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!

Answers.com Now Only With Facebook and Own Login

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the you-haff-been-assimilated dept.

Facebook 127

CptnHarlock writes "Today the registered users of Answers.com received an email informing them that the site has ended support for Yahoo, Twitter, Google, or LinkedIn as a way to sign into their site. Facebook is the sole external way left to log in. A local login and password were generated and sent by email and the old (non-Facebook) logins deactivated. Score another one for Facebook.com in the login consolidation wars."

cancel ×

127 comments

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

Reeeaaal smart (4, Informative)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987368)

The only reason I can imagine sites are doing this is very short-term thinking. When you make Facebook your only way to log in, you make yourself dependent on Facebook, which let's not forget, could fall out of favor just as quickly as Myspace, or Geocities before that.

It's a precedent that other sites should be afraid to set at all. They should be avoiding centralized login services like the plague. The current system is the best, where the only point of centralization is an email address, because email is 100% free and open (for now, although port 25 blocking and spam blocklist maintainers are threatening that)

Re:Reeeaaal smart (3, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987394)

No, the reason is money. Facebook gives them cash, they do stupid things in exchange. Facebook then hopes to get more information to sell, I mean more users.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987462)

No, the reason is money. Facebook gives them cash, they do stupid things in exchange. Facebook then hopes to get more information to sell, I mean more users.

Wouldn't be a bad idea of FB put some of that money into improving their crappy interface. I hate using the site. Only post occasionally because my stress level goes up each time I use it.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37987532)

Get the fbcmd app, it lets you do most Facebook tasks from the commandline. Great for uploading a whole camera's worth of pictures.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37988754)

Score another one for answers.com in the "let's lose customers!" wars.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (0)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987808)

you could use Gwibber it has a nice interface and it can aggregate from multiple account from multiple sites facebook twitter, Flickr, Digg, freindfeed, Statusnet, Identi.ca, qaiku, i havent check the latest reallese but it might work with google+ but i don't know. it works for linux so it could probably be compiled on mac or bsd but idk about that never tried

Re:Reeeaaal smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37989132)

In India, where I am from, "gwibber" is what we call a man's ass-pussy. PS - you don't want to know what "smeg" is!!!

Re:Reeeaaal smart (1)

hazah (807503) | more than 2 years ago | (#37989304)

And... we don't actually care. Any word in one language is bound to be stupid in another. That's why we use contexts.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (4, Informative)

rwven (663186) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987676)

Except having worked with things like this, i know that facebook does no such thing. Facebook gives you nothing at all in return for using their services. The upside is that your content gets out, and shared on facebook....which drives users to your site. I'm sure facebook mines that data for all kinds of fun things though.

-RV

how to maintain multiple facebook accounts (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 2 years ago | (#37989486)

IS there any way to have hundreds of facebook accounts? I'd be fine with using facebook as a universal ID system if I can also maintain different logins of different sites rather than linking them all to one facebook ID. I don't actually use face book-- indeed I detest it, but that's another story.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (1, Insightful)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991074)

Except having worked with things like this, i know that facebook does no such thing.

"Worked" in what capacity? Do you have an insiders view of the business deals that goes on in Facebook, as in do you actually work for Facebook?

Facebook gives you nothing at all in return for using their services.

Then why would it benefit Answers.com to exclusively rely on Facebook? Such exclusivity is often driven by bribes, err, business relationships.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37987820)

Has anyone ever seen an example of facebook selling information or paying companies to use FB's login service?

Any references I do see are to bad journalism equating user-authorized, singular access for an app to collect their basic info to, "Facebook is selling your info."

I've got other issues with FB, but if that part is just recurring FUD, that's not cool either.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (1)

pyrosine (1787666) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987896)

They sell it to advertisers to create custom advertisements for $USER (or generate the custom advertisements themselves, although I imagine it's more lucrative and easier to sell it out)

Re:Reeeaaal smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37989642)

I don't think they ever give personal information for advertising, they only allow advertisers to choose demographics their ads should be shown to. I should say, at least not that I can find.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (2)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987986)

No, the reason is money. Facebook gives them cash, they do stupid things in exchange. Facebook then hopes to get more information to sell, I mean more users.

