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 Is Most Hated Social Media Company

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the no-good-idea-goes-unpunished dept.

Facebook 165

Hugh Pickens writes "Inc. reports that Facebook, the most visited site on the Internet, is also among the most hated, scoring 64 on a 100-point scale, which puts the company in the bottom five percent of private sector companies and in the same range as airlines and cable companies, 'two perennially low-scoring industries with terrible customer satisfaction,' according to the results of a survey by the American Customer Satisfaction Index. 'Customers have shown that, so far, they have been willing to suffer through a poor user experience in order to enjoy the benefits Facebook provides,' according to the report. 'For companies that provide low levels of customer satisfaction, repeat business is always a challenge unless customers lack adequate choices, as in the case of near monopolies.' Overall, social media is one of the lowest-scoring industries measured by the ACSI — only airlines, newspapers, and subscription television services score lower. However, among social media companies, Wikipedia tops the list with a score of 77."

cancel ×

165 comments

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

Opportunity (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844220)

Opportunity is knocking for someone.

Re:Opportunity (4, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844228)

Pretty sure Google has answered the door, and is now providing opportunity counseling services to recover from the time it spent with Facebook.

Re:Opportunity (2)

zwei2stein (782480) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844278)

Not only that, it is also providing service to people who in past refused to use facebook.

Re:Opportunity (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844572)

I have to say I have found the Facebook GUI to be decidedly schizophrenic. Or, maybe it's the content.

Re:Opportunity (2)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844844)

Facebook keeps making changes to the UI and telling people "you'll get over it where else are you going to go". Except now there is an alternative.

relevant web comic [wordpress.com] .

I'm "the" photographer for my family, friends, and team. I posted a status a few days ago that more or less said "All new family and rugby game photos will no longer be posted to Facebook. Send me your gmail or google account if you want an invite to Google+".

All it takes is a few big movers and the ball will start rolling itself.

Re:Opportunity (1)

lostfayth (1184371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844230)

Google may end up picking up on this one, with Plus looking like it's gaining momentum.

Or not. Should be interesting to watch, anyway.

Re:Opportunity (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844668)

Yeah, now is the time for a MySpace comeback! Only 5 people reported hating them. Unfortunately, that's over half of their existing customer base. But still.

Re:Opportunity (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844720)

Opportunity is knocking for someone.

Well..., maybe, but the fact that there are so many people willing to bend over and take it, when it comes to Facebook's "privacy" policy, just so that they can share pictures of their trip to Cancun with all their "friends", leads me to believe that the masses don't much care about their chastity...er... privacy. Thus limiting the appeal of a competitor who might truly offer and honor a meaningful privacy policy.

Re:Opportunity (1)

wmac (1107843) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844872)

Or google may also end up being hated more than before. Google+ may become a privacy nightmare for google.

Not unexpected. (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844226)

It is the biggest, most well known and therefore more people hate it.

Re:Not unexpected. (2)

lostfayth (1184371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844314)

From the article (I know, bad form) both this headline and the article headline are wrong. Myspace is the 'most hated' being one point below Facebook. Rather interesting how close the two are, though.

Re:Not unexpected. (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844576)

My What?

Re:Not unexpected. (2)

lostfayth (1184371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844734)

I envy you. Did you manage to forget geocities too?

Re:Not unexpected. (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844914)

My What?

I envy you. Did you manage to forget geocities too?

I'm posting on slash what?

Re:Not unexpected. (1)

Cant use a slash wtf (1973166) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845330)

You say you're from the interwho?

Re:Not unexpected. (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845518)

No, the World Wide What?

That doesn't follow (2)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844372)

For example, in the Internet Search segment, Google has a better ranking than Bing even though Google is more well known than Bing.

Re:That doesn't follow (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844934)

For example, in the Internet Search segment, Google has a better ranking than Bing even though Google is more well known than Bing.

Not a hard and fast rule, but Bing is part of Microsoft. I doubt if so many people would hate it if it were independent

Re:That doesn't follow (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845002)

i don't hate bing because it's microsoft, I hate it because every time I've used it I've been underwhelmed by the results.

G+ just needs some games (3, Insightful)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844234)

they need to get zynga on board to port their games to G+ and that's close to 100 million users easy

Re:G+ just needs some games (4, Insightful)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844272)

I somewhat doubt it, more like a very quick route to match facebooks I hate it but must use it, status.

