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 Offers Easy Commenting Alternative

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the disqus-among-yourselves dept.

Facebook 132

Spice Consumer writes "Facebook has just unveiled a 'new system (that) lets website owners replace their current commenting system with Facebook's simply by dropping in a few lines of JavaScript.' How widely adopted this new system becomes could greatly affect Facebook's already entrenched position on the web and further compromise individual users' privacy."

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

I have seen this several times already (4, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390520)

and all it does is prevent me from posting comments.

Something to do with me not having a facebook account but my voice is being stifled because I am not an attention whore.

Re:I have seen this several times already (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390564)

FTFA:

Commenters can opt to have their comment posted as an update, along with a link to the original story, which spreads the story link inside Facebook’s walls.

By linking original articles back to FB the site using FB's comment system will certainly see an increase in their Google rankings in pretty short order. Unfortuneatly this will make it a pretty serious consideration for many.

Re:I have seen this several times already (1)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390690)

By linking original articles back to FB the site using FB's comment system will certainly see an increase in their Google rankings in pretty short order.

Not likely. Despite what Facebook's questionable views on privacy might lead you to believe, Google can't index a person's wall.

Re:I have seen this several times already (1)

devxo (1963088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390746)

However, it's actually a HUGE incentive for sites to start using it. They will get loads of free traffic as people post link to the story to their Facebook wall.

Re:I have seen this several times already (2)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391746)

However, it's actually a HUGE incentive for sites to start using it. They will get loads of free traffic as people post link to the story to their Facebook wall.

No they won't. All the evidence indicates that almost nobody actually READS most facebook posts. Look at the woman with over 1100 "friends" who posted her intent to commit suicide, and nobody did anything. The few people who actually read it (lets face it, do YOU read everything that's posted?) did nothing, since facebook is considered "junk food for the brain". Actually, more like "junk food lite."

Off topic, but... (5, Funny)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390784)

Google can't index a person's wall.

For hilarity, imagine how utterly confusing this sentence is for someone from the year 1998.

Re:Off topic, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35390834)

It would have been even more confusing before Google launched.

Re:Off topic, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35390840)

In 1998 it was meaningless bullshit, the type of buzzword-generator nonsense you'd expect from marketroids who promise to change the world but who never do for humanity's lot than effect a temporary increase in deposits to their own bank accounts.

Whereas in 2011...

Re:Off topic, but... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391272)

Hmm, this is the internet, so that's clearly a glory hole, but this "Mr. Google" fellow seems to be quite the pervert.

Re:I have seen this several times already (1)

The Longtail Milker (2009596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390848)

I agree. If it's all inside an IFRAME, it's not going to add any value to the host page at all. Just another piece of JS to run that slows down your page rendering times resulting in getting penalised in the Google SERPS. Great. Not all a loss though. Will be great content for FB to spin and puke up somewhere else. Bitter ? Me ?

Facebook in an iframe? (1)

hduff (570443) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390894)

So is it possible to hack this code to allow us to show a FB page on our own site in an iframe? That's something FB prohibits now.

Re:I have seen this several times already (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390918)

thats right u have to call in and pay, or write a facebook game and bribe in order to facebook to sell/ignore stealing info

Re:I have seen this several times already (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35390572)

i wonder why you don't have a facebook account?
everyone is on this.
Since i use facebook i found lost relatives, family, old friends.
Facebook helped me a lot.

Re:I have seen this several times already (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390612)

Because we value privacy. Facebook and co. sell your information to the highest bidder.

Also, we still have things like email, telephones, IM clients, and actually walking to a friends house to keep in touch with friends, and not let a dumb timesink called Facebook do it all for us superficially.

Re:I have seen this several times already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35390632)

Facebook and co. sell your information to the highest bidder.

Still waiting for evidence of this.

Re:I have seen this several times already (2)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390742)

How do you think they make money?

