Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook and the "Social Graph"

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the enough-with-the-farmville dept.

Businesses 200

itwbennett writes "Peter Smith is blogging about day 1 of the Facebook F8 conference and Mark Zuckerberg's vision for Facebook, which, as it turns out, is somewhat confusing: 'Zuckerberg clearly sees Facebook as a service. Facebook Connect (the name) is going away and being replaced by the Facebook Platform. "Share on Facebook" buttons are being replaced with "Like on Facebook" buttons. And Comcast is now called Xfinity. ... What does it all mean to the end user? There's a new API to fetch data from Facebook more easily, which sounds great, if only I could figure out why I'd want to do that. The overall tone of the keynote was that Facebook was serious business and they were going to build the Social Graph, a vast network of connections between people and the things they like. Zuckerberg was a man with a mission.'"

cancel ×

200 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Facebook (3, Insightful)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939494)

is for chumps. I don't understand how people can give away ALL of their information like that.

Re:Facebook (4, Insightful)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939566)

Because we are social. We need social contact. If being social means having a profile on facebook so you'd connect with your friends, most people(whether they know the risks or not) will have one.

Re:Facebook (2, Insightful)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939612)

Want to know what's much more social and stores none of your information for random strangers forever? Hanging out with your friends. It also happens to be the fastest way to exchange detailed information with them too!

Re:Facebook (3, Insightful)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939722)

Since when our social interaction were rational ? There is no point in rationalising this for the human majority. If putting information about themselves on a site so they'd connect with people is what's required , they would do it. They see this as a way of being capable of interacting with more people using less time. Question, how many(of active) profiles have a friend list under 20 friends? I would suppose not a lot, I would even go as far as saying probably very rare. People want to meet more people(in general) and online social interaction can give you something of that in less time. So people put the information there, so people would see it.

Re:Facebook (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940190)

I'm betting that the majority of profiles have less than 30 "friends" attached to them. They would be made up of family and close friends. The reason for this being that they don't spend their lives on the computer and actually interact with people while being in the same room with them, without using a computer.

Hard to believe, I know.

Re:Facebook (5, Insightful)

RagManX (258563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939744)

That's nice, but only works in a romanticized version of reality. Almost all of my friends live hundreds of miles away. I don't care for most of my cow-orkers, and have little time available to do much with my friends who live nearby because I have a schedule to maintain with my kids and my friends work different hours than I do. There's a ridiculous number of reasons why for many people it is difficult to actually spend a lot of time hanging out with friends IRL, and probably just as many to justify keeping in touch via social media. For many, it's almost like we're integrating technology into our lives to give us more ways to keep in contact with people who physical world constraints make hard to spend face time with.

Re:Facebook (0, Flamebait)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940122)

Sounds to me like you have don't actually have any friends. All of your "hundreds of miles away" friends are just people you pretend are your friends because you believe they would actually be your friends if you were local to them. Chances are that isn't the case, you just happened to have a single common interest that connected you online. Your co-workers won't befriend you because you are boring (or a dumbass or rude or some other negative quality) and your online friends would behave in the same fashion.

If you can't find time to hang out with your friends then you're doing something very wrong in life.

Re:Facebook (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939766)

I have friends on a few different continents.

I don't Facebook though, because most of them don't either, but I do use Facebook as a verb.

Re:Facebook (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940002)

I also have friends all over the world. I use instant messaging to make contact with them in a two way line of communication that doesn't save every letter we type to each other..

Re:Facebook (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940052)

Hanging out with your friends. It also happens to be the fastest way to exchange detailed information with them too!

I like to choose my friends based on common interests instead of geographical convenience.

Not that I especially like Facebook either (forums > facebook), but restricting myself to people I see everyday would make me a very lonely man.

Re:Facebook (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940324)

I also like to choose friends based on common interests. Just so happens that there are 6 million people in my city, not too hard to find those people! The people I meet online are just that, people online. I don't pretend that we are BFFs.

Re:Facebook (2, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940558)

So you're saying we should all move to your city? My whole country doesn't have enough people for two of those cities. And I bet in your country there are people who live in less populated zones...

The people I meet online are just that, people online. I don't pretend that we are BFFs.

Me too. But I do have friends who I have met in real life, but due to time constrains I can only hang out with on weekends. I don't see the problem with talking to them online on the rest of week.

I find Facebook flawed in multiple ways, but saying all online communication is impersonal and wrong is foolish.

