Facebook, Microsoft Team Up Against Google

Pickens writes "In a move that could be the biggest threat to Google's search standing yet, Microsoft and Facebook announced that they're teaming up for social search. When someone uses Bing's search engine to look for a new car or a book, she can see which ones her friends liked. While industry watchers say this is an interesting move for search, what's most notable is that Facebook turned to Microsoft for this deal and not to the market leader, Google. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg says there is a specific reason he wants to go with Bing: 'They really are the underdog here. They're incentivized to go out and innovate. They have all these smart people and are trying to do all these new things.' The real importance of this week's announcement is that it highlights the growing strategic conflict between Facebook and Google, says analyst Ray Valdes. 'There is a battle for the future of the Web, and it is not about search engines, but about the social Web.'"

Comments

Plus.

[PsyciatricHelp]

Plus they gave me a bonus.

Re:Plus.

[Pojut]

Damn your bonus. The divide between Google and Facebook is why the official Facebook app for Android is worth about as much as a lump of coal in place of a roll of toilet paper.

I SAY GOOD DAY, SIR.

Re:Plus.

[poetmatt]

I don't think Microsoft has gotten to the "I'm going to go out of business" part yet, but they appear to be trying to speed it up with facebook.

I wonder how much more they think they can buy marketshare before they fail?

Re:Plus.

[ElectricTurtle]

Reminds me of this comic about why games went XBOX exclusive.

Re:Plus.

[Hylandr]

They can team up all they want, it doesn't mean I will start using Bing. I am pretty sure Google is safe.

Integrating Bing with the FB search function aught to be fairly entertaining.

- Dan.

Re:Plus.

[snowraver1]

Microsoft fail? Good luck with that. They cannot fail; too much of business depends on Windows desktop/servers. If push came to shove, they would get bailout money. Not that they are anywhere close to neededing it....

Why is the parent modded informative? Oh because we hate Microsoft here....

Re:Plus.

[Z00L00K]

Still makes me happy that I don't do Facebook, it seems like FB is one of the greatest threats to privacy these days. Governments use it to track their citizens etc.

Re:Plus.

[nschubach]

Why is the parent modded informative? Oh because we hate Microsoft here....

Why post the question you already know the answer too? Damnit, I just did it too!

Re:Plus.

[Pojut]

Just have to watch what you post. As I said in a story on here yesterday, I don't post anything (including status updates or pictures) I wouldn't want my mother or local police department to know about. I'm also pretty careful about what pictures I appear in, since I have no control what other people do with pictures they've taken.

Re:Plus.

[h4rm0ny]

I'm also pretty careful about what pictures I appear in, since I have no control what other people do with pictures they've taken.

Don't know how you manage that. You can't go to a party, bar or club at all these days without someone wanting to take pictures for Facebook so they can show the world they have friends,

Re:Plus.

[Pojut]

Don't know how you manage that.

Because I'm friends with people who have common sense...they know what is and isn't appropriate to take pictures of ;-)

Re:Plus.

[thtrgremlin]

Too bad I'll never know... not really.

Re:Plus.

[Scragglykat]

But what of their friends? Or the friends in the bunch next to you? You may be the next mustached ponytail wig wearing giant cigar smoking guy in the crowd on someone's Facebook post that is available to anyone!

Re:Plus.

[Pojut]

It's all a matter of the situation you allow yourself to be in. I don't attend parties (LAN or otherwise) that are hosted by someone I don't know, I've never been into the club or bar scene, and during any "compromising" situation I'm in, I'm generally surrounded by people just as paranoid about it as I am.

I guess it all depends on your social circle and where you spend your leisure time, but it isn't as hard as people make it out to be.

Re:Plus.

[Hal_Porter]

I don't attend parties (LAN or otherwise) that are hosted by someone I don't know, I've never been into the club or bar scene, and during any "compromising" situation I'm in, I'm generally surrounded by people just as paranoid about it as I am.

I guess it all depends on your social circle and where you spend your leisure time, but it isn't as hard as people make it out to be.

Those two paragraphs contradict each other.

Re:Plus.

[Pojut]

How do you figure? If people weren't so quick to get themselves piss drunk and then stumble their way home/get behind the wheel of a car, it wouldn't be a problem.

If you're gonna drink (or imbibe any other substance), stay home or go to a friend's place. It's safer, it's cheaper, and it's a helluva lot more fun.

Re:Plus.

[gedw99]

what a load of bollocks.

1. He went to MS, because he know Google have a Social Network in the wings waiting to be launched. So he had no choice expect MS or Yahoo.
2. He did it now because he knows that google will have this style of search functionality as a bare minimum, and so he has to try to competee against the coming asteriod that will be googel Social.
3. He probably got a kick back from MS fro doing it. MS often do deals like this with kickbacks for the other party.

4. Oh and he is a bit of an A*&%#hole from what i hear

Re:Plus.

[Nikker]

I wonder if anyone here remembers who gave good ole FaceBook their legitimacy in 2007 as a multi-million dollar company they have already paid for Zucker mine as well collect.

Re:Plus.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is nowhere even remotely close to failure. they still run an 80% Gross Profit Margin and have a $222 Bn market cap. they will likely be around for a while.

Re:Plus.

[timeOday]

I don't attend parties (LAN or otherwise) that are hosted by someone I don't know, I've never been into the club or bar scene, and during any "compromising" situation I'm in, I'm generally surrounded by people just as paranoid about it as I am.

Good grief, is that what we've come to? You think you're not affected by facebook (because of your "common sense"), but actually it sounds like facebook is controlling your life.

Re:Plus.

[Pojut]

Not really...those "rules" are how I've lived for large portion of my life...Facebook doesn't control my life, but it does keep me sticking to that same way of living.

All I know is that I've never been arrested, fired, or gotten in trouble for something I "shouldn't be doing"...and I've done a hell of a lot of things I "shouldn't be doing." :p

Re:Plus.

[Eirenarch]

True. However if you are not on Facebook that won't stop people from uploading pictures of you or even tagging you so you'd better be on Facebook and get the benefits of using it because you are gonna get the negatives anyway. Also you will at least be informed that these pictures exist and are uploaded.

Re:Plus.

[Scragglykat]

You just aren't famous enough yet... then again, with the extremely outgoing lifestyle you speak of, it can only be a matter of time ;o)

Re:Plus.

[djrosen]

Not to mention that you can choose to control yourself being tagged in a photo. FB will send you notice asking permission if you so choose. Its not a perfect solution but at least when some clicks "Pictures of they wont see that one of you barfing at the fraternity party or peeing in the neighbors pool.

Re:Plus.

[thtrgremlin]

It is also easy to avoid controversy by never doing anything interesting ever, but I will agree that "common sense" is a much more polite term, and probably more socially acceptable. Good call since people that boring typically have nothing better to do than to blog about how upset they got when they were accused of being boring.

Obligatory

Re:Plus.

[david_thornley]

Microsoft is on the way down. Given their size, their cash reserves, and their cash cows, it's one heck of a long way down and it'll take a long time. Not to mention that they still have a lot of very smart people, so they could still do something spectacular and reverse the trend.

Re:Plus.

[Anonymous Coward]

he is a bit of an A*&%#hole from what i hear

From what I've heard, he's not an asshole, he just tries eally hard to be.. :)

-AC

Re:Plus.

[poetmatt]

hahahah. You think MS isn't going downhill? Have you looked at all of their markets?

windows share: going down
windows server share: going down
office share: going down
mobile share: nonexistent
profits: down

what's left again?

Re:Plus.

[poetmatt]

wow, I suppose MS probably owns facebook, huh

Re:Plus.

[Nikker]

I doubt they own FB but I can just about guarantee there was a long piece of paper that had to be signed before they signed the check.

Re:Plus.

[the_B0fh]

err, WTF? Has social norm changed in such a way that behaving *STUPIDLY* is now OK, and *NOT BEHAVING STUPIDLY* is considered paranoid?!

Re:Plus.

[Man Eating Duck]

what's left again?

A revenue most companies can only dream about. And it'll be quite significant still for a long, long time.

Re:Plus.

[gmhowell]

According to that link, they have a $240 billion equity position.

Google - Diaspora

[SoTerrified]

So is this a deliberate attempt for Facebook to allocate resources towards Diaspora? Are they deliberately fueling the two headed monster that will replace them?

Re:Google - Diaspora

[dx40sh]

Don't worry, shortly after Diaspora comes out, it'll get sued for IP/patent infringement or something. Because you know that somebody has a patent for something that could be construed as a social network, and they're leaving Facebook alone because they're being paid to do so.

Re:Google - Diaspora

[Anonymous Coward]

or Appleseed

http://opensource.appleseedproject.org/

Re:Google - Diaspora

[Abcd1234]

LOLFR, diaspora replacing Facebook...

Wait, you *are* joking, right?

Re:Google - Diaspora

[Americano]

Um... what relationship exactly to google & diaspora have?

One is a commercially successful advertising company that makes a huge amount of money off of showing you 'focused' advertising everywhere you go online.

The other is a half-step better than vaporware, with no appreciably functional software, and whose only claim to fame is that they were, for 20 minutes, a media darling because they were "gonna take on teh big bad facebook," and what they delivered was incomplete, buggy, and by all reports, lacking the most basic security features which should have been part of the initial design from the start.

Last I checked, Google has its own social network, too: Orkut, and to a lesser extent, Buzz. Orkut, while successful in some regions of the world, shows no signs of displacing Facebook in FB's major markets any time soon, and Buzz is more like Twitter than it is like FB.

So how exactly is FB pairing with MS going to bring about the end of Facebook? Who's going to allocate all their resources towards Diaspora again?

Oh dear...

[ocularsinister]

I really am regretting ever creating a Facebook account. If things carry on in this direction, I shall delete the thing soon.

Re:Oh dear...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I shall delete the thing soon.

That's what you think.

Regards,
Mark Z.

Re:Oh dear...

[causality]

I really am regretting ever creating a Facebook account. If things carry on in this direction, I shall delete the thing soon.

Those of us who found serious problems (mainly privacy-related) with Facebook from the very beginning, decided not to participate at all, and said so, tended to catch some flak for it. As in, something other than a well-reasoned rebuttal to the position. Usually this was in the form of someone's personal offense that I would point out a flaw in their favorite new service, or that I would steadfastly value the privacy they seem to have given up on.

"If things carry on in this direction" indeed. I think this is like many political proposals. People tend to look at short-term effects without considering that these represent movement in a particular direction. The path that the momentum is taking can be identified early on and the destination can be known long before the end of that path is reached. It is something of a law of nature that events tend to unfold, to evolve, to become more so, to continue along their current direction in a straight line unless some counter-force alters that path. The longer something goes on the more inertia it accumulates; the more inertia it has the greater that counter-force (or backlash) must be to have any effect.

I for one identified early on that Facebook and similar sites appeal to a form of vanity I do not personally possess. Even if I did find that tempting, vanity is not a rational reason to participate in something. They do this while coming with disadvantages I find unacceptable, such as the loss of control over any personal information posted there (read their privacy policies, they make this quite clear) and the extensive use of personal information for tracking and marketing purposes. As another poster has pointed out in reply to you, you have no real assurance that your account is ever truly deleted even after going through a needlessly complex process to request that this be done.

The pattern here is a valuable one to recognize and simplicity itself. When many proponents of something display that kind of denigrating personal offense when you question the purpose or usefulness of that thing, and resent that you question it rationally at all, it should be a red flag. I've rarely or never seen anyone do that when the object in question is an inherently good or useful thing that can stand on its own merits. The regret you express can be described as a lesson about popularity, trend, and bandwagon appeal and the unwarranted power these can have over your decision-making. To be sure, it is a valuable one.

Re:Oh dear...

[pspahn]

Getting rid of this stuff takes digitular fortitude.

Re:Oh dear...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do it! Do it! Do it!

Re:Oh dear...

[srussia]

I really am regretting ever creating a Facebook account. If things carry on in this direction, I shall delete the thing soon.

The number one search hint when entering "dele" into the Google toolbar is "delete facebook account". Coincidence?

Re:Oh dear...

[interval1066]

Yeah, your in for a Chinese puzzle trying to delete your facebook account. This is why when ever I take a social media app for a test run I create my account with totally bogus, useless information other than an email account I use only for non-professional friends. Good luck with that.

Re:Oh dear...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I for one identified early on that Facebook and similar sites appeal to a form of vanity I do not personally possess.
Even if I did find that tempting, vanity is not a rational reason to participate in something.

Perhaps the reason you caught flak was really for such a snooty attitude.

While narcissism may be a motivator for some users of facebook, it can hardly be said that vanity is the draw.
The ability to easily connect (and reconnect) with friends present and past is quite valuable to most regular people.
The price may be too high and too hidden, but that doesn't make the value provided any less meaningless.

Re:Oh dear...

[wealthychef]

The pattern here is a valuable one to recognize and simplicity itself. When many proponents of something display that kind of denigrating personal offense when you question the purpose or usefulness of that thing, and resent that you question it rationally at all, it should be a red flag. I've rarely or never seen anyone do that when the object in question is an inherently good or useful thing that can stand on its own merits. The regret you express can be described as a lesson about popularity, trend, and bandwagon appeal and the unwarranted power these can have over your decision-making.

