Linked by Howard Fosdick on Wed 5th Sep 2012 05:24 UTC
In the News Remember the dot com debacle of a decade ago? Well, it's back, this time in the form of Facebook. Since its high-profile public offering last May at over $38/share, FB is now down to about $18/share. Management is finding that running a public company is very different than one privately held, as people variously blame Mark Zuckerberg (or not), CFO David Ebersman, lead IPO underwriter Morgan Stanley, and even the NASDAQ stock exchange. The real problem, of course, is that Facebook went public even as its business model desperately searches for new revenues. Let's just hope they don't pull a Digg and fatally redesign the whole site in response.
Thread beginning with comment 533893
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
benali72
Member since:
2008-05-03

I'll party with you! I'm just hoping the FB juggernaut slows down before we're all forced to participate in it to have what everyone else will call a "normal" life. Living a life that is not dominated by a social network is actually pretty satisfying.

Reply Parent Score: 4

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Hey, I got the beer. ;) But I agree completely--so many people I know moved from MySpace to Facebook which is where they remain today, despite all of the moves Facebook is pulling on all of their users' privacy behind their backs. I really don't think they even realize it. For years, I've been annoyed by all of the pages my friends put up, how they require you to get a Facebook user account just to look at. Still, I always refused. It only got worse, and began tracking "anonymous" users, when they announced the Facebook "Like" button. Unfortunately, Google's +1 button is also a tracking button, but I don't need to say which company I would trust more between the two. Either way, I block them all with various plugins, and all Facebook domains that I know of I usually have blocked by OpenDNS.

A friend of mine likes to slam Google when it comes to privacy, and you know... Google is pretty bad too when it comes to "privacy" (they tend to "know" everything about you based on what you do on all of your services), but compared to Facebook... they're not even on the same level of invasiveness. They do mention that they will not give any information away to a third-party company, that they do not make changes violating users' rights at random and just say "oops" when caught. They even give their users some very fine-grained control over what is available to just themselves, just a friend or two, one or more groups of people, or fully public.

Facebook did away with all of this one-by-one over the last several years, silently, behind everyone's backs--and I hope Google remains trustworthy enough to not follow their footsteps if Google+ does get big. Yet somehow, in my friend's mind Google is to be completely mistrusted, while he has a Facebook page himself, completely oblivious to what they are doing with his information, and claiming Facebook's great.

Edited 2012-09-05 06:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Does he also think that Microsoft and Apple don't collect user data?

Edited 2012-09-05 11:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

They (Google) do mention that they will not give any information away to a third-party company, that they do not make changes violating users' rights at random and just say "oops" when caught.


No, they don't say 'oops'... they just claim it was an accident, like when they got busted driving vans down city streets and slurping data from public wifi access points. Look, I don't trust Facebook. I don't trust Google either. Trying to argue over which you should trust less is like arguing which of the neighborhood pedophiles you should let babysit your children.

Reply Parent Score: 3

sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

I'll party with you! I'm just hoping the FB juggernaut slows down before we're all forced to participate in it to have what everyone else will call a "normal" life. Living a life that is not dominated by a social network is actually pretty satisfying.


And yet here you are, in a social "network", agreeing on partying with other people bringing beer.

Reply Parent Score: 2

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I wouldn't exactly consider a news discussion forum a "social networking" site in the strictest sense. Loosely, maybe, but it's more about the discussions than it is about helping you find new (or old) friends to meet in real life or keep up-to-date on their daily activities. Big damn difference there. I never was much into social networking crap, but I've been a member of several Internet forums over the years.

Why? Not to meet new people--but instead to talk about the things that interest me. The interest is in the discussion topics; not necessarily the people. This is reinforced by the tendency of forums to create unique user names for each user, instead of sticking their real names right beside every one of their posts. Sure, such information may or may not actually be in a user's profile (up to the user), but the big point is discussion forums have a focus on something *other* than on the people directly.

I'll put it this way: Social networking helps you find and keep tabs on real-life friends. Forums provide a place of discussion. Simple as that.

Reply Parent Score: 2