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."

30 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. Mad? Really? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've read the linked article a few times and I'm not sure where there is anything to indicate he is mad. Nice use of alliteration though. I did find this article about the difference in growth between the two sites and it has a lot more information about the situation in general, though nothing about Murdoch's reaction. I couldn't find anything more about that - like where and when he said the things they say he said, what the tone was, etc.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Mad? Really? by Hyppy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      FTA:

      Facebook has overtaken rival social network MySpace for the first time - provoking an angry outburst from the man who paid $580m for MySpace only three years ago They don't seem to detail the contents of his outburst, or at least the angry part. However, these lines indicate that the journalist is reporting Rupert Murdoch as "angry", which is closely synonymous with "mad."
    2. Re:Mad? Really? by urbanriot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe Rupert Murdoch wrote conveyed his anger with Facebook's success in REALLY BIG LETTERS!!!111oneoneone

    3. 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

    4. Re:Mad? Really? by InlawBiker · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Murdoch Mostly Mopes; Missing Money Makes Monday More Melancholy."

      Slashdot submission sure sucks.

    5. Re:Mad? Really? by hedwards · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's not true, while I'm not an expert on news, I did spend some time in college studying it.

      As any journalist knows having two extremists from both sides does not constitute balance. It just means that you've got extremists from both sides. No reputable news organization would employ the individuals that Fox news does. The appearance of bias, even if it isn't real, is something which damages the credibility of a network.

      Fox got in trouble because they weren't giving equal air to the other side of issues while at the same time professing to be the most fair and balanced news network on TV. Anybody who's seen the programming knows that's not the case. If it were the case there'd be a more diverse group objecting to it. Rather than just one side of the political spectrum.

      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.

      As far as myspace goes, it was obvious at the time that he over payed for the site. IIRC at the time myspace was hugely popular, but was somewhat lacking in profitability. For it to have been a decent deal, it would have had to have been making at least 40m a year with a strong brand. And as it turned out the brand just wasn't that strong. I'm sure it can still earn a decent profit, but it was a poor investment in the first place.

    6. Re:Mad? Really? by Count+Fenring · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that there's consistent support from the hosts on one side of the debate, thus making it invariably two on one.

      And that's ignoring that their NEWS shows also show rampant bias, poor to nonexistant fact-checking, and deliberate propaganda reporting, as well as just plain dirty tricks (Such as their constant "Obama/Osama" name slip-ups. I'm not saying that they can't have pundits, I'm saying that their regular newscasters, who are positioned as NEWSCASTERS, are engaging in propaganda and punditry while claiming to be delivering factual and unbiased coverage.

      As for Keith Olberman... even while delivering an opinion column, the man has an infinitely better record on vetting his sources and producing factual, correct news than Fox News ever has. That's a bad sign, that is.

    7. Re:Mad? Really? by Cairnarvon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ``Republican'' is synonymous with ``American'' now? Who are you, Joe McCarthy?

    8. Re:Mad? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or maybe he took some photos of himself pouting with a camera held at arms length and used some program to overlay them with sparkly letter lyrics from taking back sunday, describing how much of a self-sacrificing saint (in sepia) he is for a world that just doesn't care.

      Of course he already does this somewhat with the WSJ...

    9. Re:Mad? Really? by monxrtr · · Score: 5, Funny

      CBS. We put the BS in news. What you C, is BS. CBS. News for the BS college graduate.

      --
      "From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
    10. Re:Mad? Really? by billcopc · · Score: 5, Funny

      Duh. The title: "Murdoch fumes as Facebook overtakes MySpace" Yeah, Facebook gives me gas, too! *rimshot*

      (that's right, mod me funny, you know you wanna)

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  2. Post... by mr_nazgul · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe he should rant about it on his Facebook page.

    --
    Good.. Bad.. I'm the guy with the gun.
  3. Maybe it's because by initdeep · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People are tired of being linked to a page that has crappy layout, crappy embedded video or music that plays automatically, is full of lolspeak and/or textype, and is so random that it makes a schizophrenic feel confused.

    oh wait.......

    1. 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
  4. 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.
    1. Re:aargh by vistic · · Score: 5, Funny

      Merge facebook and myspace? Yes! Everyone will want to come on MyFace!

  5. Duh by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 5, Funny

    How could a UI disaster that informs a user who has problems logging in that "you must be logged in to do that?" and that lacks any kind of official published API possibly win?

    --
    Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
  6. 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.

  7. hey murdoch by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    friendster

    xanga

    geocities

    tripod

    etc.

    and don't worry about facebook, in a few short years, it too will be a hasbeen, replaced by whatever site is the new trend

    social networking sites are nothing but trends. they have the limelight for a few years, then they fade. think of them as the bell bottoms and ankle warmers and member's only jackets of the web. here today, master of everything, gone tomorrow, utterly forgotten

    so how do you make money off of them?

    you make money off of social networking sites by becoming extremely powerful, then seducing some tragically unhip media conglomerate to buy you for gabazillions, then you sleep all day and party all night

    so congratulations murdoch, you have a place in "new media" after all: the patsy left holding the bag

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  8. Re:Facebook won't last by cowscows · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All of these sorts of things tend to collapse under their own weight. When they start out, they're being created by people who are passionate about it and doing it because they care/enjoy working on it. Then it grows and more people sign up and suddenly there's a potential for some money to be made exploiting it. And that's what happens. The advertisers and spammers move in in full force, deals are made in order to afford all the new servers needed to keep up with traffic, and more and more people keep joining just because their friends told them they should.

