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 More Hated Than Banks, Utilities

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the conspiracy-mode-engaged dept.

Facebook 332

jfruhlinger writes "According to the American Customer Satisfaction Index, Facebook raises a lot of ire among its customers — more than Bank of America or AT&T Mobility. This bodes ill for the company — as blogger Chris Nerney points out, many of the others on the most-hated list are utilities and other companies with monopolies, which can hold customers despite bad service. At least Facebook edged out MySpace." Unsurprisingly, the most important thing about Google+ is that it's not Facebook.

cancel ×


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

Facebookusers are more open minded than most BLOGS (0, Troll)

Dr.Bob,DC (2076168) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622234)

It's too bad people hate Facebook so much. Many DCs use it to keep in touch with their patients and to offer good health advice (oddly enough, my old FB page was hacked and I had to recently start anew).

The nice thing about it is people can choose to be your "friend" and they are open to proper health advice, not like some places (...) where any mention of alternative health gets lambasted and "proof" demanded.

eg.: I've sometimes mentioned the benefits of Chiropractic care for the prevention of heart disease and some cancers. Or how it has helped kids with autism. Or the benefits to children (age 3 is where I draw the line) Or how a healthy immune and nervous system starts at the spine. No "interesting" moderations, not one. Some people are so into science that they aren't open to medicine that has saved countless millions of lives. I know there are some people who are open minded reading this, one of you bought me a subscription (see my journal)

Take care,

Re:Facebookusers are more open minded than most BL (1, Troll)

Arab (466938) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622308)

Do you mean Facebook users are more gullible?

You lost all credibility when you said that chiropractic care can be used prevent cancer/heart disease.

Re:Facebookusers are more open minded than most BL (1, Troll)

Dr.Bob,DC (2076168) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622362)

Chiropractic and Heart Disease []
Chiropractic and Cancer []

This is all information the Big Pharma controlled MD establishment doesn't want you to read.

Re:Facebookusers are more open minded than most BL (2, Informative)

RsG (809189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622366)

He's a known troll. He is neither a chiropractor nor a doctor, nor in fact does he care about the subjects in question in the slightest. He only posts in every thread he can shoehorn alt med crap into for the sole purpose of generating flamewars. Stop feeding him.

Re:Facebookusers are more open minded than most BL (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622496)

Some people are so into science that they aren't open to medicine that has saved countless millions of lives.

You tell 'em doc! I got a chicken farm where I breed the chickens used for curing many many ailments that "standard" medicine can't cure. When the Voo Doo priestess slits the neck of one of those chickens, dances around naked, and chants the healing words, people are cured!

Then there are my healing crystals with their special Tachionic properties. Physicists poo poo the abilities of these crystals but it because they don't have the technology to measure the effects!

And of course there's the prayer to our Lord - Jesus Christ. He can cure all diseases. And when you have the naked Voo Doo priestess dancing and praying to Jesus with the chicken an healing crystals - there's NO disease that can survive! None!

And unlike traditional medicine, my proven cure costs only $199 - cash only please.

That's right, Chiropractors, Voo Doo priests, Shamans, Gypsie healers, and healers of Faith - we all need to stick together against this scam called "science"!


Charles LaTan, FD

Re:Facebookusers are more open minded than most BL (-1, Offtopic)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622572)

Dr. Bob, You are a better troll than I. Would you like to join forces? --TSP

Re:Facebookusers are more open minded than most BL (-1, Offtopic)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622720)

You complain about people asking for proof, but if it has saved millions of lives, then proof shouldn't be hard to find.

Open minded means accepting possibilities, not jumping at them as fact. For example, saying chiropractic care can can't cure cancer, is closed minded, but so is saying it does. Without proof, either way, holding to one belief is closed minded.

A common misconception is that believing different from the norm makes you open minded. It doesn't.

Re:Facebookusers are more open minded than most BL (0, Offtopic)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622832)

The problem with stuff like chiropractic treatments is how much is placebo effect in action. Right now I lump chiropractic care above acupuncture ( in plausibility, but not enough to rule out a placebo effect in play.

