×

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!

MySpace Lays Off 47% of Employees

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the well-of-their-own-employees dept.

Businesses 206

tgtanman writes "CNN reports that MySpace has announced that it has laid off 500 employees, 47% of its total staff. From the article: 'MySpace's management kept most of the site's developers but gutted nearly every other job role, according to a staffer who survived the cuts ... "Today's tough but necessary changes were taken in order to provide the company with a clear path for sustained growth and profitability," CEO Mike Jones said in a written statement. "These changes were purely driven by issues related to our legacy business, and in no way reflect the performance of the new product."'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

206 comments

and (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34842758)

it will be facebook soon enough

first true post

Re:and (4, Funny)

sortadan (786274) | more than 3 years ago | (#34842822)

one can only hope the next iteration empowers the individual and gives them ownership and true control of their information.

Re:and (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34842904)

I'm fairly sure that a rabble of serfs having their every detail picked over and monetized is way better for shareholder value...

This is it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34843254)

This is the year of MySpace!

Re:This is it! (2)

froggymana (1896008) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843604)

That will happen right after the Year of the Linux desktop....

Re:This is it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34843854)

Oh noes! Employees who produce no useful product and make all their money on a temporary trend are getting laid off now that the trend has shifted to the next slightly similar trend (for the dull: facebook)! I am so sure this is a great loss. Yes, yes I am, and I am of course not being sarcastic at all, nope, not me.

Derp. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34842976)

one can only hope the next iteration empowers the individual and gives them ownership and true control of their information.

You mean like the absolute control over whether or not you post online your age, gender, sexual orientation, or the fact that you like Midgets Soaked in McRib Goo?

Wait, this is Slashdot - I forgot, social networks break into your homes and mess up the place if you don't post embarrassing details about yourself.

Wait (4, Insightful)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 3 years ago | (#34842766)

MySpace still had 500 employees?

Re:Wait (2)

Sensei Eggwoah (1104847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34842858)

That's a shock to me too. If you take all of Myspace's active users and subtract bands, self-promoters, and whores, I'd be surprised if you had 500 people left.

Re:Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34843266)

That's a shock to me too. If you take all of Myspace's active users and subtract bands, self-promoters, and whores, I'd be surprised if you had 500 people left.

Same can be said about Facebook, too...

Re:Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34844168)

To be fair, most places tend to empty out after you kick out the whores.

Re:Wait (-1, Redundant)

computerman413 (1122419) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843998)

Actually, it's over NIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEE THOUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDD! Writing some more stuff down here to get around the meme-ignorant filter. Really, this thing needs to be smarter about these things.

Two words: (0)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34842782)

American On-Line.

Re:Two words: (1)

Meshach (578918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34842852)

Yeah. Maybe Time-Warner should buy them and make them even more irrelevant.

Re:Two words: (4, Interesting)

cusco (717999) | more than 3 years ago | (#34842964)

Actually Ah-Oh-heLL bought Time-Warner in one of those amusing quirks of speculators driving share price far beyond anything reasonable. AOL management, in their one and only lucid moment, realized that they had best take the money and buy some actual assets with it or their stock options were going to be utterly worthless after the impending crash (a crash that was obvious to everyone who didn't work on Wall Street).

Re:Two words: (0)

methano (519830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843712)

How come when I said the same thing yesterday (here [slashdot.org]), I didn't get modded up to 5?

Re:Two words: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34843846)

Probably because you're the kind of person to whom that sort of thing matters.

Re:Two words: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34844370)

AOL management, in their one and only lucid moment, realized that they had best take the money and buy some actual assets with it or their stock options were going to be utterly worthless after the impending crash (a crash that was obvious to everyone who didn't work on Wall Street).

Oh, Wall Street knew about it all right. They were just pumping and dumping.

Today, DJI is back where it was 3 years ago, before the 2007 crash happened. After the republicans repeal Dodd-Frank, it will be like nothing ever happened.

Who's the loser here?

Re:Two words: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34843608)

Or "LOL" for short.

Developers (5, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34842788)

MySpace has developers? What do they do?!

Re:Developers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34842868)

they run sites like Awesome-MySpace-Templates.com

Re:Developers (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34842972)

Insensitive clod. Do you know how many patches we send upstream to the browser vendors to help them build rendering engines that can handle 25,000+ animated .gifs and 100+ flash embeds in a single page?

