&gt; Too much politics, too much inane nonsense. Yet I feel compelled to go there.<p>A valid criticism of facebook, but that&#x27;s not at all what he&#x27;s talking about. He&#x27;s saying that to the extent that he uses facebook for his <i>career</i> (ie: marketing his books), he feels that he&#x27;s giving away the contents of his book and that is ultimately hurting sales:<p><i>Professionally, I’m thinking it may be good for one’s career and business to be off social media altogether. Chris Anderson was wrong. “Free” doesn’t lead to anything but more free. Working for free isn’t leverage to do a talk for loads of money; now they even want you to talk for free. What am I supposed to do? Join YouTube and get three cents for every 100,000 views of my video? That is crap; that is insane!</i><p>It&#x27;s a completely ridiculous notion that&#x27;s contrary to what anyone who is making money in the digital economy has figured out: digital content is marketing for stuff you can charge for. The fact that Rushkoff can&#x27;t find stuff to charge for is indicative of a painful truth that he should consider: he&#x27;s actually not creating that much value.<p>He complains about getting 3c for every 100k youtube views, but never at all considers justifying why people should listen to him, simply that it costs him time to create this content.<p>It&#x27;s actually a pretty marxist philosophy (the labor theory of value), and it has huge limitations in terms of describing our economy.