One of the richest humans on earth is suing hundreds of Hawaiians–some of whom are deceased. Billionaire and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is leveraging his wealth, and taking advantage of Hawaii’s unique land laws, to secure ownership of his 700-acre compound in Kauai. The case, for some, is a familiar land dispute. But to others, it is a stark reminder of the lack of power native Hawaiians have in claiming their ancestral land.

On December 30, Zuckerberg, through several companies he owns on the island, filed eight lawsuits at a Circuit Court in Kauai. The suits essentially act as a preemptive move to ensure the compound remains in his hands, as about a dozen or so slices of land within his property have been claimed by local native families.

Zuckerberg is suing hundreds of people in order to shore up his claim on the $100 million estate. Among the living defendants are Oma, Eliza Kauhaahaa, and Annie I. Some defendants–Kelekahi, Palaha, Laka, Lote, Luliana, Kapahu and Kaluuloa–are no longer alive.

In bringing the families to court, Zuckerberg is aiming to use Hawaii’s “quiet title and partition” law to strike down each claim, which could force the claimants to auction their parcels of land. Zuckerberg, the world’s sixth richest person, would likely be the highest bidder. 

“Quiet title actions are the standard and prescribed process to identify all potential co-owners, determine ownership, and ensure that, if there are other co-owners, each receives appropriate value for their ownership share,” said Keoni Shultz, one of the lawyers representing Zuckerberg.

Since the Kuleana Act of 1850, the Hawaiian government has settled complex land disputes with so-called “quiet title” actions. According to that bill, the courts have the authority “to define and separate the portions belonging to different individuals; and to provide for an equitable exchange of such different portions where it can be done.”

Hawaiian natives are often on the losing side of land disputes. Land on the island is often passed down from one generation to another, and claims can get foggy as land stands dormant for years, until an outsider, like Zuckerberg, comes and buys up land. Claims start coming in, and it’s left for the courts to decide how to apportion the land. In the Zuckerberg case, the defendants have 20 days to respond to the lawsuit. If they fail to do so, they will have no say in the court proceedings.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is Mark Zuckerberg Suing Hundreds of Hawaiians? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey everyone, happy winter solstice! Today marks the beginning of winter and the shortest day of the year for those of us in the Northern Hemisphere. But…that also means it’s only going to get better (and lighter) moving forward! So lean back and enjoy today’s RantCrush. Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

ISIS Claims Responsibility for the Berlin attack

Yesterday, German officials released the suspect in the truck attack at a Christmas market in Berlin, as there was no hard evidence linking him to the attack. Also yesterday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, saying that a lone “soldier” acted on the group’s behalf. The statement didn’t specify if the man was simply inspired by the group, or if he was directly affiliated with it. Either way, this means that the perpetrator is still at large, and German police launched a countrywide search. However, late last night, a warrant was issued for a 24-year-old Tunisian-born man whose residence permit was found in the truck used in the attack.

#BREAKING German officials confirm to @ABC that manhunt for perpetrator of #Christmas Market attack is 24 y/o Tunisian man pic.twitter.com/ZRFnoND23s

— Matt Gutman (@mattgutmanABC) December 21, 2016

At the same time, the far right in Germany blamed Chancellor Angela Merkel for the attack, claiming that her generous immigration policies are the problem.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 21, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Facebook has been blocked in China since 2009, but now the company is secretly developing a censorship tool that would help it gain access to the Chinese market again. The tool would allow another company–likely a Chinese partner–to block certain posts from appearing in people’s newsfeeds in different geographic areas, according to some Facebook employees who asked to remain anonymous. They said that Facebook would not suppress content itself, but the software would be available for a third party company. If the resulting software makes the Chinese government more comfortable with Facebook’s services, this may allow Facebook to get back into the Chinese market.