At the risk of being a Troll and Flamebait, I must say you have described organized religion rather well there. Intentional?

Re:Oh dear...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no problem with privacy on Facebook if you follow 1 simple rule:

Don't post stuff you don't want other people to share.

And I don't care what they say about saving your email credintials, never put them in.

Re:Oh dear...

[Anonymous Coward]

The pattern here is a valuable one to recognize and simplicity itself. When many proponents of something display that kind of denigrating personal offense when you question the purpose or usefulness of that thing, and resent that you question it rationally at all, it should be a red flag. I've rarely or never seen anyone do that when the object in question is an inherently good or useful thing that can stand on its own merits.

Ever heard teenagers argue over "Ford" vs "Chevy"? I suppose these days it's one piece of Japanese crap versus some other piece of Japanese crap, but the concept is the same. Further back they probably argued over their brand of codpiece. Most people don't like their opinions challenged.

Re:Oh dear...

[nschubach]

You'll have to forgive me if this no longer works (can't check right now,) but it was:

https://ssl.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account

Re:Oh dear...

[UnknowingFool]

I for one identified early on that Facebook and similar sites appeal to a form of vanity I do not personally possess. Even if I did find that tempting, vanity is not a rational reason to participate in something.

Well sometimes it's not "vanity". Yes, there are people who are only in it to be followed. These people also have twitter accounts. But there is also the social aspect. I have a large family all over the country. I don't think I could keep up with them nearly as well if I didn't have Facebook. Just looking photos of my nieces over the years is worth it for me to be on Facebook. Yes, I could create a family website, but administering a website isn't something I (nor anyone else in the familiy) wants to do.

Re:Oh dear...

[Prune]

"vanity is not a rational reason to participate in something"

Every motivation of a human always ultimately reduces to something that cannot be rationally justified. Reason only can say whether a given way to get to some goal is rational, but the goal setting itself (major goals, not sub-goals) is always a 100% subjective thing.

Re:Oh dear...

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one identified early on that Facebook and similar sites appeal to a form of vanity I do not personally possess.

Yes, yes, you're very humble in your four rambling paragraphs whose point boils down to, "Unlike you plebes, I'm very smart and have foresight. FACE."

You signed up for Facebook like you were skulking onto a yacht
Your tinfoil fedora dipped below one eye
Your scarf it was apricot
You had one eye in the mirror as you posted what's on your mind
And all the girls dreamed that they'd get to poke you
They'd get to poke you, and...

You're so vain, you think Zuckerberg cares about you -
You're so vain, you probably think Facebook will out you -
Don't you? Don't you?

They had you several years ago when you were still quite naive
Well they said that you could trust them
and that they would never betray

But they sold some user data, and one of the pictures showed you
You had to deal with the fallout, deal with the fallout and...

You're so vain, you think Zuckerberg cares about you -
You're so vain, you probably think that Facebook will out you -
Don't you? Don't you?

Re:Oh dear...

[Anonymous Coward]

In your world. In my world, I make business contacts on Facebook, which helped net me my last job.

Re:Oh dear...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, trust me, you can try and patiently and kindly explain it and people, sensing perhaps that they don't quite understand what's going on but you might be right, often throw an irrational fit.

I think it's really about gratification, it's easier to get invited to parties/events and feel like people want to hear the inane details of your lives that only close friends and family members will normally make time for.

Usually I hear, "I don't care about that stuff," then you read about people losing their jobs over it, because they had no caution whatsoever. Right or wrong, it's reality today and may or may not be reality for some time to come (eventually it's possible that one day no one will give a crap, but no one was supposed to care about weed by now either and it seems all those 60s hippies are mostly opposed to it these days so I can't really venture to guess which way this one will go).

And here's the main thing, when something like this is happening, it's an uneven playing field. It's hard to protect yourself even if you have a concept of data mining (most people don't), you still are not an expert and don't know what common algos will be able to do in 15 years with this stuff. You could be turning yourself into a pariah in 20 years that has a harder time finding a job than a convicted felon does today.

Re:Oh dear...

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Don't post stuff you don't want other people to share.

Except they plan to share your search results on a seemingly unrelated search website with your friends.

Re:Oh dear...

[Alef]

"The price may be too high and too hidden, but it's not that that doesn't make the value provided any less meaningless."?

Fixed the negation parity for you.

Re:Oh dear...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could have changed "meaningless" to "meaningful".

Re:Oh dear...

[Steve Hamlin]

And yet here you are telling us your thoughts, hoping that we'll read them and care. Is using the FB platform to communicate fundamentally different than Slashdot? Not vain? Just keep telling yourself that.

Re:Oh dear...

[Anonymous Coward]

Too long. Didn't read.

Re:Oh dear...

[Anonymous Coward]

The ability to easily connect (and reconnect) with friends present and past is quite valuable to most regular people.
The price may be too high and too hidden, but that doesn't make the value provided any less meaningless.

I think that's the real reason I'm not involved in facebook.I don't care about past friends.

  I don't keep friends for long periods of time. Eventually I feel they kind of hold me back, or choke my personal growth. People who use facebook are the complete opposite. "Hey man, remember when we were in elementary school? Yeah, that was awesome. We both liked eating glue. Want to hang out?" No, dude. I don't really share anything in common with you now, and eating glue was something everyone did. It was just a phase. I'm about as interested in eating glue with you as I am about sharing a beer with you next Thursday. No, I don't care that you got married and currently live wherever.

As for current friends...I maintain phone, email, face-to-face etc contact with them. What's the point of facebook? So other people can observe, or god forbid a corporate/ government entity can check in on it? Meh. Or is it really that important to me that somewhere on the internet there is a web page showing that not only have we confirmed that we know each other, but that we both like Firefly and shitty local bands? I mean really. what. the. fuck.

Re:Oh dear...

[causality]

Perhaps the reason you caught flak was really for such a snooty attitude.

I call things what they are. If that doesn't please you, you'll just have to be unpleased. You can pretend to know something as complex as my attitude without knowing anything about me personally if that makes you feel justified in your displeasure. That too is a form of vanity, and would handily explain why two lines out of my multi-paragraph post seem to have struck a nerve of yours.

Moving on past your attempt to make a discussion about Facebook into a personal matter, I'll respond to your reasoning.

While narcissism may be a motivator for some users of facebook, it can hardly be said that vanity is the draw. The ability to easily connect (and reconnect) with friends present and past is quite valuable to most regular people.

Pictures of yourself at a drunken party are not necessary to let your friends find you. Neither are posts about the minutia of day-to-day life. Nor are pictures and writings that put yourself in a compromising position. Yet how many "news" stories keep appearing about people who suffer in some way for posting these things? You can find "news" about everything from employers who deny jobs to robbers who break into houses based on information someone willingly posted to Facebook.

The price may be too high and too hidden, but that doesn't make the value provided any less meaningless.

If it's hidden, it is not hidden very well. How hard is it to understand that posting personal information to the very most public of places, the global Internet, might have negative repercussions? Not very. After the very first news story about someone who irresponsibly posted personal information and suffered for it, why do such large numbers of people continue to repeat their mistakes? Are they learning-disabled? Possibly, but the sheer numbers of them make another explanation more likely.

It so happens that there is a more likely explanation that fits the facts. Any rational evaluation that the most average of persons is capable of performing would lead to two very easy conclusions: a) the Internet is an extremely public place that is very good at retaining information and b) if you repeat the mistakes of others you can expect to suffer the same fate that they did. It doesn't get much simpler than that. So how do large numbers of people keep failing the simplest of rational decision-making exercises? That's easy. They are not using rational thought processes because they are motivated by something that is not rational. That irrational "something" is easily identified: vanity.

Perhaps you don't like that. To tell you the truth, I'm not precisely thrilled about it myself. Yet the situation didn't ask for my approval before it happened, and I suspect it didn't require yours either. As I explained, I call things what they are. My reasoning here is sound. If I have committed a logical fallacy or other error in my reasoning, you'd do me a favor by pointing it out. If you can't do that, personal attacks will neither add to nor subtract from one thing I've said.

Re:Oh dear...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

My reasoning here is sound. If I have committed a logical fallacy or other error in my reasoning, you'd do me a favor by pointing it out. If you can't do that, personal attacks will neither add to nor subtract from one thing I've said.

Your logical fallacy is assuming that I was attacking you in the first place.
I call things what they are - your attitude about the uselessness of facebook is snooty, judgmental and totally dismissive of the value that half a billion people have found in it. Your entire argument about a pattern of red flags was predicated on the assumption that you were being attacked with no rational basis - I showed you the reason -- a reason you have reinforced with your response -- you just can't accept it because you are at least as colored by irrationality as the people you criticize.

Re:Oh dear...

[novium]

And when was "the very beginning"? When it first started? When it was some new cool thing on a few campuses? Or 2006ish, when it actually started pinging the public consciousness? Original flavor facebook didn't really seem to have any huge privacy red flags. At least not at the time.

Re:Oh dear...

[novium]

You win at life.

Re:Oh dear...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about facebook, haven't had the gumption to delete my account yet, but myspace was nigh IMPOSSIBLE to delete. I literally had to give my login information to /b/, because four rounds of goatse as my profile pic (with Tom tagged as the asshole) didn't get my account deleted. I had all my friends on myspace report my account as well, it simply doesn't matter. They make money off of that data existing, and it will not go away without literally compomising every other user on the service.

Re:Oh dear...

[Alef]

Obviously, but that would have spoiled the humor of it.

Re:Oh dear...

[causality]

My reasoning here is sound. If I have committed a logical fallacy or other error in my reasoning, you'd do me a favor by pointing it out. If you can't do that, personal attacks will neither add to nor subtract from one thing I've said.

Your logical fallacy is assuming that I was attacking you in the first place. I call things what they are - your attitude about the uselessness of facebook is snooty, judgmental and totally dismissive of the value that half a billion people have found in it. Your entire argument about a pattern of red flags was predicated on the assumption that you were being attacked with no rational basis - I showed you the reason -- a reason you have reinforced with your response -- you just can't accept it because you are at least as colored by irrationality as the people you criticize.

Actually you judged me because you didn't like the basis of my reasoning. If I thought that those with the particular weakness of vanity were inferior to me (and my own particular weaknesses) then I'd have to concede that you were right and I was indeed "snooty". However, that isn't the case.

You decided to assume that I cannot call something "vanity" without viewing myself as superior to it. That is something you cannot know but can only assume. When you assume that at all, and then decide to go with the more negative assumption that is available, you are conducting a personal attack whether or not you realize it. Whether you can appreciate the irony/hypocrisy of judging me while accusing me of judging others is not my concern.

You're also trying to assert something about me personally and put me into the position of proving a negative. That's clever, but the burden of proof is on the accuser and in this case, that's you. It is your problem. As for me, my preference would have been to stick to the facts and reasoning and talk about Facebook instead of talking about each other.

Here's the part you seem to be missing: if Facebook users universally praised me and thought I was the greatest guy ever, it wouldn't change my perception of why they use Facebook. To say that my argument was "predicated on the assumption that [I was] being attacked with no rational basis" is to assume I am petty enough to regard something as true or false based on whether people like to hear it. No, I think Facebook appeals to the vanity in people whether or not someone gets irrationally offended at me for pointing that out.

It just so happens that some of them do get irrationally offended and it doesn't take a genius to understand why they might. But to fixate on that and then make this personally about me is to completely miss my point. Additionally it's terrible form. Most of my interactions with you have been of much higher quality than this.

The truth is, saying that Facebook appeals to a sort of vanity (or egotism if you like) is like saying that Budweiser appeals to people who want to drink. The difference is that the drinker will say "well yeah, that's why I didn't buy non-alcoholic beer" while the Facebook user is likely to get upset.

There is a battle for the future of...

[Dystopian Rebel]

There is a battle for the future of the Web, and it is not about search engines, but about the social Web

There is a battle for the future of people's *privacy*. On one side, ordinary people. On the other side, spooks and profiteers who tell us that "privacy doesn't matter".

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[GodfatherofSoul]

You left out the hordes of people who don't care about their privacy any more. I've been watching with mouth agape as we're all treating Total Information Awareness as a "feature".

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[Sarten-X]

...And on the other other side, people like me, who know that a certain amount of privacy is actually useful, and a certain amount of personally-identifiable information is perfectly fine to give away without worrying about consequences. It takes some effort to maintain separate sets of public vs. private information, but it's possible to keep them separate.

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[Ephemeriis]

There is a battle for the future of the Web, and it is not about search engines, but about the social Web

There is a battle for the future of people's *privacy*. On one side, ordinary people. On the other side, spooks and profiteers who tell us that "privacy doesn't matter".

That is not where I would have drawn the line...

I would have said we had ordinary people on one side, and paranoid privacy geeks on the other side.

