FB's "content" is created by it's users. It is a platform for people to type whatever they want to share with their "friends" and they make their money via advertising and collecting and dissecting your personal data. I fail to see how that is 1:1 with television networks who, you know, actually create content.

"Why don't we call television networks advertising companies"

Seems a decent analogy, most network television and cable shows are glorified advertising. It's not a brag of any sort to see the lack of meaningful content in the glut of adverts, product placements, artificial "social" engagements.