Re:Facebook (5, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939698)

Because we are social. We need social contact. If being social means having a profile on facebook so you'd connect with your friends, most people(whether they know the risks or not) will have one.

That's not real contact, though. It's a one way broadcast contact.

It's one thing to keep up with distant friends - it's a hell of a lot cheaper than phone calls, but in many cases it's a replacement for in person contact - even if folks are local. Sure, there are folks who use it to say "Hey, I'm at Joe's Tavern tonight, come and join me!" but others?

Facebook is pseudo social contact and I think it's actually making us more isolated as a people. We evolved to communicate one on one - not via a computer terminal.

Re:Facebook (2, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940116)

We evolved to communicate one on one - not via a computer terminal.

Wrong. Evolution has no "purpose". Fixed: Those who were more predisposed to communicate one to one survived better.
Eventually, those who can communicate better in Social Networks may have better lives and consequentially they may dictate the human race evolution pattern.

Re:Facebook (2, Insightful)

tophermeyer (1573841) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940356)

I think the point was that to date we have spent millions of years evolving to maximize our face to face social interactions. The relatively instant replacement of that with "social networks" is not something that we have evolved to cope with, and so has a disruptive effect on our lives and social interactions.

If those social networks persist for an extended period of time than we may certainly evolve to maximize them. However, evolution happens by selection through successful reproduction. As this is most certainly a face to face activity, in person social skills will likely remain paramount.

Re:Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31940528)

I think the point was that to date we have spent millions of years evolving to maximize our face to face social interactions.

That mostly seems to consist of throwing pointy things at one another...

Exactly (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940566)

Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Re:Facebook (2, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940680)

But you can say that about anything newer than a couple million years. We haven't evolved to use almost *none* of the stuff we use today.

The relatively instant replacement of that with "social networks" is not something that we have evolved to cope with, and so has a disruptive effect on our lives and social interactions.

Bollocks. Evolution is not the only way to adapt. We have adapted to millions of changes without evolving. Sure, it's always a bumpy ride 'till we adapt, but it'll be measures in some years, not millions.

If you sum all the technological evolutions in the 19 and 20th centuries, this doesn't come even close.

Re:Facebook (3, Interesting)

Sir_Dill (218371) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940748)

I like the direction you were both going for.

I agree that FB communication is a poor surrogate for face to face in person communication, however speaking from an American societal view, allowing people to communicate freely without some of the awkwardness or judgment based on physical appearances may allow people to "connect" with others and exchange ideas more freely.

Group social interaction and the sharing of ideas is what drives our society and civilization. To imply that the only way to do that is via "facetime" is not only naive, but its a little ignorant.

Yes body language can account for a significant amount of "communication" but it can also impede the sharing of ideas.

Personally I see FB as the next logical evolution to online disucssion forums and IRC chatrooms. The body language issue is largely negated through the use of "emoticons" and other memes, not to mention things like skype which I can tell you from experience, is an EXCELLENT alternative to face to face communication.

Ultimately FB allows more communication easier which will naturally lead to more physical interactions. The idea that just because you met someone on the internet discounts the possibility of being "friends" in real life is foolish. It's really no different than meeting someone on the train or in the grocery store. They are just as likely to be an axe murderer as the person you met online. The only difference is the method by which you were initially introduced. The same social rules and personal safety habits still apply and I think THAT is the larger issue. The internet has invaded every part of our lives at all levels. As a species we are still adjusting and evolving to take advantage of the new tools and communication avenues that have recently been created.

Re:Facebook (5, Funny)

AnEducatedNegro (1372687) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940220)

We evolved to communicate one on one - not via a computer terminal.

Says the man posting on Slashdot

Re:Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31940224)

It's not a replacement. It's a supplement. I see what my friend posted on facebook, and I ask him about it next time I see him *in person*.

Re:Facebook (4, Interesting)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940556)

Facebook is pseudo social contact and I think it's actually making us more isolated as a people. We evolved to communicate one on one - not via a computer terminal.

See, here's the problem. Facebook isn't meant to replace social contact; it's meant to enhance it. When Zuckerberg and company began developing facebook (before the 'f' was capitalized, of course), their main impetus for doing so was to develop an easy way for people in Harvard to know and keep in contact with each other. Since college students would prefer anything online over in print, it made it a much better alternative than using the actual face-book that Harvard publishes every year (which I think they still do). On top of that, it provided a medium to allow people to contact each other easily. It was way better than digging through and through to find someone's email address, let alone their phone number. This obviously proved to be way more advantageous than finding people, as attested by the outrageous growth it's experienced since it went live in 2004.