I'm not going to say that "privacy doesn't matter"... But our idea of privacy is a fairly modern invention. Move out to a small town and you'll quickly see what a lack of privacy really is. Everybody knows what everybody else is doing. Doesn't matter if you're on Facebook or not. It's just the relatively recent migration to large cities where you can get lost in the crowd that has created this idea of privacy.

Which isn't a bad thing. I like my privacy, personally.

But it isn't like Facebook/Google/Bing/Big Brother/whatever are eroding this ancient and mighty establishment called "privacy".

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[gstewart]

And Facebook recently "upgraded" their security settings to supposedly "tighten" the privacy configuration on user profiles... Are they going to add a security setting that let's me choose to have my profile information and photos *excluded* from the Bing searches? I should hope so.

I have a hard enough time yelling at my 'friends' not to copy and repost my photos without proper security on their own profiles, and have partly resorted to watermarking all my images with my copyright to help tell people whose images they really are.

But, I would certainly drop the FB account if my photos end up in a search engine (and listen here, Facebook, I would know exactly where they came from!)

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[Anonymous Coward]

I value my convenience more than I value my privacy. I also consider privacy more to be my right not to be contacted by anyone I don't explicitly allow than my right not to have things known about me.

I don't care if you have my address, but I do want a federal Do Not Mail list.

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[SudoGhost]

On one side, computer nerds, not ordinary people. On the other side, spooks and profiteers who tell us that "privacy doesn't matter". In the middle are the people who like farms and mafias and whatnot.

If more people know/cared about their privacy being constantly probed, there would be more of an uproar, and it wouldn't be as profitable to gather such information. But most people don't understand how it works.

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[edmicman]

In that context it doesn't really seem like you have true privacy but instead have too many people to keep track of what all of your contacts are doing. Essentially Facebook and its ilk bring that small town 'everybody knows what everyone else is doing' and scales it.

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous Coward LIKES this!

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[Anonymous Coward]

Move out to a small town and you'll quickly see what a lack of privacy really is. Everybody knows what everybody else is doing.

I have lived in a town of 500 and now live in one of 5000. My experience contradicts yours. Big time. In fact, in the smaller town, it was harder for anybody to see me except for some half blind neighbors. Now, it may be easier to disseminate information about me to people who care in a small town, however, I had better control of that information from the get go.

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[Dystopian Rebel]

I would have said we had ordinary people on one side, and paranoid privacy geeks on the other side.

That Nader... what a Paranoid Safety Geek. This notion of families not dying in flaming wreckage or not being flung out of windows is a fairly modern invention.

Now, it's not such a bad thing. I personally like not being flung out the window or dying in a flaming wreck of incompetent engineering. Others may have a different opinion. I'm open-minded.

You don't appear to see who is attacking whom, nor what's at stake. Eric Schmidt himself publically admitted what profiteers are doing. And what the spooks can do isn't a figment of paranoid imagination. Your "small-town" analogy is weak but I'll let you think about it.

Your rights as a citizen and the US Consitution are also fairly recent inventions that you personally may like.

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[Americano]

Sounds like you're a paranoid shut-in, then.

I grew up in a pretty small town - about 7000 people. Everybody knew everybody else's business. The barber, the school teachers, the police, the pharmacist... lots of routes for gossip, and not a lot of people to gossip about. Word gets around unless you make a REALLY concerted effort to shut yourself off from everybody in your community, and then you're "the weird shut-in guy. We hear he tortures animals, or maybe builds bombs, but we're not sure."

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[iamhigh]

Except that in that little town, you have to drive past my house to see my status. You have to spend a few hours BSing with locals to find out the gossip. It takes WORK to invade privacy. That work has been reduced thanks to the same technology that has reduced the work of communication and interacting with others.

A city gives privacy through a type of anonymity. A rural town give privacy through difficutly to obtain and spread information and the difficulty in retaining said information with accuracy for long periods. Privacy has always existed. Society has continually reduced privacy.

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[Anonymous Coward]

At LinkedIn, they are removing basic features to force you to pay for your privacy. Seems to be that all of the social networks, even the professional-oriented ones, care more about profits than users. They should realize that by focusing on their users, the profits will come.

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[TheGratefulNet]

ONLY small towns have this lack of privacy, you talk about. medium and large towns do not have the 'everyone knows everyone' trait. on the other side of the spectrum, you can move farther away from towns (even small ones) and get privacy.

the notion that 'we never had any' is being sold to us that (surprise, surprise!) have the most to win by convincing us that we don't NEED our valuable privacy anymore.

but human beings naturally want their 'space' and their privacy. this bill of goods of 'its gone and never coming back due' is being hoisted on us, not by ourselves, but by those who have the most to gain by taking it from us.

this is a golden time in the history of mankind to create some laws to protect us against ourselves. yes, that's what most laws are, anyways; protecting us from the bad side of human nature. well, this encroachment IS a very nasty side of human nature.

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Hahahahahahaha! I really doubt that you have ever lived in a small town for very long. Either that or you lived there and spent so much time withdrawn from the other residents that you didn't really know what is going on.

Except that in that little town, you have to drive past my house to see my status. You have to spend a few hours BSing with locals to find out the gossip. It takes WORK to invade privacy.

While the first two sentences are correct, the last one is a false classification. In small towns, there is so little to do that none of the locals consider it work to sit around and BS the day away, or to cruise around town and see what everyone is up to. That's pretty much the common past time. It takes a lot more work for small town residents to come up with some grand, glorious adventure for the weekend because they actually have to coordinate it and round everyone up.

A rural town give privacy through difficutly to obtain and spread information and the difficulty in retaining said information with accuracy for long periods.

The first rule of living in a small town: "Never underestimate how fast Aunt Mae can call the other fives town gossips, one of which will inevitably be married to the mayor or the preacher." Also, accuracy of information is completely irrelevant when it comes to the ability of a small town to violate your privacy. If word gets out you're gay, you're fucked. Whether you're gay or not makes absolutely no difference to them.

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[_Sprocket_]

I'm not going to say that "privacy doesn't matter"... But our idea of privacy is a fairly modern invention. Move out to a small town and you'll quickly see what a lack of privacy really is. Everybody knows what everybody else is doing. Doesn't matter if you're on Facebook or not. It's just the relatively recent migration to large cities where you can get lost in the crowd that has created this idea of privacy.

While that's all very interesting in historical perspective, how does that apply to here and now? If you want to stretch out history, you can find all manner of modern notions that we hold dear. Things like human rights and civil liberties. Adjust your scale and you can look at any aspect of today as being a modern notion. Adjusting that scale is interesting as part of a history lesson. But it has very limited use in dealing with modern issues and politics.

But it isn't like Facebook/Google/Bing/Big Brother/whatever are eroding this ancient and mighty establishment called "privacy".

What is new is that this is being done on a scale and to a degree that's beyond any other time in history. Processing power and storage capacity has made it economical to store and cross-reference every piece of data that can be collected.

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you understand the concept that in a small town all your neighbors know you are doing, BUT you know what they are doing (Do you know what facebook is doing behind their facade?) and your neighbors aren't selling what they do about you to out of town retailers and spooks (As facebook, Mysapce and the rest of the garbabge "social network" are doing). Quite the contrary in a small town an outsider asking for information about a neighbor will typical get you a visit from the local police

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[Jyms]

... Move out to a small town and you'll quickly see what a lack of privacy really is. Everybody knows what everybody else is doing. Doesn't matter if you're on Facebook or not. ...

First, everything in said small town is moderated (through gossip) and not searchable verifiable fact. This can be both good and bad. Second, because people know the limits of their privacy, they tend to behave in a much more conservative manner.

***Disclaimer*** I grew up in a small town, lived in the city for 20 years and just moved back to a small town.

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[Pteraspidomorphi]

I think the point you're all missing is that while in a small town everyone knows everyone else and there's a certain degree of awareness of what everyone else is up to (I live in a small town myself), you, being a part of that 'everyone', should have that awareness too. You know who the people in your community are and a few things about them, even if you aren't into gossip. If Aunt Mae thinks you're gay, you can try to sort it out with those people - this small amount of people which are people you yourself know - or you can move elsewhere, or you can even let it be known that Aunt Mae is a lesbian and then sit back and have a quiet chuckle.

This can't possibly be compared with the degree to which facebook and other such services erode your privacy. They do so on a global scale. Faster than wildfire, everything about you is sold or transmitted to complete strangers everywhere in the world and stored in databanks, public and private, for a long, long time. In this situation, if you're screwed, you truly are screwed forever.

Re:There is a battle for the future of...

[Anonymous Coward]

Move out to a small town and you'll quickly see what a lack of privacy really is. Everybody knows what everybody else is doing. Doesn't matter if you're on Facebook or not. It's just the relatively recent migration to large cities where you can get lost in the crowd that has created this idea of privacy.

I can leave my small city. What you can do about your data stored and secured in facebook's multiple disks?

People use Bing?

[smooth wombat]

When we install IE7* at work and are prompted on first use, we change the default search to Google.

Bing is utter crap.

Ok, maybe mom and dad who were told they had to upgrade to continue using the web don't know any better, but surely people with the smallest amount of common sense change to Google (or something other than Bing).

*We have to use IE7 because many of our apps, including our multi-million dollar black hole ERP project using Oracle, won't run on IE8

Re:People use Bing?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Bing is utter crap.

Maybe in general, but their "birds eye view" perspective in their mapping section kicks google's ass. I think google is trying to catch up, but it was too buggy to even work when I tried what sounded like the google equivalent.

Re:People use Bing?

[denis-The-menace]

Why not use IE frame extension in FF?

Use FF and when you need to use the "multi-million dollar black hole ERP" web app, it switches to using IE's rendering engine in a FF tab.

Or am I being too optimistic?

Re:People use Bing?

[kiwimate]

Bing is utter crap.

Why? Seems to work pretty well for me.

Ahem - "surely people with the smallest amount of common sense don't use Google more than they can help because of fears of how much data is being gathered by Google". I contend that's just as legitimate/silly an issue.

Re:People use Bing?

[dgun]

A multi-million dollar "thing" breaks between IE7 and IE8? Excuse me while I lolz.

Re:People use Bing?

[mnrasul]

including our multi-million dollar black hole ERP project using Oracle, won't run on IE8

SAP ERP?

Re:People use Bing?

[Shikaku]

There's no official MSI version for remote installation and upgrading, nor can you install extensions remotely.

(You can deploy a portable version that does the same thing and is a simple copy and paste but I digress. But that's not easily upgradable anyway.)

Re:People use Bing?

[denis-The-menace]

I bet if Chrome had an MSI package, an "IE Tab" extension and a was to install extensions remotely, FF will be locked-out of corps and IE would finally die.

The Firefox "MSI bug" is now 6 years old.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=231062

It seems Mozilla is waffling between using Wix (to get a TRUE MSI package) and just using MSI as a wrapper. Meanwhile nobody on the outside cares which way they swing.

Disclaimer: I package MSIs for a living.

Re:People use Bing?

[Monchanger]

That "in general" is where Google has won every single time, and why Microsoft fails time and time again to remain relevant. A single feature does not innovation make, nor will this minor feature matter to anybody who isn't shallow. Might as well argue that you prefer Microsoft's color scheme or fonts.

As long as Microsoft continues to launch unsuccessful products despite massive advertising campaigns, they will continue to stagnate and fall further behind Google and Apple.

Re:People use Bing?

[Boelcke]

Hm, it seems so many big companies like to spend millions of dollars on ERP disasters.

Still, it does seem simple to insert a tag to force IE8 to render in IE7mode. It would let everyone upgrade to IE8 on their PCs, which has to be worth some bonus points.

The EmulateIE7 tag below forces IE8 to render in IE7 mode (when enclosed in proper brackets)
meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7"

Re:People use Bing?

[MyLongNickName]

Bing is utter crap.

Why? Seems to work pretty well for me.

Because Bill Gates is evil and Ballmer snacks on the brains of disabled orphans.

Re:People use Bing?

[Omestes]

Its gets funnier. My girlfriend works a gigantic corporation (in the top 20 in the US), and she is forced to use IE 6, or all their legacy apps die. Recently they also installed a completely locked down copy of Firefox on their network, which is only for, and can only open, a single online app that was smart enough to kill their IE6 compatibility.

At least we think it is just for the legacy app, though we may be wrong since the street-level tech people are also flummoxed and (justifiably) annoyed.

On the bright side, from the corporations point of view, eventually they won't have to block most of the internet, since it won't work with their ancient browser. I keep asking her to present Netscape Navigator 4 as an alternative.

Re:People use Bing?

[doktor-hladnjak]

Bing has come a long way since the days of Live Search and MSN Search.

Re:People use Bing?

[nschubach]

And I dislike most packaged MSIs... which may be what you are referring to, but I only use them in passing as I promised myself to never use it to distribute anything... ever.

1. Symantec Endpoint Protection (only one so far that I've run into this with, but I have seen others mentioned looking for the solution) - Start the install, hit cancel... it comes back, over and over. Killing the task? Nope, Windows update kicks it off again. You have to download a special tool from MS to clear the install settings that keep firing it off.