However, the employees pointed out that this is still in the research stage and may never be offered to Chinese authorities at all. But the information raises questions about Facebook’s ethics. It would give the company 1.4 billion potential new users if they gained access to the Chinese market. But it could also be a compromise of democratic values and making “the world more open,” as the company has named as one of its mottos. Several employees that worked on the censorship project have quit their jobs, according to the New York Times. Since the American election, the phenomenon of fake news has also tarnished the company’s image, and many asked what role the social media site played in the election outcome. Now the question is, if the company is cool with censoring real news in China, why not just block fake news at home?

It’s fascinating people think Facebook will ONLY block “real news” in China and ONLY block “fake news” in US https://t.co/oVPn1iiVrW

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 23, 2016

So, blatantly fake news is too hard a problem for Facebook, but letting a third-party Chinese company disappear real news in China is okay?

— Zeynep Tufekci (@zeynep) November 22, 2016

The problem is probably that it’s hard to quickly decide what is fake and what is not. Mark Zuckerberg posted a long status update about how 99 percent of what you see on your newsfeed is correct, but depending on what pages you follow or who your friends are, you might see a little more or less. He responded to the criticism by stopping ads from fake news outlets and pointed out that Facebook does not want hoaxes on its site. This is not enough, according to many, but he promised that more would be done when a good strategy is available, saying:

This is an area where I believe we must proceed very carefully though. Identifying the ‘truth’ is complicated. While some hoaxes can be completely debunked, a greater amount of content, including from mainstream sources, often gets the basic idea right but some details wrong or omitted.

But creating a censorship tool for China contradicts Facebook’s image of being an ethical and socially aware company. Even if Facebook technically just developed the software, it could still enable totalitarian leaders to leave out information and decide what their citizens see and don’t see. Maybe the creator of the main information source for billions of people should take an even greater responsibility to prevent that.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Facebook is Developing a Censorship Tool to Get Back into the Chinese Market appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Mark Zuckerberg Wants to Build A Wall & People Are Pissed

Mark Zuckerberg bought a 700-acre property on the coast of Kauai, Hawaii in 2014 and is now trying to make it as private as possible. He has recently started construction on a six-foot wall along the perimeter of the property and his neighbors are not happy! Some say it’s an eyesore and that it blocks the view of the ocean as well as the breeze. Others are saying its oppressive and impolite. For a guy who’s so into making friends, it seems Zuckerberg isn’t a very good neighbor. But I guess he loves walls more.

Typical liberal hypocrisy! #Zuckerberg criticizes #DJT for building a wall, yet obscures neighbors’ views with his! https://t.co/qQqGEjh1O1

— Lynne Patton (@LynnePatton) June 29, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 29, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Don’t expect to see any Apple gear at the GOP Convention in Cleveland next month–the tech giant announced that it will not provide any funds, devices, or support to this year’s convention, like it has done in the past. Why not? Apple is protesting Donald Trump’s controversial remarks about minorities, women, and immigrants.

So, @realDonaldTrump, you’re such a “great” businessman and negotiator. You’re costing the #RNC sponsors (#Apple, #Ford, etc.). WTF?!#HaHa!

— (((B. Paul Stuart))) (@BrianPaulStuart) June 18, 2016

Apple is the first company in Silicon Valley to take this stance. Others like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft have already pledged some financial support to the convention. At the 2008 Republic and Democrat conventions, Apple donated about $140,000 worth of MacBooks and other products. In 2012, it did not donate free merchandise to the conventions because Democrats placed a ban on corporations financing their nominating events.

A spokeswoman for the GOP convention told Politico that “we are working with a variety of major tech partners who are focused on being part of the American political process.” In April, Google said it would attend the convention and would be the official live stream provider, despite pressure from protestors who called Google to back out because of Trump’s inflammatory comments. Microsoft will donate computers and software, but will not provide funds to Republicans, like it has in the past. Despite Mark Zuckerberg’s criticism of Trump, Facebook has pledged financial and other support to the convention.

Apple declined to comment on its decision, so it’s unclear whether or not it will still provide financial support to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia next month. A spokesperson for the Trump campaign did not respond to Politico’s request for a comment. Donald Trump has singled out Apple in speeches, criticizing CEO Tim Cook’s stance on encryption, while also calling for a boycott on its products.