Re:G+ just needs some games (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844292)

Why? As long as G+ includes a `don't bother me with game requests` I need never know what other people are doing. As a company Google are taking gaming more seriously, so they're well placed to support good multiplayer games using all their other stuff (location, video, mobile etc). There's probably a good geocaching game in there somewhere.

Re:G+ just needs some games (0)

bistromath007 (1253428) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844324)

As soon as G+ includes such an option, Zynga has literally no reason to play ball with them. Do you know nothing about their business model whatsoever? Hint: they don't make games, they make advertising campaigns which people pay to propagate.

Re:G+ just needs some games (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844432)

Zynga will attach themselves to any platform that has sufficient users. I suspect they are more likely to find alternative methods of getting users to spam their contact list (maybe something that involves using a mail form to spam your gmail account directly and earn you credits in the process or whatever) than they are to just walk away from the system (if it's in any way successful).

Re:G+ just needs some games (4, Interesting)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844340)

Most people on G+ (at least, most people that I come in contact with in my extended circles) assert they came to G+ to get away from the games and BS that's all over Facebook. I have a feeling if G+ tries to emulate Facebook completely in that department they're going to see people leave, whether it's blockable or not.

In my own experience, blocking the games did no good, as people just started posting directly to my wall directly about the games and harassing me to play so they could get the "X number of friends required to get the golden tractor" or whatever stupid bullshit.

Re:G+ just needs some games (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844366)

That's when you block the person instead.

The problem with Facebook is that it's full of narcissistic bullshit like that, and people being emo because they want attention. I only had an account at all so people would stop bothering me to make one, and thanks to G+ I don't use it anymore.

Thank god. An hour on facebook will make you hate humanity.

Re:G+ just needs some games (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844474)

I only had an account at all so people would stop bothering me to make one, and thanks to G+ I don't use it anymore.

Yeah, that's pretty much the only reason I created one, too...I got tired of being harassed to get on FB and finally relented and it was pretty much retarded from day one. So far G+ is a lot less retarded (which I think has much more to do with the fact that all those people are on FB then anything inherently "better" about G+) so I'm torn...I know they're going to have to pick up more people if they're going to survive, but if they pick up more people I'll likely be out of there. Either that or I'm gonna need some "Annoying People" circles to put them in so I can mute their stream.

G+ signal to noise ration will regress to the mean (3, Informative)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844562)

As Google+ gets more popular, the stream will grow more and more inane. But, what's awesome, is G+ doesn't call people in your circles 'friends' so there isn't the emotional baggage associated with not being someone's friend. Moreover, you don't advertise your circles. You could add someone and then drop them and they would only see that you've added them. Moreover, they can add you without you adding them.

Those attributes will go a long way towards keeping my stream of a higher quality than is possible on Facebook.

Re:G+ just needs some games (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844614)

The problem with Facebook is that it's full of narcissistic bullshit like that, and people being emo because they want attention.

I'm finding just as much narcissism on G+ as I ever found on FB. The difference is it's a geekier kind of narcissism: "WOW! Analytics is showing I got 20K views on my blog this week! Analytics rocks!"

Maybe that'll soften as the demographics change, but there's just as much "look at me!" on G+ as there is on FB.

Re:G+ just needs some games (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844908)

The problem with Facebook is that it's full of narcissistic bullshit like that, and people being emo because they want attention

So basically Facebook has finally absorbed the rest of the MySpace users. Back in the day Facebook was more or less like Google+ is now.

Re:G+ just needs some games (1)

Stellian (673475) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845190)

I only had an account at all so people would stop bothering me to make one, and thanks to G+ I don't use it anymore.

This works best if Google+ flops. "Why, my retarded friend, I'd love to add you to my Facebook profile and see your inane drivel on my wall, but unfortunately I use Google+". I love how you don't even need a Google+ account.

Re:G+ just needs some games (2)

qwertyatwork (668720) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844544)

There's a plug in called Better Facebook [betterfacebook.net] (i"m sure others) that lets you customize what you see. It lets you create filters, so you can filter out *farmville* *tractor*, etc.

Re:G+ just needs some games (1)

edumacator (910819) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844596)

Why not have a games tab? So users can interact with the games if they want, but you aren't spanned with the crap all the time.

Re:G+ just needs some games (1)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844616)

that's why G+ will probably stay a niche

between the gmail requirement and no social games most people will stay on facebook. the non-geeks don't care what robert scoble is posting daily.

Re:G+ just needs some games (1)

dfxm (1586027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844694)

I went to Facebook to get away from the BS that was all over MySpace. It's funny how things come full circle. All that BS helps Facebook make money. Maybe, luckily for us, Google has other streams of revenue and G+ will be an means to those ends, and not the other way around.