They track every like button you click for ads, who clicks it, the demographic of what you entered, and more.

Also using any of the 3rd party apps can open information to that developer.

Citation:

http://www.facebook.com/terms.php [facebook.com]

#
About Advertisements and Other Commercial Content Served or Enhanced by Facebook

Our goal is to deliver ads that are not only valuable to advertisers, but also valuable to you. In order to do that, you agree to the following:

      1. You can use your privacy settings to limit how your name and profile picture may be associated with commercial, sponsored, or related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us. You give us permission to use your name and profile picture in connection with that content, subject to the limits you place.
      2. We do not give your content or information to advertisers without your consent.
      3. You understand that we may not always identify paid services and communications as such.

Re:I have seen this several times already (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391078)

They make their money with ads.

Their ad delivery does not include selling your information. Their ad system allows a company to have their ads shown to, for instance, "males aged X-XX". It's called targeting, and doesn't give your information to advertisers.

Information is available to 3rd party developers on an individually allowed, per-application confirmation by the user. These confirmations describe what information would be available, and require explicit, manual confirmation by the user.

So... still waiting waiting on that, "they sell your information" example.

I'm not saying they don't, I just have yet to see it.

Re:I have seen this several times already (1)

an00bis (667089) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390770)

Re:I have seen this several times already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391216)

Not a single example among them. Look for yourself.

There's mention of targeted advertising within their ad system, which does not share user information. That's all anyone has ever been able to produce.

So again... still waiting...

Re:I have seen this several times already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35390898)

Here ya go. [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:I have seen this several times already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391378)

Did you read it?

This was going to be an option for developers to request home address and such from users, the same way they request any information... with explicit requests to the user that require manual confirmation on a per-application basis.

The requests clearly indicated that the site would be asking for your personal information, just like all FB notifications, and spelled out which kinds of information. Besides which, last I heard, they rolled this back.

Regardless, I thought it was a bad idea. But that aside, it's obviously not an example of FB selling user information.

So uh... still waiting...

Re:I have seen this several times already (5, Interesting)

jkmartin (816458) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390990)

Even if Facebook doesn't sell it, they keep everything you ever do. Case in point:

Eight months ago I was looking for an (actual) friend on Facebook. He did not have an account. Two months ago the friend signed up for Facebook. I immediately began receiving notifications that I should add this person as a friend. He hadn't contacted me. I hadn't contacted him. We don't have any interests or friends in common and we live in different states. Our only connection was that 6 month old search I did.

And that doesn't even touch the fact that since the Facebook commenting system isn't threaded it loses all value. Wow, you mean I can look through 20 pages of inane bullshit with occasional @friendsname references? Sign me up!

We've reached Peak Facebook. Everyone that wants an account has 1 (I canceled mine). Yes, there is growth in areas that don't already have easy internet access; but those markets offer smaller growth and revenue streams. Every new feature adds equal parts functionality and creepiness (though trending toward creepy). Facebook has become the de facto internet white pages, but I can hardly see why this would lead to a valuation of $65 billion. I really haven't even figured out how Facebook makes money (other than taking a cut on the sale of imaginary farm tractors).

I could be wrong. The paranoia of Zuckerberg seems equivalent to Gates so Facebook may stay on top longer than Geocities, Friendster, Myspace, or the half dozen other social networking sites that proceeded it. We should know in 5 years.

Re:I have seen this several times already (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391704)

And that doesn't even touch the fact that since the Facebook commenting system isn't threaded it loses all value.

It amazes me that anyone would even consider implementing a discussion system without threading.

When I say "amazes" I really mean "repeatedly annoys".

Wow, you mean I can look through 20 pages of inane bullshit with occasional @friendsname references? Sign me up!

Without the structure and context that threading provides anything deeper rapidly becomes lost, so no surprise there.

Re:I have seen this several times already (-1, Redundant)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390732)

Because we value privacy. Facebook and co. sell your information to the highest bidder.