No, it's not. The reason is conversion rate. (Full stop)

The only reason there is for a site owner to implement facebook login is a high conversion rate from guests to logged in users.
The user just does one click and milliseconds later has given up all his personal data to the site he just autoregistered for.

by doing conventional logins small portal admins get around 80% less registrations and the quality of the data they get of the users is much lower.
Facebook login is tailored for identity retrieval which benefits mostly facebook but also the busynesses that implement it. The only one who doesn't get something in return is You.

facebook login is a very bad thing, don't use it (as a user).

Re:Reeeaaal smart (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 2 years ago | (#37988020)

you get logged in witha single click and one less site out there with a password to have to remember

Re:Reeeaaal smart (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37988410)

But it's one hell of a password to have guessed, intercepted or lost.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (1)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#37989152)

exactly, i have a fb account with no info about anything i leave logged in at all times and use to register at sites i find from slashdot or digg or other sites that i dont plan on using more than a time or two, in the past i would read something and move on, now all i have to do is click the fb button to login? so those sites that i would have read once and moved on now have a user. it is smart on the sites end

Re:Reeeaaal smart (1)

phoncible (2468768) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990354)

The user just does one click and milliseconds later has given up all his personal data to the site he just autoregistered for.

Only the personal data you supplied to FB in the first place. Don't give it to FB, no one else gets it either. And if it's "required", just fudge it. Can't remember if my b-day was a required, but if it was I certainly didn't give them the real one. Same for just about every other shred of info on that site: it's either inconsequential (like a "throwaway" email addy) or falsified. And to any responses that say "it's against their TOS", well then call my honeybadger, cuz I just don't give a sh*t.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (1, Insightful)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987458)

Facebook is far more entrenched in a more diverse population than MySpace or Geocities every were. It will likely be a while before it is replaced - longer than the terms of this contract at least.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (4, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987722)

Well...hoping this isn't a trend for too many sites...as that I don't have now, nor do I ever intend to have a FB account.

That being said, as long as they have their own login too, that's cool....I'd just use that.

But, if I site goes FB logon only, that'll be the end of my use of it. I'd have a hard time thinking any site would limit themselves to only FB members....while FB does indeed have a huge membership, they aren't 100%....and as a business owner, I'd not like to risk losing anyone as a potential customer.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (1)

JohnFen (1641097) | more than 2 years ago | (#37988738)

I do have a FB account, but I do not, and never will, use it as a unified login service. I keep it as disconnected from my activities as possible (blocking FB servers when I don't want to talk with them, etc.) Facebook is not to be trusted.

If a site goes purely to using FB login, that will be the end of my use of the site as well.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (2)

viracochas (628648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37989424)

I expect to see Slashdot announcing Facebook-only login next April 1st.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (2)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987700)

To be fair Geocities was on the same scale as facebook at one point (for people who did use the net not in general society). And they could have stayed around a lot longer but they died due to how they handled their community. if Facebook started charging $ per post and a monthly login fee i'm sure it would die extremely quickly.

yes Geocities did have some ad revenue - but companies where not paying for web marketing at the time and the potential funds to tap into for that was much smaller relative to userbase than it is now for facebook.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (0)

rpresser (610529) | more than 2 years ago | (#37988322)

Geocities maybe had a similar market percentage to Facebook. But it never, never, had anything like the same scale. Facebook has over 750 million registered users. Geocities had a max of maybe 175 million yearly unique visitors.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (2)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#37988508)

market % yes and scale yes..

if you look at the number of users vs the possible pool + the tech available then and now and the size of the companies.. yea they where the same scale then as face book is now..

Re:Reeeaaal smart (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#37989138)

Market share, percent of pool, call it what you will - it's a bucket of bollocks.

Revenue largely depends on absolute numbers, and 1% of nearly-everybody-including-corporate-twats-and-grannies is considerably more than 1.5% of academics, dweebs and geeks.