Re:G+ just needs some games (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844488)

Zynga has its own problems - the Flash games become notoriously slower and unresponsive the higher you get in levels. Even the lab rats get tired of the Skinner box when it takes 5 minutes to drop a pellet. Ever get a Farmville farm up to level 50? It would literally take 20 seconds just to move your mouse accross the screen from one crop plot to another. If Google+ uses their mad HTML5 skillz to make Zynga-esque crack games that have better performance, I might consider playing them. If they bring Zynga onboard, I'm deleting my G+ account.

Re:G+ just needs some games (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844712)

Zynga and Facebook are very much in bed together (excellent recent article on the subject [businessinsider.com] ). If Zynga were to go to a competitor, Facebook might start making their OWN games (something they've never done, since they've always worked so closely with Zynga).

Re:G+ just needs some games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845008)

The nice thing about G+, especially right now, is that there's no noise from games or other apps that invade people's walls. If you want Games go and buy a console, or find a dedicated games website.

Re:G+ just needs some games (1)

aeortiz (1498977) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845394)

I'm hoping this was sarcasm

No _____ Button. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36844242)

So that's why facebook won't implement a "dislike" button... ;-)

Tip to the so-called editors. (-1, Redundant)

alexhs (877055) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844260)

Look for that text box just right of the site logo at the top left of the page.
Enter "Facebook hated" (without quotations marks). Validate [slashdot.org] .
Notice that this has already been posted [slashdot.org] last month.

tl;dr: Dupe!

Re:Tip to the so-called editors. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36844286)

It doesn't matter if it has been posted before. This is about stirring hate for Facebook. That generates hits. That's all that matters around here anymore. Slashdot lost it's integrity long ago. Probably about the same time kdawson darkened their doorstep. I urge honest free thinking people to boycott Slashdot and it's sponcers.

Re:Tip to the so-called editors. (-1, Offtopic)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844370)

ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH

Re:Tip to the so-called editors. (-1, Redundant)

alexhs (877055) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844454)

(Replying to myself)

I love the "redundant" mod. I'm the only one to point to the dupe so far, and it's the whole story that's redundant.
Now, modding me flamebait I would have understood, me hustling their little egos.
But "redundant" ? That's just ironic.

Re:Tip to the so-called editors. (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844840)

I love the "redundant" mod. I'm the only one to point to the dupe so far...

People bitch about dupes all the time. That's what's redundant.

What's funny is my pointing this out is also redundant. Heh.

Yes, excellent. (1)

bistromath007 (1253428) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844312)

Tell Mark Zuckerburg that he can get away with being an even bigger asshole. Thanks for that. This was a great idea.

I blame Farmville (1)

Brewmeister_Z (1246424) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844320)

Most people hate all the crap people send out for games that they have no interest in ever playing. I play a few games but hate the aspect where you need to bug other people for stuff. That is a reason many make alternate accounts so they can feed gifts and support to a main account.

Being unhappy with Facebook is probably being from a user being in the category of "just barely able to use it" so these people do not use Firefox with an ad blocker and they can't figure out that they can block Farmville posts from their walls so they instead unfriend someone that is excessive with requests and wall posts.

Facebook is not innocent, their interface changes enough that even savvy users get frustrated and some of the defaults have been something nobody would really want if they understood the consequences.

Wikipedia? (4, Insightful)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844346)

I'm surprised to see Wikipedia listed as "social media".

Re:Wikipedia? (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844394)

Yeah, even though they're both sources of collaboration for content, I think there's a difference between an online encyclopedia and an online message board, which is pretty much all Facebook is.

Re:Wikipedia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36844756)

Of course Wikipedia is social media. Social media is a medium in which one can share information and can communicate with others. Wikipedia doesn't involve a constant stream of unrelated unfiltered "media". This doesn't remove it from the social media field. One could argue that alot of sites around the web are social media sites. Ebay? Amazon? Slashdot?

Re:Wikipedia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36844504)

Also, Wikipedia got a 77 whereas Google got an 80 - if Wikipedia is in "social media" then surely Google is too (Orkutt, Buzz, Picasa, Gmail, Youtube for Christ's sake...) so how could Wikipedia have the top score for social media?

Re:Wikipedia? (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844532)

I'm surprised to see Wikipedia listed as "social media".

Why is that? Because it doesn't encourage direct user(s) to user(s) communication?

After all, all content on Wikipedia is built from the ground-up by users, all of which can also be edited by users, and thus gets shared with everyone. That makes it social.