Unfortunately, making communication easier naturally implies some form of increased isolation. However, would you really consider that mitigation a disadvantage if that simplification makes your life easier? Calling people makes it easier for me to not talk to the person face-to-face, but would you doubt that the phone is a terrible way to communicate with people because of that?

I own a Facebook profile, and have accumulated a ton of friends over the years on it. Now, in reality, I only know a handful of those folks...but having tons of Facebook friends sure makes it easy to find something to do on a quiet Friday/Saturday night if I'm up for it. Which, of course, makes it easy to make real acquaintances (or friends that stick around, if I get lucky).

Re:Facebook (1)

Garth Smith (1720052) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940672)

I just moved to Berkeley less than a year ago and I didn't know a single soul up here. Facebook is great for remembering acquaintences you see, and then adding them as a friend gets some recognition between you and them. Without Facebook I wouldn't have been able to put names to faces nearly as quickly. For me, Facebook isn't for friends, it's for getting to know new people.

Re:Facebook (2, Insightful)

drachenstern (160456) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939724)

I realize the OP was being a troll, but please mod the parent up. /.ers need this awareness. Facebook is not for /.ers, it is for our mom's and our SOs. The ones who don't understand why a cryptographically hard password is important.

Because we are social

Re:Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31939848)

I cant believe you went there

"Facebook is not for /.ers, it is for our mom's and our SOs"

you sad sack.

Re:Facebook (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939886)

You want your mother and SO to give Facebook all of their personal info, along with some credit card numbers, because they don't understand why a good password is important?

Re:Facebook (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940734)

Some of us have multiple passwords. Some intended for secure purposes and others not so. Also, the assumption that significant others won't care about these issues is at minimum obnoxious. If you think an issue matters, you should damn well make sure the people you care about understand the issue.

Re:Facebook (2, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940908)

You are correct. it's not for /.'ers its for people that want to connect with others. I use it as a brand building tool and networking tool, same as my linked-in. I only post to my facebook positive things that build my "brand" to the point that I have over the past few years turned into a minor celebrity in some circles. A lot of people know of me that I don't know and they know my work, cripes little ol' me has 1500 fans on my fan page. It helps because only friends are on my page and everyone else sees my fan page. that allows me to insulate my private data stream from my public facing data stream.

THAT is what Facebook is really good at. mix in a twitter feed, youtube channel, and a "blog" that couples all together... and you have a HUGE brand building network.

It's also why I never even interviewed for my current job... I was contacted, they made an offer, I accepted and started. No interview, no Send your resume, no fill out a application...

p.s. : keep your social life not linked or not easily linked to your professional public facing world.

Re:Facebook (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940296)

Who needs FaceBook when I have slashdot and Felbers? [slashdot.org]

Re:Facebook (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940250)

is for chumps. I don't understand how people can give away ALL of their information like that.

That's why you only give the information you don't mind people knowing. Just because there is a box where you can put your full address doesn't mean you should actually enter your full address. Likewise, if there is something you don't want the public or your job or your family to know about, don't mention it on your Facebook.

This isn't rocket science...all it takes is a little discretion.

Re:Facebook (1)

Redlazer (786403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940420)

Not everyone is afraid of showing who they really are.

The privacy issue is bigger than this, but this is what is at the heart of things like Facebook - unashamedness of who you really are, for the few who choose to embrace it.

Re:Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31940562)

Yeah, that's right. I give away ALL of my information on Facebook!

Seriously?

Re:Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31940604)

Cause they don't care...and neither should you...It's not your information.

and again.... (5, Insightful)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939502)

no mention of user security ANYWHERE.

That's the biggest peeve I have with facebook/myspace, et al. They don't take the end users' security into consideration.

That's the #1 reason why I don't use their services. Otherwise, for a ton of people, they're fantastic services.

Re:and again.... (5, Informative)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939598)

Facebook's first round of venture capital funding ($US500,000) came from former Paypal CEO Peter Thiel. Author of anti-multicultural tome 'The Diversity Myth', he is also on the board of radical conservative group VanguardPAC.

The second round of funding into Facebook ($US12.7 million) came from venture capital firm Accel Partners. Its manager James Breyer was formerly chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, and served on the board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1999. One of the company's key areas of expertise are in "data mining technologies".

