ebmilyertone

graphic design portfolio

Type Manipulation

Playing with Design using elements from Alexander Rodchenko’s poster of the yelling woman

Original Poster

Shopping Bag Design

Steve Jobs had a very solid sense of future and present

Great Ideas of Western Man...one of a series

You can’t connect the dotslooking forward;

This approach has neverlet me down,

and it has made all the difference in my life.

you can only connect themlooking backwards.

So you have to trust thatthe dots will somehow

connect in your future.

You have to trust in something -

your gut,

destiny,life,

karma,

whatever.

CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA

Poster Design

Contag!ousHow to Make Products, Ideas,

and Behaviors Catch

Jonah Berger

Book Cover

Magazine Cover

Angelina participates in

A Kardashian plastic

surgery? More inside!

Gene Experiment

Animals gone WILD!Mutation on the loose!

ThatBITES

Newsletter Design

Fakeface JournalIssue 3: Anti-Facebook

Facebook has gone a half step to putting the Poke out of its

misery — but I don’t see why they don’t kill it off completely. Would we really miss it? Last week, when launching the new Facebook subscribe but-ton, the social network hid the much-maligned “Poke” button behind a settings menu, making it pretty unlikely that visitors to your profile page will see it. Guess what: Facebook users didn’t notice. While there was a minor back-lash about the new real-time Ticker at the top of the site, not to mention the Top News section at the top of your news feed, only a handful of eagle-eyed bloggers noticed that the Poke button had virtually been retired.

This from a com-munity that balks at the slightest change. What’s more, Facebook’s huge up-coming redesign (Face-book Timeline) keeps the Poke button behind this same dropdown menu — there are no plans to make it visible again. Here’s my prob-lem with the poke: What the heck does it

mean? I originally as-sumed that Poking was merely flirting: a subtle way to get the atten-tion of another Face-book user. And yet just less than half of my Pokes are from males. So again: What does a Poke mean? And should we take a Poke to be flir-tatious when it could, in my case, just as eas-ily mean “Hey, I just

sent you a press release about my new app”? Facebook doesn’t even know what a Poke means, with the Help page r e a d i n g : “The poke feature can be used for a variety of things on F a c e b o o k .

For instance, you can poke your friends to say hello.” Ah, so they’re either saying hello, or flirting, or pestering … or something complete-ly different. If you’re going to Poke someone, isn’t there a better way to get your message across? Perhaps send them a Facebook Message? Like or comment on one of their updates? And isn’t it the case that a good percentage of Pokes are intended as ironic? Poking a girl (or cyber hugging, kissing, etc.) is pretty much use-less... I mean... beauti-ful girls probably get poked more than the Pillsbury Dough Boy on Facebook!

A Poking Problem By Pete Cashmore

April 10, 2012

A Social Network Newsletter

2 3Fakeface Journal

4/10/12

Anti-Facebook

4/10/12

Facebook Bullies

Ninth grade was sup-posed to be a fresh start for Marie’s son: new

school, new children. Yet by last October, he had become withdrawn. Marie prodded. And prodded again. Finally, he told her. “The kids say I’m say-ing all these nasty things about them on Facebook,” he said. “They don’t believe me when I tell them I’m not on Facebook.”But apparently, he was. Marie, a medical tech-nologist and single mother who lives in Newburyport, Mass., searched Facebook. There she

found what seemed to be her son’s page: his name, a photo of him grinning while run-ning — and, on his public wall,

sneering comments about teen-agers he scarcely knew. Someone had forged his identity online and was bullying others in his name. Students began to shun him. Furious and frightened, Marie contact-ed school officials. After expressing their concern, they told her they could do nothing. It was an off-campus matter. But Marie was determined to find out who was making her son miserable and to get them

to stop. In choosing that course, she would become a target herself. When she and her son learned who was behind the scheme, they would both feel the sharp sting of betrayal.

Undeterred, she would insist that the culprits be punished.