Basically it all boils down to how you define social media and atleast IMHO 'social media' doesn't mean it has to be real-time, interactive and encourage direct communication; non-interactive and indirect communication from group(s) to group(s) is enough.

Re:Wikipedia? (1)

greenreaper (205818) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844624)

Frankly, the discouragement of user-to-user communication is for the best. All my problems with Wikipedia have involved other users!

Re:Wikipedia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36844894)

Frankly, the discouragement of user-to-user communication is for the best. All my problems with Wikipedia have involved other users!

And so have all of theirs?!?

Re:Wikipedia? (1)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845192)

It shouldn't be but that doesn't stop wankers like Orangemike [wikipedia.org] or Chaos5023 [wikipedia.org] (accounts were pulled randomly from the edit history of the first wiki page I clicked on) from turning it into some networking dedication page to themselves.

Re:Wikipedia? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845440)

I'm surprised to see Wikipedia listed as "social media".

They might be confused with anti-social media. Try adding an edit to a page with a neurotic editor who doesn't share your world view, facts being irrelevant to his agenda.

Most hated, or least liked? (5, Insightful)

Tomahawk (1343) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844350)

How something if phrased is very important.

Given 64/100 for Facebook, and 77/100 for Wikipedia, how, exactly, do you define 'hate' and 'like'?

Facebook gets a lower score, but how does this equate to 'hate'?

Certainly, Facebook is liked a lot less than wikipedia. I don't like facebook (I closed my account there a long long time ago), but I don't 'hate' it.
(I also don't trust it, but that's another issue entirely)

Re:Most hated, or least liked? (4, Insightful)

fedos (150319) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844476)

Since it scores in the same range as airlines and subscription television, two services that people regularly say they "hate", I think one can easily move to applying the word "hate" to FB.

Re:Most hated, or least liked? (1)

rafe.kettler (1946264) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844682)

The numbers don't mean that Facebook is necessarily hated in absolute terms, but that _relatively_ speaking Facebook is the _most_ hated.

Re:Most hated, or least liked? (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844838)

It's probably done in the same sort of skewed survey favoured by market research. I did some a few years ago where I gave feedback on adverts. They were universally bad, so I gave them all poor scores, but they asked us to rate them on a scale of -5 to 5. Most of the people they asked seemed to have difficulty with the concept of negative numbers, so they rated ones they thought were really bad around 1-2, and ones they really liked 4-5. No doubt that when they presented these numbers to their customer they moved them to a 0-10 scale, so people giving a score if 2 were really giving a score of 7.

BAD Mkay? (1)

Danathar (267989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844422)

Haters!

I don't understand... (1)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844426)

Why use it if you don't like it? There are other means for communication, it's not like they have a monopoly...

Re:I don't understand... (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845004)

Why use it if you don't like it?

Daily affirmation: People are lazy and stupid. They will fritter away the last moments of their unfulfilled lives complaining about something they chose to use rather than change.

Customers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36844452)

'Customers have shown that, so far, they have been willing to suffer through a poor user experience in order to enjoy the benefits Facebook provides,'

"People on Facebook" aren't the customers, they're the product. Access to that product is what FB sells to their customers: advertisers. If you're not paying for it, you're not the customer.

Customers? (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844480)

Customers have shown that, so far, they have been willing to suffer through a poor user experience in order to enjoy the benefits Facebook provides

What you talkin' 'bout Willis? Facebooks customers are the advertisers and corporate partners. Oh, you mean the "users". The users are Facebook's *product*, not its customers.

Facebook customer poor user experience? (1)

doperative (1958782) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844508)

'Customers have shown that, so far, they have been willing to suffer through a poor user experience in order to enjoy the benefits Facebook provides'

What customers, it's a free service, paid for through advertising !!!!

Re:Facebook customer poor user experience? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844866)

Well, the sentence actually does make sense if you parse it in English, although I don't think it's what they meant to say.

Advertisers have shown that, so far, they have been willing to shit on users in order to enjoy the benefit of being able to show them ads.

See? It works fine.

For the English-impaired; The advertisers are the customers, they're bringing their custom to facebook. Users are the product. The same is true of Google+ of course, but the difference is that Google tends to be gentle about selling you where FB is ruthless.

Re:Facebook customer poor user experience? (2)

npsimons (32752) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845474)

For the English-impaired; The advertisers are the customers, they're bringing their custom to facebook. Users are the product. The same is true of Google+ of course, but the difference is that Google tends to be gentle about selling you where FB is ruthless.