Do you really *think* they're THAT concerned with your security, given the situation?

Re:and again.... (3, Insightful)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939884)

One of the company's key areas of expertise are in "data mining technologies". Do you really *think* they're THAT concerned with your security, given the situation?

Look, we as nerds must STOP treating "data mining" like an epithet, or at least a scarlet letter on one's resume. The term has been abused by the popular media in connection with the NSA's wiretapping, but people tend to overlook the fact that "data mining" is just a bunch of algorithms to find statistical patterns in different kinds of data. When it's referred to as "exploratory data analysis", no one seems to mind. When it's referred to as simply "applied statistics", no one seems to mind. Read the statement [sigkdd.org] by ACM's data mining special interest group, SIGKDD.

That said, I completely agree with you -- of course Facebook is interested in mining the social graph and f***ing it for all its worth. They're a for-profit company whose only asset is detailed information about people and their interactions. Why is anyone shocked that they don't want to make the world a better place, and would rather become very rich instead off their only asset. For a capitalist country, a lot of nerds in the US seem to have rose-colored glasses on.

Re:and again.... (1, Flamebait)

corbettw (214229) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939908)

Facebook's first round of venture capital funding ($US500,000) came from former Paypal CEO Peter Thiel. Author of anti-multicultural tome 'The Diversity Myth', he is also on the board of radical conservative group VanguardPAC.

OMG! One of the people who invested in Facebook has political views you don't like! It's the end of the world! Facebook are a bunch of racists and only a racist would ever use them!

Re:and again.... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940154)

Since politics is (currently) largely based on who has more money, by using their services you're indirectly voting for them.

Re:and again.... (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939922)

anti-multicultural tome

That is quite possibly the most loaded rhetoric I've seen in a while.

Re:and again.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31940678)

with the possible exception of "most loaded rhetoric"

Re:and again.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31940854)

That is quite possibly the most loaded rhetoric I've seen in a while.

The subtitle of the book is "Multiculturalism and the Politics of Intolerance at Stanford". So I guess it's just the word "tome" that you are objecting to?

Re:and again.... (1)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940016)

Not only that, but the founder Mark Zuckerberg has no problem hacking into other people's accounts. [dailymail.co.uk] He came up with facebook while working on a similar project for others at Harvard. Evidence shows [businessinsider.com] that he stalled his work on the other project while working on Facebook while stringing along the others. I certainly wouldn't trust a backstabbing jackass like Zuckerberg with my information. It is why I deleted my facebook account almost a year ago.

Re:and again.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31940394)

Actually, Facebook accounts don't get 'deleted'. Go ahead and try, you can probably still sign in to your old account with the same password.

Because of this, I recommend to people that they falsify all of their information on Facebook before they try to delete their account.

Re:and again.... (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940086)

I don't know, if facebook was a data mining front for the CIA, I would hope that they would be interested in keeping their valuable intel to themselves. Unless of course they are merely using the insecurity of the system to gather intel instead of having an official back door.

Re:and again.... (2, Informative)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939622)

Both with Privacy AND with security.

I mean, from a business standpoint, yes, facebook is great for drumming up marketting, developing business, and maintaining relations with clients. However, just yesterday we ran across this [wikipedia.org] little gem. A worm that targets facebook and other social networking sites specifically.

Surprise Surprise, one our sales ladies got infected. Now that we've cleaned it off we still have to assess the damage. She could have spread it to the rest of the sales team, her clients, the CEO (who is on her friends list)... But of course she isn't going to give US any information, that'd be invading her privacy.

I know, you guys are going to say "Tell her to warn others and let her deal with it then", which is what we did, but obviously if she doesn't adequately deal with it, the problem is going to circle back to us with other sales people.

Re:and again.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31940550)

Uh, I fail to see how that worm is any different than IM and e-mail viruses. Facebook and MySpace are just now popular enough that their messaging systems are viable delivery methods for e-mail viruses.

Viruses of that type are an entirely social problem: they simply ask the user to infect their computer with the virus and the user does so. It is either the user's responsibility to not install viruses or IT's responsibility to not allow arbitrary executables to be run (which may not apply if the virus only gets install to users' home computers).

Re:and again.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31939732)

Personally, I'd like to be paid royalties for the information I provide FB.

I'll trade accurate information for cash. In lieu of that, I shall remain a resident of 123 Main Street.

Re:and again.... (2, Funny)

anglico (1232406) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940132)

you live there too? Funny I've never seen you around the house?