Also, we still have things like email, telephones, IM clients, and actually walking to a friends house to keep in touch with friends, and not let a dumb timesink called Facebook do it all for us superficially.

And get off my lawn!!!

(sorry, couldn't resist)

Re:I have seen this several times already (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390986)

Uhhh, dude. This is Facebook. Shouldn't it be, "And get off my WALL!!!" (I'm not sorry, I coulda resisted, but I didn't.)

Re:I have seen this several times already (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391766)

I don't spend much time on it, I don't use my real name and in fact I post little to no personal information. Facebook is what you make of it. Sure no one can find me on facebook but I can find them if I want to.

Re:I have seen this several times already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35390620)

Idiot. There's a reason I lost them in the first place.

Re:I have seen this several times already (3, Interesting)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390870)

I am not on it. I even have the following in my hostfile:
127.127.127.127 www.facebook.com
127.127.127.127 facebook.com
127.127.127.127 static.ak.fbcdn.net
127.127.127.127 www.static.ak.fbcdn.net
127.127.127.127 login.facebook.com
127.127.127.127 www.login.facebook.com
127.127.127.127 fbcdn.net
127.127.127.127 www.fbcdn.net
127.127.127.127 fbcdn.com
127.127.127.127 www.fbcdn.com
127.127.127.127 static.ak.connect.facebook.com
127.127.127.127 www.static.ak.connect.facebook.com

Also I have found lost friends without facebook and they have found me because we were really interested in finding each other.

All these old friends were nice to talk to, but it was nothing more then:" How are you doing? What are you up to now?" Other old friends never went out of sight for a reason.

My privacy is much more worth then old friends or even lost family.

Re:I have seen this several times already (3, Funny)

jemmyw (624065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390974)

Since i use facebook i found lost relatives, family, old friends.
Facebook helped me a lot.

This sounds like an advert. Facebook employee?

Re:I have seen this several times already (2)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391034)

No, just someone wrong on the internet.

Re:I have seen this several times already (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391816)

i wonder why you don't have a facebook account? everyone is on this. Since i use facebook i found lost relatives, family, old friends. Facebook helped me a lot.

So would winning the lottery.

Ever wonder why they were "lost" in the first place?

People change, people move on, people develop different interests. Limiting "contact" to 75 words or less posts is a good idea, because anything more, and you'd realize WHY you "lost" them in the first place, or vice versa. Sort of like the couple who got divorced after the kids moved out because now they actually had time to talk to each other ...

Re:I have seen this several times already (2)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390660)

Yeah, I already created a Facebook profile (which I didn't have before) for nothing but this. But I also don't want my postings from different sites linked together. I just want to have the content stand on its own. So I guess now, a different Facebook profile for each site to which I comment?

One good thing could come of this - most sites' comment systems are terrible, and facebook might get it right eventually. Currently, many sites can't even show a threaded discussion, or have no concept of moderation, or (in the case of CNN) don't even enable you to find responses to your own comments! (That's what caused me to quit posting AC on slashdot and get a profile in the first place back when). CNN calls their board "soundoff", which is true - it really is just designed to let people blurt out some garbage and move on, rather than conversing at all.

I don't know how much of this is fixed by facebook's system, but if it becomes a big thing for them I assume they will make it work well sooner or later.

Re:I have seen this several times already (-1, Flamebait)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390738)

Currently, many sites can't even show a threaded discussion, or have no concept of moderation

The flipside is, Facebook's idea of "moderation" is pathetic.

Ever tried to look up your local state rep or congresscritter's facebook line? If it's a Republican, be prepared to see a wall full of nothing but hate speech and vitriol. Try to post a counterargument, and it'll vanish in about 5 seconds.

What's really funny is, the Retardicans want this to be "the model" for all discourse. That's why Scott the Koch Whore is trying so hard to kick the protesters out of the WI capital, up to and including coordinated astroturfing [motherjones.com] of the sort the Republicans and their Robber Baron masters have become so good at, and even actively considered [jsonline.com] plans involving sending in paid operatives to start fights or riots which he would then try to blame on the teachers.