It is difficult enough to support

one’s child through a siege of schoolyard bullying. But the

lawlessness of the Internet, its po-tential for casual, breathtaking

cruelty, and its capac-ity to cloak a bully’s

identity all present slip-

pery new challenges

to this tran-sitional genera-tion of analog

parents. Desperate to

protect their children, parents are floundering even as they scramble to catch up with the technological sophistication of the next generation. Like Marie, many par-ents turn to schools, only to be rebuffed because officials think they do not have the authority to intercede. Others may call the police, who set high bars to investigate. Contacting Web site administrators or Inter-net service providers can be a daunting, protracted process. When parents know the aggressor, some may contact that child’s parent, stumbling

through an evolving etiquette in the landscape of social awk-wardness. Going forward, they struggle with when and how to supervise their adolescents’ forays on the Internet. Marie, who asked that her middle name and her own nickname for her son, D.C., be used to protect his identity, finally went to the police. The force’s cybercrimes specialist, Inspector Brian Brunault, asked if she really wanted to pursue

the matter. “He said that once it was in the court system,” Ma-rie said, “they would have to prosecute. It could probably be someone we knew, like a friend of D.C.’s or a neighbor. Was I prepared for that?” Marie’s son urged her not to go ahead. But Marie was adamant. “I said yes.” One afternoon last spring, Parry Aftab, a lawyer and expert on cyberbullying, addressed seventh graders at George Washington Middle School in Ridgewood, N.J. “How many of you have ever been cyberbullied?” she asked.

The hands crept up, first a scattering, then a thicket. Of 150 students, 68 raised their hands. They came forward to offer rough tales from social networking sites, instant mes-saging and texting. Ms. Aftab stopped them at the 20th ex-ample. Then she asked: How many of your parents know how to help you? A scant three or four hands went up.

Cyberbullying is often legally defined as repeated harassment online, al-though in popular use, it can describe even a sharp-elbowed, gratuitous swipe. Cyberbullies themselves re-sist easy categorization: the anonymity of the Internet gives cover not only to schoolyard-

bully types but to victims them-selves, who feel they can retaliate without getting caught. But online bullying can be more psychologi-cally savage than schoolyard bully-ing. The Internet erases inhibitions, with adolescents often going fur-ther with slights online than in person. “It’s not the swear words,”

Inspector Brunault said. “They all swear. It’s how they gang up on one individual at a time. ‘Go cut yourself.’ Or ‘you are sooo ugly’ — but with 10 u’s, 10 g’s, 10 l’s, like they’re all screaming it at someone.” The cavalier meanness can be chilling. On a California teenage boy’s Facebook wall, someone writes that his 9-year-old sister is “a fat bitch.” About the proud Facebook photos posted by a 13-year-old New York girl, another girl com-ments: “hideous” and “this pic makes me throwup a lil.” If she had to choose between the life of an animal and that of the girl in the photos, she con-tinues, she would choose the animal’s, because “yeah, at least they’re worth something.”

By Jan Hoofman

2 3Fakeface Journal

4/10/12

Anti-Facebook

4/10/12

Facebook Bullies

Ninth grade was sup-posed to be a fresh start for Marie’s son: new

school, new children. Yet by last October, he had become withdrawn. Marie prodded. And prodded again. Finally, he told her. “The kids say I’m say-ing all these nasty things about them on Facebook,” he said. “They don’t believe me when I tell them I’m not on Facebook.”But apparently, he was. Marie, a medical tech-nologist and single mother who lives in Newburyport, Mass., searched Facebook. There she

found what seemed to be her son’s page: his name, a photo of him grinning while run-ning — and, on his public wall,

sneering comments about teen-agers he scarcely knew. Someone had forged his identity online and was bullying others in his name. Students began to shun him. Furious and frightened, Marie contact-ed school officials. After expressing their concern, they told her they could do nothing. It was an off-campus matter. But Marie was determined to find out who was making her son miserable and to get them

to stop. In choosing that course, she would become a target herself. When she and her son learned who was behind the scheme, they would both feel the sharp sting of betrayal.

Undeterred, she would insist that the culprits be punished.