Never mind the time that we had to spend three weeks groveling through the dark underbelly of the Windows driver model, trying to figure out why users of certain realtek audio chipsets would suffer bluescreens when more than 14 streams of generic crunk rap were being fed to the software audio mixer simultaneously...

Re:Developers (5, Funny)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843076)

MySpace has developers? What do they do?!

Spend all day keeping their facebook statuses up to date.

Re:Developers (5, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843356)

MySpace has developers? What do they do?!

Spend all day keeping their facebook statuses up to date.

Spend all day keeping their linkedin profiles up to date.

FTFY

Take care of the mice, what else? (5, Funny)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843186)

It is a little know fact that MySpace got its name from a typing error.

It was supposed to be called Mice Pace - based on their innovative approach of running millions of mice over millions of keyboards in order to create a sample of "perfect code".
It was a variation of the idea with monkeys and typewriters - mice were cheaper to get and easier to scale up.

The result is the site we all know as MySpace. They could never get the Complete Works of Shakespeare out of the mice either.
But they did get half a Justin Bieber song once. Thousands of mice had to be put to death after that.

Re:Developers (1)

Edward Teach (11577) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843466)

Evidently, their job is to make the site so unusable as to give the upper management the reasons they need to fire 500 employees. Seriously, does any one really use Myspace anymore? The only time I go over there is to play Mobsters. I've even de-friended everyone except the four people, two of which I can't get on Facebook.

MySpace? (4, Funny)

bradgoodman (964302) | more than 3 years ago | (#34842800)

They're still around?! I thought I recognised "Tom" squeegying my windows at a red light the other day...

Re:MySpace? (1)

VirexEye (572399) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843084)

They're still around?! I thought I recognised "Tom" squeegying my windows at a red light the other day...

You mean after selling MySpace to Rupert Murdoch at the height of MySpace's popularity? Seriously?

Washing Windows?? (1)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843126)

I'm sure that he's got a package labeled 'parachute' neatly stored near his desk, just in(evitably) case.

I gave up on MySpace years ago (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843932)

I thought it was the must idiotic mess of ugly web real estate I had ever seen. Poor execution which never got any better.

Now looking at Facebook, I think it's confusing as hell, too. Something better will come along and knock them off their peg.

New product? (3, Interesting)

Shimmer (3036) | more than 3 years ago | (#34842828)

What "new product"? MySpace is MySpace, isn't it? What else do they do? (Can't bear to RTFA and find out.)

Re:New product? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34842902)

From the article:

Trying to reposition itself, the Los Angeles-based network recently rolled out a new interface focusing on music and social entertainment.

So, MySpace is the new product.

Re:New product? (1)

RJHelms (1554807) | more than 3 years ago | (#34844292)

Not just MySpace, but a new, inferior version of MySpace.

Maybe it's just the software tester in me, but I tried to shamelessly promote my band on the "new" MySpace and found it so riddled with bugs as to be completely unusable. Before the changes, it was actually a decent enough tool for musicians, even if no one else was using it. I think they're scaring bands away by replacing something that didn't work as a business model with something that just flat out doesn't work.

The funny thing is... (5, Funny)

TheRedDuke (1734262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34842886)

...I bet most of those ex-employees will be complaining about it on Facebook this evening.

Still some MySpace folks left (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34842952)

MySpace, the choice [gizmodo.com] of bat shit insane mass murderers everywhere.

Translation: preparing for sale (2)

rsborg (111459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34842962)

From the article: 'MySpace's management kept most of the site's developers but gutted nearly every other job role, according to a staffer who survived the cuts

Translation: They're up for sale, and devs are part of the more valuable "human capital". I wonder who would be buying?

Re:Translation: preparing for sale (4, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843432)

Translation: They're up for sale, and devs are part of the more valuable "human capital". I wonder who would be buying?

That doesn't make sense. If you're trying to sell, you don't fire the employees first yourself -- what would be the point? Once you're out, you don't care how many employees the company has. Instead, you invite possible buyers to the office and make sure every single body is at a desk, working away like a busy little beaver on countless amazing things, making the company look like an incredible value and pushing the bidding price up. Then the investor walks away thinking, "Wow, they sure do great stuff there -- but they seem to have too many employees. If we buy the company, we can fire half of them and we'll end up with a real bargain!"

Re:Translation: preparing for sale (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34844212)

That doesn't make sense. If you're trying to sell, you don't fire the employees first yourself -- what would be the point?