Not to say all alternative health doesn't work. Just like super natural effectively means [(unproven natural)+(faerie tales)], alternative medicine right now means [(treatments untested, but work)+(all snake oils)]. With heart disease, autism, etc., I am curious to see how people who go to chiropractic practicenor also at the same time change their diets and other health related life styles in even minor (but potentially more effective) ways, but lump it into the big flashy treatment.

That's the problem I have with alternative medicines. They help? Good, let's test them to see why they help and maybe that can lead to more and better cures for other things. I want to be sure that your arm bending or herb is what saved those "millions" and not just a placebo.

And... (1)

Daniel_is_Legnd (1447519) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622252)

And enter Google+... maybe.

Re:And... (2)

Evets (629327) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622852)


So the story planting begins.

You'd think they would at least try a new strategy.

Never underestimate (4, Insightful)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622268)

Never underestimate the ability of people to hate something that didn't exist a few years ago and they get for free.

Re:Never underestimate (5, Insightful)

Sez Zero (586611) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622288)

I don't pay money for Facebook, but it is certainly not free.

Re:Never underestimate (0, Flamebait)

Tukz (664339) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622338)

You have to explain that a little further.
Facebook haven't cost me a dime, so how is that not free?

Re:Never underestimate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622462)

You are a moron.

Re:Never underestimate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622494)

No you are.

Re:Never underestimate (0)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622890)

No your a towel.

Re:Never underestimate (4, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622478)

Some or all of your eternal soul. Also your... inalienable right to non-targeted advertising, I guess.

The privacy-drain of the internet has turned you into a husk of a human being unable to escape your own vices! You can do nothing but buy, buy, buy because all of the advertisements around you contain nothing but exactly what you want and/or need! You're nothing but a slave to your impulses now, controlled by your corporate masters! What has mankind done to the world of the future?

Frankly, I think services paid for by marketing research are probably on the losing end in the long run. Product placements can only get so subtle... and as they do, we're getting more adept at catching them and ignoring them. Viva la AdBlock.

Also, there's a chance that your mother's maiden name and/or credit card information could be leaked to someone unscrupulous in a developing country.

Re:Never underestimate (-1, Redundant)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622936)

Look, I'm no fan of facebook (I don't even have an account), but I dont know where your getting "inalienable right to non-targeted advertising" from. How is that a right?

The privacy-drain of the internet has turned you into a husk of a human being unable to escape your own vices! You can do nothing but buy, buy, buy because all of the advertisements around you contain nothing but exactly what you want and/or need! You're nothing but a slave to your impulses now, controlled by your corporate masters! What has mankind done to the world of the future?

What a load of crap. It's called self discipline(or lack thereof) and personal accountability. People don't buy things because some evil corporation forced them to, they buy things because they want things. Maybe an advertisement helped persuade them, but it was still their choice. If you think that advertising has the ability to force people into doing things then your are acknowledging that humans have no control over their actions, and if that's the case then we probably never had an "eternal soul" in the first place.

Your data. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622524)

You're paying by your personal data, which are then made available to FB's customers (e.g. advertisers). Also, FB can use anything you upload there as it sees fit ("irrevocable license blah blah blah"). Go read their ToS, you may be *slightly* surprised what you're giving them - it's certainly not free, not even as in beer.

Re:Never underestimate (2)

Artraze (600366) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622574)

There are these total chumps that ask me to come by most days of the week and let me use their computer in their air conditioning. Not only does it not cost me a dime, but they actually give me money! My employers are total chumps...

(Woosh prevention: it costs you _time_. Facebook also has the additional to you of, well, you. The information about you they sell. Money is only an occasionally useful abstraction of true cost and value.)

Re:Never underestimate (1)

wmac (1107843) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622700)

In business marketing whatever cost you spend (including your time, internet fee, software etc.) is considered cost. You have paid to buy a PC and you use for facebook. Your time is spend on facebook to get a benefit. If the cost-benefit is not good then you are losing.

Re:Never underestimate (4, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622354)

You're probably not Facebook's customer either.