It is difficult enough to support

one’s child through a siege of schoolyard bullying. But the

lawlessness of the Internet, its po-tential for casual, breathtaking

cruelty, and its capac-ity to cloak a bully’s

identity all present slip-

pery new challenges

to this tran-sitional genera-tion of analog

parents. Desperate to

protect their children, parents are floundering even as they scramble to catch up with the technological sophistication of the next generation. Like Marie, many par-ents turn to schools, only to be rebuffed because officials think they do not have the authority to intercede. Others may call the police, who set high bars to investigate. Contacting Web site administrators or Inter-net service providers can be a daunting, protracted process. When parents know the aggressor, some may contact that child’s parent, stumbling

through an evolving etiquette in the landscape of social awk-wardness. Going forward, they struggle with when and how to supervise their adolescents’ forays on the Internet. Marie, who asked that her middle name and her own nickname for her son, D.C., be used to protect his identity, finally went to the police. The force’s cybercrimes specialist, Inspector Brian Brunault, asked if she really wanted to pursue

the matter. “He said that once it was in the court system,” Ma-rie said, “they would have to prosecute. It could probably be someone we knew, like a friend of D.C.’s or a neighbor. Was I prepared for that?” Marie’s son urged her not to go ahead. But Marie was adamant. “I said yes.” One afternoon last spring, Parry Aftab, a lawyer and expert on cyberbullying, addressed seventh graders at George Washington Middle School in Ridgewood, N.J. “How many of you have ever been cyberbullied?” she asked.

The hands crept up, first a scattering, then a thicket. Of 150 students, 68 raised their hands. They came forward to offer rough tales from social networking sites, instant mes-saging and texting. Ms. Aftab stopped them at the 20th ex-ample. Then she asked: How many of your parents know how to help you? A scant three or four hands went up.

Cyberbullying is often legally defined as repeated harassment online, al-though in popular use, it can describe even a sharp-elbowed, gratuitous swipe. Cyberbullies themselves re-sist easy categorization: the anonymity of the Internet gives cover not only to schoolyard-

bully types but to victims them-selves, who feel they can retaliate without getting caught. But online bullying can be more psychologi-cally savage than schoolyard bully-ing. The Internet erases inhibitions, with adolescents often going fur-ther with slights online than in person. “It’s not the swear words,”

Inspector Brunault said. “They all swear. It’s how they gang up on one individual at a time. ‘Go cut yourself.’ Or ‘you are sooo ugly’ — but with 10 u’s, 10 g’s, 10 l’s, like they’re all screaming it at someone.” The cavalier meanness can be chilling. On a California teenage boy’s Facebook wall, someone writes that his 9-year-old sister is “a fat bitch.” About the proud Facebook photos posted by a 13-year-old New York girl, another girl com-ments: “hideous” and “this pic makes me throwup a lil.” If she had to choose between the life of an animal and that of the girl in the photos, she con-tinues, she would choose the animal’s, because “yeah, at least they’re worth something.”

By Jan Hoofman

4 5Fakeface Journal

4/10/12

Anti-Facebook

4/10/12

10. Facebook’s Terms Of Service are completely one-sided. Let’s start with the basics. Facebook’s Terms Of Service state that not only do they own your data (section 2.1), but if you don’t keep it up to date and accurate (section 4.6), they can terminate your account (section 14). You could argue that the terms are just protecting Facebook’s interests, and are not in practice enforced, but in the con-text of their other activities, this defense is pretty weak. As you’ll see, there’s no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. Essentially, they see their customers as unpaid employees for crowd-sourc-ing ad-targeting.

9. Facebook’s CEO has a documented history of unethical behavior.

From the very beginning of Facebook’s existence, there are questions about Zuckerberg’s ethics. According to Busines-sInsider.com, he used Facebook user data to guess email passwords and read personal email in order to discredit his rivals. These allega-tions, albeit unproven and somewhat dated, nonetheless raise trou-bling questions about the ethics of the CEO of the world’s largest social

network. They’re particularly compelling given that Facebook chose to fork over $65M to settle a related lawsuit alleging that Zuckerberg had actu-

ally stolen the idea for Facebook.

8. Facebook has flat out declared war on privacy.

Founder and CEO of Facebook, in defense of Facebook’s privacy changes last January: “People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people. That social norm is just something that has evolved over time.” More recently, in introducing the Open Graph API: “... the default is now social.” Essentially, this means Facebook not only wants to know every-thing about you, and own that data, but to make it available to everybody.

7. Facebook is pulling a classic bait-and-switch.

At the same time that they’re telling develop-ers how to access your data with new APIs, they

are relatively quiet about ex-plaining the implications of that to members. What this amounts to is a bait-and-switch. Facebook gets you to share information that you might not otherwise share, and then they make it pub-licly available. Since they are in the business of monetiz-ing information about you for advertising purposes, this amounts to tricking their

users into giving advertisers information about themselves. This is why Facebook is so much worse than Twitter in this regard: Twitter has made only the simplest (and thus, more credible) privacy claims and their customers know up front that all their tweets are public. It’s also why the FTC is getting involved, and people are suing them (and winning).