2. Delete the $<installfolder> from the WINNT Folder because, well... it's my folder and if I want space on my system partition I'm going to delete it. Good luck uninstalling the app that somehow needs these folders to delete itself. (Same with WINNT\Installer) Where's that special tool to clean up after MSI installs again... man I need to keep that thing handy!

3. Why do I need a service running to install programs? Seriously. Just copy some files to the folder I, the user, specify and keep out of the folders I do not... make shortcuts (again, in the folder I specify.) Done.

MSI files make me cringe every time I see one because you never know what they are going to do to your system.

Re:People use Bing?

[smooth wombat]

No. It is used to replace our mainframe operations which ran our merchandising operations. All of our apps were home-grown and trying to maintain/upgrade them had become a spaghetti of code and incomplete/invalid information.

The powers that be decided on Oracle to replace the mainframe operations and brought in Deloitte Consulting to do the upgrade.

So far we're at $80 million and counting and the software is not as functional or easy to use as the previous operations were. Nor is the transformation done.

Re:People use Bing?

[nwf]

Bing's mapping is way, way better than Google. We just took a long car trip and Google's directions were 60 minutes longer than Bing due to poor route selection (i.e. it's better to stay on the freeway a little longer than save a few miles on a very twisty and slow side road.) I was rather in awe at how bad Google's mapping is these days, with my 4 year old car GPS doing a better job locally. It took them 18 months to recognize our new ZIP code, deciding to place us in Denmark or something (when we live in the states.)

Re:People use Bing?

[devent]

Bing's map should use Openstreetmap, because the free service is way better then the map from MS. And the 3D/Birds eye view is not supported in FF anyway. It's really beta anyway, because I just typed in "New York" and it shows me an empty page. If I click on the orange search button the map flashes for one second but then I see the empty page again.

Re:People use Bing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah that search thing is only a minor part of Yahoo. This 'Google' upstart won't diminish their importance at all. Wait, what are we talking about again?

Re:People use Bing?

[frogzilla]

I didn't know about this but just tried it. The interface change faked me out for a moment but it does indeed have good images from different points of view for the area around my house. These are several years old (2005 I think) aerial photos that are also available from a local government mapping site.

Re:People use Bing?

[Anonymous Coward]

  True - and yet the market sentiment equating Microsoft as the "cheese-level to graduate from once you know better" continues as strong as ever.

Re:People use Bing?

[Rasperin]

Does she also live in Canada where none of your friends can meet her. Yet you are constantly promising she exists, you may even have a picture too!

Re:People use Bing?

[MyLongNickName]

I am particularly amused by the 'redundant' moderation.

Re:People use Bing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bing's mapping is way, way better than Google.

Hee hee. As someone who develops mapping applications, I can tell you this is the funniest and stupidest shit I've heard all week.

Thank you, good sir, for the hearty laugh.

Re:People use Bing?

[david_thornley]

Man, just check for his girlfriend on FB. Everybody's on there.

"Social Web" is...

[grepya]

...the "Push" of this decade.

Re:"Social Web" is...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the "Push" of this decade.

It's actually a wonderful analogy. The social web traps the bugs (read: users) and allows the spiders (read: companies) to suck them dry. Eventually the social web gets tangled, and a new spider comes along to spin more line.

Re:"Social Web" is...

[denis-The-menace]

Where are my Mod points when I need them!

and why would I want this?

[txoof]

I'm not sure why I would want this feature. What are the advantages? Would I not have already sought out my "expert" friends for their opinions? Then again, I hate the like features of Facebook. It's the least "social" gesture one can make.

Re:and why would I want this?

[jonescb]

I've always wondered why they don't have a dislike option as well.

Re:and why would I want this?

[Allicorn]

Most folks/corporations/ip-rights-holders don't mind being "liked". But if you publicise loudly enough that you "dislike" them, they might sue to stop you.

As a consumer, you are only allowed two votes: Consent or Abstain. There is no Dissent.

Eventually there'll be no Abstain.

Re:and why would I want this?

[Sponge Bath]

Each item should have a red, yellow, and green button.
Green = Like
Red = Dislike
Yellow = indifferent but desperately lonely

Re:and why would I want this?

[McGruber]

As a consumer, you are only allowed two votes: Consent or Abstain. There is no Dissent.

Also, 'Consent' or 'Abstain' are the only allowed votes that shareholders get.

Re:and why would I want this?

[Omestes]

This was my first impression as well. I suppose I'm not sufficiently "social", or my parents steered me away from the "popularity is the be all end all" high school mentality. I don't really care what car my high horde of anonymous faux online "friends"* like, unless, of course, those friends know something about cars. Which 90% of them don't. If I was shopping for a car, I would ask the one or two gear heads and mechanics I know, and not 200 people who are basically strangers.

I don't get why people don't understand that popularity doesn't instantly equate to quality. The most popular option is often not the best option.

Being just like your social group, or solidifying your insider status, is not a good motivation to by something hugely expensive like a vehicle. Actually, I don't think it is even a good motivation to waste and time or money on insignificant things either. Things should stand up on their own merits, or be personally satisfying first.

But then again I only have 40 friends on FaceSpace (20 of whom I actually know, and or care even a modicum about, whose status updates I completely ignore thanks to the advent of the telephone and the meatspace social networking site called the "pub down the street").

"If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you?" No. But I would click on the "like" button!

* As my mom stated the other day, when confronted with social networks for the first time; "did someone change the definition of "friend" or am I missing something?"

Re:and why would I want this?

[edmicman]

As my mom stated the other day, when confronted with social networks for the first time; "did someone change the definition of "friend" or am I missing something?"

"Acquaintance" just doesn't have the same ring to it, though.

Re:and why would I want this?

[Americano]

I don't get why people don't understand that popularity doesn't instantly equate to quality. The most popular option is often not the best option.

Nope, but it can give you a place to start, and understand the features of the product, and might even point you to some friends (or friends-of-friends) who are subject matter experts if you're not, or at least users of a product you're considering.

I regularly look at the reviews for products I buy through Amazon, and usually look for the 'bad' ones first: tell me what's wrong with it, or what annoyed the piss out of you about this product, and let me consider whether or not that's something I consider critical. If it is, then time to move on. If it's not, perhaps the popular one is a decent choice because it means: 1) more chance that the company will be around to support / improve the thing I'm buying; 2) more chance that somebody else has seen a deal-breaker issue and mentioned it in a review.

Eschewing popular things *because* they're popular is just as foolish as buying popular things simply *because* they're popular; I trust the opinions of friends and colleagues slightly more than the opinions of J. Random Stranger, because I *know* the person giving me the review. I know their background, and I hopefully know whether or not they have an ulterior motive for the review they're offering. Having this feature available in something like Bing or Google *might* be useful, although I rarely use a search engine to find a product I'm looking for - I generally know something about the product, and begin by searching "Volvo S40 reviews," rather than "what new car should i buy?"

In short, this offers a new data point, and it might be useful. If it's used as the sole criteria for reaching a decision, that's dumb, but it shouldn't be dismissed just because it can be used poorly.

Re:and why would I want this?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a consumer, you are only allowed two votes: Consent or Abstain. There is no Dissent.

Eventually there'll be no Abstain.

When the only allowed vote is Consent, then the vote and the results are meaningless. If every consumer likes every company, then there is no point in ranking or comparing them. Both users and marketers are against this, surprisingly enough.

Re:and why would I want this?

[bazorg]

I am quite sure there are detractor groups, or "people who dislike ....". If 100000 people adhere to that group, that should mean something. Now the way you do it may result in legal action, but that is no different from other kinds of publications.

Re:and why would I want this?

[Omestes]

I never stated that eschewing popular things was useful either, that option is generally just as shallow and vapid as picking things because the are popular. Generally they amount to the same thing, since there is a vast swath of people who pick things because they are unpopular, making the unpopular choice popular within that in group.

Picking based on how many people pick it is dumb, either way. Unless your going for support, then try to pick the more popular, I suppose. (Why is Ubuntu more friendly than using Fedora? Ubuntu is more popular, meaning their forums are more popular, because of this support is easier...).

Yes, I do look at reviews as well, and dig through support forums, and ask people who would generally know about the product, etc... This is stuff I would do with our without Facebook telling me that Joe Smith likes it. Joe Smith liking it would evaluate lower than negative Amazon reviews (being that they are aggregate, more people with a problem means a higher chance that it is a problem). Joe Smith would rank much lower than actual documentation and specs.

Joe Smith would rank near the bottom of all the criteria I would use to pick a product. Unless Joe smith was a bona fide expert, with a decent amount of experience in the product/service. Even then, just him OWNING it would be rather weak. I rather doubt this service will say "Bob Smith Own This Widget, and Does So For the Following Reasons...", followed by weighty analysis.

Why do I doubt this? Because social networks eschew weighty analysis (or depth) like the plague. They exist for the most cursory contact, and nothing deeper.

Re:and why would I want this?

[Americano]

I never stated that eschewing popular things was useful either

Actually, you kind of did, when you said that the "most popular option is often not the best option" - this means by definition that one of the less popular options is often the best option, which by definition means that staying away from the popular product will "often" be the right thing to do. Unless you use "often," but mean "occasionally" or "rarely."

They exist for the most cursory contact, and nothing deeper.

That's like saying that the internet exists for only the most cursory contact, and nothing deeper -- it's a communications tool, it's as cursory or in-depth as you want to make it, when it comes to communication.

If you know Joe Smith, and you see that he owns & likes his new Droid phone that you're considering purchasing (the search engine tells you this somehow), why *wouldn't* you drop him a line, or give him a call, and get a deeper perspective on the device? Maybe he'd even let you play around with it for 20 minutes next time you see him, and show you some of the stuff he really likes about it, or tell you about how he loves Feature X, or how, "Knowing you, you'll probably care about Feature Y, and how this phone works for that feature might drive you nuts."

And if you don't know him... why the fuck are you friending him on a social network, and then blaming the social network for the "shallowness" of the connection? You realize that just because some people let anybody friend them doesn't mean that's how the tool *has* to be used... right?

Re:and why would I want this?

[Omestes]

Actually, you kind of did, when you said that the "most popular option is often not the best option" - this means by definition that one of the less popular options is often the best option, which by definition means that staying away from the popular product will "often" be the right thing to do. Unless you use "often," but mean "occasionally" or "rarely."

Your reading a bit too much into it.

What I basically meant was popularity often has nothing to do with quality. There is no correlation, most of the time. Sometimes the most popular option is good, sometimes it isn't, but popularity in itself does not equate to quality.

Budweiser isn't the best beer, despite being the most popular beer in the US. Converse makes rather crappy shoes, despite being very popular. I've never had a pair of Nike shoes last over a year, and they are the most popular manufacture. Windows doesn't really soar above Linux or OS X, despite trouncing them in usage numbers... Etc...

And if you don't know him... why the fuck are you friending him on a social network, and then blaming the social network for the "shallowness" of the connection? You realize that just because some people let anybody friend them doesn't mean that's how the tool *has* to be used... right?

It doesn't have to be used that way, but it is. Go browse random FaceSpace profiles, and see how it is actually used. No, it doesn't HAVE to be used in such a way, but it IS used in such a way.

Unless, of course, the people who I don't know who keep trying to friend me, with 1000+ "friends" really care about me as a person.

Will never take off

[jonescb]

This seems like one of those things that sounds like a cool idea but never takes off. Most people probably aren't hugely interested in seeing which cars their friends recommend. I think most people are still in the mindset that if they want someone's opinion on something they'll ask them directly. Maybe there are some interesting uses for this, but the cars example in the summary seems pretty bland.

Re:Will never take off

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly the definition of the word "friend" on facebook is not the same as what it used to mean. Now it is just a random collection of insecure idiots who measure their self worth by the number of people who click through on their requests.

The likes and dislikes of random people I do not know is not a high priority. Sadly some will love this and help Balkanize the way we shop. Oh wait, this has already happened! We call people not in our shopping sphere "douchebags."

Once again microsoft tries to blunder in on something just about the time it peaks.

Re:Will never take off

[Iamthecheese]

I, for one, think this idea sounds like one of those "sounded good at the time" things that happen when to drunken executives meet at a cocktail party. "let's leverage our synergies in marketing and social networking to make a web 2.0 customer driven blah blah blah."

Re:Will never take off

[omnichad]

Except for teens whose self-esteem comes from buying things that their peers like rather than developing their own fashion sense or opinion just yet. This is where the money is.

Re:Will never take off

[mclearn]

I feel that you may be underestimating the power of the social search. By definition, Facebook exists because people *want* to be connected to each other. Social gaming platforms push the latest details of someone's accomplishments, people are constantly being invited (or otherwise) to groups they may have an interest in. Basically, any social context is now at the mercy of crowd-wisdom. I think social search is going to enable more of this behaviour, and I think if you dismiss it so easily, you just don't get social networks.

Re:Will never take off

[JaredOfEuropa]

Actually, they might... the key is what the word "friend" means on the social web, and what context surrounds the friendship relation.

When adding tags to your friends (already possible on Facebook using "friends lists"), you are providing that context. The search engine can use that to figure out which of your friends would have something relevant to say about whatever it is you are looking for.