Which is roughly GP's point, I think.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#37989356)

both can be measured by the number of people who had access to it.

more people have access to the net today than they did 15-20 years ago and there fore facebook has a larger pool of potential users than geocities.

both are on the same scale and can be compared when you think of them as user base as a % of possible user base.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987848)

I know, what the hell. I haven't used Facebook in 2 years, I guess I'll just use BugMeNot if I need to login to that site.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37988002)

I assume you mean the other Bugmenot that doesn't respond to takedown requests, because Facebook is blocked from bugmenot.com

Re:Reeeaaal smart (4, Informative)

JazzHarper (745403) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987932)

Answers.com did NOT make Facebook the only way to log in. They are eliminating support for three centralized login services, which should make you happy. They probably kept Facebook because too many people would have complained. However, the only thing you need to maintain an account on Answers.com is an e-mail address, which should also make you happy.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37988048)

If they got rid of all their social network logins I would be happy, but the fact that they whittled it down to email and Facebook tells me they see those two as being the most important, as if they're in the same league. Why was Facebook more important than all the others that were ditched?

Re:Reeeaaal smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37990878)

Because more people use it, duh. This isn't rocket surgery.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37988310)

OpenID > email. It's 100% free and open too, and it doesn't force you to have a different password for every site - you can even login with a personal certificate on your OpenID provider.

Re:Reeeaaal smart (1)

Cyberllama (113628) | more than 2 years ago | (#37988848)

Not to mention I don't have a Facebook account and don't plan to get one. You've just told me, and probably many others, "Thanks, but no thanks. We don't want your contributions."

Re:Reeeaaal smart (1)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 2 years ago | (#37988952)

OpenID is decent, granted it doesn't solve the whole single point of failure problem but it doesn't try to, either. It does a good job of consolidating login and user data, so the only trust a user need grant is to that of their provider.

Oh noes! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37987378)

A crappy scraper site that republishes Wikipedia's content will no longer allow me to use an account I don't have from a provider I don't use!

Re:Oh noes! (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987516)

Haha true XD

Someone sent me a survey they were doing as part of a school project recently, on social networks. I couldn't fill it out because I don't use any social networks at all. Basically the minimum level of social network activity that the survey assumed was possible was occasional Facebook use. It gave you the option to say that you didn't use G+, Twitter, etc at all, but it was assumed that you at least occasionally used Facebook.

Re:Oh noes! (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987844)

Someone sent me a survey they were doing as part of a school project recently, on social networks. I couldn't fill it out because I don't use any social networks at all.
Slashdot has enemies, friends, and whatnot, journalling, update notices,etc. To quote John Bender ,"So it's sorta social, demented and sad, but social. Right?"

Re:Oh noes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37987902)

it also has anon/unlogged in too.

Re:Oh noes! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37988308)

Slashdot doesn't have a mechanism for sending messages between users, which pretty much disqualifies it as a social networking site. Friends and Foes are just moderation modifiers. I vaguely remember you being able to restrict journal posts so only your friends could comment, but I think that option went away. About the only thing that you can do as a logged in Slashdot user that you can't as an Anonymous Coward is get automatic notifications of replies to your posts.

Re:Oh noes! (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991182)

About the only thing that you can do as a logged in Slashdot user that you can't as an Anonymous Coward is get automatic notifications of replies to your posts.

Well, and accumulate karma.

Re:Oh noes! (0)

CodeReign (2426810) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987912)

That's just depressing. People need to stop making assumptions based on rhetoric from the companies they are representing (indirectly). The worst (for me) is when someone says, "oh I want to make iPhone apps because you have to support hundreds of platforms of android", this is basically the mindset for designers and such since Steve Jobs said that during the iPhone4 release. Of course he said he was quoting a blog post from Tweetdeck. Tweetdeck of course responded saying they were not forced to, they astounded that they could. Where was I going again. Oh right, people need to be less susceptible to marketing propaganda.

Wikipedia has a problem (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987620)

republishes Wikipedia's content

Which in a few cases [xkcd.com] can be a good thing.

Re:Oh noes! (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 2 years ago | (#37988498)

A crappy scraper site that republishes Wikipedia's content

Not quite "scraper". Honest Jimbo Wales sells them wikipedia content: i.e. flogs them other people's work for profit. Just one of the many dubious ways Jimbo cashes in on wikipedia.

Re:Oh noes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37988554)

Uh, Wikipedia's content is CC. There's nothing to sell....