Because it fudges the profit numbers. Firing people doesn't hurt the revenue stream until a few quarters or even years down the road. But it significantly reduces costs which can provide a temporary bump in profitability. Buyout candidates have been doing this for longer than I've been alive and for some reason it still seems to fool potential buyers.

Re:Translation: preparing for sale (2)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843944)

Sounds familiar. A friend of mine was kept on with a company as one of only three engineers when the company was sold. Apparently a plantation is more valuable if you throw in a few slaves to work it.

Facebook Button on MySpace? (2)

The Yuckinator (898499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34842974)

There is a "Connect with Facebook" button on the front page of myspace.com

It blew my mind

Re:Facebook Button on MySpace? (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843442)

There is a "Connect with Facebook" button on the front page of myspace.com It blew my mind

Of course. If you were running a social media company, given all the press Facebook gets on a daily basis, would you want partners and investors thinking your company is a direct competitor to Facebook? This is part of MySpace's new messaging, that it offers something unique and complementary to the other social networks.

Re:Facebook Button on MySpace? (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843576)

Even better, under the random sampling of posts being made in real time was this winner: "Omggg I hate this facebook is way better!"
It is kinda funny that you can now use Facebook Connect to sign onto Myspace.

How's that working out, Rupert? (3, Funny)

Voline (207517) | more than 3 years ago | (#34842992)

NewsCorp bought MySpace [bbc.co.uk] for $580 million five years ago. Good going Murdoch. I hope the rest of your investments do as well.

Re:How's that working out, Rupert? (4, Insightful)

al0ha (1262684) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843092)

Yeah, he's a *real* business genius isn't he? This is what cracks me up about really rich people and their view of those who have not done as well in life. According to people like Murdoch, it is because they have worked harder than all of us and are much more savvy; but the truth is it is because good fortune (luck) has graced them in life. I'm not sure of how many potential *Murdochs* there are out there, but I am sure there are hundreds, just like all the talented people unveiled by shows like American Idol who to that point had not made it, only because they had not gotten lucky yet.

Nobody makes it big without a substantial helping of good luck. Not lotto winners, World Series of Poker winners, nor people like Murdoch and Trump.

Re:How's that working out, Rupert? (2)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843878)

Nobody makes it big without a substantial helping of good luck.

Since luck has no physical property or defined quantity, that phrase is largely meaningless. It would be equally accurate to say that nobody makes it big without a substantial helping of ether.

The one thing we do know is that a large percentage of those who "make it big" through no effort of their own end up making it small again, with an equal amount of effort. Keeping your money is just as hard as making it, if not more so.

Re:How's that working out, Rupert? (4, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34844188)

Since luck has no physical property or defined quantity, that phrase is largely meaningless.

No, it's not. Luck is probabilities. The phrase means that making it big depends on variables outside of the person's control, and that effort doesn't correlate well with success. Whether it's true or not, I can't say.

Re:How's that working out, Rupert? (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843914)

I was taking a tour of a famous estate turned museum over Christmas. The tour guide was trying to be as sympathetic to the estate trust as possible by commenting on how 'well she managed' her trust fund -- increasing by over 4x over the last 85 years.

I immediately did a little calculation in my head and figured out that this brilliant, successful trust fund heiress... had lost a significant portion of her trust if it only increased by 4x over 85 years. When I got home I ran it through an inflation calculator and sure enough, she under performed inflation and significantly underperformed the market.

It's like they say: the easiest way to make a little money is to start with a lot.

Re:How's that working out, Rupert? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34844056)

Perhaps the tour-guide's figures were already inflation-adjusted?

Anyways, it really didn't take a brain to rake in investment money in postwar America, whether by stocks, real estate, or even simply buying a home. The economy and population were mushrooming, so those who started with anything found it multiplied over and over. Now a lot of that unearned income is being repaid by people upside-down on their mortgages, the govt. bank bailouts, etc.

Re:How's that working out, Rupert? (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843996)

Nobody makes it big without a substantial helping of good luck. Not lotto winners, World Series of Poker winners, nor people like Murdoch and Trump.

WSOP winners, definitely. The consistently winning poker players freely admit that there is luck in any individual tournament -- that's what brings out the fish. The ones that can keep winning, better than chance, over a long period of time are the ones who show that they have skill, and are not simply winning due to luck. (Yes, there is a possibility it's "all luck", but that decreases the longer a person wins. In fact, the Two Plus Two Pokercast was mentioning a couple of people that were big names a few years ago, but you no longer hear about them.)