"Google, the compassionate pimp" doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "don't be evil". Course, I'd still rank Google as probably the most ethical (big) company out there. Sad. I really hope they find a way to transition to making money from something besides advertising, but even if they did, advertising wouldn't go away. Demand creates supply.

Free vs. Paid (1)

Ogre332 (145645) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844514)

The thing people need to keep in mind is that all of the services Facebook is being compared to (Cable, Airline, Newspaper) are services for which they pay. Facebook itself has not subscription or purchasing fees, their costs are covered by advertising and micro-transactions (i couldn't think of a better description for the Facebook "money" you can buy).

Possibly a PR war (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36844542)

It could be that Google paid for that report to go out knowing that the numbers and topic are pure bullshit. That would help steer some people over to G+.

G+ Lack of private profiles is why I won't switch (1)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844558)

I would switch, but for some reason G+ won't let me have a non-public Google account profile setting or a limited version where only friends of my friends (like on facebook) can find me on a search.

Re:G+ Lack of private profiles is why I won't swit (1)

lattyware (934246) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844724)

You can have a profile where only your name is visible to the public, you can fine-tune every other aspect as to who can see it.

Re:G+ Lack of private profiles is why I won't swit (1)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844784)

As I said, I don't want anything public -- which includes my name and gender. I don't understand why this is so difficult to provide? Even FACEBOOK allows this for users and Facebook sucks at privacy.

Re:G+ Lack of private profiles is why I won't swit (1)

lattyware (934246) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844812)

Fair enough if you don't want that public, although given all anyone could gain from that is that you have a google plus account, I don't see it's a problem - and why would google provide that? They want people to be public, that's the point of the service.

Re:G+ Lack of private profiles is why I won't swit (2)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844910)

Some of us maintain a separation of professional from personal life via the use of separate email accounts etc. LinkedIn and Facebook makes this easy to maintain. For example, being public on facebook means professional colleagues would know of that account and attempt to connect there which makes for awkward rejects of "friend requests." Yes, I could play with various circle settings, but that means a chance I make a mistake at one point in posting and that's not worth the risk.

The non-tech people actually do this quite often, something my colleagues at Google don't get since they don't experience a need for this separation in their professional world.

Re:G+ Lack of private profiles is why I won't swit (1)

lattyware (934246) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844964)

You say you could make a mistake - only as easily as you could with any other account. There is a reason those circle setting exist, they allow you to do what you want in an easier way.

Re:G+ Lack of private profiles is why I won't swit (1)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845140)

At the end of the day, Google wants people to use it's service. Rationalizing that users could do x or y to make it acceptable, or to mitigate a stupid circle mistake doesn't change the fact that to some of us we don't want the headache. Facebook + LinkedIn work better for me under the current privacy designs of each service. Google's doesn't. Whether or not anyone at Google understands doesn't matter as it's what I (and many other non "silicon valley" professional types) want. Once google gets a large number of users I am sure they will relent on this privacy setting.

It was Facebooks walled private garden when I joined before it was open to non-Edu accounts that got me to use it over MySpace. Funny, Facebook allows for more privacy than Google+, who would have thought lol

Re:G+ Lack of private profiles is why I won't swit (2)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845434)

"Some of us maintain a separation of professional from personal life"

Well then your semi-public G+ account is in the name "Joe J. Blow." They aren't checking credentials.

Re:G+ Lack of private profiles is why I won't swit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845372)

I would switch, but for some reason G+ won't let me have a non-public Google account profile setting or a limited version where only friends of my friends (like on facebook) can find me on a search.

The first day of G+ I noticed that there's an option to make me/my profile "unsearchable." Is that what you want?

It's really prominent too, just hit "edit profile" and it's at the bottom, right there on your main profile page.

most hated and most liked (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844570)

Facebook has done a wonderful job in providing what people want and a central location where all your friends can communicate. Facebook has also pleased advertisers by sharing details about the users. Both sides love what Facebook has to offer.

However, users that are aware of them hate Facebook's business practices. In other words, Facebook is a typical arrogant company that feels nothing for their consumers, just their profits. Take a look around at the mega-sized tech companies around and you will notice they are just as horrible, why does this surprise you?

If anything, people should be flabbergasted by how well Google treats and stands up for their customers. Google isnt perfect but they are the only mega-company i know that actually tries to be ethical even if it hurts their bottom line.

Customers? What customers? (1)

zerofoo (262795) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844580)

Let's be clear - Facebook's customers are different from their "users". Just because you have a Facebook login and page, does not make you one of their "customers".