Of course #Apple is uneasy over Donald J. Trump. Who isn’t? #rnc #uspoli #p2 https://t.co/wxjVfc31wD

— Truth Mashup (@truthmashup) June 19, 2016

Usually, tech companies donate to Democratic and Republican efforts equally. Apple typically does not engage in politics, but Cook has tried to forge relationships with Democrat and Republican lawmakers. Last year, Cook and a handful of top Republican house leaders dined in D.C. together.

However, Apple’s decision is not totally unprecedented. HP, who was a major donor to the GOP convention in 2012, backed out of funding this year’s convention because of pressure from activists at ColorofChange.org in June. The New York Times reported in March that several corporations were thinking about scaling back their donations to the RNC because of Trump’s political ideology.

“We want them to divest from hate. We want them to pull all their money and support,”  said Mary Alice Crim, field director for Free Press Action Fund, which is part of the anti-Trump campaign. She added that tech companies that are backing the convention need to be “thinking hard about where they put their brand, and whether they want to align their brand with racism, hatred, and misogyny.”

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Apple Won’t Support the RNC Because of Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

People are Pissed at Facebook Over Supposed Suppression of Conservative News

You know that trending news section on Facebook? It’s on the top right side of your feed and highlights the breaking news each day. Well former Facebook workers are now claiming that they were told to “artifically manipulate” what shows up in the trending news feature, with a favoritism given to more liberal news. They also claim that they were told to blacklist conservative sites and sources. But Facebook is hardcore denying that anything of the sort ever happened, and ironically, Facebook’s “trending news controversy” is trending on Facebook right now.

Facebook Says It’s Taking News Bias Allegations “Very Seriously” https://t.co/wnad5QbNi3 pic.twitter.com/cdggzpeQuP

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) May 10, 2016

Samantha Bee Says “Bye, Bye” to Ted Cruz

Samantha Bee, host of “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee” had a lot of fun with Ted Cruz’s presidential run. But now that Cruz has officially dropped out, the show needed to bid goodbye to its favorite punching bag. And in true Samantha Bee fashion, she said that goodbye with quite a fantastic and hilarious sendoff.

Carry on, Bee. We can’t wait to see what you do with the rest of this crazy election cycle.

West Point Women in Trouble

16 female, black cadets at West Point under scrutiny for photo with clenched fists in the air. https://t.co/mOcL32p5bL

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) May 9, 2016

Sixteen African-American women graduating from West Point are in hot water over a photo that features them raising their fists. The school is investigating the photo, and comparisons are being made to the girls’ actions and the Black Lives Matter movement. While that doesn’t seem like a big deal, West Point expressly forbids expressing political opinions while representing the school. But the women claim that their gestures were just celebratory. So who’s right? We’ll have to see if the school ends up disciplining the students but people on both sides of the debate are pretty mad.

North Carolina v. The DOJ: All Hell Breaks Loose

North Carolina’s bathroom bill has royally pissed off the DOJ, and now both sides are suing each other. It all started when the DOJ gave NC Governor Pat McCrory until yesterday to begin to remedy the new anti-LGBT policies, which the DOJ believes to be discriminatory. McCrory asked for more time, and when he was refused, sued the DOJ. Now the DOJ has filed a civil rights lawsuit against the state. Check out Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s epically badass speech on the subject:

Jon Stewart Calls Donald Trump a “Man-Baby”

Jon Stewart may be retired from the “Daily Show” but that doesn’t mean he’s done going with his scathing social commentary. On David Axelrod’s CNN podcast Stewart said:

He’s a man baby. He has the physical countenance of a man and a baby’s temperament and hands. … (Vanity Fair editor) Graydon Carter did a joke about Donald Trump’s hands 25 years ago, he’s still not f—ing over it.

