Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg (Getty Images)
Facebook has — finally! — removed the pedophile page from its website.
For almost two months the struggling social network company refused to take down the site, called “Pedophiles are people too,” on which its users made unbelievably crude comments about having sex with children.
Despite protests from these pages and from other precincts over the past couple of months, Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook defended the page as nothing more than controversial humor. And it said that discussions on the page about packing children into cardboard boxes and the joy of sex with 9-year-olds didn’t violate its rules.
Suddenly, the company has changed its mind.
In a statement to The Post, Facebook said “the well-being of minors is of special concern to us.” The company went on to say that there was a “tension” over its “commitment to sharing and expression” and jokes about pedophilia.
“After much deliberation, we decided to resolve this tension by removing this page, and we will consider removal of additional content from that site that is dedicated to the glorification and promotion of the sexual exploitation of and violence against children.”
Sure, sure, sure!
Here’s what really happened.
As readers of this column know, I started a crusade against this pedophile page in August. I started complaining to Facebook’s advertisers and asked my readers to do likewise. And they did.
Facebook lost advertisers because of its position on the pedophile page — which had the disgusting address Pedo4U — and also received calls from irate users of the site, many of whom also canceled, or threatened to cancel, their memberships.
As you probably heard, Facebook sold stock to the public earlier this year. But the price of those shares has since been cut in half. The company’s underlying problem is that advertisers — the sole source of Facebook’s profits — are realizing that people who use this service to stay in touch with friends aren’t necessarily looking to buy anything.
Advertisers have complained that they are getting very few sales from Facebook users.
So, what did we all learn from my attacks on Facebook?
First, that no matter how arrogant a company may be, it is vulnerable if shares are held by the public. Got a problem that a company won’t solve — go after its revenue stream. It’s like grabbing it by the neck and tightening your grip.
Second, the so-called new media establishment can still get spanked by us in the old media.
My thanks to Staten Island Borough President James Molinaro, who took an active role in getting Facebook to change its position after he read about the pedophile page in this column.
Molinaro wrote to dozens of advertisers while I harassed many with phone calls. The advertisers who pressured Facebook should be proud of themselves.
And the ones that didn’t care? Well, let them search their conscience the next time a child is abused.
*
Jamie Dimon, head of JPMorgan Chase, griped last week that his company lost up to $10 billion as a result of the government asking him to buy Bear Stearns in early 2008.
Dimon said it was a “real close” call whether he would do the deal again. And he remembers telling a regulator “please take into consideration” if something that Bear did wrong ultimately comes back to haunt JPMorgan.
That all may be true. But I’m told it is not the whole story.
Dimon, you see, actually tried to buy Bear Stearns just a few years earlier. And while the world financial situation may have changed a lot in those intervening years, Dimon actually got what he asked for when he took over Bear — and for a fraction of the price.
As sources remember it, Dimon was willing to pay about $120 a share for Bear when he was still the head of Bank One, which was eventually taken over by Chase in 2004. And when he got rebuffed, Dimon started hiring away Bear’s talent.
Dimon quickly rose up to take over Chase/Bank One. And around the time he was buying Bear for $2 a share, Dimon was also becoming a Federal Reserve Board member.
So, before we start feeling all weepy for Dimon, remember the words of a famous country song: “Be careful what you wish for.”
***
Two weeks ago I asked Treasury a simple question: why does the monthly Treasury statement show that several billion dollars of expenses were accelerated into the month of August when they should have been paid in September?
The answer could simply be that the payments were made ahead of Labor Day weekend and Treasury was merely being considerate about people having money in their pockets. Or, could someone be fooling with the books so that financial obligations of the Treasury didn’t show up too close to the election?
After a week, Treasury still hasn’t gotten back to me.
But I still want to know:Why in the statement dated Aug. 31 — and released in September — did Treasury “accelerate” payments to active duty and retired servicemen, as well as pay ahead of time veterans’ benefits, supplemental security income and Medicare payments to HMOs?
These payments, due Saturday, Sept. 1, were instead paid on Friday, Aug. 31. Social Security payments for Sept. 3 were also paid on Aug. 31.
I made two requests to Treasury for information without results. If they had responded, I would have asked if this sort of accelerated payment had ever occurred before. As I said, there could be a simple explanation for this but right now there is just silence.