BX-12 Yes, I‘m here, I'm still in the Bronx, in the cradle of muscles and bones – on the bus, filled up to the brim, listening to the "back door!" scream, squeezing me between exotic beauties, tempted by their round booties… Well, on the way to work, preparing my physics lecture ad hoc. New York, 27 February 2013 (From my book "Americanisms" https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/dmitry-garanin/americanisms/ebook/product-1ng88keq.html?page=1&pageSize=4)
thumb_up5thumb_downchat_bubble4

More from Дмитрий Гаранин

FACEBOOK vs PUBLISHERS I was reading about the conflict between Facebook and Australia because of the new law currently prepared by the Australian government. The essence of the conflict is this. News companies create pages on Facebook where they post their content. Facebook users read this content and thereby increase Facebook’s advertising revenue. The new Australian law requires that Facebook shares this revenue with content providers. Facebook does not want to share money arguing that “Publishers willingly choose to post news on Facebook, as it allows them to sell more subscriptions, grow their audiences and increase advertising revenue.” That is, Facebook allows publishers to use its platform to promote their own main sites where they earn more money. This is a service from Facebook and, probably, publishers have to pay Facebook instead of Facebook paying publishers. This is a real question of healthy financial balance. Now, the Facebook-Australia conflict is only a top of the iceberg. There are many Facebook users who publish their own content that becomes popular and attracts other users and increases Facebook's advertising revenue. These Facebook publishers do not have their commercial web sites that they could promote on Facebook. They exist only on Facebook and Facebook does not pay them for their efforts. If the law obliging Facebook to pay the publishers presenting their commercial news outlets be adopted, a similar question will arise concerning the Facebook-only content providers. This is a Pandora box for Facebook.

More from Дмитрий Гаранин

FACEBOOK vs PUBLISHERS I was reading about the conflict between Facebook and Australia because of the new law currently prepared by the Australian government. The essence of the conflict is this. News companies create pages on Facebook where they post their content. Facebook users read this content and thereby increase Facebook’s advertising revenue. The new Australian law requires that Facebook shares this revenue with content providers. Facebook does not want to share money arguing that “Publishers willingly choose to post news on Facebook, as it allows them to sell more subscriptions, grow their audiences and increase advertising revenue.” That is, Facebook allows publishers to use its platform to promote their own main sites where they earn more money. This is a service from Facebook and, probably, publishers have to pay Facebook instead of Facebook paying publishers. This is a real question of healthy financial balance. Now, the Facebook-Australia conflict is only a top of the iceberg. There are many Facebook users who publish their own content that becomes popular and attracts other users and increases Facebook's advertising revenue. These Facebook publishers do not have their commercial web sites that they could promote on Facebook. They exist only on Facebook and Facebook does not pay them for their efforts. If the law obliging Facebook to pay the publishers presenting their commercial news outlets be adopted, a similar question will arise concerning the Facebook-only content providers. This is a Pandora box for Facebook.