So…here’s what I’m guessing Trump’s reaction will be:

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 10, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

After significant public controversy, Facebook is making some edits to its problematic “real name” policy. The company received criticism after requiring that users use their “real names,” and allowed other users to flag when someone wasn’t adhering. But critics argued that this policy led to harassment and complications, particularly for the LGBTQ community, performers who go by different names, those who are attempting to hide their identities, and groups whose “real names” didn’t fit the narrow rules prescribed by Facebook–particularly those from Native American backgrounds. But in response to that outcry, Facebook is now making some changes to this policy that should benefit all.

Previously, Facebook required users to use their “real names,” or some semblance of that name. There were a few reasons that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg gave for this policy–including the fact that that it’s easier to find people to connect with when we all use legal names. Additionally, Zuckerberg made the argument that requiring “real names” made it less likely that fake profiles could be used for harassment.

There have been complaints about this policy for a while, but an open letter written recently by a variety of advocacy groups accelerated the discussion. Authors of the letter included the ACLU and the Human Rights Watch, and as a whole represent:

Transgender and gender variant people whose legal names don’t accord with their gender identity.

People who use a pseudonym or name modification in order to protect themselves from physical violence, legal threats from repressive governments, or harassment on the basis of gender, sexuality, religion, or political activities.

People who have been silenced by attackers abusing Facebook’s “Fake Name” reporting option.

People whose legal names don’t fit the arbitrary standards of “real names” developed by Facebook, such as Native Americans, other ethnic minorities, and members of the clergy.

These individuals have often had a hard time reclaiming their profiles after being accused of using “not real names.” More dangerously, sometimes Facebook has reinstated profiles with an individual’s legal name instead of the one they were previously using, possibly outing them or exposing them to violence. Read the full letter below:

In response to this letter, Facebook has announced that it will be making a couple changes to the policy that will help alleviate these concerns. To start, users will be able to provide context to Facebook about the name they choose when they sign up for an account. This will allow Facebook to understand why someone might have difficulty verifying their identity. The other change is that users who flag others for “fake names” will have to explain why they’re flagging an individual, to ensure it isn’t just for harassment purposes. Finally, Facebook will make it easier for those who have been locked out of their accounts due to the policy to regain access. While Facebook hasn’t totally changed its tune, it is a good step in the right direction.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Facebook Makes Changes to Problematic “Real Name” Policy appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, when Mark Zuckerberg announced his new TechPrep project, my brilliant sister turned to me and said “Zuckerberg having a daughter is probably the greatest thing that ever happened to the world.”

That may seem like a hyperbolic comment but let’s take a look at Zuckerberg’s new project: a website designed to make coding a more inclusive field and teaching the next generation how to code while they are young. TechPrep aims at diversifying the tech world, reaching out to Black and Hispanic populations, women, and low-income communities. If it is successful, it may transform Silicon Valley from the stomping grounds of white twenty-somethings wearing stained hoodies into a cosmopolitan center that finally includes those who have been barred from the coding world in the internet age. The site is designed to connect with parents as well as their children, encouraging them to ask for computer science courses at their schools and asking them to support their children’s efforts. Zuckerberg’s past philanthropic efforts never emphasized parent participation. It’s hardly a stretch to think that Zuckerberg designed this project with his daughter in mind, hoping to make the coding world more inclusive for her as she grows up within it. Most parents want to make the world a better place for their children, and Zuckerberg is no exception.

Zuckerberg has spent the past five years donating generously to education–his infamous $100 million donation to Newark Public Schools has been dissected at length in Dale Russakoff’s “The Prize“—but this is the first time he has stepped forward to launch his own community outreach initiative. Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan are also launching a K-12 school in Palo Alto designed for low-income students (tuition will be free and healthcare services will be provided for all students). Like TechPrep, the school promotes parent involvement, offering parent-inclusive activities for infant and toddler students. Chan is the mastermind behind the project, with a passion for education and healthcare–she taught elementary school science, ran an after-school program in a housing project and worked as a pediatrician in a low-income area. Chan’s experience gives the project credibility while Zuckerberg’s commitment guarantees efficiency. A well-funded school with educated leadership? This is a fairy tale that could only come true in Silicon Valley.