If Facebook wanted to be solid for discussion, they need to take away "moderation powers" from the politicians.

Re:I have seen this several times already (1)

gnapster (1401889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391002)

One good thing could come of this - most sites' comment systems are terrible

This is exactly what I was thinking. This definitely fills a niche. Except...

...facebook might get it right eventually. Currently, many sites can't even show a threaded discussion, or have no concept of moderation, or (in the case of CNN) don't even enable you to find responses to your own comments!

I have not personally encountered this facebook commenting system on other sites, yet, but I cannot say that facebook exemplifies any of these very well. Particularly threading. I mean, it is no worse than, say, Wordpress's commenting system. But I cannot say that it is better. Certainly not sufficiently better to entice me to switch.

I don't know how much of this is fixed by facebook's system, but if it becomes a big thing for them I assume they will make it work well sooner or later.

Privacy issues aside, for me to use it on my own blog the system would have to be substantially better than what I see now on facebook.com for discussions of statuses, photos, and so on. But I can definitely anticipate this being popular soon, even with the current vanilla functionality.

Re:I have seen this several times already (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391872)

Download geeklog [geeklog.net] - you'll get flat, nested, threaded, printable, notifications of responses to your comments, and the ability to edit the original comment to append new text (handy when you made a typo and don't want to start a flame war or look retarded :-)

The "edit comment" is configurable by the site admin - off, or up to x minutes after the original post. Users see the added text in a different font, along with a note saying the comment was edited. No confusion.

Re:I have seen this several times already (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391838)

They won't fix the lack of threading because threading and/or nesting requires more server resources. Better database design. The ability to show nested threads in a screen more than x pixels wide. Facebooks' design is still stuck in the last century, both in terms of layout (fixed width) and implementation (flat comments).

Usenet readers do a better job.

Re:I have seen this several times already (1)

definate (876684) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390772)

Yeah, what the hell? You mean I have to make an account on a free service to post?

This is just stupid! NO other commenting system requires you to create an account! ABSOLUTELY NONE!

Granted, I've only used 4chan and Slashdot, but still, I think this is a reasonable sample size to extrapolate from.

Re:I have seen this several times already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35390946)

The irony of this statement kills me on so many levels.

Re:I have seen this several times already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391004)

ditto

Re:I have seen this several times already (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391190)

because I am not an attention whore

You're an attention whore for being willing to talk with friends and family that way? :p That's kind of like how most I know use it...

Re:I have seen this several times already (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391672)

I have a phone and an email address if i want to talk to family.

Besides do you really want your parents knowing you spent the night drinking and then had a one night stand with a a random woman you picked up while drunk?

Mixing family and friend relationships is in general a bad idea, unless you are a very boring person.

Let's just tag this (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390526)

DONOTWANT

And be done with it.

Re:Let's just tag this (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391070)

DONOTWANT And be done with it.

17 people like this.

This is already happenning (1)

gameweld (215362) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390528)

CNN uses this for comments on many of their stories.
The quality of discussion tends to be better, people self-regulate more crazy responses, and the comments are longer (rather than one sentence rants).

Blog sites use comment hosting systems such as disqus.
In my experience, a blog post will receive much more comments when hosted in this manner, rather than just the site's internal comment system.

Re:This is already happenning (2)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390546)

The problem with disqus is that I have yet to see a "comment section" from them more than a day old that isn't completely chock-full of comment spam for Thank You For Writing Such An Article I Really Appreciated These Articles And Encourage You To Write More Signed Edward ((link))...

Re:This is already happenning (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390644)

>>>CNN uses this for comments on many of their stories.

The worst part is your comment is now forever linked to you. At least with the older systems, you could make up fake names like "Richard Head" and therefore be untraceable by any future employers, or voters.