Sure, you can ask your friends for their opinion directly. Your real friends. But on the social web (what's in a name?), you may not even know your online friends in real life. Especially in case of one-sided "friend" relationships such as bloggers or twitterers you might follow because they have useful knowledge of or opinions on subjects that interest you. That's the type of "friend" that is probably the most useful to refine search engine results.

Re:Will never take off

[nschubach]

As much as I want to disagree with you, I went from my RX8 to a Miata because it's a damn fun car ... but you should hear some of the stuff people yell out their windows to someone they don't even know.

Re:Will never take off

[Omestes]

I think social search is going to enable more of this behaviour, and I think if you dismiss it so easily, you just don't get social networks.

You're right. I don't.

But then again I still think this will be a failure. If your about to buy something big and expensive (a car), I doubt your first motivation will be what the 200+ faux friends on your social network bought. I also doubt that this is sexy enough to actually make a difference. Putting myself in the shoes of the people I know who are obsessed with Facespace, I still don't see this as a feature killer enough to change ingrained habits and preferences.

Also, I do underestimate social networks (or estimate them just fine), since I don't actually see them changing the world, or people's behaviors. People still evaluate things on the same basis that they have for years. All social networks do is provide more available information, and slight filtering by social preference. Though for people with over a certain threshold of "friends", that filtering is limited.

Has FaceSpace 2.0 Web Synergy actually changed the life of anyone you know? On a fundamental level?

Taking services like Last.fm, for example. It recommends music based on social parameters. Of all the recommendations, I still only choose to buy/listen to around 5%. All it does is increase the amount of information available to me, and filters it by who I associate with and what I listen to (if you listen to X, and someone listens to X and Y, you might like Y). After this information is made available, I them use tradition criteria to decide to listen to it or buy it. This criteria is still largely personal, and individual.

So basically, I'm shopping for a new car. I, for some reason, use Bing. Bing tells me that 20 of my 300 FaceSpace "friends" like Ford Ferengi. Yes, it brings it to my attention, but I will still evaluate it by traditional means (mileage, warranty, service record, reviews, and actual qualitative word of mouth).

Actually, on this line of thought, who the hell buys a car just to be social? I don't think many high school students have that kind of income. Aren't they the only ones that blindly consume to fit into some image of who they want to be?

Re:Will never take off

[tooyoung]

Agreed. I don't drive the same car as any of my friends. I don't really share the same musical tastes as many of my friends. I would hate to be searching for information on something and see a bunch of links that are relevant to what my friends like. If I'm looking up a web page on the band Spear of Destiny, will I see links to the Wolfenstein sequel just because one of my friends "likes" it, and Bing decides that it is relevant?

Re:Will never take off

[Americano]

I doubt your first motivation will be what the 200+ faux friends on your social network bought.

No, it probably won't. But how about knowing that 4 of them (and which 4 of them) drive the car you're considering buying? Perhaps you'd like to ask someone you trust about mileage, reliability, maintenance costs?

I have friends on Facebook who are people I went to college and high school with, or former colleagues who I liked enough to stay connected with. Several dozen fit into that category. I don't actually know what type of car each and every one of them drive, but if I were looking for a new car, and Facebook or Bing suddenly said, "Hey, Bob from your last job drives one of these too!", I probably would make use of that in my research.

Getting an opinion from someone you can trust (or at least, someone you can trust more than an anonymous alias on Amazon) isn't a useless feature.

Re:Will never take off

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they throw in a matching handbag to carry your testicles in?

Re:Will never take off

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to prove their point.

Gender Bias

[alphax45]

From the summary: "When someone uses Bing's search engine to look for a new car or a book, she can see which ones her friends liked."

Only she? So if a "he" searches it doesn't work?

Re:Gender Bias

[Nadaka]

It does, but he wont make a decision based on what other people think is cute.

Re:Gender Bias

[ElectricTurtle]

Since there are no (accepted) English gender neutral pronouns for people and because saying he or she every time is tedious, many publications just switch back and forth through multiple examples to demonstrate that they aren't sexists. Wizards of the Coast does this in their books, they'll do Example A using all female pronouns and then do Example B using all male back and forth throughout the books.

Re:Gender Bias

[mnrasul]

It does, but he wont make a decision based on what other people think is cute.

and in time and after constant bickering from his she, he will decide, maybe she should've made the decision.

Alot less emotional cost.

Re:Gender Bias

[boristdog]

'Cause chicks are more influenced by what other people say is cool.
See: Fashion.

Re:Gender Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Says the turtle living in my tank. You really just want to stop being called an 'it'!

Re:Gender Bias

[nschubach]

What about "they/their?"

When someone uses Bing's search engine to look for a new car or a book, they can see which ones their friends liked.

Re:Gender Bias

[MonsterTrimble]

My bigger question is what happens when the friend's list pops up and says Joe likes the pink Victoria Secret's merry widow because it's amazingly comfortable.

Re:Gender Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Since there are no (accepted) English gender neutral pronouns for people and because saying he or she every time is tedious, many publications just switch back and forth through multiple examples to demonstrate that they aren't sexists. Wizards of the Coast does this in their books, they'll do Example A using all female pronouns and then do Example B using all male back and forth throughout the books.

Political correctness sucks for exactly these situations. Writing "he/she" actually takes less characters than writing "he or she", or writing two completely sex specific sentences or paragraphs.

For fucks sake, you're part of the problem in the world if the first thing you think of when you see the opposite sex referenced by pronoun and not your own is "ZOMG SEXISM!" You're also a fucking pussy if you pander to political correctness. Bottom line here is that men and women are not equal. Period. The Feminazi lesbian anti-penis movement will never change this fact of life; that men and women are not and never will be equal.

Re:Gender Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

To Electric Turtle (GP):
"He" is supposed to be the gender neutral pronoun, but it is now deemed not PC. When I was in college, people used to yell at me for using "he" as the gender neutral pronoun. I would reply, "Well that is the queen's English, after all."

To nschubach:
They/their has only been considered correct English since using "he" was poo-poo'ed.

Re:Gender Bias

[Americano]

Nope, that comes perilously close to asking for directions, and we men can figure the fucking thing out ourselves, we don't need help from a fucking gas station attendant.

Re:not the social web

[Pojut]

"Oh Armand...our baby's all grown up...and we won't have any others." "Not without a miracle." -Birdcage

I guess that's good

[Anonymous Coward]

... if you want to drive the same kind of car as all your friends and need Facebook to tell you what kind of cars your friends drive.

What can see what...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Bing's search engine to look for a new car or a book, she can see which ones her friends liked.

Does that mean MS has privileged access to facebook data? As in if your facebook 'friends' only disclose that information to 'friends' and not the entire world MS can still see it in order to catalog it (and do who knows what else with it)?

Re:What can see what...

[kent_eh]

Yet another reason for me not to start using either Facebook or Bing.

Re:What can see what...

[Nadaka]

I only started using facebook when I got rid of my ex and realized I had been dragged down for so long that I didn't have a reliable way of getting in contact with of all my friends.

Market doesn't quite agree with Mr Analyst here...

[grepya]

'There is a battle for the future of the Web, and it is not about search engines, but about the social Web.'

And yet...

http://www.google.com/finance?q=goog

All this tells me

[DMiax]

Facebook turned to Microsoft to implement the latest creepy feature obtained from harvesting user data. Somehow my trust in Google has just increased a bit. Surely they are not privacy fanatics, and they may be just laying low after the StreetView WiFi scandal, but still...

And obviously...

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome. So now when I search for porn I can see what my friends like, too. "Dude, I searched for Hentai and all I got was a bunch of suggestions that 'your friends also liked Yaoi'. WTF?"

Maybe a bit too much information

[Quato]

I can see it now.... I'll be shopping at Walgreens.com and there will be popups on that say what kind of Hemorrhoid cream my boss uses, and that my Aunt Grace just bought a some warming KY-Jelly.

Some things need to stay private.

Re:Maybe a bit too much information

[Anonymous Coward]

and that my Aunt Grace just bought a some warming KY-Jelly.

Thanks for that, I was worried that burning sensation might have meant I had caught something from your mother.

Re:Maybe a bit too much information

[cyborch]

Here's a tip: don't friend your boss. Seriously. He doesn't need to know what you do n your own time.

Re:Maybe a bit too much information

[TYH.DataAngel]

I'd like to take this opportunity to demonstrate how groupthink is a vicious cycle. Even if the majority of Slashdot were to agree that Facebook is a privacy nightmare (and let's face it, they probably do), people still resort to blowing each individual small problem out of proportion to try and support their hypothesis. We have a case of what is essentially fundamentalism - finding facts to fit the theory instead of finding a theory to fit the facts.

In this particular instance, have you considered that 'liking' objects is left up to the discretion of the user? It's not a case of "everything I view on the Internet will be visible to my friends and relatives". Previously, if I had found a product that I liked but didn't know who in my social circle could find a use for such a thing, then there would have been no feedback from me, as a trusted friend/relative of the searcher, for the searcher to rely on in deciding which brand of the product to buy. Now there is.

Don't want it seen? Don't like it.

Finally! The death of Facebook!

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft have a habit of fatally betraying any company they "partner" up with. I couldn't have picked a better candidate for such a fate!

Re:Finally! The death of Facebook!

[super_geek_1234]

Every company Microsoft has selected to work with, has lost intellectual assets. The plot of the movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley" includes the part where Bill Gates essentially ripped off the DOS operating system and licensed it to IBM. Also there was the part about Bill Gates working for Apple computers while Microsoft created the Windows graphical user interface.

Re:Finally! The death of Facebook!

[DaFallus]

It is inevitable, but will it be sudden?

Re:Finally! The death of Facebook!

[Prune]

Proof you're wrong by counterexample: Razorfish Inc.

Re:Finally! The death of Facebook!

[_Sprocket_]

Is buying a company the same as partnering with it?

Re:Finally! The death of Facebook!

[scot4875]

Bill Gates essentially ripped off the DOS operating system

Is that a fancy way of saying "bought"?

--Jeremy

Mr. Vonnegut

[rohar]

Oh, she says, well, you're not a poor man. You know, why don't you go online and buy a hundred envelopes and put them in the closet? And so I pretend not to hear her. And go out to get an envelope because I'm going to have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope. I meet a lot of people. And, see some great looking babes. And a fire engine goes by. And I give them the thumbs up. And, and ask a woman what kind of dog that is. And, and I don't know. The moral of the story is, is we're here on Earth to fart around. And, of course, the computers will do us out of that. And, what the computer people don't realize, or they don't care, is we're dancing animals. You know, we love to move around. And, we're not supposed to dance at all anymore.

Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

wait....mark said WHAT?!

[nimbius]

incentivized to go out and innovate??? Someone forgot this Bing technology which microsoft has innovated so greatly is mostly just yahoo under the hood. based on the core technology alone, one could surmise they dont have many intelligent folks working long hours on this. I suspect the real reason was a nice, greasy palm full of cash from microsoft.

as for the social web i could take it or leave it, mark. People forget the original "social web" was IRC and usenet. All you've offered arguably is a clever sand box for market research and a communications system that doesn't challenge anyone to engage in a real conversation.

Re:wait....mark said WHAT?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that whole multibillion dollar valuation thing is just a big mistake. IRC and usenet were all people really need.

Re:wait....mark said WHAT?!

[Anonymous Coward]

This, this, a million times this.

Re:wait....mark said WHAT?!

[Shippy]

Someone forgot this Bing technology which microsoft has innovated so greatly is mostly just yahoo under the hood

Citation, please.

Re:wait....mark said WHAT?!

[blind biker]

In fact, Bing is based on an excellent search engine, called FAST, on which also alltheweb.com was based.

Oh yeah, so MS didn't innovate diddly-doo. As usual! Those dozens of billions in the bank sure buy a lot of innovation, don't they?

Do we really like our "friends" so much ?

[grepya]

I think they might be overestimating how much we really like our "friends"... specially the ones on facebook.

PR Translation

[c]

They really are the underdog here.

"Their search engine sucks."

They're incentivized to go out and innovate.

"They gave us a lot of money"

They have all these smart people and are trying
to do all these new things.

"They're rich and desperate. Ka-ching!"

Re:PR Translation

[loftwyr]

Microsoft also owns a part of Facebook so that would also force them to work together.

Re:PR Translation

[eepok]

OMG weasel word aneurysm!

Re:PR Translation

[GodfatherofSoul]

As much as it hurts to say this, I'd rather use Bing than Google for searches nowadays. I just get tired of Google hits flooding me with advertising and not what I'm looking for. Maybe Bing will get there one day, too, but I'm having better luck with it right now.

Re:PR Translation

[Culture20]

"They're rich and desperate. Ka-ching!"
Wait, I'm confused. Is Mark a gigolo or a paedophile?

Re:PR Translation

[c]

> Wait, I'm confused. Is Mark a gigolo or a paedophile?

Well, he got in bed with Microsoft...

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to find an eye-wash station to purge that image.

Granpa Google

[dasdrewid]

They're incentivized to go out and innovate. They have all these smart people and are trying to do all these new things.