6. Facebook is a bully.

When Pete Warden demonstrated just how this bait-and-switch works (by crawling all the data that Facebook’s privacy settings changes had in-advertently made public) they sued him. Keep in mind, this happened just before they announced the Open Graph API and stated that the “default is now social.” So why sue an independent soft-ware developer and fledgling entrepreneur for

making data publicly available when you’re actually already planning to do that yourself? Their real agenda is pretty clear: they don’t want their membership to know how much data is really available. It’s one thing to talk to developers about how great all this sharing is going to be; quite another to actually see what that means in the form of files anyone can download and load into MatLab.

5. Even your private data is shared with ap-plications.

At this point, all your data is shared with applications that you install. Which means now you’re not only

trusting Facebook, but the application develop-ers, too, many of whom are too small to worry much about keeping your data secure. And some of whom might be even more ethically challenged than Facebook. In practice, what this means is that all your data - all of it - must be effectively considered public, unless you simply never use any Facebook applications at all. Coupled with the OpenGraph API, you are no longer trusting Facebook, but the Facebook ecosystem.

4. Facebook is not technically competent enough to be trusted.

Even if we weren’t talking about ethical issues here, I can’t trust Facebook’s technical compe-tence to make sure my data isn’t hijacked. For ex-

Delete Your Facebook: 10 Reasons WHY By Dan Yoder

4 5Fakeface Journal

4/10/12

Anti-Facebook

4/10/12

10. Facebook’s Terms Of Service are completely one-sided. Let’s start with the basics. Facebook’s Terms Of Service state that not only do they own your data (section 2.1), but if you don’t keep it up to date and accurate (section 4.6), they can terminate your account (section 14). You could argue that the terms are just protecting Facebook’s interests, and are not in practice enforced, but in the con-text of their other activities, this defense is pretty weak. As you’ll see, there’s no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. Essentially, they see their customers as unpaid employees for crowd-sourc-ing ad-targeting.

9. Facebook’s CEO has a documented history of unethical behavior.

From the very beginning of Facebook’s existence, there are questions about Zuckerberg’s ethics. According to Busines-sInsider.com, he used Facebook user data to guess email passwords and read personal email in order to discredit his rivals. These allega-tions, albeit unproven and somewhat dated, nonetheless raise trou-bling questions about the ethics of the CEO of the world’s largest social

network. They’re particularly compelling given that Facebook chose to fork over $65M to settle a related lawsuit alleging that Zuckerberg had actu-

ally stolen the idea for Facebook.

8. Facebook has flat out declared war on privacy.

Founder and CEO of Facebook, in defense of Facebook’s privacy changes last January: “People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people. That social norm is just something that has evolved over time.” More recently, in introducing the Open Graph API: “... the default is now social.” Essentially, this means Facebook not only wants to know every-thing about you, and own that data, but to make it available to everybody.

7. Facebook is pulling a classic bait-and-switch.

At the same time that they’re telling develop-ers how to access your data with new APIs, they

are relatively quiet about ex-plaining the implications of that to members. What this amounts to is a bait-and-switch. Facebook gets you to share information that you might not otherwise share, and then they make it pub-licly available. Since they are in the business of monetiz-ing information about you for advertising purposes, this amounts to tricking their

users into giving advertisers information about themselves. This is why Facebook is so much worse than Twitter in this regard: Twitter has made only the simplest (and thus, more credible) privacy claims and their customers know up front that all their tweets are public. It’s also why the FTC is getting involved, and people are suing them (and winning).

6. Facebook is a bully.

When Pete Warden demonstrated just how this bait-and-switch works (by crawling all the data that Facebook’s privacy settings changes had in-advertently made public) they sued him. Keep in mind, this happened just before they announced the Open Graph API and stated that the “default is now social.” So why sue an independent soft-ware developer and fledgling entrepreneur for

making data publicly available when you’re actually already planning to do that yourself? Their real agenda is pretty clear: they don’t want their membership to know how much data is really available. It’s one thing to talk to developers about how great all this sharing is going to be; quite another to actually see what that means in the form of files anyone can download and load into MatLab.

