Slashdot Mirror
Facebook More Hated Than Banks, Utilities
jfruhlinger writes "According to the American Customer Satisfaction Index, Facebook raises a lot of ire among its customers — more than Bank of America or AT&T Mobility. This bodes ill for the company — as blogger Chris Nerney points out, many of the others on the most-hated list are utilities and other companies with monopolies, which can hold customers despite bad service. At least Facebook edged out MySpace." Unsurprisingly, the most important thing about Google+ is that it's not Facebook.
And enter Google+... maybe.
Never underestimate the ability of people to hate something that didn't exist a few years ago and they get for free.
That's the real significant fact about it. Facebook's UI is a gargantuan POS. G+ has a vastly better UI and functionality that is clearly more useful for what it is intended to do. I don't understand what it is about sites like Facebook, but these services just seem to be incapable of not turning themselves into crap. Hopefully G+ will just stick to doing what it does now and doing it better. I don't understand why I should need to be able to run 'applications' in a social networking site, I can go to Popcap and do that if I want, etc.
So yeah, G+ isn't Facebook, and that's a good thing.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
It may not be Facebook, but it's still Google, and Google is still a company whose entire business model revolves around mining user data and using it to sell advertising. Google also shares Facebook's general disdain for privacy.
As long as we depend on single monolithic sites run by for-profit entities for social networking, we'll continue to have the same problems we do with Facebook. The whole social networking model is based around providing the service for free while making money from targeted advertising. As long as that's the case, the companies running the social networks will do whatever they can to try and entice people to reveal more information about themselves. Switching from Facebook to Google isn't going to change that.
Why have I never heard anyone actually say a disparaging word about it? Also, I like how the ACSI is so obscure that they have to put "matters" in their domain name to hype it up a bit. To the ACSI, no it doesn't.
People seem insane, to me. When I hate something, I stop supporting it and instead support alternatives I do not hate.
I never _started_ using facebook in the first place, because I knew that I disliked its privacy issues and its entire business model of selling my personal data. Why would I use something like that?
Do you mean Facebook users are more gullible?
You lost all credibility when you said that chiropractic care can be used prevent cancer/heart disease.
I always wonder about the people who hate something, and despite quite some competition, continue to use it. Do your friends really stop talking to you if you leave facebook? Then look for other friends.
I highly doubt Facebook is hated by its real customers (advertisers).
...and ATT has tens of millions of customers and isn't going anywhere, as does Bank of America, as does Facebook, as does Google, as does Apple, as does every favorite immature nerd-rage company to hate. What we "hate" versus what we use/patronize are meaningless comparisons. This article illuminates nothing.
The big draw of Facebook in its early years was "It's not MySpace". What makes anybody think that the story of G+ is going to be any different than the story of MySpace and Facebook?
I am officially gone from
He's a known troll. He is neither a chiropractor nor a doctor, nor in fact does he care about the subjects in question in the slightest. He only posts in every thread he can shoehorn alt med crap into for the sole purpose of generating flamewars. Stop feeding him.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
You are Facebook's PRODUCT... not their customer. Their customer is the advertisers. Their only motive is to not piss you off enough to go away.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
You should probably have pointed out that you were referring to *Slashdot* breaking right clicks in *Firefox* with their new CSS and not referring to Facebook or the original article at all...
perhaps its the rumors concerning the relationship with the CIA and other 3 letter agencies. Apparently, facebook provides a nifty search feature that among other things, allows agencies to identify people using just a picture. People have crowd sourced their identity and facebook is selling it.
...about Google+ is that you provide your social network to a corporation that ~already~ has your detailed profile, based on your searches and perhaps gmail, news reading, etc.
That is better than giving your info to yet another large corporate interest.