Re:This is already happenning (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390714)

That's a feature, not a bug.

Re:This is already happenning (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390858)

. At least with the older systems, you could make up fake names like "Richard Head" and therefore be untraceable by any future employers, or voters.

Last time I checked, Facebook doesn't ask for ID or verification. I don't see why you can't make a fake account and be happy.

BTW, google does ask for verification. They require your phone number and to verify it.

Re:This is already happenning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391024)

Making a fake Facebook account is technically against their terms of service, but aside from that (since it won't stop anyone), Facebook is known to at least screen name changes. If you use an obvious joke name, it may be disallowed. They have a documented interest in accounts representing real names. You can still easily get around this, but my point is that Facebook has demonstrated enough interest in identity authentication, that you can assume as new technologies allow easier verification, Facebook may start requiring more and more of it.

Re:This is already happenning (1)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390922)

The worst part is your comment is now forever linked to you. At least with the older systems, you could make up fake names like "Richard Head" and therefore be untraceable by any future employers, or voters.

I'm not sure I see how any of this could be a fault of the commenting system.

Personal Info (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35390534)

IMHO, anybody that places actual, tracable personal data anywhere online, deserves precisely what they get. Only a total fool would put stuff on any site that could be traced back to them or be used for fraud (which is rampant). It's especially difficult where you need to purchase something. In that instance, I would use PayPal or some such service, to minimize the number of places that have your data.

Fake data generator (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391650)

I'm still blown away since last night, when I found a site [slashdot.org] that creates a fake identity with

  • fake name
  • Occupation
  • address and geographically-correct USA phone #
  • credit card number*
  • weight and height
  • blood type (Asia's fascination with personality divination surprises me --ie: blood types are in Final Fantasy VII and Capcom's Street Fighter II characters). Does any Japan-bound /.-er know if job applications habitually need to know this?
  • UPS Tracking number (to mislead auction fraudsters who reverse electronic payments after you ship them the hard goods? dunno... seems to help scammers more than it would help legit people)
  • SSN (some legit businesses and their webforms won't go anywhere if you blank-social them, even if your local laws exempt you from providing one)
  • Mother's maiden name
  • Birthday
  • Website
  • Fake e-mail at example.com (apparently Dreamhost owns that domain and provides a free password that enables your fake identity to receive e-mails)

* I heard somewhere these CC# generators pass validation algorithms on forms, and are helping flag your scammer's billing company to the authorities by failing to be real when a the money transfer is charged. In reality, they'll probably just chase you for using fake data, which is illegal in most EULAs and probably all USA legislation

unvieled (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390548)

Ungefähr 87.000 Ergebnisse (0,30 Sekunden).

Not uncommon practice, at least.

CC.

Majority DON'T have Facebook Accounts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35390568)

Keep in mind that 90% of the world IS NOT on Facebook. Sure, it might seem like "EVERYBODY" is on Facebook, but it's only 10 percent of the world. Facebook will get replaced by the next "new thing" before too long.

What percent of the world is on the web? (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390666)

Keep in mind that 90% of the world IS NOT on Facebook.

Your 90 percent figure might mislead if one doesn't stop to consider what percent of the world is on the web to begin with. We have three groups: A. those with Facebook, B. those with web and e-mail but not Facebook, and C. those without web and e-mail. Switching your comment system from OpenID to Facebook login affects only group B, and I imagine C is far bigger than A and B put together. (But I'm in B, you insensitive clod!)

Re:What percent of the world is on the web? (3, Interesting)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391934)

It's much less than 10% of the world who are on facebook. Throw in all the people with multiple accounts, the accounts that haven't been used in months, the accounts created to be rented out as fans at five for a penny [bulkfans.com] , and the people who generate oodles of accounts so they can get more points in their games, and it's doubtful that the number of unique facebook users is more than 1% or 2% of the world.