Re:Oh noes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37988672)

It's even worse for me. I've just read that a crappy scraper site that republishes Wikipedia will no longer allow me to use an account I don't have from a provider I don't use on a news site I don't trust!

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37987392)

Well, they never really gave me good answers anyway.

Oh the irony, captcha was totality

Stupid Answers (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987420)

I never get a good answer on Answers.com, I prefer to use experts-exchage.com

Alternatives to S-ex Change and Stack Overflow (1, Offtopic)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987562)

A lot of people appear to have replaced Expert S-ex Change with Stack Overflow and the other Stack Exchange sites. So when "lrn2google" fails me due to the synonym problem [posterous.com] , and I have a question about a topic not covered by one of the Stack Exchange sites, which general question-and-answer forum do you recommend?

Re:Alternatives to S-ex Change and Stack Overflow (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987648)

The "Offtopic" moderation on the parent post brought to my mind the bootstrapping problem. Please allow me to rephrase in a way that is more on-topic: What site similar to Answers.com should people use instead of Answers.com?

It's a content farm (5, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987436)

Answers.com is an ad-heavy content farm. Why would anyone want a login there?

Re:It's a content farm (2)

adisakp (705706) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987512)

On a netbook, tablet or phone, about 70% of the initial home page view is ads -- and not unbotrusive ones (those make up the bottom 50% of the page when you scroll down with web link ads). Plus the way the panes work and the clutter is very remiscent of sites from 5 years ago. This is not a site that is friendly for fast consumer browsing on portable devices. Basically any site this cluttered is gonna be dying and starving for cash as the PostPC-browser age comes into full swing.

People play FarmVille, for cricket's sake (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987584)

FarmVille is an ad-heavy virtual farm. Why would anyone want a login there?

Re:People play FarmVille, for cricket's sake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37988806)

You don't see any difference between games and informational sites? It'd be fun to watch you engage in small talk.

Re:It's a content farm (1)

dadioflex (854298) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987646)

That is the curious thing. I actually don't hate answers.com, and it every so often does answer a question I've had. But I don't need to log in to see those answers. The people logging in, presumably are mainly the content-providers that write the articles that earn them nickels and dimes a time. As I see it, this is answers.com willingly eating itself to get the last dregs from the business model.

What Ads? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37987744)

One would have thought that the majority of readers would have long since blocked ads. I block everything, and I do mean everything. Between my hosts file, Firefox add-ons and about:config, I see nothing but a clean Internet. Ads used to be just annoying, but now they track you, especially Flash-based ads. So I just cannot risk it. I already pay to use the Internet. I'm not paying with my privacy.

If you are on Linux you can still use Flash without it tracking you, as nothing escapes the event horizon of /dev/null

rm -rf .adobe .macromedia
ln -s /dev/null .adobe
ln -s /dev/null .macromedia

Re:It's a content farm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37987784)

Who is Answer.com and why should we care?

Re:It's a content farm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37988632)

You could get the answer from answers.com, you know, just login from FB.

Re:It's a content farm (1)

arielCo (995647) | more than 2 years ago | (#37988376)

Oh, is it that bad?

/me pets his Adblock Plus icon

Re:It's a content farm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37988612)

Oh, is it that bad?

/me pets his Adblock Plus icon

Slashdot is an ad-heavy content farm, too, the difference being smug self-obsessed posters always eager to brag about how much better they and the products they use are better than you. In addition to anything with "Adblock" in the post, you may safely ignore anything with "NoScript" and "N900", as those will consistently be content-free posts.

Yet, people still visit Slashdot on a regular basis. Probably on their N900s with Adblock and NoScript, just so they can brag about it.

Re:It's a content farm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37988628)

Why would anyone want a login there?

This is more a logout kind-of-thing here ...

Re:It's a content farm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37989814)

"Why would anyone want a login there?"

It's the only place where you can read morons, asking dumb questions, with a typo in every fucking word.

What does it take to support Google, Yahoo et al? (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987484)

Is there a [real dollar] cost? I would like to know.

Re:What does it take to support Google, Yahoo et a (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37987690)

Probably a behind the scenes deal between answers.com and FB. Advert revenue sharing perhaps, or free data for FB to sell to their advertisers.