If you really care about privacy, you can connect your social network with a simple private listserv and/or a web forum. Most social groups have at least one person who is capable of managing this.
i dont want to lump everyone i am acquainted with in the same group, and have to choose from sharing or not sharing something with all of them. Thats not what we do in real life. Someone way past from elementary school doesnt need to see what i share with my gaming circle. Or, someone from professional circle doesnt have to see something i shared with gamers. And i dont need to be thinking about whether sharing something will be appropriate because all parties will see it.
facebook does not have this differentiation. you can change privacy settings to allow/disallow people from seeing, yet it is a 1 vs 0 boolean choice. you cant differentiate in groups. and even these settings are buried deep, problematic to do (you have to manually eliminate 140 people from seeing your updates down to 14 people), and facebook is constantly changing these settings so that they will be able to snag and sell more data to their corporate customers.
it has really become a steaming pile of shit.
i am on it, because of a few valued people are still on it, and not technically affluent to be on anything else. but, they could easily use google+, and when google+ comes, i am going to encourage them to sign up.
Read radical news here
...This bodes ill for the company...
I don't know why. The other companies mentioned, Bank of America; AT&T, are doing just fine even though their customers hate them. Saying that it "bodes ill" for Facebook because they are universally loathed is just wishful thinking.
Proverbs 21:19
It is time for a Facebook replacement. It really can't be that hard, just value your customers, and take privacy seriously. G+ looks like a great example, but not sure how much I trust a business based on selling everything they know about me for advertising revenue either. Myspace has the name, and could be rebuilt from ground up, but was just bought by an advertising company. Would someone here please stand up and make a great social network? You can sell ads (won't see them anyway), just don't sell me.
15 minutes almost up, Zuckerberg.
Why? You ask - who knows?
I'd like to think people's collective common sense is waking from it's slumber, and realising what a monstrous, evil, alienating waste of time your site is. Then again, maybe people are just tired of seeing your wonky face leering at them from news articles, and remembering that you could buy everything they've worked their whole lives for, with just one day's accumulated interest on your wealth, and they are contributing to you.
A pox on all "social" network sites, and the mega-corps that aim to profit from people's need to feel loved, say I.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Some people are so into science that they aren't open to medicine that has saved countless millions of lives.
You tell 'em doc! I got a chicken farm where I breed the chickens used for curing many many ailments that "standard" medicine can't cure. When the Voo Doo priestess slits the neck of one of those chickens, dances around naked, and chants the healing words, people are cured!
Then there are my healing crystals with their special Tachionic properties. Physicists poo poo the abilities of these crystals but it because they don't have the technology to measure the effects!
And of course there's the prayer to our Lord - Jesus Christ. He can cure all diseases. And when you have the naked Voo Doo priestess dancing and praying to Jesus with the chicken an healing crystals - there's NO disease that can survive! None!
And unlike traditional medicine, my proven cure costs only $199 - cash only please.
That's right, Chiropractors, Voo Doo priests, Shamans, Gypsie healers, and healers of Faith - we all need to stick together against this scam called "science"!
Yours,
Charles LaTan, FD
...and the axe of many of my friends, is that Facebook keeps changing their layout, users find out when they log in and are like "...what's going on?" since they can't find whatever it is they're looking for, and there's no way to change it back. I'm certain that Farmville users can find their farms, but it's getting more and more distilled into a platform where the communication aspects are less useful.
While yes, 99% of the groups were "1,000,000 strong for not clubbing baby seals" and "I hate it when people text me 'k'", there were a few groups that I was a part of that were genuine groups with active discussion boards. All of the discussion threads turned into wall posts with massive amounts of comments...and to someone, that made sense.
There's more and more spam happening. While admittedly they're doing much more to mitigate it than Myspace ever did, filtering out the malicious links is still ultimately a manual job. Even the nonmalicious stuff that's still unwanted takes a ridiculous amount of time to do right. While I blocked Mafia Wars, *ville, etc., my block list is a mile long because of it. The only one that was actually fun to me was Superpoke (there is, in fact, an odd humor to be found in throwing a virtual sheep at a friend), but the first time there was an official "new facebook", Superpoke got ditched in the process, so plug-ins became less useful unless you were someone like Zynga.
I was a fan of the 'old' messaging system, where it was effectively an e-mail. it made a lot of sense, since it was much easier to scroll the address book (i.e. my friend list), my friends frequently set up SMS notifiations so they could respond in a timely manner, and read receipts were automatic. When they asked if I wanted to change to the 'new message' system, I was like, "yeah, I'll try it out", silly me thinking they would allow me to go back if I didn't like it. Naturally, it was a one-way street.
