Facebook has settled a suit that could have seen it compensating 150 billion people in the United "States."
150 billion people? Facbook making people up now to improve their shares?
Facebook has settled a suit that could have seen it compensating 150 million people in the United States. Facebook will pay out $10m to charity to settle a class action lawsuit that challenged the social network for using punters' mugshots in adverts. The case was settled on Friday, 15 June, and Facebook have agreed to pay …
The question is there a good alternative for those of use who want to share pictures/updates with our friends? and JUST our friends?
I've always believed that there isn't anything you can do with Farcebook that can't be done with a properly-maintained listserv or simple cc: list -- or, perhaps, an invitation-only blog -- with the added benefit of not having to deal with Mark Fuckerberg.
I know of new FB alternative. It's called 'The Pub'.
It allows it's users the chance to share information with one another, make new contacts, play games, be social and even get into stupid tit for tat arguments over nothing just as you can on Facebook!
Mine the one that smells of stale beer
There were pie-in-the-sky plans for an open source peer-to-peer alternative, but it was still working on security bugs, last I heard. Unfortunately, Facebook's USP is its ubiquity; imagine being at a party and a girl asks if you are on Facebook, and you reply "Nah, I'm a geek so I use Diaspora. Let me tell you about it..." Even Orkut is only good for keeping in touch with Brazilian acquaintances.
Facebook has critical mass, and most of the people I know on it aren't likely to adopt a peer-to-peer system- indeed, many now access it from a phone.
It would be a lovely thing indeed for just the core useful functionality of FB (group messaging for event invitations, photo-sharing, sending your telephone number to a friend of a friend you were chatting to the night before) to be available without the creepy stuff. The work involved in creating its infrastructure is tiny compared to the billions FB has been valued at, and the only reason people visit it is to see words, pictures and music their own friends have created.
A law forcing FB to allow data to be exported from it would be very welcome, but I don't see it happening.
Of course, a proper GN would pick up on the fact that you should have said
"$100 billion", "USD 100 billion", or "100 billion dollars"
"100 billion $".
No doubt your their/there plea was merely a ploy to distract lesser GNs from this deliberate error.
I smell conspiracy - the last time I made a comment on an error like the 150 billion in this article, my comment was deleted by the mods, so this time I was a good little boy, and submitted a correction through the appropriate channels. Now it seems I needn't have bothered. Why is everybody always picking on me?
The game that both Google and Facebook are playing is that of numbers.
What *really* should happen is that they are made to pay per individual violation, because exposing the details of an individual doesn't have a lesser impact if it happens to more people. However, because that would finish the companies (and, presumably, the associated juicy campaign contributions and lobbying) the correct charges are turned into something that can be paid out of petty cash.
The whole business model they are running is flat out ignoring the law, and they say "oops, sorry" when they're caught out - at which point the number trick follows. In other words, there is absolutely no incentive for these organisations to ever go even *close* to actual compliance, ever. Let's just screw over the populations' rights chasing the almighty buck.
The brutal irony in this is that the executives of the organisations are very, very shy of the disclosure they demand of others themselves (government organisations display the same attitudes). I makes you wonder what they have to hide..
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021