Re:and again.... (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939774)

Facebook has pretty good security features if you turn them on.

That said, turning them all on makes the whole service pretty pointless.

Re:and again.... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939820)

It doesn't stop facebook from being the vector & entry point for malware.

Re:and again.... (2, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940024)

That's the biggest peeve I have with facebook/myspace, et al. They don't take the end users' security into consideration.

I am an avid Facebook user (5-10+ updates a day kinda guy), but that quote from your post is exactly why I never say or do anything on there I care about the public knowing. I'm fully aware that nothing I do on there is truly private, and I use it with that in mind.

Re:and again.... (2, Interesting)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940416)

no mention of user security ANYWHERE.

That's the biggest peeve I have with facebook/myspace, et al. They don't take the end users' security into consideration.

That's the #1 reason why I don't use their services. Otherwise, for a ton of people, they're fantastic services.

What security is there in the first place? You put up a private photo and expect that only your friends see it? And that maybe they're all too stupid to "save as" and re-post the photo elsewhere as a public photo?

The privacy settings are just feel-good measures. Post something good and unless you have no friends, someone's probably going to re-post it elsewhere. Of course, if people realized this all the "private" data on Facebook wouldn't be there, so you put up some basic crap that really doesn't do anything. Once it's on the 'net, it's out there, no matter the privacy settings. The only way to keep it off is to not post it in the first place.

To think otherwise is like those "image DRM," "document DRM" and "email DRM" type services out there claiming to keep your images, documents, and emails safe from third parties/leaks, and allowing things like "expiring" content.

The only facebook I want (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31939506)

Is the Necronomicon.

Re:The only facebook I want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31940038)

Probably the single-most innovative comment for this story.

It's a land grab (1)

bobetov (448774) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939544)

They aren't satisfied with knowing (and using to advertise and monetize) your social network. Now, they want us, 3rd party web devs, to help them figure out what other sites you visit, what type of music you like to listen to, and what movies you've watched recently.

So they can advertise and monetize it.

I'm not seeing a real good reason to add this "Like" thing on any site of mine. I'd rather my visitors build *my* site's community, rather than simply acting as a source of content and demographics info for Facebook.

Re:It's a land grab (1)

Skreems (598317) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939636)

It's a question of intent. If you have aspirations of building a community, it's worth your time to make those features yourself, and figure out how to advertise. If, on the other hand, you just want to reach as many people as possible, "Like on Facebook" allows you to hook into their network and prompt people to share your stuff with others. I don't see myself needing it, but as free advertising goes it's pretty slick.

Re:It's a land grab (1)

bbqsrc (1441981) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939700)

What he said is entirely valid, and it really brings nothing new to the market. Digg and Reddit, and even Twitter have cornered this market for a long time have they not?

Re:It's a land grab (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939910)

They want to be in line with google in terms of ad awareness for their clients and users.
which ads do we serve, lets mine their data, analyse, then next time they use their facebook accounts...
low and behold, they will see ads meant for them , customized as google does.
Nothing wrong with them wanting to make money, when facebook is free, it is the only way they get to feed their families.

Signal to Noice Ratio (1)

rwv (1636355) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939546)

I'm as big a fan of social media as the next guy, but unless Facebook is planning to solve the "signal-to-noise" problem the future of their platform will be severely limited.

enough with farmville? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31939616)

negative, click here to feed my chickens, BITCH.

Re:enough with farmville? (1)

PaulMeigh (1277544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940370)

Aw come on, not +1 Funny? Vulgar farmville jokes should be exempt from the troll mod.

Haters (5, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939618)

He missed the message. The internet is full of haters and he isn't providing a dislike button.

If I like a song on Pandora, it can link to my Facebook profile. Great, I can spam my wall and annoy my friends even more!

Facebook is the single most popular site on the world, in spite of itself. All they do is piss off their users. Some day it will blow up in their face when someone launches something better.

Re:Haters (3, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939674)

Mod parent DOWN.

Re:Haters (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940446)

Well played, well played. Shame the moderators didn't seem to get it.

Re:Haters (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940770)

Apparently there also needs to be a 'golfclap' button.

Re:Haters (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940982)

Well, either they didn't get it, or they wanted to show everybody that they did get it.

Re:Haters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31940544)

Mod parent up, grandparent down.

Re:Haters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31940912)

you know, there are other ways of showing dislike.

Wow. Google BUZZ must be thrilled (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939644)

I was wondering what new madness would finally force the Facebook herd to move to another pasture.