Pose this question on.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37987874)

.... Answer.com ;)

Of course, the tracking is part of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37987492)

Now, everything you do on Answers.com will be tracked, recorded, and logged to your Facebook account, which is also routinely furnished to the NSA and other government agencies to help them figure out how best to trample on your rights.

another one on the list (4, Insightful)

iceaxe (18903) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987538)

OK, so answers.com goes on the list of sites I will continue to not use.

Re:another one on the list (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987712)

Pretty much.

I don't see a reason to get into social networking. Taking away some forums because they now require social networking isn't going to change my mind. If anything, it'll help me get over this Internet addiction faster.

Re:another one on the list (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 2 years ago | (#37988936)

Continue to not use... gosh, you couldn't pull your punches or anything? Talk about kicking somebody when they're down, that's just overboard! They'll be devastated!

This is what passes for +5 insightful these days. Awesome.

Race to the bottom? (1)

knarf (34928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987594)

Given that most network assets registered under facebook and related domains resolve to 0.0.0.0 on my network, this would seem like a counterproductive strategy.

In other words, making your site dependent on the availability of a function offered by facebook is not a good business strategy - more of a lousy exit strategy. Oh well, answers.com belongs in the bin anyway.

No Love (1)

achowe (829564) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987610)

No love for Facebook. I've never joined and won't join just because they're the only choice for some web site of questionable use. Twitter is my social network choice, because they are more open; my words, good or bad, aren't hidden from non-members.

No Friends... Re:No Love (-1, Troll)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 2 years ago | (#37989130)

No love for Facebook. I've never joined and won't join just because they're the only choice
for some web site of questionable use. Twitter is my social network choice, because they
are more open; my words, good or bad, aren't hidden from non-members.

I have to chuckle when I see people adamantly say
they won't join / haven't joined Facebook.

Just make it simple and say, you don't have enough
friends to warrant joining.

Facebook is a tool. If you don't know how to use a
tool, then yes... DO NOT PICK IT UP.

-AI

Bit Harsh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37991282)

Your comments were a bit harsh RE not having friends. Not having a FB account means nothing. Some people don't see or feel the need to have one despite having any number of friends. After all, there is no expectation that one ever have a FB account. It's a choice like eating at one restaurant over another. IMHO, FB is a sheeple farm, plain and simple. I'd much rather hang out with friends over cigars and wine, not virtually. I also rather despise the lack of privacy one has using FB, regardless of settings. Social networking has set the bar for a more transparent society, Not everyone likes this. I rather like my privacy, actually, and if and when I choose to share it should be on my express and sole terms.

Facebook the only EXTERNAL method to register (4, Informative)

LordNicholas (2174126) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987654)

Let's not overhype what's occurring here. FTA: "You now have two ways you can sign in and stay with us and keep your contributions and earned badges." They're only dropping support for other single sign on type logins, probably all of which had been provided by a 3rd party like Gigya. Standard old-fashioned site registration/login is still supported. I work for a major TV network website; we have single sign on via Facebook and also offer signup via the rogue's gallery of Twitter, LinkedIn, mySpace, etc in addition to a standard old-fashioned signup. Literally 99% of our signups come from either Facebook or standard registration. We'll probably drop support for the others as well, as they're not worth the dev resources or the fee we pay to Gigya.

It may be interesting... (1)

xded (1046894) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990734)

to know the percentage of Facebook logins against standard ones, if you have that figure.

And any polls will be even more biased (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37991238)

And any polls on your site will be even more biased since smarter people don't use FB logins anywhere else. I've seen a survey, it must be true.

My router blocks access to facebook.com and a few other *facebook* domains. That means a few content providers do not work for me. That's fine. I'm wealthy and spend money ... at other places than those connected to facebook or twitter or google.

OTOH, as a TV web-publisher, you need the ignorant masses to visit your website, not people like me and my friends.