Before TechPrep and “The Primary School,” Zuckerberg’s donations to education were massive and undeniably made with the best intentions, but lacking organization and creativity. Throwing money at the Newark Public School system, without oversight or active involvement, was a recipe for disaster. Zuckerberg had no experience with the administration or bureaucracy of the school system, therefore he had no idea which changes would be most effective and how long it would take to implement them.  He thought teachers would be the linchpin of educational reforms but had no concept of the power and obstinacy of teacher’s unions. The Newark project essentially crashed and burned because he jumped into philanthropy without sufficient research on the realities of the challenges he was hoping to solve. In contrast, TechPrep holds a greater potential for success because it capitalizes on Zuckerberg’s existing skill set–of course the man who launched the social media revolution should train the next generation of coders. Of course the person with the most knowledge on the subject should be in charge. TechPrep is the ideal successor to the Newark fiasco. Zuckerberg has learned his lesson about inefficient philanthropy and is going back to doing what he is best at: innovating in front of a computer screen.

Zuckerberg’s child will be tantamount to a First Daughter–celebrated as an icon, photographed like a movie star, and referred to on a first-name basis by complete strangers. With parents like Zuckerberg and Chan, it is almost certain that this child will be working hard and achieving from an early age. For all we know, the Zuckerberg baby may unlock the cure to cancer, undo global warming and make pigs fly. But even if she doesn’t do all those things, we are already in this baby’s debt. This child has her father-to-be thinking creatively about how to level the playing field in education–and nothing is more promising than a day when Mark Zuckerberg is on his A-game.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Mark Zuckerberg’s Baby May Save the World appeared first on Law Street.

After police in Irving, Texas arrested 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamad Monday for bringing what they thought was a bomb, but was actually just a clock, to school, internet outrage ensued (justifiably so). Now, I am not generally the biggest fan of widespread social media reactions to very specific events, but this time around there was a genuinely encouraging response–ranging from celebrities to President Obama.

Shortly after the news of Ahmed Mohamad’s arrest, #IStandWithAhmed began trending on Twitter:

370K Tweets have expressed #IStandWithAhmed & currently rising at approx 2K Tweets per minute http://t.co/XTyvFnJlqrpic.twitter.com/r4Tq8z2jAS

— Twitter Data (@TwitterData) September 16, 2015

At its peak, there were around 2,000 tweets per minute supporting Ahmed. And eventually, he got some pretty high-profile attention.

One of the first politicians to address what happened to Ahmed was Hillary Clinton, who encouraged him to follow his passion and warned against prejudiced assumptions.

Assumptions and fear don’t keep us safe—they hold us back. Ahmed, stay curious and keep building. https://t.co/ywrlHUw3g1

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 16, 2015

Arguably the most popular tweet came from none other than President Obama himself, in which he invited Ahmed to the White House and encouraged him to keep following his passion.

Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It’s what makes America great. — President Obama (@POTUS) September 16, 2015

Meanwhile, Ahmed Mohamad’s arrest was also trending on Facebook–so much so that the company’s founder made a show of support for the 14-year-old. Mark Zuckerberg criticized the arrest and extended another invitation to Ahmed, this time to Facebook’s headquarters. His post said:

You’ve probably seen the story about Ahmed, the 14 year old student in Texas who built a clock and was arrested when he took it to school.

Having the skill and ambition to build something cool should lead to applause, not arrest. The future belongs to people like Ahmed.

Ahmed, if you ever want to come by Facebook, I’d love to meet you. Keep building.

Twitter later got into the mix, offering Ahmed an internship:

Hi @IStandWithAhmed, we building things at @twitter too. Would you consider interning with us? We’d love it — DM us! #IStandWithAhmed

— Twitter (@twitter) September 16, 2015

Ahmed, who was wearing a NASA shirt on the day he was arrested, got an outpouring of support from several NASA workers.