5. Even your private data is shared with ap-plications.

At this point, all your data is shared with applications that you install. Which means now you’re not only

trusting Facebook, but the application develop-ers, too, many of whom are too small to worry much about keeping your data secure. And some of whom might be even more ethically challenged than Facebook. In practice, what this means is that all your data - all of it - must be effectively considered public, unless you simply never use any Facebook applications at all. Coupled with the OpenGraph API, you are no longer trusting Facebook, but the Facebook ecosystem.

4. Facebook is not technically competent enough to be trusted.

Even if we weren’t talking about ethical issues here, I can’t trust Facebook’s technical compe-tence to make sure my data isn’t hijacked. For ex-

Delete Your Facebook: 10 Reasons WHY By Dan Yoder

6 7Fakeface Journal

4/10/12

Anti-Facebook

4/10/12

Delete Your Facebook: 10 Reasons WHY Continued...

ample, their recent introduction of their “Like” button makes it rather easy for spammers to gain access to my feed and spam my social network. Or how about this gem for harvesting profile data? These are just the latest of a series of Keystone Kops mistakes, such as accidentally making us-ers’ profiles completely public, or the cross-site scripting hole that took them over two weeks to fix. They either don’t care too much about your privacy or don’t really have very good engineers, or perhaps both.

3. Facebook makes it incredibly difficult to truly delete your account.

It’s one thing to make data public or even mislead users about doing so; but where I really draw the line is that, once you decide you’ve had enough, it’s pretty tricky to really delete your account. They make no promises about deleting your data and every application you’ve used may keep it as well. On top of that, account deletion is incred-ibly (and intentionally) confusing. When you go to your account settings, you’re given an option to deactivate your account, which turns out not to be the same thing as deleting it. Deactivating means you can still be tagged in photos and be spammed by Facebook (you actually have to opt out of getting emails as part of the deactivation, an incredibly easy detail to overlook, since you think you’re deleting your account). Finally, the moment you log back in, you’re back like noth-ing ever happened! In fact, it’s really not much different from not logging in for awhile. To actu-ally delete your account, you have to find a link buried in the on-line help (by “buried” I mean it takes five clicks to get there). Or you can just click

here. Basically, Facebook is trying to trick their users into allowing them to keep their data even after they’ve “deleted” their account.

2. Facebook doesn’t (really) support the Open Web.

The so-called Open Graph API is named so as to disguise its fundamentally closed nature. It’s bad enough that the idea here is that we all pitch in and make it easier than ever to help Facebook col-lect more data about you. It’s bad enough that most consumers will have no idea that this data is basically public. It’s bad enough that they claim to own this data and are aiming to be the one source for accessing it. But then they are disin-genuous enough to call it “open,” when, in fact, it is completely proprietary to Facebook. You can’t use this feature unless you’re on Facebook. A truly open implementation would work with whichever social network we prefer, and it would look some-thing like OpenLike. Similarly, they implement just enough of OpenID to claim they support it, while aggressively promoting a proprietary alter-native, Facebook Connect.

1. The Facebook application itself sucks.

Between the farms and the mafia wars and the “top news” (which always guesses wrong - is that configurable somehow?) and the myriad privacy settings and the annoying ads (with all that data about me, the best they can apparently do is pro-mote dating sites, because, uh, I’m single) and the thousands upon thousands of crappy appli-cations, Facebook is almost completely useless to me at this point. Yes, I could probably custom-ize it better, but the navigation is ridiculous, so I don’t bother. (And, yet, somehow, I can’t even change colors or apply themes or do anything to make my page look personalized.) Let’s not even get into how slowly your feed page loads. Basical-ly, at this point, Facebook is more annoying than anything else.

Facebook is clearly determined to add every feature of every competing social network in an attempt to take over the Web (this is a never-ending quest that goes back to AOL and those damn CDs that were practically falling out of the sky). While Twitter isn’t the most usable thing in the world, at least they’ve tried to stay focused and aren’t trying to be everything to everyone.