You're what Facebook sells to their customers.

Re:Never underestimate (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622670)

isn't it "You're what Facebook tries to sell to their potential customers"? The whole business model is imo based on an idea and at the moment venture capital companies believe in this dream

Re:Never underestimate (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622806)

They're still privately held, so we don't know numbers, but they're certainly selling some advertising. Whether the revenues are on par with the VC valuation of the company is a big mystery, but there are definitely real, paying customers.

Re:Never underestimate (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622318)

I'm not even on Facebook and I hate it, because everybody stopped sending personal emails. Everything is getting too centralized.

Re:Never underestimate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622722)

Maybe they just don't like you.

Re:Never underestimate (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622770)

And everyone hated when email caused us to stop sending hand written letters.

Re:Never underestimate (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622934)

This is one reason why I was disappointed that Google Wave didn't work out--it would be nice to move to something that is an open protocol, like email, rss, etc. that can be decentralized and hosted across different sites.

Really, I feel like things are rarely new, just sort of polished up. IRC, html, newsgroups, email--most people could use these standards for whatever they want and wouldn't notice any difference in their lives.

I'm not saying nothing is new, or that new communication methods shouldn't be developed--I would love them to--but I wish there was more focus on making them open and decentralized, and asking whether they're really adding something or not.

There's ton of room for a social network protocol; I would just like to see it be something distributed.

Re:Never underestimate (5, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622368)

See, there is a huge difference between AT&T et al. and Facebook, namely that with AT&T, you have to enter into a deal with them, they cannot just put you on their network without your consent. Now you may have gripes with the service you get after you get on their networks, but at the end of the day it is something you consented to. Facebook on the other hand has the potential to draw you into things you never consented to. For instance get tagged in a picture that you would rather not be tagged in? Tough shit, deal with it. The list goes on. So yeah, you can hate something you got for free, esp. when you didn't want it in the first place.

Re:Never underestimate (1)

gabebear (251933) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622736)

Honestly, the services AT&T provide allow for much worse invasions of privacy. The threat of someone tagging a picture of a non-user and someone finding said pic is extremely minor and can be done with any image upload service.

Re:Never underestimate (2)

space_jake (687452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622614)

Kind of like herpes

Re:Never underestimate (1)

dmesg0 (1342071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622714)

I hate it because I'm forced to use it.

Re:Never underestimate (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622864)

I don't see you paying to get the privilege of reading (or reading about) such complaints!

So quit your bitching! It's free! Be thankful!

More importantly it is better (3, Insightful)

Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622278)

That's the real significant fact about it. Facebook's UI is a gargantuan POS. G+ has a vastly better UI and functionality that is clearly more useful for what it is intended to do. I don't understand what it is about sites like Facebook, but these services just seem to be incapable of not turning themselves into crap. Hopefully G+ will just stick to doing what it does now and doing it better. I don't understand why I should need to be able to run 'applications' in a social networking site, I can go to Popcap and do that if I want, etc.

So yeah, G+ isn't Facebook, and that's a good thing.

Re:More importantly it is better (2)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622452)

Google itself used to have a nice simple interface, but they've been slowly shoehorning more and more cruft into it as time goes on. So, they're not immune either.

The primary reason is the profit motive. Corporations, especially corporations with lots of shareholders such as public companies, need constant profit growth to satisfy those shareholders. So, they have to constantly be looking for new ways to monetize their brand. For free web services, this usually means becoming steadily more insufferable to users in attempts to squeeze more money out of advertisers.

The real problem is centralized social networking itself. As long as all social networking is centralized on just a few sites, those sites will either have to keep doing this crap to make money or go out of business. Remember, you're not the customer, the advertisers are. You're the product.

Re:More importantly it is better (1)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622718)

You've got me thinking, why could you not have a distributed social networking standard? Why (from a technology viewpoint) could you not have competing social networking sites, or even run my own one much as I would an email server or a blog?
In this case friending a person would create a two way link between the two identities allowing you to tag them in photos, invite them to events and effectively subscribe you to their rss feed of news posts.
The technology is all there - anyone interested in creating an open standard to implement this?