Re:Facebook the only EXTERNAL method to register (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991270)

Is there some reason you don't support OpenID?

well, damnit (1)

jcombel (1557059) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987718)

now i have to use that site with zero logins instead of my usual zero.

$$$$$'s (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987756)

I wonder how much Facebook paid for this privilege?

well one site I will not be going to (2)

rorywilliams (2476742) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987788)

I deleted my facebook and will not re-create it, so I guess these sites are off limits to me forever. Seems like a good business model

The reason for this (0)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987814)

A lot of sites are doing this (LAtimes is Facebook only) the reason is to track dissent and document every comment made by people then associate it with the actual person, so "how to make thermite" question you asked out of curiosity becomes your downfall at a later date, made illegal and prosecuted retroactively or just used to smear you if you get involved in politics in any way or even just a little bit too "outspoken".
This is another step in the ongoing move to a controlled Internet.

If you have a Facebook account, first I have to say you're a tool, second do you know everyone of your "friends" IRL well enough to go to trial for them?
If not, close your account now.

Misleading summary (1, Insightful)

JazzHarper (745403) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987822)

The summary states that all non-Facebook logins have been deactivated.
That is not true. One does not need a Facebook account to log into Answers.com.

Re:Misleading summary (3, Informative)

LordNicholas (2174126) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987858)

I'm disappointed that seemingly most Slashdotters couldn't even be bothered to read the article HEADLINE, let alone the summary or, god forbid, the article itself.

Re:Misleading summary (3, Funny)

JazzHarper (745403) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987998)

They read it--they just didn't understand it.

Re:Misleading summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37988520)

I'm disappointed that seemingly most Slashdotters couldn't even be bothered to read the article HEADLINE, let alone the summary or, god forbid, the article itself.

You must be new here...

Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37987852)

I've been using a greasemonkey script to purge these crap sites from google results for forever. Why anyone would use this site, let alone need an account, is beyond me.

...I can't see why this is a good move. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987862)

From a business point of view, especially so if they generate their funds through ads, why cut your userbase? Your ads are just going to be seen even less.

Re:...I can't see why this is a good move. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37988164)

1) They still have their own login which has more features anyways

2) They stated that 99% of their logins is from facebook and their own login. They PAY a 3rd parties like http://www.gigya.com/ to implement the other logins. In which case, it makes perfect sense to drop those not used or worth the cost.

generated logins???? (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987882)

A local login and password were generated and sent by email and the old (non-Facebook) logins deactivated.

So... without asking users they went through the trouble of handing all personal data required to create a Facebook profile and email the new Facebook profile login info to those users? Is this what happened?

Do I have to join Facebook to get an answer to that?

Re:generated logins???? (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#37987894)

Never mind i guess they created an Answer.com login.

There`s registered users on Answers.com? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37988162)

Why?

And No Fucks Were Given (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37988258)

I tried. I tried really hard.

Therefore no more answers.com for me (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 2 years ago | (#37988782)

Why must I be part of a social network in order to log in to a non-social-networking site? Sorry, not worth the hassle to set up a facebook account just to get access to another website...

This spammy site gets used? (1)

MrDiablerie (533142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37988844)

People actually log into answers.com?

666 (1)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 2 years ago | (#37988886)

I'm beginning to think Facebook is the mark of the beast.

This really sucks (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990198)

I have a Facebook account that I *only* use to allow old friends to locate me. I never stay logged in on my account. But, I also like answering programming questions from newbies as a bit of a pay it forward effort. No way will I leave my Facebook account logged in for this crap. I foresee this decision being reversed pretty quickly...unless Facebook dropped some insane amount of cash on them.

Facebook Shmasebook... (1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990986)

I remember when someone said to me that "You HAVE to get a MySpace account". That was in around 2005. I didn't create one. I also don't have a FB account. So, what I'm finding is that more and more things online are REQUIRING to have a FB account. This is very wrong for a few different reasons that don't need to be explained, as they are so obvious. As an example, I tried to send a message to my local PBS station and discovered that their only means of communication was via FB, and had ditched email. I couldn't believe it. I'm a contributing member, yet I couldn't communicate with them unless I did it via FB. Of all organizations, I would imagine that a PBS station would see the irony in that.

I hate this (1)

rabidmuskrat (1070962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991216)

Nowadays with things like OpenId and Disqus, it's very easy for a site to allow users to customize what provider they go through for a login. Restrictions like this seem just plain silly.

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>