I often hear people talking about Facebook as though they were some sort of monopoly or

public trust. Well, they aren’t. They

owe us nothing. They can do whatever they want, within

the bounds of the laws. (And

keep in mind, even those criteria are

pretty murky when it comes to social net- working.) But that doesn’t mean we have to actually put up with them. Furthermore, their long-term suc-cess is by no means guaranteed - have we all for-gotten MySpace? Oh, right, we have. Regardless of the hype, the fact remains that Sergei Brin or Bill Gates or Warren Buffett could personally acquire a majority stake in Facebook without even strain-ing their bank account.

6 7Fakeface Journal

4/10/12

Anti-Facebook

4/10/12

Delete Your Facebook: 10 Reasons WHY Continued...

ample, their recent introduction of their “Like” button makes it rather easy for spammers to gain access to my feed and spam my social network. Or how about this gem for harvesting profile data? These are just the latest of a series of Keystone Kops mistakes, such as accidentally making us-ers’ profiles completely public, or the cross-site scripting hole that took them over two weeks to fix. They either don’t care too much about your privacy or don’t really have very good engineers, or perhaps both.

3. Facebook makes it incredibly difficult to truly delete your account.

It’s one thing to make data public or even mislead users about doing so; but where I really draw the line is that, once you decide you’ve had enough, it’s pretty tricky to really delete your account. They make no promises about deleting your data and every application you’ve used may keep it as well. On top of that, account deletion is incred-ibly (and intentionally) confusing. When you go to your account settings, you’re given an option to deactivate your account, which turns out not to be the same thing as deleting it. Deactivating means you can still be tagged in photos and be spammed by Facebook (you actually have to opt out of getting emails as part of the deactivation, an incredibly easy detail to overlook, since you think you’re deleting your account). Finally, the moment you log back in, you’re back like noth-ing ever happened! In fact, it’s really not much different from not logging in for awhile. To actu-ally delete your account, you have to find a link buried in the on-line help (by “buried” I mean it takes five clicks to get there). Or you can just click

here. Basically, Facebook is trying to trick their users into allowing them to keep their data even after they’ve “deleted” their account.

2. Facebook doesn’t (really) support the Open Web.

The so-called Open Graph API is named so as to disguise its fundamentally closed nature. It’s bad enough that the idea here is that we all pitch in and make it easier than ever to help Facebook col-lect more data about you. It’s bad enough that most consumers will have no idea that this data is basically public. It’s bad enough that they claim to own this data and are aiming to be the one source for accessing it. But then they are disin-genuous enough to call it “open,” when, in fact, it is completely proprietary to Facebook. You can’t use this feature unless you’re on Facebook. A truly open implementation would work with whichever social network we prefer, and it would look some-thing like OpenLike. Similarly, they implement just enough of OpenID to claim they support it, while aggressively promoting a proprietary alter-native, Facebook Connect.

1. The Facebook application itself sucks.

Between the farms and the mafia wars and the “top news” (which always guesses wrong - is that configurable somehow?) and the myriad privacy settings and the annoying ads (with all that data about me, the best they can apparently do is pro-mote dating sites, because, uh, I’m single) and the thousands upon thousands of crappy appli-cations, Facebook is almost completely useless to me at this point. Yes, I could probably custom-ize it better, but the navigation is ridiculous, so I don’t bother. (And, yet, somehow, I can’t even change colors or apply themes or do anything to make my page look personalized.) Let’s not even get into how slowly your feed page loads. Basical-ly, at this point, Facebook is more annoying than anything else.

Facebook is clearly determined to add every feature of every competing social network in an attempt to take over the Web (this is a never-ending quest that goes back to AOL and those damn CDs that were practically falling out of the sky). While Twitter isn’t the most usable thing in the world, at least they’ve tried to stay focused and aren’t trying to be everything to everyone.

I often hear people talking about Facebook as though they were some sort of monopoly or

public trust. Well, they aren’t. They

owe us nothing. They can do whatever they want, within

the bounds of the laws. (And

keep in mind, even those criteria are

pretty murky when it comes to social net- working.) But that doesn’t mean we have to actually put up with them. Furthermore, their long-term suc-cess is by no means guaranteed - have we all for-gotten MySpace? Oh, right, we have. Regardless of the hype, the fact remains that Sergei Brin or Bill Gates or Warren Buffett could personally acquire a majority stake in Facebook without even strain-ing their bank account.

Thank You for your consideration.

Sincerely, ebmilyertone