At this point, Facebook to me is just another e-mail account, with a 'public message' view, a 'private message' view, and a game view (along with questionable privacy practices). Some of my friends are holdouts and still don't have a Facebook. While I used to be all "zomg you need one", I'm finding myself now saying "don't sweat it - is e-mail or cell better for you?" This usually provides me at least one - usually two - explicit means of contacting them. Facebook is relevant and useful, but I feel that there's a distinct possibility that it's in a position where its best days are behind it. If Zuckerburg is smart, he'll cash out now.
I don't think you get bonus points for reposting part of the summary.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
To find old friends, because they are all there. I have a profile, but only post about once a year. But I do use it as a tool to find old friends... and I then email them. =]
You're paying by your personal data, which are then made available to FB's customers (e.g. advertisers). Also, FB can use anything you upload there as it sees fit ("irrevocable license blah blah blah"). Go read their ToS, you may be *slightly* surprised what you're giving them - it's certainly not free, not even as in beer.
my wag would be: there are more teenagers using facebook that adults using banks.
Maybe it's because they have 20x the user base then anyone else..
Some of us were calling it a steaming pile of shit before calling it a steaming pile of shit was cool.
There are many people that despise Facebook, but begrudgingly go along with it, at least in a limited fashion, because it's adoption rate has become so great that it has become more difficult to maintain a social life, or to date, without some use of Facebook.
The problem with the social network concept is that even if you developed the finest social network that you can imagine, that it won't matter unless the people are there. There are already alternatives to Facebook that I'd much prefer to use, but nobody that I know uses them.
Google is among a small number of companies that has the reputation and brand recognition to really have a chance of creating an upset.
Besides, if you have trouble getting people to believe that you are truly following, "don't be evil", then at least put yourself into the position where you will be contrasted against someone even more evil to help you look better in comparison. ;-)
Another Facebook bashing blog entry submitted as news. Great.
Slashdot would top this so-called list if it had any real user base left.
The difference is that BoA and AT&T have a much stronger means by which to prevent people from leaving. Remember how MySpace was the social network before it pretty much collapsed over night? It wouldn't surprise me if that happened to FB in the near future when the cool kids find someplace else to hang out.
My expectation (no, of course I didn't RTFA) is that people hate the relatively rigid UI format of facebook which changes without notice on a fairly regular basis, with no attempt to transition or provide guidance. Whether it's the list friends online (list->pictures) or the "enter now submits your comment" features, or any of a dozen other annoyances, they all generate ill will, even if they may be useful in the long run.
People like the concept of facebook - the connectivity, the games (ugh), organizational advantages. They just don't like the implementation, or rather the infuriatingly frequent changes in the implementation. MySpace was visually busy, and appealed to a far more limited set of users.. Lots of people can stand facebooks UI, so the interaction makes the experience worthwhile. Now that the site has critical mass (your best friend, your grandma, and your long lost college buddies are all on it) any competitor has a large barrier to entry.
The danger for FB is that if someone were to create a social site that had most of your friends already, it could overcome that. Say, someone who already handles a huge number of emails and could offer to transition you nearly seamlessly into the community you already have via email. Google fits that. And that's why FB should be scared.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
This is why i hate facebook. I see it everywhere, i'm constantly asked to join it by friends, constantly asked to sign into it by other sites, it's just a huge annoyance.
At least AT&T isn't in my face everywhere I go.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Facebook raises ire amongst its "customers"? Really? So, amongst the corporations to which it sells aggregate advertising data? Huh, I wouldn't have expected those customers to be so upset.
First: the link in the summary is wrong, it links to a marketing firm. The ACS is here.
While the original Business Insider post is straightforward enough (BTW the summary should have linked here, instead of to itworld spam... I find the itworld spam interesting.
Facebook is far from the most interesting company in that top 19 list - in fact the general trend seems to be companies with relative monopolies in their service areas; but does anyone really think it coincidence that ITWorld ran this article with this take on the situation the day after Google Plus was announced?