Bob Ferdowski, a popular NASA engineer, tweeted:

Hey Ahmed, give me a call in a couple years. We could always use smart, curious & creative people. https://t.co/02a4feMrk5 — Bobak Ferdowsi (@tweetsoutloud) September 16, 2015

Mike Seibert, the Flight Director for the Mars Rover, said:

Ahmed, I’d be happy to show you how we drive the Opportunity rover. Come visit us at JPL any time. #IStandWithAhmedhttps://t.co/VtesUugxj3

— Mike Seibert (@mikeseibert) September 16, 2015

Dr. Fred Calef III, the “keeper of the maps” at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) said:

Anytime you wanna see Mars rovers Ahmed, let me know. #IStandWithAhmed

— Imperator MARSiosa (@cirquelar) September 16, 2015

He later tweeted:

It’s not about the shirt, it’s the dreams that shirt represents, the crushing of innocence and intelligence by fear, ignorance & hatred.

— Imperator MARSiosa (@cirquelar) September 16, 2015

When the day was over, Ahmed had received an outpouring of support from all over the internet, but the most sincere seemed to come from the group of NASA engineers at the Jet Propulsion Lab. From Mike Seibert’s series of tweets, to Dr. Calif’s impassioned defense of Ahmed, you can tell their support is truly genuine.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Internet Stands with Ahmed appeared first on Law Street.

My dear friend LinkedIn has some competition coming its way–that’s right, Facebook is developing a new platform designed to let people use the social networking site at work.

The new Facebook–dubbed FB@Work (Zuckerberg couldn’t think of something more clever?)–will allow co-workers to chat, network with other professionals in their field, and work together on documents.

Many professionals already use Facebook at work, but now the company is actually testing the professional platform with companies, according to Reuters. FB@Work would be a completely separate site from the social networking site. Its main competitors include LinkedIn, Google, Microsoft, Box, and Salesforce.com

Zuckerberg’s move to create a professional networking platform gives Facebook a new edge. The tech industry is in a high-speed capability race and this new platform gives Facebook a one-up.

FB@Work’s chat tool can compete with Salesforce.com’s Chatter, Google’s Gchat, and Microsoft’s Yammer. Networking with professionals on FB@Work compares to the entire platform of LinkedIn. Lastly, providing co-workers with a space to collaborate on documents challenges Google Docs, Box, and Dropbox.

All of these features will not only be more attractive for users, but also for advertisers. The Financial Times reports the professional website will provide users with accounts separate from the social Facebook, so marketers have more space to place ads. The separate accounts would function to keep certain information private from certain audiences.

Some features will look similar; the News Feed will still be a staple of the site. The terms of confidentiality are still in question.

With FB@Work, you may portray your Facebooking habits in a more positive light at work. However, the new platform is designed to foster a more-efficient Facebook that will overall increase productivity and connectivity in the workplace.

Would you use FB@Work? Personally, I wouldn’t want to have an additional distraction. Google and LinkedIn already provide all the services I need–chat, room to collaborate on documents, discussion boards, and networking space. Creating another account means worrying about another password to remember and another networking site to keep up with. Honestly, I think Facebook is just trying to remain relevant with this new platform.

In the past, Facebook has tried to compete with other sites and networking platforms. Do you remember the Beacon fiasco? Beacon was part of Facebook’s Ads platform, but users were infuriated when the truth about Beacon’s tracking mechanisms came out. Beacon tracked users’ online activity on third-party sites–even when they were logged out or opted not to broadcast their activity to their networks.

This controversy, which occurred in 2007, was not a lone incident in Facebook’s spotty history with privacy leaks. In 2011, a similar privacy breach occurred when three applications were reported to provide users’ personal information to third-party sites. Maybe that’s part of the reason I’m hesitant to join the movement for FB@Work. Though the site is still in its development phase, I don’t trust that the social account and the professional account of Facebook will be kept completely separate nor will it be entirely secure. Until this site is fully developed and used by many early adopters, you can find me on LinkedIn.