Re:More importantly it is better (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622824)

Because the only sites likely to implement it are the ones that nobody uses. FB is unlikely to ever use a standard format as it would make it too easy to leave, they'd have to start learning about integrity and ethical business practices if they wanted to participate in that.

Re:More importantly it is better (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622860)

This isn't a technical problem. There already are schemes like that - the problem is, nobody's promoting them, because there's no money in it.

Re:More importantly it is better (1)

Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622742)

Oh, it may well go to the dogs too. At least the core functionality is better than Facebook's. Only time will tell. Google may add more cruft to their stuff, but they don't seem to go as crazy with that as many places do. Fundamentally some kind of distributed social networking might be ideal, but I think technologically we're not really anywhere near being there yet.

But it's still Google... (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622294)

It may not be Facebook, but it's still Google, and Google is still a company whose entire business model revolves around mining user data and using it to sell advertising. Google also shares Facebook's general disdain for privacy.

As long as we depend on single monolithic sites run by for-profit entities for social networking, we'll continue to have the same problems we do with Facebook. The whole social networking model is based around providing the service for free while making money from targeted advertising. As long as that's the case, the companies running the social networks will do whatever they can to try and entice people to reveal more information about themselves. Switching from Facebook to Google isn't going to change that.

Re:But it's still Google... (5, Informative)

evanbd (210358) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622518)

It may still be monolithic, but it's at least possible to switch and take your data with you [] . Not perfect, but a huge improvement.

Re:But it's still Google... (3, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622738)

Takeout is only an example. The Data Liberation Front [] page has information for almost(?) all Google services.

Re:But it's still Google... (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622656)

But at least Google is honest about their intentions. Right? If you dive right into Googles services knowing that, I don't see the problem. Personally I do mind, which is why I avoid such social sites all together in the first place.

Re:But it's still Google... (1)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622858)

As long as social networking sites don't interoperate (I can't for example through linked_in friend someone on facebook) then this is going to be the problem because they have to be free because they only work if they have enough people on them. True in the early days they could limit it to just college students because to a large approximation you caught the entire social circle with that restriction. Now if they did interoperate then you could have pay sites that didn't sell your information and yet still allowed you to interact with others on free websites.
Can you imagine what email would be/have been like if there was only one company that provided email services and no-one else could send email to them? Why do we allow this for social networking?

If Facebook is so hated... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622298)

Why have I never heard anyone actually say a disparaging word about it? Also, I like how the ACSI is so obscure that they have to put "matters" in their domain name to hype it up a bit. To the ACSI, no it doesn't.

Re:If Facebook is so hated... (2)

Java Pimp (98454) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622724)

Why have I never heard anyone actually say a disparaging word about it?.

You must be new here...

hate? then why use it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622306)

People seem insane, to me. When I hate something, I stop supporting it and instead support alternatives I do not hate.

I never _started_ using facebook in the first place, because I knew that I disliked its privacy issues and its entire business model of selling my personal data. Why would I use something like that?

Re:hate? then why use it? (1)

sunfly (1248694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622516)

To find old friends, because they are all there. I have a profile, but only post about once a year. But I do use it as a tool to find old friends... and I then email them. =]

Re:hate? then why use it? (2)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622620)

There are many people that despise Facebook, but begrudgingly go along with it, at least in a limited fashion, because it's adoption rate has become so great that it has become more difficult to maintain a social life, or to date, without some use of Facebook.

The problem with the social network concept is that even if you developed the finest social network that you can imagine, that it won't matter unless the people are there. There are already alternatives to Facebook that I'd much prefer to use, but nobody that I know uses them.

Google is among a small number of companies that has the reputation and brand recognition to really have a chance of creating an upset.

Besides, if you have trouble getting people to believe that you are truly following, "don't be evil", then at least put yourself into the position where you will be contrasted against someone even more evil to help you look better in comparison. ;-)

Dont use it then. (4, Insightful)

drolli (522659) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622310)

I always wonder about the people who hate something, and despite quite some competition, continue to use it. Do your friends really stop talking to you if you leave facebook? Then look for other friends.