And we can divide THOSE into 3 groups - people bored out of their skulls looking to waste some time, people so insecure that facebook is their ego booster, and social marketing types who want you to believe that a facebook presence isn't fools gold.

Re:Majority DON'T have Facebook Accounts (1)

sco08y (615665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390674)

Keep in mind that 90% of the world IS NOT on Facebook. Sure, it might seem like "EVERYBODY" is on Facebook, but it's only 10 percent of the world. Facebook will get replaced by the next "new thing" before too long.

Ugh, will the next new thing be as irritating?

Re:Majority DON'T have Facebook Accounts (5, Insightful)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390888)

Facebook will get replaced by the next "new thing" before too long.

Why?

I mean Google has been around for 13 years, with no signs of being replaced by a "new thing" anytime soon.
Facebook is a different beast. It's the first time I see a "global scale" social network. No one gave a fuck about MySpace outside the US, but facebook is all over the place.

my company had this and we replaced it last year (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35390584)

I work for a website that utilized Facebook as the commenting system. The problems with that, aside from being Facebook-biased, were lack of comment control (no admin way to delete comments), and lag while Facebooks comments sync with each article. Because of those and the lack of choice, we switched to Disqus.

Re:my company had this and we replaced it last yea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35390728)

I doubt your company "had this" last year since it's been fully revamped [techcrunch.com] on March 1st.

Friend me!!! (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390592)

Or not.

(shrug)

I'm thinking maybe I need to change some of my "bio" information to a few lies..... like born in 1888, or living in Shang-ri-la

Re:Friend me!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35390700)

Do you really think those changes are not versioned? Or that there is no record of someone being your friend if you unfriend them? Facebook, I am quite certain, tracks everything.

Re:Friend me!!! (1)

hduff (570443) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390904)

Or not.

(shrug)

I'm thinking maybe I need to change some of my "bio" information to a few lies..... like born in 1888, or living in Shang-ri-la

Include something about goats .. .

Blogger? (1)

rueger (210566) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390602)

Please, please please tell me this can be used with my Google Blogger [blogger.com] account!

Actually, how about we add some carefully crafted counter-referring Google Adsense and Microsoft adCenter ads and see if we can bring the whole house of cards down!

I'm not on FB (1)

SimonTS (1984074) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390634)

So how will this impact me? Will it stop me from posting comments? I intentionally chose not to stay on FB and got rid of my account 6 months ago as it was a waste of my time and resources.

Now I just spend my day on /. wondering if people are reading my posts and hoping to get modded up so I can increase my karma and feel loved.

Re:I'm not on FB (1)

micheas (231635) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390802)

When I have implemented Facebook comments, I have allowed anonymous comments.

The big upside is that I don't run captcha's on those sites, and there seems to be almost no comment spam.

On a high traffic website moderating comments is probably no big deal and part of the daily site maintenance .

On a website that has someone checking on it a couple times a day, I probably would use a native comment system, but for the site that gets updated weekly or biweekly, this is a viable solution.

Disqus (1)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390706)

Already does this, and is everywhere. Facebook playing catchup?

FB + Google (1)

p51d007 (656414) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390710)

Could you imagine what would happen if either bought the other? Skynet would become self aware in a minute or two :)

Re:FB + Google (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391294)

But like in real life you'd be able to take it unawares when it's updating its page.

This is too much power (5, Interesting)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390712)

I am quite upset at all those sites using Facebook's login. Using Facebook for commenting is just another step in the wrong direction of giving Facebook powers over large swaths of the Internet.

And we're not talking of a benevolent, honest company here, either. This is a company that will try any and all unethical tricks in it's toolbox, and back just half a step back after a huge storm of dicontent. Then they'll try again. This is Fuckerberg's domain, you don't want them in control of anything outside of Facebook.

Re:This is too much power (0)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390902)

Get a fake facebook account. Trollfag.

