I've always challenged the notion of Myspace being a "utopian" platform; immune to ever growing into a data hoarding "Facebook," especially in an era where growth requires the sale of data.

"Tom would have never sold our data." mmmm dunno about that.

First there was the fact Myspace was purchased by News Corp in 2005. Second, how the company monetised through ads and early attempts at affiliate marketing by selling cheap toys and gifts.

Being a free to use platform means eventually the users become the product.

VP of Myspace explains: "“They (myspace) looked at Friendster and said: ‘Wow, people are spending insane amounts of time on this site. We should copy it.’ they wanted to build a social network so they could have distribution ads, selling these horrible products to people.”

When News Corp acquired Myspace, they became more corporate, which makes sense. However, they started to face legal issues from an influx of cases, whilst scaling uncontrollably. They had too many bills and very limited way to cash out on their 100million users.

If Myspace were around during the era of mobile phones, they would have definitely sold our attention to the highest bidder. All we need to do is look at anti-adverts and data hoarding social medias like @verotruesocial. The founder, Ayman Hariri has spoken numerous times...

...about the fact there is no such thing as "free" when it comes to social media.

"the problem of "free" social, whereby [...] user becomes the product, their data a currency." - Ayman Hariri

So whilst Myspace was one of the first, it's not that Tom was some revolutionary who cared about privacy. It was he didn't have the tools to consider capturing and selling your data. Albeit, even if he was *for* "privacy," News Corp's corporate intentions would force his hand.

Can't wait to see who steals this thread for an article, as per.