Re:Dont use it then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622418)

The problem is that your (shameful) photos can very easily end up on Facebook whether you're on it or not.

I don't think it's any different with Google+ though.

Re:Dont use it then. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622590)

From what I gather, Google+ just makes it more convenient to restrict to whom you show the pictures. Which seems like a big improvement over FB, as you can show images of things that happened at a party to people who were there or typically go to those parties, but not ones parents.

Re:Dont use it then. (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622626)

Your shameful photos can end up anywhere on the web whether you want it or not. They can also end up on Youtube as animations. Facebook/G+ are no different.

Re:Dont use it then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622540)

those people are called addicts. They hate their drug but can't help stop using it.

Don't smoke weed kids! It is evil because you take a hit and waste your entire day on it.

Re:Dont use it then. (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622558)

Yeah, I mean, you really can't quit the utilities or the bank. Most people don't even have a choice for utilities, and if you do have a choice, they are all about the same price and evilness anyways. For banks, you could get by without a bank account, but it would be probably more difficult than just having a bank account that sucks anyway. Facebook on the other hand, is completely optional. Getting off facebook would probably give many people a lot more free time.

Firefox (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622320)

They broke right click and clicking on links with their new CSS again!

Re:Firefox - /. (0)

Rhodri Mawr (862554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622406)

You should probably have pointed out that you were referring to *Slashdot* breaking right clicks in *Firefox* with their new CSS and not referring to Facebook or the original article at all...

xkcd (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622328)


Re:xkcd (0, Redundant)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622512)

I don't think you get bonus points for reposting part of the summary.

Customers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622332)

I highly doubt Facebook is hated by its real customers (advertisers).

Whooptidoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622356)

...and ATT has tens of millions of customers and isn't going anywhere, as does Bank of America, as does Facebook, as does Google, as does Apple, as does every favorite immature nerd-rage company to hate. What we "hate" versus what we use/patronize are meaningless comparisons. This article illuminates nothing.

G+ isn't Facebook, so what? (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622364)

The big draw of Facebook in its early years was "It's not MySpace". What makes anybody think that the story of G+ is going to be any different than the story of MySpace and Facebook?

Re:G+ isn't Facebook, so what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622400)

G+rass is greener syndrome.

Re:G+ isn't Facebook, so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622424)

Google's already the de facto owners of all thing search, and most things email. Facebook and MySpace have never been able to say that.

Re:G+ isn't Facebook, so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622432)

Hope. Facebook has upset its customers quite a few times. G+ most probably will too, but then again, didn't do it already. Beside, G+ is on a tight rope, it can't afford to misbehave. Yet.

Re:G+ isn't Facebook, so what? (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622442)

Nothing, but that won't stop people from potentially flocking to Google+ from Facebook just like they did from MySpace.

Re:G+ isn't Facebook, so what? (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622448)

Unlike facebook or MySpace, G+ is just a subproject of Google. That already is a large difference in dynamics. Google might be willing to experiment more with it than a company whose entire business model relies on their social network's success.

Re:G+ isn't Facebook, so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622684)

Facebook aggressive pursued monetization. Making money is their primary objective.
They don't really care about users, credibility etc.

Google is still a bit more philosophical on their goal, which is to make information accessible.
They're betting that if they do a good job getting users the information they need, they will make money.

The thing I like most about Google is that they aren't locking users into their technologies.
Their good services are among the best available, that's why people stay with them.

Re:G+ isn't Facebook, so what? (1)

Gr33nJ3ll0 (1367543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622782)

You could be correct, we won't know until we try. Also Facebook's UI was a huge improvement over MySpace's, which was a throw back to the early early days of the 'net when everybody designed their own webpages. Only instead of it being a bunch of geeks, it was the high school dropouts you hadn't spoken too since, well, high school. At least with Facebook the glitter patrol is dimmed a bit.