I mean, jeez, yeah. The last thing I heard about Google doing was building cars that drive themselves in traffic. That's sooo mid-2000s... Facebing is looking to the future here! Those 500 people that I once knew in HS and college that I haven't talked to in 3+ years and that every time I do I'm reminded of why I don't talk to them (nothing in common, completely antithetical views on most things, too many freaking country-club-kiddies who don't know the difference between Bing and Best Buy)? Those are *definitely* the people who's likes I want showing up first in my search engine results!

Now, to be fair, Microsoft does actually have some pretty sweet research going on. And while most of that research is in things pretty unrelated to search, a lot of Google's research is also pretty unrelated to search. But to say that you're going with Bing over Google because Bing is "incentivized to innovate" sounds like that phrase had it's own paragraph in the contract, right above where the $ was followed by a dozen "0"s.

Hey, gotta pay for the Newark school system somehow, right?

Re:Granpa Google

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, jeez, yeah. The last thing I heard about Google doing was building cars that drive themselves in traffic. That's sooo mid-2000s...

While I agree Google is great for doing this, it is in no way innovative (or atleast, not imaginative). Check out Google Car: Not the First Self-Driving Vehicle for a small list of self driving vehicles in the past. There was also a car
(can't remember the name - think it was from UCLA or Stanford) that did parallel parking too. So the real reason that this is getting this much publicity is because it is Google, not because it is new.

Not to say the Microsoft's Facebook teaming up is cool or great (see Microsoft Research for some actual cool stuff, as well as IBM's Watson Lab, PARC, HP Labs etc.). This is business. You made an apples to oranges comparison. Microsoft Maps is more like something you can compare to Google (and IMO, Microsoft Maps has some really neat features that Google can learn from).

Botnets anyone?

[savvysteve]

The idea of Facebook and Microsoft teaming up together is very scary. Two companies riddled with security flaws... Those running the botnets are smiling from ear to ear because they see more victims.

Re:Botnets anyone?

[jeanph01]

Right on. The most dangerous thing in facebook is the relations with our peers that can be harvested. Spammers will now not only exchange e-mail lists but the relationship between each e-mail. Talk about effective spamming, malware propagation, phishing, etc....

Re:Botnets anyone?

[plastick]

Can't wait to see the new Facebook ActiveX control. lol

I wonder if one of the new exploits will be named Facelift or Facefucker.

Plus the cash, don't forget the cash...

[Caffinated]

"They really are the underdog here," Zuckerberg said. "They're incentivized to go out and innovate. They have all these smart people and are trying to do all these new things."

...plus the cash, the huge, huge bags of cash...that really helped clarify our decisionmaking...

They have all these smart people and are trying ..

[Anonymous Coward]

...They have all these smart people and are trying to do all these new things...

In a previous life I dealt with sending microsoft data for a partnership. There "smart people" could not handle the text data in any compressed format. Not .gz, not tar.gz, not .bz , not even .zip . Smart guys...right.

Lemmings

[PPH]

When someone uses Bing's search engine to look for a new car or a book, she can see which ones her friends liked.

And with a map interface, we can all see which cliff all the other rodents are leaping off today.

The "Social Web" is a lie

[countSudoku()]

Not that anyone here has fallen victim to the waste of time that is facebook. Rather this is just a vehicle for me to say:

"Hey, you got your waste of time website in my crappy OS! Well, you got your crappy OS all over my useless marketing engine disguised as a "social web tool" Mmmmm, two shitty tastes that taste even shittier together! Reese's Social Net-Hype Cups! Now with extra marketing!"

Great! Now I can pretend to stay connected to people I would not bother to see in real life, all with tons of ads, shitty web apps, and completely search-able! Where do I sign?!

Translation:

[Todd Knarr]

Translation of Zuckerberg's comments: "Microsoft has loads of cash, and they're willing to cut me an insanely good deal and throw money my way if it's got any chance of giving them a leg up on Google.".

Re:Translation:

[UnknowingFool]

Exactly. This is purely a business decision. Bing isn't as good as google in results in my opinion but it's not very far behind. For Facebook's purposes, almost as good is good enough. For Facebook, they are getting lots of money. It's a win for them. They would have to be wary to see how MS might use this to their advantage and backstab Facebook. The relevations of MS betraying their partners is not exactly a secret.

We're rooting for you Beowulf!

[Zarf]

Go and slay Grendel! You can do it! Imma stay here behind this fortress of GPL. KTHXBAI.

Why would I want this?

[93 Escort Wagon]

If I care about my friends' opinions on a particular topic, I ask them about it.

This is just so silly - doubly so, given the typical Facebook user's definition of "friend". Tell me, if you're doing a search - do you honestly care what random "Facebook Friend" Joe Schmoe, who you last met 20 years ago in daycare, liked or didn't like?

Re:Why would I want this?

[miknix]

Now imagine Clippy popping out from a search and saying
- hey! it looks like your friend Joe Schmoe likes bananas! He recommends..

* Fresh gold bananas at Bing Shopping.
* Heavy duty dildos at dildowalt.com
* Banana paradise XXX adult movie at gaymedia.com

Re:Why would I want this?

[JustinOpinion]

I think this is a really good idea that will be absolutely terrible in practice.

With respect to "good idea", the combination of search with a social graph could be powerful. One of the problems with online reviews is that you can't really be sure that they are not astroturf or otherwise skewed. This is why people often, in practice, ask their friends for recommendations. It provides a perspective from someone you trust; or at least someone who is not primarily motivated by a financial incentive to get you to buy a product (they may have other biases, like trying to justify their own purchases, etc.). If done properly, a piece of software could check your social graph for recommendations and trust information. So if a friend (who you have marked as "trustworthy with respect to car purchases" highly-ranks a given car, that could add bonus points to that car. But you can also generalize: e.g. more highly ranked car-rating sites that this friend trusts. Or drawing upon the trusted friends of your trusted friends, so that you can pool together the opinions of people you don't know, but have reason to trust. And even beyond that, by comparing the like/dislike profile of you and your friends with aggregate data, you can determine what online reviewers to trust just based on their voting history (do they accurately pick things I like? Or shill products that disappoint?). This would be very powerful: search for "I want to buy a camera" and your software automatically shows you reviews/recommendations that you have some reason to trust.

The reason this will fail, miserably, is because it will be a slave to corporate whims, rather than a tool to help users. It would only really work as software running on the user's own computer, with all the social-graph data managed and under the direct control of the user. With the recommendation algorithm under the control of a company, the temptation to abuse the data will be much too great. The fact that it is being done by Facebook and Microsoft, two companies that have a track record of degrading the user experience in the name of profits, just makes this even more doomed to fail. The end product will be user hostile: it will provide skewed results to users based on corporate sponsorship and corporate interests (strangely, none of my friends are recommending Open-Office); the data about user habits and likes/dislikes will be sold to advertisers; the massive dataset will also probably be stolen or lost somehow (again, Microsoft and Facebook are not to be trusted in this regard). The endless pursuit of monetization will make the product so skewed and annoying, that no one will want to use it.

It's too bad. It would be nice to have good tools to automate the social-graph work that people naturally do ("Hey, bob, I know you renovated your house last fall... can you recommend a good roofing guy?"). But instead we will get advertising-on-steroids ("All your friends signed up for ScammyScam.com and won $5,000!!! You could win money too!!! Sign up for ScammyScam.com!!! Punch the monkey to win!!!").

Re:Why would I want this?

[atisss]

Haha, that was my first idea too. If you really would want to know what your friends like you ASK them. That's socializing. Good that I don't use neither bing nor facebook

Re:Why would I want this?

[shutdown -p now]

You (and me) are not the average Facebook user.

Re:Why would I want this?

[Alex Belits]

One of the problems with online reviews is that you can't really be sure that they are not astroturf or otherwise skewed.

And what stops Facebook and Bing from simply lying? Facebook shows fake "not found" page when you try to access someone blocking you (if you are logged in), so dishonesty is not something foreign for them already.

What, Google's worrying?

[Anonymous Showered]

Google's working on cars that drive by themselves.

What the fuck is Microsoft innovating?

Facebook is just a fad...

Re:What, Google's worrying?

[PatPending]

I get your meaning and agree with you. However I want to point out that MS has a great number (thousands?) of patents and they have MS Research. And yet with all this they are still encumbered with maintaining the status quo in every s/w and h/w product they make. I'm inclined to guess they use 98% of their resources for perpetuating/maintaining their existing products and 2% on innovation while Google is probably 50/50.

Re:What, Google's worrying?

[1000101]

Research Home
Research Areas

I have no idea if they are working on cars that will drive themselves and they don't advertise their 'Labs' as well as Google, but there is plenty of research going on at Microsoft. I know there are plenty of people who HATE all things Microsoft, but there are some really talented people working on really interesting things over there.

Re:What, Google's worrying?

[Anonymous Coward]

What cracks me up is that you all are whining about how facebook is such a fad and I don't have this kind of vanity and I like my presonal information personal and fuck the guy I knew from 6th grade....the WHY THE FUCK are you posting at all on Slashdot? You have no vanity? But you want the world to see that you have no vanity? You are fucking idiot and I don't believe anything you have to say.

But, while I'm at it...Fuck Facebook.

Re:What, Google's worrying?

[sempir]

Google's working on cars that drive by themselves. What the fuck is Microsoft innovating? Trees that can walk!

Re:What, Google's worrying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok so Microsoft has lots of research going on. So frigging what.
They have canned their most inovattive projects in recent years.
Then there was the 'Kin'. Yeah right. Innovation. A total frigging failure.

The only thing they want to sell is Windows, Office and XBox. The rest is pure window dressing or 'lock-in' products like Exchange or even worse Sharepoint.

Bing is a (IMHO) a complete failure. Yeah, I have tried it but the results it produces in my experience are really only worth the 5th or 6th page of Googles results.

So, Facethings has joined up with the Borg. The result will be a total failure and well may end up with Facepage being absorbed into the Borg. Well whoopydo. I am MS free and won't even visit Facebook. I had my idenitity stolen some time ago and won't even visit let alone join any social networking site. They are in my opinion just crap and for losers.

I really hope that if the Borg absorbs Facebook it brings them down. Windows it broken by design and MS don't seem to even be interested in fixing it.

Re:What, Google's worrying?

[Anonymous Coward]

A big-ass table.

Re:What, Google's worrying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's working on cars that drive by themselves.

What the fuck is Microsoft innovating?

Facebook is just a fad...

Google's car isn't really innovation: link.

Recipe for disaster

[gmuslera]

So it will suggest you things that your friends (not some anonymous person) like? Disclosing private things from unknown people is pretty bad already, but if start to disclose private things of people in your circle ("would you like to buy inflatable dolls like your friend Frank?" to put an easy example) could mean troubles for both Microsoft, Facebook, and all their users.

Re:Recipe for disaster

[omnichad]

If it's based on "like"-ing a product or brand, then that's already public to your circle of friends. Where is the spot in Facebook where I tell it my deep dark secrets that I don't want to be shared with anyone?

Re:Recipe for disaster

[gmuslera]

One thing is announcing to the world that you like something, and another searching for/buying/following links.

Re:Recipe for disaster

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be your public profile, if fark is anything to go on.

Re:Recipe for disaster

[DoraLives]

Where is the spot in Facebook where I tell it my deep dark secrets that I don't want to be shared with anyone?

It's where they interpolate between known datapoints and in so doing, create a more-detailed-and-accurate-than-you-might-like image. And it will be an evil thing, whether the image so drawn is even accurate or not.

I shall leave it as an exercise for the student to determine exactly how this might be so, and to further demonstrate with valid examples how this might be so.

Carry on.

Re:Recipe for disaster

[omnichad]

You must always get freaked out by those connect-the-dot puzzles, too, huh?

Re:Recipe for disaster

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the spot in Facebook where I tell it my deep dark secrets that I don't want to be shared with anyone?

On Google's servers?

"Your friend Bob Johnson also searched for loli"

Welcome new forms of spam, yay!

[drewhk]

And new infection vectors for trojans...

"[blink]You are infected!!! [/blink] Your friend recommends this virus scanner".

Re:Welcome new forms of spam, yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, ok... *click* ..Ubuntu?

ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[Chapter80]

I am determined to be the last person on the planet to sign up for Facebook. I hate the concept and I hate the leader.

That said, I think there's one feature that might sway me.

I use Yahoo IM extensively. I love it. I use it on my phone and on my PC. It's relatively anonymous, friends don't know who your other friends are, it's exactly what I am looking for, in a person-to-person communication program.

I know Facebook has a mobile product and a chat product, and, from what I have read, a very complex way of setting up groups of your friends. But is there ANYTHING like "I just want to sign up for facebook to be able to communicate with a few friends, person-to-person via Instant messages. I don't want some wall-shit that people are going to write on. I don't want to share my photos, or my status. I just want to be able to send IM's. And I want it to be SIMPLE to just sign up and do JUST that. With relative anonymity. Without telling each friend who else I am friends with."

Do they have anything like that?