The problem with stuff like chiropractic treatments is how much is placebo effect in action. Right now I lump chiropractic care above acupuncture (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/acupuncture-does-not-work-for-back-pain/) in plausibility, but not enough to rule out a placebo effect in play.
Not to say all alternative health doesn't work. Just like super natural effectively means [(unproven natural)+(faerie tales)], alternative medicine right now means [(treatments untested, but work)+(all snake oils)]. With heart disease, autism, etc., I am curious to see how people who go to chiropractic practicenor also at the same time change their diets and other health related life styles in even minor (but potentially more effective) ways, but lump it into the big flashy treatment.
That's the problem I have with alternative medicines. They help? Good, let's test them to see why they help and maybe that can lead to more and better cures for other things. I want to be sure that your arm bending or herb is what saved those "millions" and not just a placebo.
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
I've been curious about this. It seems like Facebook took off because as you say "it's not Myspace". What happens when the next generation wants to post their teenage/college sex/drinking exploits? I can't picture them doing so on the same service Grandma uses.
Is social networking going to become an alternating generational cycle where each upcoming generation must move to a new service to get away from their family? Or will people adopt multiple networks? I expect a geek to do so naturally but the average person?
We don't need no social networks! What we need is a good anti-social network!
And yet millions of people still use it. Nothing is ever going to change, no matter how much they are despised, until consumers stand up for their rights by not using the service or product that offends them!
*Proud not-user of Facebook*
Caffeine is my anti-drug!
Duranin - A NWN2 Roleplaying Persistent World
I'm asking because G+ hasn't open its doors to everyone yet
Lame ' MeToo' second attempt by anti-social programmers with all the creative genius of reimplementing someone else's success. Google+, at best, an alpha scratch and sniff the surface of socializing their services. Its only redeeming quality being Google vast wealth promises a third, hopefully not another inane do over with this version's prettier UI and Facebook emulation retained.
The edge Facebook used to have is that it wasn't Myspace.
Facebook's user count is dropping. The problem seems to be that the users are becoming annoyed with all the junk,
The rise of mobile use may be a problem for Facebook. Anecdote: a female friend of mine in SF is very much into doing everything possible through her iPhone. She recently told me to use email, text, or voice to reach her, rather than messaging on Facebook. She's deluged with useless Facebook status updates, and now only checks Facebook every day or two. Paging through all that stuff on an iPhone was too much, and now she looks at Facebook only through her laptop or iPad.
Some other young people I know think of Facebook as a photo-sharing site. It's easy to upload photos from your phone to Facebook, and Facebook has good tools for organizing pictures. That's where you put your travel photos. It's not how you reach your friends.
The small screen could be a real problem for Facebook.
...between Facebook and the banks that the haters of either in this case have failed to take into account. The majority of us are required to have at least one bank account in order to (at the very least) allow us to get paid for our work. Whereas membership of Facebook is entirely optional.
Facebook's users are not its customers. The customers are advertisers, marketers, and companies building social-network-based services (which ultimately end up getting paid by advertisers and marketers).
It's still a pretty terrible sign that it annoys people so much. TV has the same model (where content consumers are not customers), but people are usually pretty happy with TV despite the commercials.
If you use Facebook you get what you deserve.
You see, there IS justice in the world after all.
This is shocking. I had no idea that advertisers were that upset with Facebook. I thought the bent over backwards to provide advertisers with everything they could possibly want. It could be a big problem for them.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Facebook the "most hated", and yet it keeps growing...like a flower..or cancer. You choose.
Reminds me of that line in Howard Sterns movie when the statistics reported the #1 reason people that love Howard Sterns radio show was also the exact same reason for people that hate the Howard Stern radio show. Both groups couldn't wait to hear what he had to say next.
Facebook basically is a monopoly, if all your friends are there then you have no real choice... And your friends are probably in the same boat, with it being too impractical to move them all en masse.