Re:This is too much power (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#35392122)

Get a fake facebook account. Trollfag.

It is good etiquette to put your name in a new line, when you sign your posts.

Re:This is too much power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35390920)

What "powers"? The ability to comment on websites? If your speech is that valuable, that important, and that revolutionary, shouldn't you set up your own forum? Facebook is flavor of the month. AOL went away. Myspace crashed. LJ is a shell. FB will be popular for a while and then the next thing will come along and nobody will use it anymore, just like all the others.

Re:This is too much power (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390942)

I don't even want them in control inside of Facebook.

Re:This is too much power (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391744)

Indeed. It is disheartening how even insignificant websites written in foreign languages have FB integration.

My PC-challenged mother has been using Facebook for most of her online pursuits. All those "Like" and "Share" buttons on Youtube, her foreign newsfeeds and random sites have made her believe that they're a normal part of the TCP protocol or something.

She wouldn't learn how to copy-paste a URL to a good-ol' webmail message until I told her that the selfish FB doesn't allow her to share individual content (we know FB is eager to e-mail spam your other friends to join, but not so eager about letting the sharing API e-mailing a single link or important update beyond the walled garden) to all her overseas friends still lacking a membership.

Disqus (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390718)

At least there's alternatives. I prefer Disqus [disqus.com] for my blog. It is easy to add, it lets someone else handle the login/password stuff, and doesn't have the whole Facebook/real name problem.

Arrogance of Disqus. (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390724)

As I wrote to the Atlantic after being blocked for not having a Disqus account, "Why does the Atlantic presume to require me to enter into a contractual relationship with a third party to communicate with your editors?"

The Disqus terms allow them to spam you and to send your information to advertisers. [disqus.com] : "We use Personal Information ... to provide you with information and offers from us or third parties that we believe you may find useful or interesting, including newsletters "

The U.S. Government negotiated better terms [webcontent.gov] from Disqus. The Goverment made them take out the bad stuff. If your site wants to use Disqus, demand to use the Federal terms, not the standard terms.

Re:Arrogance of Disqus. (1)

nametaken (610866) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391482)

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you've left out a seemingly important qualifier from the same paragraph:

"We may permit our vendors to access your Personal Information, but only in connection with services that they perform for us and not to use for their own purposes."

Re:Arrogance of Disqus. (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391834)

"We may permit our vendors to access your Personal Information, but only in connection with services that they perform for us and not to use for their own purposes."

That refers to their suppliers, not their advertisers and data customers.

Re:Arrogance of Disqus. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391856)

"We may permit our vendors to access your Personal Information, but only in connection with services that they perform for us and not to use for their own purposes."

Right, that's a good one. I'm assuming that's a lie on both parties part.

Re:Arrogance of Disqus. (1)

click170 (1170151) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391864)

It is easily overlooked, but I don't think demanding the same waiver that the U.S. Government did in item B of the negotiated ToS is fair.

"B. Public purpose: Any requirement(s) set forth within the TOS that use the Company site and services be for private, personal and/or non-commercial purposes is hereby waived."

Seems a bit pretentious to demand being able to use it for commercial purposes. Other then that, those look like a decent ToS, too bad you have to be big and powerful enough to negotiate to get them.

Why Facebook and Privacy always come side by side (1)

alvieboy (61292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390750)

I really don't get it.

How does this differ from Goggle's embedded JS (AdSense, Analytics) ? Why no one seems to worry about privacy on other sites, but insists that Facebook has severe privacy issues ?

If you're all concerned about privacy, refrain from putting that information on the net. And that's true for *all* service providers out there, not only FB, not only Google, not only Microsoft. All.

Besides, the /. article summary is completely biased. There is absolutely no reference to privacy concerns on the original article (except in comments).

For me, having the opportunity to put a FB-enable commenting system on my sites is added value.

Álvaro

Re:Why Facebook and Privacy always come side by si (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390912)

Me neither. Just get a fake facebook account.