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[omnichad]

Set up your own XMPP Server and give your friends a login. Tell them they can use a program like Pidgin to login, and then tell them they can also use Pidgin to be signed into Facebook Chat at the same time. If you're lucky? They might bite as long as you're on the hook to show them how to set up Facebook Chat on it too.

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[geekoid]

Why do you hate the concept? What is wrong with people communicating? Yeah, some people post inane things, but you dont have to follow those people.
It's an easy way to stay connected and to know what people I am interested in are doing.

You'rs just a luddite.

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[GrumblyStuff]

Friends are deemed public knowledge on FB and can't be hidden IIRC.

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[hodet]

Just lock it down. Don't allow anyone to post on your wall, hide all your personal info, or better yet don't list every damn aspect of your life. Don't post photos. Send private messages to friends instead of plastering it on their wall. Just make sure you go back in often to check your settings because who knows when the latest and greatest feature will be added and you allow it by default. If you do have a couple of friends you would like to share more with just group them together and open up specific things just for them. Oh, and for gods sake don't tell the whole world what you had for breakfast and realize we do not give a crap about your farm or your mafia. enjoy

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[skyride]

In a word, no.

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am determined to be the last person on the planet to sign up for Facebook.

i see i have some competition then........

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[Slashdiddly]

I am determined to be the last person on the planet to sign up for Facebook.

Get in line!

Oh wait...

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[Anonymous Coward]

sign up. don't fill anything other than your name (and maybe bithdate, but you can hide that afterwards). and set it that noone can see your friends list, post on your wall or tag you....

chat on.

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[takowl]

I just want to be able to send IM's.

So you're using an IM network. Good for you. There are already plenty of them. Facebook doesn't need to be another one.

Many people like social networks. They like "wall-shit that people are going to write on". They want to share photos. They want to do status updates. Facebook has been very successful catering to that. It's not obliged to become an IM network just because you don't like social networks.

Why does /. hate social networks so much? Whenever there's a thread on FB or twitter, the responses are a predictable litany of "lol, idiot lusers" comments. No-one seems to see any purpose in them at all. The idea is simple enough: you have an idea, a picture, a silly video or whatever, that you'd like some of your friends to see. You don't know quite who'll be interested in it, so you post it publicly, and anyone who's not interested can just ignore it. It's like a blog and a blog aggregator, packaged up so that it appeals to non-geeks. Yes, there are some idiots on them, but plenty of people use them quite rationally.

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[Chapter80]

Why do you hate the concept? What is wrong with people communicating?

There's nothing wrong with YOU using it. I have no problem with OTHER people communicating.

I just have no interest in it. And I personally believe the value of "my contacts database" FAR outweigh the value of being able to communicate with them using this particular tool.

In short, I'm not willing to pay the price to play the game.

It's as if we were at the year of the telephone being invented, and I saw this great communication tool, but in order to use it, I had to a) publish that I was using it, b) tell a person who has shown that he is untrustworthy everyone that I plan to call, c) tell the world everyone that I plan to call (or go out of my way to hide who I call).

It has been backwards from the start, in my book, erring on the side of zero-privacy from day 1. You can't convince me now that Mark Z has found religion and values privacy. Not a chance.

You'rs just a luddite.

There's nothing wrong with wanting privacy. Doesn't mean I am a criminal. You probably close the door when you use the bathroom, don't you? Does that make you a luddite?

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[Chapter80]

No, Facebook doesn't need to be an IM network and I don't need to be on Facebook. If you like it, I have no problem with that. I was just stating the only reason I could imagine that I might sign up.

See my earlier response why I hate it, since you asked...

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[dumfrac]

The signal to noise ratio on most people's wall is a little low. But, I guess that's my opinion. One person's noise is probably somebody else's signal.

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[vlueboy]

Why does /. hate social networks so much?

The idea is simple: The internet was originally a connection of computers, which is what we all do and love here on /.

Then, eternal september set in, and it was bad. And then, social networks exploded, and that internet which was meant to be just the largest public collection of information on Earth changed. It became, truly, the largest collection of people on earth, sort of like a nation.

Picture all those septemberites we hated so, multiplying rapidly and stretching their hand out of your computer screen. Our families have joined them and the yakking extends to even our own real life. When 10% of the people on Earth are FB members, it feels almost like a religion that we are being forced to join, if we didn't already succumb. So it's almost like a willpower struggle for those who look but don't join, and find new ways of being lured, or seeing their our friends be tricked.

When enough friends are inside we are no longer the mayority of informed internet viewers. They are. That "savvy" geek in us who pulled family and friends out of their couches to learn about "this new internet thing" decades ago is no longer in control, because the tables have turned, even if we love control because computers is what we grok. The geek in us is being forcibly pushed by all their friends to leave the soul-less, information abundant PC... and create information for THEIR web instead: join parties, take photos, tag stuff, respond to personal requests, rate, rate, rate and be social again, because the internet thing's inertia is no longer in our direction, and we're all being dragged away from what we all learned to love about internet anonymity and static forums of yesteryear.

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[QuietObserver]

Very interesting. I, too, am determined to be the last person on the planet to sign up for Facebook, and for the same reasons as you. Provided we can both maintain this attitude, Facebook will never gain 100% worldwide market share; that, in my opinion, would be a true travesty.

That said, I'm not sure there's any kind of feature they can provide me that is likely to lure me in. I don't know about everything they provide, but I doubt they have anything that I might need which is not available, and offered in better quality, somewhere else. Then again, I'm not a particularly social person, so I have no reason to want to be anywhere near Facebook, or any other social networking site, in the first place.

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[takowl]

So, what, the internet should be denied to the masses to conform to the desires of a tiny techno-elite? That's stupid. The net is an incredibly powerful tool for everyone. Communication, information, entertainment. The anomaly isn't the mass participation, it was the brief interval you remember at the start of the internet. The 'eternal september' you so detest is the internet succeeding, like a revolution.

If you still want a geek community, there are plenty still there. You can block facebook entirely. Just don't claim that it's somehow polluting your internet simply by existing.

Personally, I like the popular internet. I can watch TV shows and movies on demand, with almost no wait. I can share 80 photos with a friend 100 miles away, and read her comments. I can find information on virtually any topic with just a few keystrokes. If it was just a hangout for a few geeks, nobody would have bothered to invest in that sort of services.

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[takowl]

Maybe I'm missing something. Why are you looking for reasons to sign up, when you clearly detest it so much? There are other products that already do what you want, and you agree that you don't need to be on Facebook. So why even bother asking?

In fact, if you did want to use it as an IM network, you could. It's not that complex to lock down all your privacy settings and turn off your wall, then just use Facebook chat (which apparently supports Jabber). But I don't think you want to, and I don't really blame you.

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[Chapter80]

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my first message.

The *value* of Facebook, to me, would be the ability to IM with other people (one-on-one) who have already drank the Facebook kool-aid. I don't think I'll ever believe that sharing my contact database with every one of my contacts is a good idea. But others have. And I don't think I'll ever like Mark Z, but I'm sure there are some great programmers that work for Facebook inc, and some investors that I respect quite a bit.

I would ONLY consider signing up for Facebook if Facebook had an IM product, period. It would have to be a quick and limited sign-up, NOT a "[you have to] lock down all your privacy settings and turn off your wall" (in your words). A commitment that it's just IM, and a Facebook account.

The reason for my post was a) to find out if such an option existed in Facebook (although I was pretty sure it didn't), and b) so that someone at Facebook Inc. might possibly see this, and say, "hey, we could actually get a user - potentially a whole bunch of users - like me, who hate the concept of wide-open, share contact list with all your friends, to ease into Facebook." It'd give them access to a whole new market.

For instance, if Facebook bought Yahoo IM, I'd be in, by default. Or if Facebook and Yahoo provided a bridge so that Yahoo users could IM with Facebook users (which may exist now), then I'd get that value, without the "cost" of sharing all my contacts.

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you can disable your wall, not post any photos, disable your feed updates, and simply use the private 1 to 1 chat. You can make your profile un-findable so you're the one sending the friend requests.

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[Chapter80]

Yes, you can disable your wall, not post any photos, disable your feed updates, and simply use the private 1 to 1 chat. You can make your profile un-findable so you're the one sending the friend requests.

Thanks. Not exactly what I am looking for, but I appreciate the reply.

I want a simple sign-up, with no "you can disable..."

I want it to start in "private" mode. I want privacy to be Facebook's burden, not mine.

I want no friends to see which other friends I have.

I want access to the Facebook population (to privately chat with my friends), without the burden of having to secure everything.

Re:ok, Facebook geeks, help me out...

[neminem]

Or, you know, lie. Granted, it's against the TOS, but since when has that stopped anyone? Say your name is Some Dude, you were born on 1/1/1980, your address is 666 Hell St, and your email's asdf@asdf.com. Congratulations, you now have a facebook account that can do facebook-account-ly stuff, and will never have any problem with privacy ever. Three Dead Trolls got it right:
Lie about your income, your age, gender and race.
Spell your name incorrectly, so it's harder to trace.
We can beat them back with bullshit, we can rub it in their face.
We can stick a big ol' monkey wrench right up their data base.
Lie lie lie lie, lie lie lie lie.

It might work

[hey]

To most of us this sounds abhorrent but it might be commercially successful anyhow.
However, it seems a bit like the Kin... they are betting the phone's entire success on one app (or group of apps) - social.
I think Android and iPhone are successful because they are just platforms to run any kind of app... the users decide what they want.

Thanks but no thanks

[think_nix]

Honestly , now to do a _bing_ search I have to log into a facebook account or how is this suppose to work? Also what about privacy issues ? XSS attacks ? How is this anonymously allowing me to search and bettering my privacy at the same time ?

Re:Thanks but no thanks

[GrumblyStuff]

Just sign into you Microsoft Windows Live Hotmail Facebook Beacon account and you're all set!

Re:Thanks but no thanks

[vlueboy]

Honestly , now to do a _bing_ search I have to log into a facebook account or how is this suppose to work?

Facebook-enabled sites can take a look at your cookies and enhance news sites from all over the world. It's not a giant leap to suppose that even when you're signed out, the cookie blasts out who you are for any of those sites to use should you visit them.

Knowing that, the logical answer is that MS is going to get enhanced access to your computer's crosssite FB cookies, and that their databases will be able to query FB based on that ID they can conveniently sniff.

The real reason

[C_Kode]

The real reason is because both Microsoft and Facebook see eye-to-eye when it comes to user security. ;)

Both eyes are blind.

Microsoft just fits with Facebook

[formfeed]

Enough people are worried already about Google knowing to much. For Google, it really wouldn't help to get tainted by a cooperation with Zuckerberg, the poster-child of give-a-damn about privacy.

Microsoft's business strategy "be evil" seems a much better fit for Facebook.

I like it how MS are trying to stare Google down

[Flipao]

All the while Apple keep sneaking up on them, it'd be so ironic if Steve Jobs turned the tables on them some 30odd years later.

Too much information age

[formfeed]

Uncle_Bob uses Painbegone hemorrhoid cream.

Linda recommends Powermax personal massager

Thanks Bing, but no thanks.

Let me get this straight...

[chrishillman]

Google's biggest threat is the ability to hit "like" to a search result?

The ability to "like" search results will cause people to stop using Google appliances to search documents on corporate networks, stop the use of Google Applications in schools/governments/companies, stop people from advertising on adsense, stop the sale of Android-based phones?

I think you overestimate the appeal of "Bing"-ing for things...

Re:Let me get this straight...

[canajin56]

The real question is, when they say "See things your friends like" do they mean, Bing will be inserting "Like" buttons into all of their shopping pages and links, so you can "like" a product in the Facebook sense? Or do they mean it in the Facebook Beacon Sense: "Bing will now report all purchases to Facebook if you forgot to sign out, and when you visit Bing you will see a list of products your friends have bought, without their knowledge since this is opt-out, in the sense that you cannot opt out, but after the broadcast to your friends has been made, you have the option to delete it again!"

I wonder is he

[Anonymous Coward]

will mention is half ass attempt to court Google?

Bing will be able to find lots of useful info

[Caledfwlch]

like who's in need of magic seeds in Farmville!

Join me in the following

[fluor2]

Delete all your likes and interests from your profile. E.g. favorite tv-shows, books etc. As these are what bing would like to search for.
 

I am a hipster-hater

[TiggertheMad]

I really am regretting ever creating a Facebook account. If things carry on in this direction, I shall delete the thing soon.

I just want to say that I hated Facebookbefore it was cool to hate Facebook. All the rest of you are just 'Johnny come hate-lys'.....

Who dreamed this up? The marketing PHB?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I search for a car and I see online that Bing knows who else bought that car, it doesn't entice me. It CREEPS ME OUT. I already known what my friends bought - they're my friends, I hang out with them! Sometimes near their cars! Showing me what my friends bought makes me complicit in the invasion of their privacy, which doesn't make anything any better. How is anyone supposed to get a surprise gift for a birthday any more? I can just search for my own birthday and find out who bought what near that date - and be disappointed and resentful when none of it is for me.

I have a hard time believing FB came up with this idea. It feels like MS trying to ride the latest trend again.