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Facebook at Work: Facebook Creating LinkedIn Competitor appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, the government reopened and raised the debt ceiling. YAY! We don’t all have to worry about getting flushed down the proverbial economic toilet.

At least not for another three months, when Congress has decided to do this all again.

It’s like a quarterly, let’s-freak-everyone-the-fuck-out party.

Awesome. (Not really.)

Anyway! Now that the government has reopened for a little while, some of the nation’s most influential businessmen are speaking out about it. And you know what they’re saying?

Who the hell cares?!

No, but that’s really what they’re saying.

In a recent interview with Jason Calacanis, former Facebook employee and venture-capitalist millionaire Chamath Palihapitiya claimed that the government was pretty much useless—so who gives a crap if it shuts down? According to him, corporations hold the real power in the U.S. these days.

“Companies are transcending power now,” said Palihapitiya. “We are becoming the eminent vehicles for change and influence, and capital structures that matter. If companies shut down, the stock market would collapse. If the government shuts down, nothing happens and we all move on, because it just doesn’t matter.”

This is interesting, folks.

Palihapitiya’s words are both frighteningly true and laughably false, all at the same time.

On the one hand, it’s true that for many of us, life continued as usual, despite the government shutdown. For example, as I interviewed folks last week for a book I’m writing about conservatism in present-day America, many of them had almost zero knowledge about the government shutdown.

Why not?

Because they were busy, and hadn’t been paying much attention to the news. Oh, and because it must not really matter anyway, if the only way they could know about the shutdown was by devoting a portion of their day to catching up with CNN (or Fox News, unfortunately). Their daily lives weren’t affected at all.

But, if Facebook—or some other multi-billion dollar corporation—had suddenly gone belly-up, these folks would know about it. Absolutely. Remember the financial crash of 2008? When the economy flounders, so does everyone else in the United States.

Corporations, whether or not they’re functioning properly, make people pay attention. But a white, domed building filled with a bunch of bickering Congress people? Not so much.

But that doesn’t mean that the government doesn’t matter, as Palihapitiya claims. This government shutdown was relatively short-term, and had it remained closed for a longer period of time, many more people would have felt the burn.

Nonetheless, tons of people were seriously affected. Boatloads of government employees were furloughed without pay, and millions of people who receive some form of government assistance were left out in the cold.

So, when Jason Calacanis tweets about how little the government shutdown matters—echoing the same sentiments as his interview subject, Palihapitiya—we can just grit our teeth and laugh at the skewed viewpoint of the über-rich.

Is the shutdown proving to many that the government really doesn’t do that much for them? Have you been impacted personally yet? Just asking. (@Jason)

Because honestly, Jason, lots of people were personally impacted by the government shutdown. But they were probably women, or poor, or of color, or all of the above. And you’re none of those things. Your crass assumption that, just because you haven’t been affected then clearly no one has, is hilariously out of touch.

Except it’s not that hilarious, because, let’s face it—you have a ton of power.

While Jason and Palihapitiya might be wrong about the government being inconsequential, they’re right about one thing. Big money corporations matter A LOT. They have the power to make or break our economy, and by extension, to make or break all of our lives. If the economy tanks, we’re all going down with it. At least, those of us who aren’t rich enough to charter a private jet out the mess.

And the lower down we are on the socio-economic ladder, the further we’ll fall if the economy goes to shit. Poor people, women, people of color, queer people, disabled people—the list can go on—will be hit the hardest by a major economic stumble.

So, it’s not really that funny when venture capitalist millionaires prove themselves to be incredibly out of touch. Because they have the power to make or break our economy and our livelihoods. They need to be at least mildly aware of what it’s like down here, in order to keep what’s going on up there from destroying us all.

So, Mark Zuckerberg and friends? Please check your privilege. While you earn your billions, we still need to pay our rent.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Victoria Pickering via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Facebook Pays Your Rent appeared first on Law Street.