    The ratio of signal to noise gets skewed to the point where it becomes hard to use, and that combined with the general fickleness of people (especially the younger people that make up a significant portion of the userbase), means that the eyeballs go elsewhere. And at the end of the day, nothing that myspace or facebook or any social networking site does is really all that complicated. There are plenty of other websites out there that are offering ways to communicate with other people.

    I'm not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing, but the churn and turn over seems to be pretty consistent. Before facebook everyone talked about myspace. Before myspace everyone talked about orkut. Before orkut everyone talked about livejournal, etc... All those sites still exist, but today facebook is the one that people are writing headlines about. A couple years down the line some new upstart will be getting all the attention. It's just the way it is, and investing in one of these sites like it's going to be the next amazon or google is pretty silly.

    --

    One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  9. minus the google ads by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

    its called craigslist

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  10. Idea by legoman666 · · Score: 5, Funny
    So I was sitting in my cube on this fine Monday afternoon, eating my lunch, when I had a brilliant idea.

    FlashFaceSpace. It will combine the wonderful-nonannoying-awesomeness that is Flash, the unobtrusiveness of Facebook applications, and the customizability of MySpace to create the ultimate social networking site of DEATH. This will blow MySpace, Facebook and every other social networking site out of the water.

  11. just maybe... by moracity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If myspace pages didn't suck so bad, there wouldn't be a problem. I don't even consider Facebook and MySpace rivals. Facebook is so far beyond MySpace, it isn't even worth discussing.

    Facebook's days are numbered, I'm sure. Something will come along to replace it in the next couple of years...unless it is able to evolve.

  12. Re:A shill for the State gets his just deserts by Bedemus · · Score: 5, Funny

    MySpace, though, is the anti-thesis of government. It's about freedom. People don't necessarily realize that, but that's the end result from allowing people to freely communicate, gather and entertain.

    You may want to find a new line of reasoning. I think that argument is more likely to turn someone against freedom than it is to win someone over to MySpace.
  13. Re:Facebook won't last by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Leave me alone.
    Not feeling social?
  14. it was worth the money by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the error is in how murdoch quantified what he was purchasing, the perception of what he was actually getting for his money: the error is in thinking you are buying a permanent piece of major real estate on the web. no, what you are buying is a major marketing and branding tool for a few years... which is indeed still worth $500 million

    for his $500 million, he gets a few years of ad revenue, some "showing soon" movie marketing hype, some cross-branding possibilities, steering a few kids towards a fox reality show, etc. but after a few years run, the site is worth bupkus

    as for facebook's $15 billion, all i can do is laugh. $15 billion?! insane. because facebook too will be worth the gum on my sneaker in a few years. facebook is worth what myspace is worth: $500 million

    zuckerman or zuckerberg or whatever the kids name: he should have sold facebook out. hes going to be like that friendster guy is today in a few years: the friendster guy daily kicks himself in the ass for not selling out when he could have. zuckerdude is thinking he has the next google on his hands. no, he has the next xanga. sell out kid, asap

    thats how you really make money on social networking sites: you sell out to established media conglomerates, and then go play frisbee. to keep a hold of the site, and thinking you are going to become a permanent internet portal, like google, is hubris, arrogance, egotism. unless you are planning to seque into becoming a search engine, and somehow actually take out google... heh, googd luck. but that's the only sound strategy to take if you plan on keeping the social networking site rather than selling out, upping the ante and going for the diamond ring

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  15. Re:Facebook won't last by WilyCoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "All of these sorts of things tend to collapse under their own weight. When they start out, they're being created by people who are passionate about it and doing it because they care/enjoy working on it. Then it grows and more people sign up and suddenly there's a potential for some money to be made exploiting it. "

    You just summed up almost all businesses in general, not just social networking ones.....

  16. MySpace is horribly buggy. FaceBook Isn't by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I have both a MySpace page and a FaceBook page to promote my music. It just takes a glance to distinguish the clean, tasteful design of FaceBook from the garish, ad-ridden MySpace.

    I've had no end of trouble with MySpace. I'm not able to prevent my music from playing when you load my page, even though that's how I set it in my profile. I've always allowed downloads of my MP3s, but at some point they stopped being downloadable. I had to delete them all and re-upload them to get the downloads back.

    I have actually found MySpace pages that had been customized in such a way as to make FireFox crash just by loading the page!

    My only complaint about FaceBook is that it doesn't allow for downloading MP3s - but that's a lack of a desired feature, and not an actual bug.

    Most young people these days are trying out both. I don't think it takes much time for them all to figure out which one is better.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  17. Re:Facebook won't last by deadmantyping · · Score: 5, Informative

    Go to Privacy -> Applications -> Other Applications

  18. 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.