This looks like it.

Re:Wow. Google BUZZ must be thrilled (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939836)

Buzz doesn't have farmville. Until you see another site that has such strong developer support for applications, you won't see Facebook dethroned.

Great. (4, Insightful)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939782)

Now when I go to CNN.com I suddenly find information about my "friends" and their activities on CNN.com. I don't want to see this shit. And I sure as hell don't want my "friends" (keeping in mind that the several hundred FB-friends I have aren't particularly my real 'friends' anyway) seeing what I do on CNN.com.

The worst thing - this is happening even though I disabled the only privacy setting on Facebook that I could find related to sharing information with third party websites. And even though I never opted in to Facebook Connect or connected CNN.com to Facebook.

Also, CNN does not seem to have a function to disable this 'wonderful' sharing feature. The only way I could disable it was to log out of my Facebook account manually on Facebook.com. I didn't have a browser open at Facebook mind you, I just had a cookie in my browser from having logged into Facebook earlier this morning at the office.

So now Facebook forces me to log out manually every time I leave the site lest I be barraged with Facebook content on other, completely unrelated, websites. Thanks, but no fucking thanks. I guarantee I won't be logging into Facebook anywhere near as often any more since they've made their service an utter pain in the ass now.

Call me a grumpy old 30-year old man if you will. I probably am. Get off my lawn and all that. But seriously, I was an early adopter of Facebook, and before that of Friendster. I enjoy seeing a little bit of mindless drivel from my acquaintances and the like out there, and keeping in touch on my terms is nice, but it has to be on my terms. I'm not interested in having my web browsing at work be a social experience - I prefer to keep my "social experiences" sandboxed to the websites they originate from, thank you very much.

Re:Great. (3, Insightful)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940042)

Easy solution: remove all your facebook "friends" who are not real friends.

Re:Great. (1)

jonpublic (676412) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940158)

Use a browser dedicated to facebook. I upped my privacy settings as high as they go and I use a browser specifically only for facebook.

Re:Great. (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940202)

Keep a different browser profile for FB alone, to maintain their cookies isolated.

Re:Great. (2, Insightful)

FreonTrip (694097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940206)

I'm in the same boat. This was originally a site designed to help people stay in touch with one another, but the company's desire to monetize its data is making them drift further and further from that goal. I don't care that a friend of mine became a fan of Fluffy Bunnies and Toe Socks, or that they befriended a number of people I've never heard of, and I really won't care that they visited musicalclusterfuck.net and Liked a pop country band, or that they frequent Fox News. It's well on its way to becoming a malware-crawling, adfotainment hellhole... really the ultimate manifestation of Eternal September, with lots of well-moneyed players swarming on its back like a Surinam toad [jwz.org] of e-commerce.

Re:Great. (5, Informative)

gclef (96311) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940272)

I ended up AdBlocking a bunch of facebook URLs to solve this. Annoying, but it did work. The ones I blocked:

(PS: why does slashcode convert text-only URLs into hyperlinks inside a blockquote?)

Re:Great. (1)

hey (83763) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940656)

Use on browser for Facebook (eg Chrome) and another for the rest of the web (eg Firefox).
Actually that would be a nice browser feature ("Keep site logins separate").

a grumpy old 30-year old man (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940928)

Maybe it's because I'm 45, but I've always logged out of FB when I leave the site.

Holy fuck. No more "platforms", please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31939824)

There's a whole generation of developers and managers who witnessed Microsoft rise to prominence in the 1980s and 1990s thanks to Windows.

Since then, the main goal of these developers and managers hasn't been to create applications that actually let people get more work done faster, but rather they've focused on building "platform" after "platform", to try and put themselves in the same monopoly position that Microsoft was/is in.

The thing is, we don't need any more platforms. We have too many, as it is. What's worse, each higher-level platform gets shittier and shittier than the one below it. Developing Facebook "apps", for instance, is just shittier and highly-restricted web application development. Web application development is just shittier and restricted desktop application development. Desktop application development is just shittier and restricted command line application development.

At the command line platform, at least the benefits of not having to interface directly with hardware and being able to reuse very generic code do exceed the stuff we can't do. We just don't see that once we get higher, though.

All these fools with their "platforms" need to fuck right off. Bring us a useful product, not another "platform" that's a shittier foundation than everything that has come before it.