Good point (1)

bashibazouk (582054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622850)

I've been curious about this. It seems like Facebook took off because as you say "it's not Myspace". What happens when the next generation wants to post their teenage/college sex/drinking exploits? I can't picture them doing so on the same service Grandma uses.

Is social networking going to become an alternating generational cycle where each upcoming generation must move to a new service to get away from their family? Or will people adopt multiple networks? I expect a geek to do so naturally but the average person?

WRONG - you are not Facebook's "customer"! (5, Informative)

MadCow42 (243108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622404)

You are Facebook's PRODUCT... not their customer. Their customer is the advertisers. Their only motive is to not piss you off enough to go away.

Re:WRONG - you are not Facebook's "customer"! (1)

CProgrammer98 (240351) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622610)

Who the hell clicks on fb ads anyway? I just use it to keep in touch with family and friends. I don't use any of those silly apps, and I never click on any ads, heck, I do;t even glance at the right hand side of the browser window.

Re:WRONG - you are not Facebook's "customer"! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622820)

which is why clicks are yesterday's revenue's is or not, you see them.

Re:WRONG - you are not Facebook's "customer"! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622938)

You're a freeloader! You're as bad as someone who pays off their credit card in full every month. Facebook only keeps you because they don't have an excuse to get rid of you. At least you lure in your app-playing friends (or at least friends of friends).

Re:WRONG - you are not Facebook's "customer"! (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622730)

One could argue that for a lot of society today - that you are the product, not the customer.

More importantly, "not piss you off enough to go away" gets a lot harder if there is a viable place to go. Right now, an alternative doesn't exist, but G+ has the potential to actually give people a place to jump to. Things could get interesting...

CIA (1)

sanzibar (2043920) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622446)

perhaps its the rumors concerning the relationship with the CIA and other 3 letter agencies. Apparently, facebook provides a nifty search feature that among other things, allows agencies to identify people using just a picture. People have crowd sourced their identity and facebook is selling it.

The most important thing... (1)

optimism (2183618) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622456)

...about Google+ is that you provide your social network to a corporation that ~already~ has your detailed profile, based on your searches and perhaps gmail, news reading, etc.

That is better than giving your info to yet another large corporate interest.

If you really care about privacy, you can connect your social network with a simple private listserv and/or a web forum. Most social groups have at least one person who is capable of managing this.

I need circles indeed. (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622468)

i dont want to lump everyone i am acquainted with in the same group, and have to choose from sharing or not sharing something with all of them. Thats not what we do in real life. Someone way past from elementary school doesnt need to see what i share with my gaming circle. Or, someone from professional circle doesnt have to see something i shared with gamers. And i dont need to be thinking about whether sharing something will be appropriate because all parties will see it.

facebook does not have this differentiation. you can change privacy settings to allow/disallow people from seeing, yet it is a 1 vs 0 boolean choice. you cant differentiate in groups. and even these settings are buried deep, problematic to do (you have to manually eliminate 140 people from seeing your updates down to 14 people), and facebook is constantly changing these settings so that they will be able to snag and sell more data to their corporate customers.

it has really become a steaming pile of shit.

i am on it, because of a few valued people are still on it, and not technically affluent to be on anything else. but, they could easily use google+, and when google+ comes, i am going to encourage them to sign up.

Becoming? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622612)

Some of us were calling it a steaming pile of shit before calling it a steaming pile of shit was cool.

Re:I need circles indeed. (1)

Zenaku (821866) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622632)

I don't really want to jump to the defense of facebook here, but your particular complaint seem to stem from being ignorant of its "lists" feature.

Create a list for each of your circles, and when you post something, select only the lists you want. Most of my updates for example, go only to people on my "Friends In Real Life" list.

Re:I need circles indeed. (3, Insightful)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622868)

I don't understand your post. FB does indeed have these groups. You can setup individual groups and add who you want to them just like "Circles" in Google+. Then when posting you can simply select the lock icon drop arrow and only post to that group (so they can see) or post so only they can't see. What Google+ has done is to just make that selection the default instead of an option. It is an improvement sure, but FB still has it readily and easily available with the same effort that Google+ has. G+ just has the greener pastures going for it right now (Sparks and Hangouts don't seem enough to pull people from FB).