Re:How's that working out, Rupert? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34844246)

What you are missing is the luck that is required to even begin competing in the WSOP.
There is a whole sequence of events that must occur to enable a person to even get a chance at playing.
I'm not talking about formal entrance qualifications, I'm talking about things like having enough free time to learn to play well and/or running in to the right mentors to teach them to play well. Then there's having enough money from other sources of income to be able to weather any significant run of bad luck - you can't win on the averages if you can't survive a cold streak to eventually get to the hot streak.

Re:How's that working out, Rupert? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34843120)

Good going Murdoch. I hope the rest of your investments do as well

According to Reuters [reuters.com] he did did pretty well:

Initially, the deal paid for itself after Google Inc inked a three-year $900 million search advertising deal in 2006.

Re:How's that working out, Rupert? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34843588)

Yeah, this is something a lot of young tech geeks don't realize. Companies come, they make a profit and then either innovate and develop new products and make more profit, or die. That's how a free market works.

MySpace launched their service, made profit, didn't innovate and died within a few years time. And that's all right. Google is lasting a lot longer because they keep innovating. Facebook? Well, we'll see what happens. It ultimately depends on their ability to innovate.

Re:How's that working out, Rupert? (2)

Edmund Blackadder (559735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34844064)

It seems they might not have gotten the full 900 mil. See

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/media/myspace-in-trouble-on-900-million-google-deal/19224196/ [dailyfinance.com]

Also one has to wonder how much it cost to run myspace all these years. I don't think we will ever know for sure whether Murdoch made or lost money with Myspace. The myspace finances were not separated out in the statements. In the 2010 statement the group in which myspace belonged (named appropriately as "other") suffered around a $500 million loss. However that group included other businesses.

Re:How's that working out, Rupert? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34843162)

NewsCorp bought MySpace for $580 million five years ago. Good going Murdoch. I hope the rest of your investments do as well.

With the absolute shit that Murdoch foists on the U.S. airwaves everyday, I sincerely hope that all of his investments go down in fucking flames. If anyone is trying to do harm to the U.S., he is at the top of that list.

Re:How's that working out, Rupert? (1)

Jaysu (952981) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843512)

I hope Goldman Sachs is paying close attention to this matter.

In other news (1)

ohiovr (1859814) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843040)

Myspace used to employ more than 10 people! What do these people do all day?

Re:In other news (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843108)

Myspace used to employ more than 10 people! What do these people do all day?

They update their Facebook pages and search for jobs on LinkedIn.

Imeem? (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843106)

I loved Imeem and then MySpace bought them out. So, maybe somebody else who can afford Imeem should buy them up and allow them to go back to their business they had and possibly make amazing music plug-ins for their walled garden *cough*Facebook*couch*

Re:Imeem? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34843482)

You should stop eating couches and you won't have the inconvenience of coughing them up any more.

Tom didn't mention this on Facebook (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843182)

I guess he still has a glimmer of pride left after all.

I am sure he is laughing at this post... all the way to the bank.

My Empty Space! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34843214)

HAHAHAHA, bad investment Ruppert!

Re:My Empty Space! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34843994)

He bought MySpace for $580 million. Google inked a $900 million advertising deal with MySpace two years later.

That's what you call a profit, son.

47% of employees? (1)

Draaglom (1556491) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843228)

I'm not sure you can have 47% of one person...

Re:47% of employees? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34843498)

I'm not sure you can have 47% of one person...

Work part time?

They shitcanned the wrong people, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34843630)

Had they shitcanned the officers instead, the money saved would've been able to keep the company afloat for another five years. And the best part is, then the remaining employees might actually be able to do something useful and turn a profit for the company.

Path to profitability through layoffs? (2)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843250)

How exactly does MySpace make money?

Does it really have a path to profitabillity?

Re:Path to profitability through layoffs? (1)

istartedi (132515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843342)

Whoah! If you're the real Kaz, long time no C. :)

I don't know if they have a path to profitability; but cutting unnecessary staff can't hurt.

When I hit their page, I saw a number of ads were blocked, so that answers the revenue question. Individual pages also seem to have a link-bar at the top, which appears to link to promoted content. Eminem is listed as their "top artist". Really??? Even that seems dated.

As to whether or not they datamine their userbase and sell that info... I don't know.