If you aren't paying for the service, you aren't a customer. At best, you are an asset or a product.

-ted

Re:Customers? What customers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845034)

Yeah, we know this. We've known it for years. Everytime there is an article about facebook at least 4 Slashtards point this out. But guess what? We don't care. We know it, but we don't care. You're like the guys who have to come on and talk about how a supernova that was detected last week didn't really happen last week. Yes, we know. We don't care. Please go away. Please stop acting like you're insightful or informative. Just go away.

Re:Customers? What customers? (1)

Arctech (538041) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845246)

At the very least a user is a client of the service, however from Facebook's POV they may as well be a customer. Every head that logs in to their site produces ad revenue, fairly efficiently targeted ad revenue if the person has bothered to enter in any amount of "likes" for various interests. Facebook's purchased currency, "points", is gravy by comparison.

Re:Customers? What customers? (1)

gsslay (807818) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845408)

Mod parent up.

Facebook users are not Facebook's customers. Facebook's customers are their advertisers. Their users is what Facebook is selling.

If more Facebook users were clear on this they'd be less likely to gift their information to them, and more aware of exactly where Facebook's loyalties lie.

Re:Customers? What customers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845594)

100% agree. The customers are the people placing ads and buying your personal information. Facebook might monetize your information, but you're not the one handing them cash.

If you aren't paying for the service, you aren't a customer. At best, you are an asset or a product.

...or a captive/slave/inmate. Even if you "leave", you're not really gone.

Shouldn't it be "Most Unliked"? (1)

Nick Fel (1320709) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844582)

To put it in Facebook's terminology.

Diaspora... where are you? (2)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844644)

.... WTF... you waited for G+ to come out... now you might as well give up.

Re:Diaspora... where are you? (2)

Isarian (929683) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845130)

.... WTF... you waited for G+ to come out... now you might as well give up.

Good to know their 200K cash infusion from Kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/196017994/diaspora-the-personally-controlled-do-it-all-distr) went somewhere useful!

Uh, lack of a delete button? (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844650)

I'm certain I'm not the only one wondering this, but I honestly am curious as to how many people loathe Facebook (and other ilk of its kind) simply based on the fact that for reasons unknown, they don't allow a delete button within certain functions.

And yes, I'm well aware that many other options are available to mirror/archive/preserve any content that hits the 'net, but it's the sheer principle behind the whole Borg mentality that social media loves to embrace that tends to piss people off too.

Lack of competition and price (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844792)

People only hate businesses when they are stuck using them...no other choice. Facebook is hated, because until recently they had no competition. Hopefully competition will force Facebook to improve its policies, software and its regard for its users.

People also hate Facebook and social networks, in general ( none others are as successful as Facebook to be worth hating ) because of the price they are paying: their information, and their dignity in being able to control their information.

People look the other way at this price they pay in exchange for using Facebook, but it doesn't mean they like it.

Re:Lack of competition and price (1)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844990)

Easy solution, stop putting anything up of consequence on Facebook. That's what I did, problem solved. It's now just a glorified email box for me to deal with people that prefer communicating over facebook

I was surprised (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844824)

I was surprised to see Wikipedia listed as a "social media" site.

Monochrome (1)

tonywestonuk (261622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36844944)

I'll stick with my 20 year old social networking engine, if you don't mind.

telnet://muon.mono.org [mono.org]

Goodbye Facebook (1)

mfh (56) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845172)

If people hate your business, you are going to be out of business.

+1s Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845312)

...and why isn't there a +1 button on Slashot yet for these things?? I'm sure there's many Slashdoter's that want to make the switch over!

what benefits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845324)

they have been willing to suffer through a poor user experience in order to enjoy the benefits Facebook provides

huh? there are no benefits to facebook.

also the most popular (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845362)

Funny...they're also by far the most popular social media company. That couldn't have anything to do with it im sure.

They should've waited on making the Facebook movie (1)

Joshua Fan (1733100) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845396)

So they could have ended it with the decline of Facebook.

"You have what... 700 million users?"
"Thousand."
"Sorry?"
"700 thousand."
"Wow."

Being hated is not bad for business (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845452)

I suppose Oracle, and Microsoft, prove that. I'll bet there are a lot hated businesses that are amazingly successful. Murdoch is probably doing okay, I wonder how BP execs are doing? How about Goldman Sach execs?

In other news... (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845490)

... Slashdot is populated by geeks, story at 11.

Thank you captain obvious and your team of common sense avengers.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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