Bodes ill? Ha! (1)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622472)

...This bodes ill for the company...

I don't know why. The other companies mentioned, Bank of America; AT&T, are doing just fine even though their customers hate them. Saying that it "bodes ill" for Facebook because they are universally loathed is just wishful thinking.


Re:Bodes ill? Ha! (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622640)

The difference is that BoA and AT&T have a much stronger means by which to prevent people from leaving. Remember how MySpace was the social network before it pretty much collapsed over night? It wouldn't surprise me if that happened to FB in the near future when the cool kids find someplace else to hang out.

Time for Replacement (1)

sunfly (1248694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622476)

It is time for a Facebook replacement. It really can't be that hard, just value your customers, and take privacy seriously. G+ looks like a great example, but not sure how much I trust a business based on selling everything they know about me for advertising revenue either. Myspace has the name, and could be rebuilt from ground up, but was just bought by an advertising company. Would someone here please stand up and make a great social network? You can sell ads (won't see them anyway), just don't sell me.

The mob giveth, the mob taketh away... (1)

taylorius (221419) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622482)

15 minutes almost up, Zuckerberg.
Why? You ask - who knows?

I'd like to think people's collective common sense is waking from it's slumber, and realising what a monstrous, evil, alienating waste of time your site is. Then again, maybe people are just tired of seeing your wonky face leering at them from news articles, and remembering that you could buy everything they've worked their whole lives for, with just one day's accumulated interest on your wealth, and they are contributing to you.

A pox on all "social" network sites, and the mega-corps that aim to profit from people's need to feel loved, say I.

Social Networks, A Plague That Never Ends (1)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622486)

I deleted my Facebook account over a year ago.

In general I stay away from social networks now. I have an account because I support the open source ideas behind it. Other than that, after being burned by the decline of Friendster, Myspace, and whatever else this shit is played out and a fucking travesty in general. It has turned an entire planet of educated people into marketers and publicists. People stopped talking, instead everyone now publishes sound bites, most trying to "sell" you something, with the bonus of feeding their habits into mass media trending engines; basically Bill Hicks [] nightmare. Everything you type is now screen real estate for product placement? When the first tribes, villages, and civilizations formed centuries ago they weren't businesses driven by advertising dollars. There was some quiet dignity amidst the necessity and greatness. I think my last social network is, in fact, this website. But I digress...

I use several Google services. I'm pretty sure I'm one click away from landing into a social network that already knows everything about me. I'm not joining Google+ any time soon but I suspect that's just one of many interfaces to what I already use.

Facebook may be hated more than other monopolies, but at least the other monopolies aren't selling me back to myself.

My axe to grind (2)

Voyager529 (1363959) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622506)

...and the axe of many of my friends, is that Facebook keeps changing their layout, users find out when they log in and are like "...what's going on?" since they can't find whatever it is they're looking for, and there's no way to change it back. I'm certain that Farmville users can find their farms, but it's getting more and more distilled into a platform where the communication aspects are less useful.

While yes, 99% of the groups were "1,000,000 strong for not clubbing baby seals" and "I hate it when people text me 'k'", there were a few groups that I was a part of that were genuine groups with active discussion boards. All of the discussion threads turned into wall posts with massive amounts of comments...and to someone, that made sense.

There's more and more spam happening. While admittedly they're doing much more to mitigate it than Myspace ever did, filtering out the malicious links is still ultimately a manual job. Even the nonmalicious stuff that's still unwanted takes a ridiculous amount of time to do right. While I blocked Mafia Wars, *ville, etc., my block list is a mile long because of it. The only one that was actually fun to me was Superpoke (there is, in fact, an odd humor to be found in throwing a virtual sheep at a friend), but the first time there was an official "new facebook", Superpoke got ditched in the process, so plug-ins became less useful unless you were someone like Zynga.