Unfortunately, a service of this kind basically ensures a monopoly... I don't know how such a service could be offered in a decentralised way.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
More hated than the banks? This is like those stupid polls that describe congress's low approval ratings while 95% percent of them are steadily reelected every time.. Maybe what it's really saying is that people are masochists or suffer from Munchhausen syndrome..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
rufty_tufty ever heard about diaspora, friendika, statusnet, open microblogging ?
To me Facebook just got to be a total pain in the a___ - I had like 300 "friends" most of them just partial or casual acquaintances..and they also had like 300 friends - so basically even if I posted an update I wanted certain people to see they would miss it because of all the other postings (of you know cats in bear costumes and what not) so I had to email them so they could look - um I could of just emailed them in the first place....not to mention people you work with who try and friend you then if you ignore it (because you don't like them) that causes grief at work - ugh I just washed my hands of it and never looked back. Sure people give you crap at first but in the end no one really cares if you are on Facebook or not - Now the innovations they made in handling big data I applaud - although Hammerbacher split to go to Cloudera and I think quite a few of their other big brains have split too - anyways that is my rant - cheers
Yeah, and now they even blame Mozilla's POSTDATA bug on it:
... whereas in the old days, it was banks who were the scapegoat for this obnoxious behavior:
Facebook doesn't want you to use the back button
Banks are holding up Mozilla to make it break the back button on SSL pages that are the result of a form submission
Say no to software patents.
Don't be too hard on him - Dr Bob is about the only decent troll on Slashdot these days. They're a rare breed: the closest a lot of people have seen to proper trolling is posting GNAA rants or goatse links.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Am I missing something, or is there an easy solution in the room that everyone has been ignoring for a while?
The internet itself was designed to be distributed, but all these corporate behemoths are pouring massive amounts of money and energy into centralizing it. Take a look at the protocols that existed before the commercialization of the internet, such as http, smtp, etc. They were built to take advantage of the distributed nature of the internet, by allowing anyone to run the service on a node, and use the DNS system for routing to their node. Mostly decentralized, except for the DNS system, which is a pretty thin layer.
Let's look at some commercial services in this context:
twitter: Why can't we have an open microblog protocol, where anyone can host a microblog server (probably running on top of http), and anyone can subscribe to anyone's feed by using an email address at the domain of the microblog server. (note: I do know that there are several open source microblog systems under development)
social networking: now that social networking is relatively mature, and a standard set of features has emerged across most popular social network, a standard could be built for intercommunication with various independent social networks. For instance, say you've got an account at a specific domain, e.g. bill@mydomain.com, and your friend is sally@anotherdomain.com. You log into the SNS node at mydomain.com, make a friend request by entering "sally@anotherdomain.com", and your SNS node would contact the SNS node at anotherdomain.com to request making a social graph connection.
Google and others would still be able to host their own versions of these standardized protocols, just like they do with email, and if they do it well, they will still get a lot of users.
I don't understand why Google doesn't release an open source distributed social network (OpenSocial is NOT that - it's just a standard for creating application platforms). They could maintain their ascendancy by doing what they do best: indexing all the independent nodes out there, and providing services to enhance those nodes and embed advertising. When they try to build out the service themselves, they are competing directly with Facebook in unfamiliar waters.
Just my two cents.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Dr. Bob's Facebook profile. He looks, scarily, legit. Even has DC friends.
I mean sure Facebook can be annoying sometimes, but generally speaking it is a free service that is pretty useful or at least entertaining.
Also I hate both the telecommunications Mobile/phone/Internet/TV/Cable with a passion. I also really hate the banks. In both cases, you have to deal with them, and they are all pretty much the same crooks. You sort of accept it and move on, which makes you all the more hateful/angerkill, specifically because you are powerless to do anything about it, and they know they can pretty much do whatever they like and get away with it.
So yeah, I am not sure where this "survey" was done, but I find it pretty hard to believe that FB is more hated than say the telcos or the banks. Either that or most people are stupider than I give them credit for...
If someone hates a service : stop using it.
I personally find it very useful to keep in touch with old friends, since I moved to an other continent. It is also a good promotion tool for businesses with it's API interface.
