With New Miramax Partnership, Facebook Gears Up to Take on the G-20

Simit Patel

• Badge Day — August, 2011
• Gold Mania Sweeps Through InformedTrades Community
• $index has a Descending Triangle pattern 240 chart (watch out for a break-out)
• USDCAD Consolidating After Run Up
• Hammer Off Support

Facebook recently announced a partnership with Miramax films to allow Facebook members to rent Miramax movies through Facebook’s social networking platform, and to allow payment to be rendered in Facebook Credits — the company’s virtual currency. This event is a major milestone on the virtual currency trajectory, and thus is of great significance to all those interested in creating the new monetary and political systems of the post-dollar world order. 

There are two key points to ponder here:

1. Because this partnership increases the exchange value of FB Credits — what you can get for when you exchange them – it increases their value as a store of wealth. This leads to the foundation for a financial economy involving loans and investing.  

2. Facebook’s monetary policy is critical here. What if Facebook all of sudden reprices the exchange rate between FB Credits and US dollars? Can they seize your FB Credits directly? If so, can you go to a jurisdiction in the global nation-state system and take legal action against FB and accuse them of theft? Other companies in the field of virtual worlds have faced these issues before; the Chinese government has even banned certain virtual currencies for their de-stabilizing effects. Likewise, US Senator Charles Schumer has identified Bitcoin as a threat to the US economy. 

This latter aspect — Facebook’s monetary policy — is where I suspect they will fail. Culturally, their money is very close to the Goldman Sachs money epicenter; Goldman is the incumbent in the world of monetary policy, and so I find it unlikely they will be able to play the disruptive card, or will even tolerate it. There is an element of political battling that is also needed to play the role of the currency manager, and I doubt Facebook has the DNA for such a battle. 

In any event, we are getting closer to the intersection of the collapse of the current global monetary system and the rise of a new one built on virtual currencies and gold. This event is the keystone to the economic transition we are in the midst of; it is especially relevant for those participating in the re-monetization of gold or social media/Bubble 2.0 value plays. More importantly, I view it as the most important step in the trajectory of the world, politically and economically. 

Share and Enjoy

Facebook, Twitter libel claims double; Celebrities still prefer super-injunctions

Statistics compiled by legal firm Sweet and Maxwell suggest that libel cases, resulting from posts on online social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, have doubled in the last year.

Since the rise of super-injunctions in the United Kingdom — a seemingly alien concept to the vast majority of U.S. citizens, safe in the knowledge of that First Amendment rights protect freedom of speech — British citizens are not covered in the same way.

(Image via Flickr)

Libel lawyer Korieh Duodo said that those defamed online “often find it time-consuming and difficult to have the offending material removed, because many platform providers do not accept responsibility for their users’ content”.

He added: “There is certainly a need for greater accountability of the providers of user generated content; a need to tighten the regulatory framework within which they operate.”

While in the United States, a printed article is considered to be true until proven otherwise, the laws of the United Kingdom are in reverse; those who publish content must prove it is true before publication, or face strict libel laws.

Not only does this raise issues regarding the open use of social media platforms, but also the ‘anonymous culture’ still felt online when alleged false statements are made against a person, lawyers say.

But as social networks are at the forefront of the reason behind the new libel cases, many are blaming the tools rather than the people.

Despite the rise in libel claims, seemingly ordinarily brought forward by celebrities, those with status and economic means are opting for the discreet gagging order, rather than the public traditional defamation action.

Super-injunctions are used often by celebrities who can prevent a person or organisation disclosing information about them, whilst at the same time preventing disclosure of the gagging order.

These super-injunctions can, however, be circumvented. Protected under ‘parliamentary privilege’, the content of super-injunctions can be discussed freely by Members of Parliament, which are protected by immunity when raising issues in session.

Earlier this year, all British citizens and journalists were barred from discussing the super-injunction against soccer player Ryan Giggs, and his affair with an ex-Big Brother contestant.

The problem arises is when social media is used to circumvent the gagging orders, often through anonymous Twitter accounts.

In response to the uprising during the Arab Spring revolutions, also resonated throughout the London riots, and through many other cases when freedom of speech has been threatened, Twitter maintains its standpoint that “the tweets must flow”.

A Defamation Bill is currently being debated in Parliament, in a bid to tighten the current libel laws while bolstering freedom of speech.

Related content:

• Super-injunctions: Could the freedom of speech lie in Twitter?
• ‘Tech-injunction’ gags Twitter, Facebook users: Why super-injunctions only apply to Britain
• Defamation or free speech? U.S. court orders Google to hand over identity of blogger
• UK court ’subpoenas’ Twitter for names of super-injunction tweeters
• British PM considers turning off social networks amid further riots
• UK backs down on social media ban
• CBS News: London riots: Tech’s role in the thick of it

Share and Enjoy