I was a fan of the 'old' messaging system, where it was effectively an e-mail. it made a lot of sense, since it was much easier to scroll the address book (i.e. my friend list), my friends frequently set up SMS notifiations so they could respond in a timely manner, and read receipts were automatic. When they asked if I wanted to change to the 'new message' system, I was like, "yeah, I'll try it out", silly me thinking they would allow me to go back if I didn't like it. Naturally, it was a one-way street.

At this point, Facebook to me is just another e-mail account, with a 'public message' view, a 'private message' view, and a game view (along with questionable privacy practices). Some of my friends are holdouts and still don't have a Facebook. While I used to be all "zomg you need one", I'm finding myself now saying "don't sweat it - is e-mail or cell better for you?" This usually provides me at least one - usually two - explicit means of contacting them. Facebook is relevant and useful, but I feel that there's a distinct possibility that it's in a position where its best days are behind it. If Zuckerburg is smart, he'll cash out now.

Re:My axe to grind (1)

iteyoidar (972700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622818)

I logged into facebook recently and it took me like 10 minutes to find my list of friends. At some point they literally hid the friends list

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622580)

my wag would be: there are more teenagers using facebook that adults using banks.

User base! (1)

Nautica (681171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622606)

Maybe it's because they have 20x the user base then anyone else..

Welcome to your 2 minutes hate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36622628)

Another Facebook bashing blog entry submitted as news. Great.
Slashdot would top this so-called list if it had any real user base left.

But WHY do they hate Facebook? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622688)

My expectation (no, of course I didn't RTFA) is that people hate the relatively rigid UI format of facebook which changes without notice on a fairly regular basis, with no attempt to transition or provide guidance. Whether it's the list friends online (list->pictures) or the "enter now submits your comment" features, or any of a dozen other annoyances, they all generate ill will, even if they may be useful in the long run.

People like the concept of facebook - the connectivity, the games (ugh), organizational advantages. They just don't like the implementation, or rather the infuriatingly frequent changes in the implementation. MySpace was visually busy, and appealed to a far more limited set of users.. Lots of people can stand facebooks UI, so the interaction makes the experience worthwhile. Now that the site has critical mass (your best friend, your grandma, and your long lost college buddies are all on it) any competitor has a large barrier to entry.

The danger for FB is that if someone were to create a social site that had most of your friends already, it could overcome that. Say, someone who already handles a huge number of emails and could offer to transition you nearly seamlessly into the community you already have via email. Google fits that. And that's why FB should be scared.

Re:But WHY do they hate Facebook? (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622874)

First, "hate" is the wrong word here - more accurate is "lowest satisfaction rating". And it's easy - people are inclined to dislike things considerably more when they perceive they have no choice in where they get services from; and the service itself tends to be not as good when that situation arises. When you look at the other businesses in the list, you'll see that most of them hold near-monopolies in their areas of service as well.

In your face. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622698)

This is why i hate facebook. I see it everywhere, i'm constantly asked to join it by friends, constantly asked to sign into it by other sites, it's just a huge annoyance.
At least AT&T isn't in my face everywhere I go.

"Customers" (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622826)

Facebook raises ire amongst its "customers"? Really? So, amongst the corporations to which it sells aggregate advertising data? Huh, I wouldn't have expected those customers to be so upset.

Food for thought (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622830)

First: the link in the summary is wrong, it links to a marketing firm. The ACS is here.

While the original Business Insider post is straightforward enough (BTW the summary should have linked here [] , instead of to itworld spam... I find the itworld spam interesting.

Facebook is far from the most interesting company in that top 19 list - in fact the general trend seems to be companies with relative monopolies in their service areas; but does anyone really think it coincidence that ITWorld ran this article with this take on the situation the day after Google Plus was announced?

The real reason (1)

dmesg0 (1342071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622928)

We don't need no social networks! What we need is a good anti-social network!

Where is the customer principles today? (1)

Kirin Fenrir (1001780) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622932)

And yet millions of people still use it. Nothing is ever going to change, no matter how much they are despised, until consumers stand up for their rights by not using the service or product that offends them!

*Proud not-user of Facebook*
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?