But really, if someone hates it: stop using it. Same with banks: keep your money in gold, dig it int your garden, utilities: get off the grid. Why B*tch about a FREE service?
Current employer? Facebook doesn't have that.
Residences? Facebook doesn't have that.
Home/cell number? Facebook doesn't have those.
email & passwords? Haven't put those into facebook either.
Vacation schedule? Not there either.
Just because they ask for it, doesn't mean you have to put it in there.
I love facebook because it made all the juvenile chatter disappear from my inbox. No more emails like "LULZ funny! Cat lights its own fart on fire video!".
It's a great place for my "friends" to discuss all that and what they are eating for dinner right now. Facebook gathered and isolated all that crap. I can only hope that come 2012 that's where they'll promote their political agendas, too.
I'm not saying that everything that goes on on facebook is useless, but it is for me.
Now if only there was a way to block all facebook widgets and twitter widgets in chrome, that would be idyllic living.
But for now, facebook saved my inbox, and for that I [heart] facebook.
So does this mean that FB isn't worth the $50 Billion or what ever inflated to the bursting point price the banks were trying to offer only their most valued customers?
I guarantee you that the majority of people who say they "hate" Facebook only do so because they're jumping on the bandwagon. It's falling out of style; it's as simple as that. Nothing has fundamentally changed with Facebook outside of perception. All the issues with Facebook, privacy, friend spam and social games have always been there. When a viable competitor comes along everyone is going to flock to that even if it's got all the same exact problems as Facebook.
Google+: For people who thought, "You know, I wish there were some way I could give even more personal information to Google!"
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
We already have one. It's called the "World Wide Web." And it's actually pretty awesome and in many ways it makes MySpace and Facebook look downright primitive in comparison.
But it does have some perceived failings, depending on what it is that you want, and most of those perceived failings are "solved" by enforced structure and order -- centralization.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I also use identi.ca and linkedin and that is it
Pizza analogy guy and the ladyboy afficianado are on break ?
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
It's hard for me to image hating anyone more then BofA and AT&T. IMO this probably has something to do with their perverse campaign to always look for ways around any privacy wishes their users may have and their blatant attempts to circumvent the privacy settings the users have already set.
Pizza analogy guy wasn't much of a troll. His posts were often entertaining, but rarely spawned many long threads in reply. Not sure about the ladyboy aficionado - his posts are apparently such obvious trolls that they are always below my threshold, so clearly not a very good troll. Dr Bob seems to be at -1 now, but he's had quite a few troll posts at +5 in the past, and they tend to last long enough above -1 to spawn long reply threads (like this one).
The only other persistent troll with this kind of track record is commodore64_love, but I always get the impression that he actually believes his trolls, which takes some of the fun away.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
They have customers, but it's not their users. They're the product. Yes, dear user of Facebook, you're not their "valued customer". You are what they are selling. You are the product. You are a bit like the native Americans when the white people came. Ignorant of what this "trade" really means, what it really means that you hand over your private space for a few trinkets. Your data is valuable, but you hand it over for a few shiny beads.
But hey, don't feel bad. Facebook ain't the only one. It's about the same with private TV. You, watching it, aren't their customer. You're their product. They're selling you to the ad companies. So it's not like Facebook is the first "evil" company to exploit that people attach little value to their time and data, they just took it to a new level.
Arseholes On Line
Let's see, in order to maintain my current lifestyle, I NEED a bank, and I NEED a phone. I can switch companies, but all in all I still need someone to provide me those services. Guess what . . . . I DON'T need facebook. If it was truly more hated than those other services, people wouldn't be using it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Call Facebook "Mugshots"
When is a friend not a friend?
Mugshots is a Trap
Google is "Go Ogle"
Superstition Ain't the Way
"Do not be evil"!
Not anonymous
Isolation Ain't the Way
Go outside and play
Read only your side
Insulation Ain't the Way
Open up your mind
Losing Privacy
For bogus "Security"
Ain't the Way to Peace
There's not much that I can hate more than banks. Facebook doesn't cost me money. If I used it for personal use, it would cost me some privacy, but that's nothing relative to banks. Banks, if I used them more than I do, would cost me a *fortune*.