Re:Why Facebook and Privacy always come side by si (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391386)

Except you end up with all your comments on different sites being linked together under your one fake facebook account. This allows a profile of you to be created, even if they don't have a real name to link it to. All it takes is for you inadvertently put snippets of personal information in one or two comments over the various sites over a number of years for privacy to be eroded.

Of course you could create multiple fake facebook accounts for each site you wish to comment on, but then you need to manage it.

Not like (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390776)

Am I allowed to mark something as "Not like"???!?!??!?!

Re:Not like (1)

hduff (570443) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390932)

Am I allowed to mark something as "Not like"???!?!??!?!

Mark it as "F-ing Hate".

We need more choices.

Already up on Photobucket (1)

pretzel87 (2009488) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390842)

There is a radio button option right next to the comment field that lets you choose if the comment post on your facebook wall. So if you chose that I assume you're facebook friends wouldn't all be poking everything you comment on the internet about.

/etc/hosts (1)

ZankerH (1401751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390846)

127.0.0.1 facebook.com www.facebook.com

babys/LSI proffer equation for peace mandate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35390882)

for each one of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a 'debt' that MUST be repaid.

the pure intentions of the babys et al, will go a long way towards restoring our status, after we stop adding (record #s now) to the 'debt'. see you at one of the scheduled million baby play-dates. they're also looking into million baby photon sharing sessions. even when they're working, they're playful, hopeful & loving. they're hoping we fail to 'moof it' for them/ourselves. only the best of intentions need apply.

You mean "unveiled" (1)

atari2600 (545988) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390892)

Just expressing my nerdrage towards this topic in a "constructive" manner.

It's worse than that.... (1)

Stoutlimb (143245) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390976)

My local newspaper (www.edmontonsun.com) had replaced their commenting system with an exclusive Facebook system. It has stayed regardless of complaints by the public and that comments have decreased tenfold. It has ostensibly been touted as a "security" feature, though the hard core trolls quickly made fake FB accounts. I wonder what kind of backroom deal was tempting enough to get this large company to ruin their public image that badly?

TechCrunch already uses this (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#35390978)

TechCrunch is one site that already uses this.

Disqus and IntenseDebate (1)

TorKlingberg (599697) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391032)

So, Facebook is trying to take over the market for snap-in comment systems from Disqus [disqus.com] and IntenseDebate [intensedebate.com] . I think I would prefer a healthy competition between these two and other startups, rather than Facebook domination.

Re:Disqus and IntenseDebate (1)

Zorque (894011) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391144)

Despite the fact you think social interaction is "attention whoring", one or two people have a Facebook account so they can catch up with old friends or keep up with current ones. Novel idea, I know.

Re:Disqus and IntenseDebate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391158)

God dammit, Slashdot took me to the wrong comment, I meant to reply to someone else. Sorry!

Just what we need... (1)

EZJohnson (1092825) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391310)

...more facebook. I'll continue to post my comments to /dev/null thanks.

"They" get to record and "we" don't? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391618)

"They" get to record and "we" don't? - Police cars and video and audio when they make stops. This guy made a recording in addition to the one the cop was making and "He" got into trouble? WTF? Wasn't New Hampsire's motto "Live free or Die" - - Guess the are going for the second choice.

I will stop commenting. (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391682)

I don't want my opinion on the web among a variety of topics to be linked back to me.
I've already made enough mistakes using my real name at times I shouldn't have.

not only but also..... (1)

ushere (1015833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391866)

truthout.org. now if any site should know better than to trust facebook......

The end of honesty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35392110)

While using Facebook Comments will undoubtedly cut down on trolls and spammers, it will also discourage people from sharing information that might be useful to a site's readership because they don't want such info traced back to them. Sure they could make a dummy Facebook account, but then it wouldn't have any friends and the benefit to the publisher would be nil. Disqus at least offers some anonymity options.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?