The Newest and Social Way to Exploit the Masses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31939856)

This new vision leaves me troubled. The way he envisions it, it will be a wet dream to advertisers. Facebook wants to know what you really like in order for you to buy. Only this time, there will be greater transparency. I use Fb to keep up with friends. I don't care what crap they buy. Maybe teen age girls will like this sort of thing. I always see those stooges on Fb joining groups about how Fb will start charging a monthly service. Fb will never charge. If they do, people will leave. People tolerate the advertising since they have no choice.

Re:The Newest and Social Way to Exploit the Masses (3, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940436)

This new vision leaves me troubled. The way he envisions it, it will be a wet dream to advertisers.

You don't use NoScript, do you? Because if you did, you'd see that his "dream" is Google's reality. google-analytics.com is *everywhere*.

Quote FTW (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31939874)

Dude, fuck Facebook. Seriously. - Stan Marsh

social graph (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#31939962)

The overall tone of the keynote was that Facebook was serious business and they were going to build the Social Graph, a vast network of connections between people and the things they like

So in other words, not much has changed. Zuckerberg has been talking about his social 'graph' for years now. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

Re:social graph (1)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940470)

"Nothing to see here folks. Move along."

Agreed. Call it the Alt-F9 conference.

Social Spam (4, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940010)

I find it easiest to not participate. When I was in high-school and Facebook was just a whisper, during the times in which the only allowed users had to have educational email addresses, it was a platform for communication. Now it has become a micro-blogging service on the public side, so people can quantitatively spew their opinions via 'like' or, well, frankly, 'like'. Facebook is a platform of subjective opinions, coalescing, as a previous poster states precisely, into a a very large amount of noise compared to a very small amount of signal.

In theory, a 'clean' social networking site would simple allow people to communicate with exactly who they want in a manner that is explicitly controllable, giving that user the ability to control the exact verbosity of their messages and their communication scope. Facebook is eliminating the paradigm of private opinions, and the more laymen that sign up, more noise pervades the wire.

The draw, the appeal have you, is simple. If you can quantize 'friendships' and social-connections, people now have a semi-definable metric that they sub-consciously always try to improve, this is human nature. People seek others to listen to their opinions, and therefore the underlying motivation on Facebook is that drives people to produce so much noise is this need to be heard, even if what they have to say is completely worthless from a societal contribution standpoint. Its easy. You just post, and Facebook does the rest. If I am giving a speech to room full of empty people, I know nobody will hear it. But if I am printing my speech on millions of fliers and jetting them all over the world, their is that chance that somebody will effectively 'hear' me. Facebook provides, the pen, the paper, the microphone, the jet, and fuel, they own the airlines, they own the airports, and now they want to connect their 'communication hub' to every-other preexisting communication hub so that you can see that Joe Schmoe just mowed his lawn or Pookie made a cute face while she crapped on the apartment floor.

Fuck. That. Shit.

Re:Social Spam (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940176)

"room full of empty people"

I know self-replies are not in good taste, but this has a hilariously different meaning than what I meant to type, but perhaps still relevant to my point in reference to types of people that do in fact care about Pookie's facial expressions during her bowel movements.

Re:Social Spam (1)

six11 (579) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940418)

I thought that 'room full of empty people' thing was +1 Insightful, actually. My FB friends are people, yes, but they're empty.

Re:Social Spam (1)

FreonTrip (694097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940972)

Hamster eyes, I call it.

You start a conversation with that round of duckspeak so popular in America, the circular "Hi-how-are-you, oh-great-what-about-you" routine that constitutes a greeting, and talk with them one on one about something inoffensive - that episode of Family Guy, or the weather, or how the Saints/Manchester/$CITYNAMESPORTSTEAM are doing this season, and the responses are polite but kinda short and airy. Then you try to talk about something deeper, and... there's nothing going on behind the eyes. Maybe they weren't bright to begin with, or squandered their youthful potential before taking a soul-sucking job, or killed it with booze and drugs, or were just hatefully boring from the moment they left the womb, but that singular spark of mental liveliness just isn't there. You Friend them out of some sense of obligation - maybe they're an acquaintance of your SO's, or you run into them just often enough that ignoring their requests would risk offending them, but they're sucking voids trying to fill themselves with garbage, and they stop to regurgitate context-free shrapnel from their endless feasting just often enough to remind you of their profound and utter worthlessness.

It will not surprise you to know that I recommend avoiding these people. :)

Re:Social Spam (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940606)

Here's the thing I don't get about the people that hate Facebook because of the News Feed. If reading other people's status updates is so annoying, then why can't one just ignore them?