I don't respond to AC's.
Cheat the moderation system - here's how they downmod others, and this is where countertrolling explains what he's doing while he trolls others (to his fellow trolltalk.com friends):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652
And, here's where countertrolling's "troll mechanics" for downmodding others is explained in detail by someone that got sick of it happening:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2271908&cid=36579618
As far as bogus up moderations, the trolltalk.com bunch (tomhudson, countertrolling, & others) collectively "team up" to upmod one another, in teams, as favors to one another.
(Talk about low, and bogus!)
---
countertrolling & the trolltalk.com crew
(ON THEIR MOD UPS:)
Mod him up & cheat the moderation system - here's how they downmod others (here is where countertrolling explains what he's doing while he trolls others to his fellow trolltalk.com friends):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652
And, here's where his "troll mechanics" for downmodding others is explained in detail by someone that got sick of it happening:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2271908&cid=36579618
As far as bogus up moderations, the trolltalk.com bunch (tomhudson, countertrolling, & others) collectively "team up" to upmod one another, in teams, as favors to one another.
(Talk about low, and bogus!)
---
In fact, here's what he says about it, why he does it, and to all of us here:
"What the skiddies here don't understand is that I don't give a shit about dumbass 'karma' on the internet.. I'm here for the jollies with nothing to lose or fight for.. watching them destroy their world.. They can go absolutely nuts as far as I'm concerned.. It's nothing but pure entertainment (and data points) for me and mine... Tragicomedy is probably the best word I can think of to describe it" - by countertrolling (1585477) on Thursday June 30, @10:26AM (#36622502) Journal
QUOTED VERBATIM FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2281808&cid=36622502
Sounds like a sick individual to me.
Cheat the moderation system - here's how they downmod others, and this is where countertrolling explains what he's doing while he trolls others (to his fellow trolltalk.com friends):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652
And, here's where countertrolling's "troll mechanics" for downmodding others is explained in detail by someone that got sick of it happening:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2271908&cid=36579618
As far as bogus up moderations, the trolltalk.com bunch (tomhudson, countertrolling, & others) collectively "team up" to upmod one another, in teams, as favors to one another.
(Talk about low, and bogus!)
---
In fact, here's what he says about it, why he does it, and to all of us here:
"What the skiddies here don't understand is that I don't give a shit about dumbass 'karma' on the internet.. I'm here for the jollies with nothing to lose or fight for.. watching them destroy their world.. They can go absolutely nuts as far as I'm concerned.. It's nothing but pure entertainment (and data points) for me and mine... Tragicomedy is probably the best word I can think of to describe it" - by countertrolling (1585477) on Thursday June 30, @10:26AM (#36622502) Journal
QUOTED VERBATIM FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2281808&cid=36622502
Sounds like a sick individual to me.
Facebook; use the last one wisely.
facebook would start the decline.
:D
If I share my last name, can I have a "My Law" of social networking sites lasting about 4 years?
There are a lot of them just google something like "facebook sucks".
Then you can read all about why a lot of people hate Facebook.
There are some differences, though :
Google knows for a long time that using open standards and open format is important. The whole "Data Liberation front" campaign to make easier to move data to/from Google means you're never locked in. Even some social aspect can be kept outside of google : Their mail server and chat server rely on open protocols (e-mail and XMPP) and can communicate with other servers running compatible protocols (e-mail : well obviously. Chat: XMPP is federated, you can chat between a Jabber.org and a Gmail.com account).
Meanwhile Facebook condescended to start opening a little bit only after much pressure from the users and the concurrence. And most of the time it's only half-assed efforts.
Yes, recently you can download your FB data. But that in a quite not practical ZIP archive, and it only covers a fraction of what is on FB.
Yes, their chat is finally accessible over XMPP. Except that it's not a XMPP-*based* chat, but instead their proprietary chat which can be accessed over a XMPP proxy. Thus no chat possible between, say, @facebook.com and @gmail.com.