Google will brain itself out of the #1 spot

[jiteo]

Google is filled with really smart people. The Internet, not so much. After the basics have been covered (and they have), the features Google will introduce will be too smart/complicated/advanced for your average Internet user, while silliness like searching for some pizza and seeing what toppings a person you haven't seen in real life in years had on their pizza last night will become inexplicably popular.

Send in the clowns

[meeotch]

The expected /. reaction to any story about Facebook, already evident in this thread, is along the lines of "Donotwant", "Lame", "Privacy Fail", "When I want to talk to my friends, I pick up the phone", etc.

Two facts I think slashdotters overlook: 1) "regular people" (i.e. everyone else) *love* the epic load of crap pretend socializing that Facebook provides, and care very little about the security of their information. b) there are a lot more of them than there are of us.

Google spends all of its time trying to mine your info (as a byproduct offering some really useful services - unlike Facebook). So they care very much about the "Social Web". Facebook has a half billion people tripping over themselves to cough up their personal info and build the Social Web basically for free. Honestly, if Facebook had a good search engine & email client, a lot of people would probably never go anywhere else. Sounds like a legitimate threat to me - even if not a single one of them can fix their own computer or speak Klingon.

If anything saves us, I think it'll be the fickleness of the mob. Hopefully, someone else will come up with the next Big Dumb Thing with Extra Farmville!, and Facebook will lose its grip the way MySpace did. But I doubt it'll be because 500,000,000 people suddenly wise up and realize they're not "really" socializing.

That was announced back in 2009

[Animats]

Back on October 21, 2009, Microsoft announces that Bing will provide "social search" of Facebook and Twitter.

Then, on October 22, 2009, Google announces that Google will provide "social search" of Facebook and Twitter. Which they did. And, for a while, Twitter results showed up in Google web search, scrolling along and annoying most users. Google later backed off on that.

Re:That was announced back in 2009

[shutdown -p now]

I believe the difference here is that Google only used data that is available to anyone. While this Bing deal uses data that Facebook provides specifically to Microsoft under a special agreement (which, I bet, involved a lot of $$$).

Useful how?

[ElGanzoLoco]

When someone uses Bing's search engine to look for a new car or a book, she can see which ones her friends liked.

Wait, what? This is a good idea how exactly, apart from Facebook and Bing cashing in big on gullible marketers who still think that "personnalized adverts" are the next big thing?

Newsflash: being friends on the web doesn't say much about what people have in common. Parsing my friends' list on Google, I can't honestly find more than 10 people that may suggest things that I may like. They also tend to be my real-life friends, and will give me this information in REAL LIFE CONVERSATIONS.

Pitching specific search results based on user profiling is also completely broken (in my case). I happen to work on two very different topics, and my Google searches for either topic are frequently polluted as Google thinks I am looking for information related to the other one. Which forces me to reset my Google search preferences and cookies every now and then. Also, Google will tend to rank up contents similar to websites/articles I've visited. When researching political topics (which is my job) it gets in the way of getting a clear, comprehensive picture of the issue at hand.

Even for more mundane stuff such as online shopping, "personalized" ads are usually pointless. Case in point: last week I made an online reservation for a hotel in a certain country. Now half the ads I see are for hotels in the same city. Great, except that I've completed my trip and won't be going back there for the next 2-3 years...

Re:Useful how?

[JeremyGNJ]

I think that "in general" you're right, but you're forgetting the human aspect. If my uncle is buying something for his computer, it might not care what all of his facebook friends think about computers, but he might VERY WELL care what *I* think, and so he might be curious to see what I like. In a similar regard, I wouldnt ask my mother where to vacation, but I have several friends on facebook that do a lot of traveling, and I think seeing their experiences might be useful.

updated quote

[Comboman]

A billion dollars isn't cool. You know what's cool? A TRILLION dollars.

Pre-existing business relationship

[yankeessuck]

I'm going out on a limb and saying Bing's merits have little to do with this deal. Microsoft invested $240M in Facebook in 2007 so of course Facebook is going to be drinking their Kool-Aid.

Re:I like it how MS are trying to stare Google dow

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, Steve Jobs isn't going to be CEO forever.

Remember that when Bill Gates was CEO, Microsoft kicked the shit out of Apple. And while the same may not happen again, I doubt Apple's next CEO will be as successful as Steve Jobs.

While for many companies a CEO isn't such a big deal, for Apple and Microsoft he is.

Re:I like it how MS are trying to stare Google dow

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if I like the idea of zombie Jobs turning the tables on anyone.

bRe:and why would I want this?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck are you talking about? You can't sue somebody because he dislikes you.

most of my friends

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of my friends are using Google.

I can't wait for this particular snake to swallow its own tail.

Marget Stagnation at it's best.

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is why I don't use facebook it's ran by liars... Since when has Microsoft been an underdog in ANYTHING? Ok yeah, bing is an underdog. But WTF facebook! microsoft owns everything else! including you! I mean since you have to support their non-standard browsers you have to do twice the work in order to make your site work. I mean wtf! why not buy BING from microsoft and create your own search engine? Or perhaps you could find a smaller company looking for a helping hand? but Microsoft?! poor old Microsoft? are you on crack?! seriously! It's like world is filled with lucky rich idiots. People care more about their wallets then they do anything else. Bing paid Mark Zuckerberg a lot of money and he falls inline with the rest of the developers stuck in Microsofts pocket. Atleast be friggin honest and say "Microsoft is going to pay me a lot of money to collaborate on a new service. More then Google! So I am going to sell out.". At least that would be honest, come on now lad, your just like the rest of them. Next thing you know you'll be saying:
"Microsoft paid us a lot of money to port it over to C#. Now we are also using Windows Servers!". Want to help an underdog, find somebody who doesn't even register on the search engine radar and build more competition instead of feeding the stagnation. Thats my two cents.

Microsoft is heavily invested in Facebook

[brunes69]

Surprised this article and /. summary is so poorly researched. (Then again this is /. what can I expect?)

Microsoft is very heavily invested in Facebook.

They put 240 million dollars into it years ago, they own a substantial stake in the company.

They very likely have one or more key members on the board, and of course would be heavily against any involvement by Google, who is their top competitor.

Re:Microsoft is heavily invested in Facebook

[iammani]

Substantial? They own less than 2% stake and the 240 million deal was for a 2% stake and an exclusive deal to run banner ads on facebook till 2011 (a pretty good deal for 240 million).

Evil Con Carne

[jamrock]

After a function in Washington D.C. which was attended by former presidents Carter, Ford, and Nixon, then-Senator Bob Dole famously quipped, "Last night Washington was treated to the presence of three former inhabitants of the White House: See No Evil, Hear No Evil, and Evil."

I can't help but feel that he could have been describing Google, Facebook and Microsoft: Don't Be Evil, Privacy is Evil, and Evil.

Diaspora is NOT the next killer social network

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever even played around with the snapshots? Its a horrible clusterfuck of gem dependencies and over-engineering that doesn't even really accomplish the task completely. Plus, it doesn't even run on traditional LAMP setups.

You really expect the average social network user - who hardly knows how to operate anything other than a web browser - to be able to set up a Diaspora node and be able to do anything with this failure of a project?

Not usually one to troll...

[Anonymous Coward]

But fuck you Facebook!

Verbing weirds language - Calvin

[KeithH]

"incentivized"?! I already had a poor impression of Facebook and its founder. Now I know why. What a twit.

I don't care what my friends like

[gstrickler]

I really don't care what kind of car, stereo, phone, soft drinks, or other stuff my friends like. They have different priorities than I do, what's important to them may not be important to me.

MS is just throwing away money with this. I have no problem with that, I just need to figure out how to get them to throw some of it in my bank account.

Message from Facebook's bank - "Bing, your bank account is getting larger"

Ummmm....

[hesaigo999ca]

>They're incentivized to go out and innovate. They have all these smart people and are trying to do all these new things.
I guess he really hasn't met the M$ team then, I guess it must have been a payoff somewhere that "inspired" him!
Let's let them get their OS right first, before handing them the full key to the internet as well.

Doubt Full.

[Anonymous Coward]

"They have all these smart people and are trying to do all these new things."

What? A smart person works at Microsoft? Tough job market?

Notice that Facebook and Google are competitors, because Google has Orkut. Facebook and Microsoft aren't competitors, because Microsoft has been so inept in the past that no one wanted to use their system like Facebook.

Ballmer has a strategy... Be a team with all the companies that will eventually fail, like Yahoo.

Where is the like/share button

[kodomo]

I want to post this new in my FB so all my friends can see it!!! What's wrong w slashdot!!!

All the more reason for Google to replace facebook

[jsepeta]

All the more reason for Google to replace facebook with a more trustable social network

This could be as big as AOL and Time Warner

[Dan667]

Oh wait, that did not turn out so well.

Ballmer/Zuckerberg:

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this anonymously allowing me to search and bettering my privacy at the same time ?

B/Z: Bwahahahahahahahahah!

B: Wait, I think he is serious...

B/Z: Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Zuckerberg is an Idiot

[Nom du Keyboard]

Zuckerberg is an idiot. A lucky idiot, but an idiot nonetheless.

Well obviously they went with Microsoft...

[MaufTarkie]

No doubt they asked Google first, but obviously Facebook was turned down because it would require Google to be evil. Actually, Microsoft and Facebook are a match made in heaven. At toast: may they both try to screw the other out of something newsworthy, so we can reap the lulz it will inevitably create.

Ugh. Decentralize the social web.

[Kazoo the Clown]

I certainly don't want the social web to be in the control of a single entity that gets to decide how my data is going to be handled, and has control over my privacy.

There are several solutions in-the-works for this, and it seems that it wouldn't be too hard for one of them to catch on, given the fact that they could easily offer interesting features that Facebook would never offer because they would lose too much control.

It seems to me that a standard for independent data repositories that are controlled by each individual and are capable of hosting their personal content-- sort of like the core of a personal web page that can then be plugged in to the social framework.

But certainly Facebook has the momentum at the moment, so it will take some focus and a killer app or two.

Possibly taking an existing system that may be closer to a more independent structure, and adapting it to be more Facebook-like would be an angle-- for example, taking Second Life and tying the data elements into a non-virtualized Facebook-like interface. Or perhaps something like that already exists. Not everyone wants to move around in 3D and talk to goofy avatars in order to see what all their friends are doing, but the independence of the user data in other experiments in social web interactions may already be developed and have some existing standing-- an existing user base to leverage. Just a thought...

Re:All the more reason for Google to replace faceb

[EmagGeek]

Google already has a social network. It's just not that great.

Butt plug??

[pablo_max]

Come on, I for one would love to know what my friends think of the new butt plug I'm searching for.

Re:Butt plug??

[RockDoctor]

Have you ever considered, you know, ASKING them?

"Hey Pablo, does my butt look big with this plug in?"

But you know better than to answer that sort of question already. I hope.

Stupid. I already know what my friends drive...

[PinchDuck]

I hang out with them. It's called having a life. I don't need to run home and FaceBing my doctor friend's favorite vehicle, because they just bought a Volvo. I don't need to know that Friend Y likes the Mexican joint in the college town, because I've been there with him. Everyone is acting like this is the barbarians massing at the gate, but it's two misguided companies trying to figure out how their products can tie up. Big deal.

own paragraph above $ followed by 12 0s?

[reiisi]

(Since people complain if the subject is part of the post, and the filter complains if I repeat it verbatim:)

It had it's own paragraph above

$000000000000

?

Bad for the Economy

[DrCode]

Uh oh... my facebook friends will see that I'm driving an 11-year-old Saturn, so, being the trend-setter that I am, they'll decide it's cool to keep driving an old car forever. And there goes the auto industry!

Fool me once...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for supporting the underdog, but that's Microsoft we're talking about here, for Christ sakes!

Just because your drunken, abusive stepfather ends up in a puddle of his own body liquids, you're not supposed to feel pitty for him all of a sudden.. after all, he's the one who beat you up all the time over the years.

I'd rather have Google keep their monopoly, than risking to get Microsoft near yet another one ever again.

Someone's missing the point

[GrumpySteen]

I enjoy talking about books and movies and music and things with my friends. We recommend stuff like that to each other all the time. I know the things they like and they know the things I like as a result.

Why would I want a search engine to parrot the opinions I've already heard and not give me new results that might lead to something interesting that I wouldn't hear about otherwise? Wouldn't this make search results less useful? I also wouldn't want everything my friends like excluded because I may well be searching for something they recommended.

I honestly can't think of any reason I would want a search engine to filter things based on my friends' tastes.

whew!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I speak for everyone here when I say I'm absolutely thrilled they didn't team up with Google

Is this the new Axis of Evil ?

[CalcuttaWala]

in an increasingly bipolar world ?

Innovation?

[dragonhunter21]

Zuckerberg, I don't know what graph you're looking at, but Google is much, much better at "innovating" than Microsoft is.

For example.

Google has:
*Started work on autonomous cars.
*Began acquiring reconnaissance drones to increase the usefulness of their maps.
*Rolled out cars to photograph cities at street level.

Microsoft has:
*Rebranded their search engine