'I own half of Facebook', says New York fuel salesman New York firewood salesman Paul Ceglia filed a revised complaint against Facebook yesterday, in which the claimant said he had evidence that showed he was entitled to ownership of half of the social network. Ceglia alleges he has email exchanges with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, where the two men discussed the terms of a 2003 …
I have until recently been a strong believer of Facebook's non-value. However, recently I have realized that I may have miscalculated people's stupidity and lack of understanding of stuff. * Just like Microsoft seized control on a large part of the PC sales revenue by taking control of the software not the hardware, and Google took control of advertisement by taking control of search, it seems that Facebook is implementing a privately own web by taking control of people's identity and social interaction on the web.
I have recently noticed newspapers having their comment section integrated with Facebook. I see companies setting up their own page on Facebook and talking directly with their customers there. As a technocrat I fumble to see the purpose to this and the gain for people, but that is where my miscalculation previously mentioned come in. It is a long time ago since I realized that it is impossible to fathom man's depth of stupidity, but what I had not until recently put in to words is that it implies that while too little insight will keep you from seeing the larger picture, too much insight will keep from seeing how things are perceived by other people. While I think that anonymity on Internet is not only a good thing, but a necessity, most people think of it as a drag. It seems that most people think that reason we are anonymous on Internet is that science hasn't yet come up with a way to confirm our identity.
What do I mean with this? Well, I have not fully wrapped my head around it yet, so you have to excuse me for not being able to formulate it very clearly. However what I start to see is that Facebook may actually have a potential of making money by running their own private version of the web. I do not know of course if they will be able to make it, but where I until recently waited for them to fall over, I am not so sure anymore. There is a lot of money in being a provider of identity and selling insight on social behavior.
I apologize for the off topic comment, but I think should be excused on the grounds of being a commentard. Mine is the anonymous one.
*The problem with factoring in people's stupidity seems to be closely related to a 1/x math problem where x may be zero.
Before Microsoft and MS-DOS there was CP/M. Functionally identical (literally in the 1.4 version). Its all about marketing. There was no particular reason to hand PC software over to Microsoft and it should have just been a short-term stopgap solution. Except that Microsoft knew how to market it -- and also how to lock customers in (by creative use of bugs and idiosyncracies to generate user FUD -- they really knew the corporate mindset).
Facebook is also a bit of a technological joke but that won't stop it turning into a money machine.
If by "marketing it" you mean selling it for £50 instead of the £250 that DR wanted for CP/M, than your correct. It amuses me just how many people seem to be wearing rose tinted specticles when it comes to CPM.
Oh, and the other reason MS-DOS succeeded is that DR wanted to impose some onerous licencing on IBM, and that went about as well as you would expect.
there are 500m *people* on FB. I'm sure if you wanted to be a condescending twunt about it you could call them all idiots but a fair amount of them read el reg and not only are aware of the much discussed privacy concerns but treat the data they put on their as public (me included).
the reason some people get the impression that there are millions of drooling unwashed out there who are only too happy to swim in sloppy shit for 5 minutes of face time on TV is because those few who are that mental scream so much louder than everyone else.
contrary to popular belief most people are actually alright, even those who use FB and other social networking sites. the fringe cases just get more attention.
you can use or not use any of these sites as you please, i really couldn't care less - but do think twice before proclaiming everyone else but yourself to be idiots.
OP was perhaps a bit too condescending and in the real world people are generally fine, but try reading comments on YouTube or Fox News for an hour without coming away severely depressed about the human race.
Everyone has some odd belief - I'm pretty sure I'm a handsome undiscovered genius, my old boss was a charming multi-millionaire that would stare out the window looking for "chemtrails" on occasion, a tiny girl I once knew was convinced she was fat and ugly, a relative believes that Obama is the antichrist despite being an otherwise lovely person.
Beneath a veneer of civility, most people hold some kind of viewpoint that is bizarre or offensive to someone else... most people *are* nonsense-gibbering idiots to some degree, but it's better to ignore that side of them and focus on the nice stuff. Just the Internet does not show you the nice side of people, just the mental bit.
Conclusion - social media holds a depressing lens to the worst parts of our humanity. Go outside and talk to people.
"The Internet does not show you the nice side of people, just the mental bit."
- Gareth, handsome undiscovered genius and commentard on The Register.
Thanks for that one. I will write it down somewhere. Nice to remember when you are about to yell at somebody over the intertubes.
Now then, how to go back in time...
It is odd that FB is sounding so definite now when initially they said they were not sure whether the contract was valid. He did agree that he entered into another contract with the guy to do some web development ... And did state that he was not sure whether the additional contract the guy produced to show he invested in his personal project that he pitched to the guy after completing the initial wed design contract was valid.
But attack is the best defense if only they had know this at the start. Then people like myself would not be skeptical because of their earlier statements
How can you not know that a contract you sigh is valid or not????
This post has been deleted by its author
Zuck should have cleaned this mess up years ago instead of buying that Acura. He could have bought out that contract for a fraction of what his lawyers will get paid cleaning it up now. Not to mention what will happen if they fail.
$27.5B Black Acura for sale anyone?
I like your comments overall mr.K, but while they may try to do that, I doubt FB can pull that off. They do not have the capital, know-how or drive.
FB is today what MySpace was a few years ago. Tons of users, ultra popular with the kids and absolutely no long term practicality whatsoever. The only reason businesses are getting onto FB are the "Like" buttons (No "Dislike" buttons, so why not) and to be there to control the message if things go negative or against them.
FB was not established with a master plan of establishing their own web. Zuck didn't know anyone who had that idea at the time, so...
FB is just a one trick pony corporation looking to increase their revenue stream by getting businesses involved. That worked wonders for MySpace, didn't it?
God I can't stand that guy. New plaintiff's law firm is DLA PIPER, BIG TIME out fit. Read a PDF of the complaint at the WALL STREET JOURNAL. Hollywood may have to make a sequel to the movie. here is a link to the suit:http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/cegliaamendedcomplaint041211.pdf
I must admit that it provides a lot of entertainment. I mean, you could not have sold this as a movie plot..
I actually hope this to be proven true. Not because of my personal dislike of Zuckerberg or Farcebook, but because of the followup entertainment. Imagine you have stuck lots of money into Farcebook, and suddenly a halfwit conman walks away with 50% of it. That's Zuckerberg in court again, on charges of fraud. It's a gift that keeps on giving, and it's not like there isn't precedent out there which will make it harder for Zuckerberg to defend himself..
On the other hand, if Farcebook is right and it's all made up, I can see a bright future for Paul Ciglia as a forger of author. Both contract and email traffic are *extremely* realistic..
Either way, it seems time to break out the popcorn and watch the show..
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