Also Facebook tend to have a completely psychopath approach to privacy :
- They'll do whatever they want with it. Zuckerberg don't even understand why someone doesn't want to have all his data public.
- Each time there's a new privacy breaking feautre, you'll be nonetheless added automatically to it.
Google, though they also rely on your data for their business model, tends at least to be polite about it :
- They more often ask your confirmation for new stuff.
- They tend to be more open abount their blunder. In the Wifi scandal, they spontaneously admitted it (had they not, probably nobody would have known about it).
So, although I think that, no matter how much they repeat that their motto is "Don't do evil", it's not something that a company can realistically achieve,
at least I think that
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I just posted the ACSI link on my wall on Facebook. Lets see if they complain. I'm only on it because my grandchildren are on it. Really. Honest!
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Facebook just needs to keep people satisfied or addicted enough that they don't quit. Granted, they are seeing a dropoff so they are failing at that, but unless a genuine competitor pops up they only need to be nice enough to people to make it not worth the cost of changing over to something else or going back to e-mail and message boards. And as long as they have a stranglehold on the social network market, that means they can treat people like shit and mostly get away with it.
Google astroturf fail
- Dan.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
You know, I thought there was a chance you where being sarcastic, but I went for it anyways. Besides, it's not everyday one gets the opportunity to be modded -1 Redundant. I'd be a fool to pass that up! :D
If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
While I think Google will choose to try to interoperate if they can, I think their open data policy makes it hard to not interoperate, even if they don't want to.
I definitely think that they will too. Past experience show that they end up eventually (see google talk: because of XMPP they can chat with other networks of XMPP users (a user of @gmail.com can chat with someone @jabber.org) and they ended up indeed allowing the option. Without any pressure being required.
Unlike facebook, which only after much user complaining that their system suck, and users preferring other networks for chatting (Skype and GTalk seem to be the 2 most popular here around), they ended introducing XMPP support. And that is only used as a proxy into their still proprietary system. With no support of advanced feature. And *NOT EVEN* support for chatting with other XMPP-based network (a @facebook.com user *CAN'T* chat with a @gmail.com user).
The whole "Data Liberation Front" campain it self is even based arround the idea that opening is good. In the guerilla marketing video, they completely openly admit that they count on the fact that, by being easy to run away from, and using *NO* lock-ins, they count on the fact that this will indeed encourage people to actually use their service.
And that will be the case. Currently, Facebook has momentum, only because of lock-in. It's popular, only because everybody else is in there too. Purely network effect. You can't run away from there, because you'll lose all the friends, all the messages, all the comments, etc. you'll lose all the "social aspects" of your Facebook history. And that's what fundamentally is attractive in social networks (well, that and have more pigs in Farmville).
Now if google were to implement some open interoperating protocol (like, say Diaspora, and having G+ work as a gigantic commercial pod), a lot less people will be afraid to go in. Because, if things turn out badly, they can still leave to any other Diaspora-interoperating system, and still keep their friends on G+.
I really like the fundamental strategy, and I hope that enough people have been burned by lock-in to appreciate it for it to work.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I'm not sure why it matters if a service is hated or not by a group of people.
> Facebook raises a lot of ire among its customers
Developers learned, not to grease the squeaky wheels, unless it's convenient. The machine works. Token resistance is incidental and expected.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Their previous half assed attempt at starting a social network failed miserably because they by default exposed not only all your contacts in Google Mail, but also every mail address in your inbox and sent mail folder for the world to see. Compared to that, even the awfully bad privacy settings of Facebook were a godsend.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Sorry about the Mr. thing just the Suckerberg boy, an unethical brat, not at all stupid but certainly very lucky. He is not a Steve Jobs, not a Bill Gates either. Those two do have their good and bad points but at least they know their stuff better.
When it goes IPO, get in for a week the most then the crash will be long term to recover.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But where is Diaspora* now? I've been on their site since december and the site is dead.
I dont buy it, with all its members still very active on facebook, you would think being that it is not a necessity to life, you can just boycott it if you feel it is not good for you, where as banks you still need....so i think this article is more a competitor trying to get some dirt on facebook, or bad publicity going...pretty sad really.