Easy Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31940096)

Delete your account. Or better yet, never make one in the first place.

I can understand the confusion! (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940212)

Not necessarily because of this:

It's fun enough, but I never really think of it as a service. To me, Facebook is a place.

In fact, I beg to differ. The whole entire purpose of Facebook (and its ilk) is to connect people with other people easily. While it might indeed be a place to see what's going on with one's friends or friends of friends, but that is a direct consequence of their mission. If that isn't a service, I don't know what is.

My reasons for confusion are the following:

  • Facebook Credit. What the hell? I understand that Facebook games are really taking off and all that, but this has been tried time and again with terrible results. Additionally, what would anyone possible want to "buy" on Facebook? Marketplace items (whose transactions are NOT managed by Facebook, but by the sellers using the platform)? More game stuff? I suppose that it would make it easy to give points that can be used in other games and stuff like that.
  • docs.com. Wasn't Microsoft releasing their online Office with Office 2010? If so, how is this any different? Is it the same?

The whole Pandora-Facebook tie-in is pretty natural; I really like the idea. All in all, though, I think they're trying to get a leg-up on Google, which would be nothing new.

Re:I can understand the confusion! (1)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940722)

My understanding is that the several large Facebook game companies are making a lot of money off of micropayments for virtual goods.

See, for example: this article [techcrunch.com] and more recently this one [insidesocialgames.com] .

It clearly is working for Zynga to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. And yes, I think it's stupid, but that doesn't mean people don't shell out money for it.

Login to find more privacy issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31940358)

It's always nice to log in once a week and be forced to uncheck even more privacy leaking garbage.

Facebook is the bane of privacy minded people that want to stay connected (not necessarily in touch) with old friends, and, like MySpace has already felt, it is in for a rude awakening.

New API a faster way to get sued? (1)

eagl (86459) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940360)

Didn't the last guy who pulled data from Facebook get threatened with a frivolous lawsuit with a nebulous charge of "terms of use" infringement? Who in their right mind is going to use a new and improved API, when in reality anyone pulling data from Facebook is risking crossing a vaguely defined line on what Facebook likes and what they'll sue over?

I have a family to feed and no money for even threatened lawsuits... I don't even know if my "normal" facebook use is legal since the whole point of social network is data mining for personal gain, and that guy was sued for nothing except doing it too well. If he had used the new API, he would just get sued faster.

Like on Facebook ? (1)

frenchbedroom (936100) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940378)

I can't wait for the French-translated buttons : J'aime sur fesse bouc

And for Valley Girls : "Like on, like Facebook, like."

If (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31940548)

You didn't close your facebook account months ago you are a sad, sad person.

An even more involved Facebook? (1)

Glarimore (1795666) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940790)

Sounds like a pain in my side. Personally, I've been growing pretty tired of every single website and application (or "service's") being increasingly willing to push integration with other websites and 3rd parties. I was angry when games and things started popping up on Facebook (that was why I left MySpace -- too much BS, not enough networking). I've been getting even angrier lately with the recent increase in the amount of spam messages sent and other maliscious activity. And I expect that when Facebook expands as a "service" there is only going to be more over the top bullcrap (games, dumb applications, evenmore notifications, etc.) and it's only going to get easier for maliscious websites to use Facebook to send spam messages, install malware, and steal information from users. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm ready to jump ship to a non-invasive, professional, networking website that supports things like pictures and events, but does so without all the fluff and the built-in messenger. Facebook, you were so cool.... but now you just suck.

Facebook is really a "casual gaming" site. (3, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940818)

Facebook does a good job of being a "social network" for keeping up with your real-world friends. But if that's all you use it for, Facebook doesn't make any money. It's all that "casual gaming" and "fanning" that brings in the revenue. Connecting up with a game or becoming a "fan" of some commercial content sucks all your private data into some game operator's system.

Google conquered a similar problem. Organic search makes Google no money. Google's business is being an ad agency.

Locked In (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31940884)

Ignoring the multitude of privacy problems with all this new stuff, I would like it they at least made simple older features like the RSS feed from my group's wall to work.

Beacon 2.0 (1)

lyinhart (1352173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31940940)

This sounds like Beacon [slashdot.org] 2.0. But this time Facebook is putting a new slant on the tracking technology, via the seemingly harmless "Like" button and under the guise of making the web "more social."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>