Re:Path to profitability through layoffs? (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843726)

LOL I remember seeing a (now-dead) famous piano player (forget the name, I was just a kid, my dad was interested) in concert, he mixed humor into his piano playing. I remember him playing one song that "dances around middle C" without actually hitting it, and he commented towards the end, "long time no C" -- so, thanks for wording it that way, and triggering the memory!

Re:Path to profitability through layoffs? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34844238)

Eminem is listed as their "top artist". Really??? Even that seems dated.

Uh, Eminem's new album was the biggest seller in 2010 in the US (3.4 million copies, 741,000 of which in the first week).

Space for rent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34843382)

Myspace seems to have a lot of office space to rent out.

This is the problem with many companies (3, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843532)

it has laid off 500 employees, 47% of its total staff.

Which means it had 1064 employees before the layoff. What in the world could they possible need more than a thousand people for? And why are now able to run with only half that many?
If you can't run MySpace with 100 people -- and that's being generous -- there's something seriously wrong. This is another case of "Somebody (in this case Rupert Murdoch) gave us a lot of money, so we can afford to hire a shit load of people regardless of whether or not we actually need them.

Re:This is the problem with many companies (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34843636)

Sometimes, one of your luxuries is being able to employ more people than is necessary. The absolute focus on the bottom line is a middle/lower-class thing.

Re:This is the problem with many companies (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34844030)

Sometimes, one of your luxuries is being able to employ more people than is necessary. The absolute focus on the bottom line is a middle/lower-class thing.

And hiring a thousand people you don't actually need must be an "upper-class" thing. LOL. Let me know how that's working out for you.

Re:This is the problem with many companies (3, Insightful)

MogNuts (97512) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843654)

When I first saw it, I remember thinking that it *only* has 1000 employees? I find that pretty amazing to have so *little* employees.

Think about it. It at one time (only 2-3 years ago) was one of the most popular, most trafficked sites around. All those those data centers, servers, coding (yes it was awful but code doesn't create itself), arrangements with bands and music licenses. Hell its bread and butter was to need data mining analysts and advertising campaign analysts. They should have a department of 100 each!

Re:This is the problem with many companies (2)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34844080)

When I first saw it, I remember thinking that it *only* has 1000 employees? I find that pretty amazing to have so *little* employees.

Think about it. It at one time (only 2-3 years ago) was one of the most popular, most trafficked sites around. All those those data centers, servers, coding (yes it was awful but code doesn't create itself), arrangements with bands and music licenses. Hell its bread and butter was to need data mining analysts and advertising campaign analysts. They should have a department of 100 each!

I'm not aware of MySpace ever owning any data centers. They almost certainly paid someone else to handle that and had a few employees monitoring things. And it certainly doesn't take a thousand people to code a shitty site and make a few deals with bands and mine data and create marketing campaigns. Unless of course somebody gave you a butt load of money and you aren't the least bit concerned with how you spend it. We see how well THAT worked out.

Re:This is the problem with many companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34844074)

My assistant's assistant's assistant who was just laid off from MySpace would tend to disagree with you! Thank god she had stock options in newscorp and a 5 year severance package.

Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34843764)

"These changes were purely driven by issues related to our legacy business, and in no way reflect the performance of the new product."

How About

"These changes were purely driven by issues related to our legacy business, and in no way reflect the performance of said employees. If you're looking for talented devs/marketing/whatever, contact us". Would make the transition easier for some people.

Mods? (1)

astern (1823792) | more than 3 years ago | (#34843828)

I'm guessing most of these people were full-time mods responsible for keeping tidal-waves of porn and spam off of the site.

Too bad they couldn't find a way to automate the blocking of duck-face pictures.

http://antiduckface.com/ [antiduckface.com]

Re:Mods? (1)

RobDollar (1137885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34844052)

In my opnion, all online profile pictures should be run through a recapture type system to weed out that bizarre duck face phenomenon. Why do people do it?????????

On the hate of Facebook... (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34844138)

It seems like there is a lot of hate for Facebook on Slashdot. I wonder whether MySpace gained anything from it.

Too many (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34844248)

500 employees? That's more than their current user base.

fate (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34844250)

The fate of any online service who's sole purpose seems to be to flood their users with spam and marketing gimmicks. Twitter take notice.

Fuck you Rupert Murdoch (1)

F34nor (321515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34844262)

I feel sorry for the employees but the worse his investment becomes the happier I am.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...