Slashdot Mirror


MySpace's Melting Makes Murdoch Mad

Barence writes "Facebook has overtaken rival social network MySpace for the first time — provoking an angry outburst from Rupert Murdoch, the man who paid $580m for MySpace only three years ago."

11 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. aargh by MrDoh! · · Score: 5, Informative

    No more pirate/vampire/werewolf invitations, please...

    Facebook started off a great site, fast, clean design, it's now incredibly slow and hard todo anything, whereas myspace actually is improving.
    Still waiting for a mybook, or facespace to integrate the messaging.

    --
    Waiting for an amusing sig.
  2. Re:Mad? Really? by gnick · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've read the linked article a few times and I'm not sure where there is anything to indicate he is mad. Duh. The title: "Murdoch fumes as Facebook overtakes MySpace"

    =)

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  3. Re:Facebook won't last by Psx29 · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can actually opt out of the Facebook API entirely and then you won't recieve anymore invites or anything else since the applications can't "see" you.

  4. Re:Maybe it's because by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative
    I have this line in my user CSS:

    A[HREF*="myspace.com"]:after { content: " [BRAIN DAMAGE WARNING]"!important ; color: red }
    It puts a nice read [BRAIN DAMAGE WARNING] after any link to MySpace. I stopped accidentally clicking on them after I added that.
    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. Re:Mad? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    We call it "Faux" news because it is. Learn this: Fox went to court and defended its right to knowingly broadcast untruth as news because the law does not specifically say they can't. Again, in case you still don't get it: Fox defended its right to broadcast lies that they knew were lies.

    And that, among other reasons*, is why it is "faux".

    http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf

    http://www.foxbghsuit.com/

    * blending opinion with news and calling it objective
        putting only one political view on the air and calling themselves "balanced"
        reporting as factual news (and almost verbatim) the "talking points" released by the GOP

  6. Should have spent more money on tech? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't know how bad Facebook is, but think of every story, every complaint you've ever had about Myspace, technology-wise.

    It's worse than that.

    Simple example: Trying to pull tour dates from Myspace. Too much to expect that they'd have a working iCal feed, or that they'd put hCal on the page. Fine, we'll scrape the HTML, no problem...

    No, the real WTF moment was the month (I think, might've been more) during which none of the calendars worked.

    People joke about Twitter being unable to scale, but really, you'd think with the amount of money Myspace pulls in, they'd be able to hire one good tech person? I'm guessing that's a major reason people are going to Facebook.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  7. Re:Mad? Really? by operagost · · Score: 4, Informative

    WTVT is a local Fox affiliate, not the Fox News cable channel. Claiming they are the same is like claiming everything on MSNBC must be biased in favor of Microsoft. FAIL.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  8. Re:Facebook won't last by deadmantyping · · Score: 5, Informative

    Go to Privacy -> Applications -> Other Applications

  9. Re:Facebook won't last by Bieeanda · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's also Greasemonkey and a lovely little script called 'unfuck facebook'. I haven't been bothered by vampires biting me, pirates grabbing my booty, or idiotic shit on my friends' superwalls since I installed it.

  10. Re:Mad? Really? by raddan · · Score: 4, Informative

    But wait-- you're only talking about the final appeal, which Fox New Corp won. What about the earlier trial, in which the jury found that Fox "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news reporting on BGH" and subsequently awarded the plaintiffs (the reporters in question) $425,000. The fact that the case was overturned on appeal, by a technicality, does not change the fact that Fox News Corp's actions were unbecoming (i.e., unethical) of a real journalistic organization. The facts you are looking for can be found in the court documents, which are public record.

  11. Dan Rather by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Just look at the Dan Rather incident, he wasn't even responsible for that content, and he got shit canned for it. Rather's job on the show was to read the news, whatever was given to him and do the show, shows like that never have the anchor do much beyond that and a few interviews."

    That's a crock, sir. Dan Rather was not an innocent bystander in the reporting of that story. He wasn't a stiff mannequin that simply read what the teleprompter told him to say. He was deeply involved in the preparation of that story, and got fired because he refused to refute it, even when evidence proved the documents were faked with a word processor. And to this day, he still defends the writers and fact checkers of that story, all evidence that they screwed up to the contrary.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel