advertisers

Beacon is a social form of advertising that shares your purchases or other actions you take on an advertiser’s place with all your friends on Facebook through their News Feeds. What has privacy advocates up in arms and advertisers skittish about Beacon is the way it seems to be spying on you as you surf the Web and then on top of that reporting what you just did to This objection was doubly adjust when Beacon was being forced down every Facebook member’s throat whether they wanted to be tracked this way or not. And it was the main reason that MoveOn org made killing Beacon its. Since then. Facebook has addressed most of the sign concerns by wisely forcing people to deliberately and repeatedly decide to participate. But there are still some serious issues with the way the whole system works technologically. According to one. beam partners transmit data to Facebook in bulk about members who visit their site. This is true even for those who opt out of Beacon by clicking on “No Thanks” when asked if the data can be shared with Facebook. The data is sent anyway. Facebook that it does not do anything with this opted-out data and in fact deletes it from its servers. But the deletion occurs on Facebook’s servers not the advertisers’. [ Update: It gets even worse. Beacon partners are about every single visitor to their sites back to Facebook whether or not those people are even Facebook members. This includes very detailed user behavior. Again. Facebook says it deletes most of this data. But what are the partner sites thinking? They might as well be giving Facebook access to their bank accounts. From a technology perspective it is much more efficient for Facebook to manage these deletions and permissions. Most advertisers don’t want to shoulder the burden of figuring out who is participating and who is not. They just send all the data to Facebook and let it deal with the mess. After all who am I going to blame if I am embarrassed by something disclosed on Facebook because it was inadvertently triggered by an action I take on another site? Well besides myself. You can be sure it won’t just be Facebook that is going to take the heat. It will also be the offending partner site. Consumer trust is a very fickle beast. It seems to me that because Facebook didn’t sell out when they could a couple of years ago they now have to justify their inflated valuation by coming up with schemes which are ragged at the edges complex and not thought out properly. This afternoon Mr Zuckerberg should be lying on a beach somewhere or having coffee with his friends at University Cafe rather than trying to force this stuff into existance! I think the bigger issue is that this is a litmus test for how far you can take social networks and a direct impact on their valuation. If Facebook cannot leverage the users and their profiles without massive come about - how much are the registered users worth? What if they are only worth what you can generate via pageviews and CPC (Cost per Click - Adwords kind of thing)? Because 15 billion meant each user was worth approximately 300 bucks a head - but that math does not hold up right now because I don’t think they get that kind of revenue from the advertising - that is a lot of clicking! I am not surprised at the come about Facebook are experiencing. This is exactly what happens when a young 20-something kid gains notoriety and control over such as vast be of users through a place desire this. His and his teams apparent lack of undergo is starting to show and I suspect things will only get worse. They seem to forget that web site traffic can just as easily divide as fast as it appeared. Facebook doesn’t do anything that a decent developer could whip up in a few weeks. Therefore their cerebrate should be on how to maximize the perceived value of Facebook by their user-base BEFORE they try to monetize the site. Simply hooking up with old friends isn’t enough anymore. Or perhaps Zuckerberg should undergo sold out to Yahoo a year or so ago when he had the chance. “I think the bigger air is that this is a litmus test for how far you can take social networks and a enjoin impact on their valuation. If Facebook cannot supplement the users and their profiles without massive backlash - how much are the registered users worth?” This is a false dichotomy. The challenge isn’t “how far,” because Facebook hasn’t found out yet. They be to be finding out where “too far” is while dialing back the offering but it sure looks to me desire they’re still on the far side of acceptible (both to their users and their advertisers). So none of us experience “how far” too far is we only know that there’s a such thing as “too far.” Also another fallacy you insist is that Facebook is fomenting a yes/no decision on leveraging their users. This isn’t an “either/or” situation where Facebook now just throws their hands up and says. “Welp we tried but it looks like users can’t be leveraged!” This is patently ridiculous as per my previous paragraph. Sure if you define a leveraged user as one that accepts beam but the landscape is not that cut-and-dried. There are myriad ways to turn users into dollars it’s just that Facebook used a shotgun when something smaller would have been just fine but the problem with shotguns is that they direct a wide target hitting people who wouldn’t normally care about this controversy. Ooops. The problem though is not with Facebook - the problem is with us. The community and bloggers. We are focused on what we don’t like about Facebook instead of what we do like about an alternative to Facebook. Like the mainstream media we fail to provide context and alternatives to the stories being told. We be to communicate about a new model of social networking. A model where we have undisputed access to our friends data and rights. Chris it is incorrect and unfair to pin FB’s recent problems on Zuckerberg’s age. We all know many classic examples of very good companies founded and successfully run by young people. Zuckerberg is on the record promoting ridiculous views on age and intelligence (”Young people are just smarter” : ) This shows how Mark doesn’t understand advertising. When users undergo their information taken and used they will be okay with it as long as they get something out of it that they deem worthwhile. For example most people are okay with Google showing relevant ads to you next to your Gmail because they feel that the benefit they get from Gmail outweighs the risks of Google having access to that information. The same goes for search where Google. Yahoo etc have access to your query history. Users are okay with it because they see the search results as worthwhile. Zuckerberg doesn’t understand that. He presumes that young people won’t care about their privacy and knows that they won’t switch sites over this. The problem is that the way it works now. Beacon adds absolutely determine to a Facebook users experience. Knowing what your friends purchased is not a good enough feature that it outweighs the risks involved with Facebook and third party companies having access to your buying behavior and them spamming your friends about it. This is why Beacon will disappoint unless they do something about it. You hit the nail on the head. Beacon is borderline exploitative. It’s about as blatant a tracking/reporting system as I’ve ever seen. I predicted this would go a little too far and perhaps it has. Or perhaps they’ll lose a percentage of users the rest will just get used to it and new users won’t know the difference. Unfortunately I think this might the way it goes with people too naive to realize how they’re being turned into $$$ and creating a permanent record of their behavior online. I would assume that another reason advertisers are backing out is that the determine of the customers on Facebook is not really that high. How much can a teen be worth to Travelocity or Overstock when was the last time you saw an 18 year old book a 10 day vacation or purchase anything besides dorm sheets from Overstock. I would think the audience at FB is not worth very much its really like advertising Target in a bar or other social event people just are not in the ‘purchasing’ mode when there unlike when I am searching ‘10 day vacation’ on google. Out of curiosity: my understanding is that the way Beacon works is that the partner site (let’s say Blockbuster) sends each activity and associated email address to Facebook and then Facebook decides whether to publish that activity if there’s a Facebook account. That means that not only are they still receiving the data on people who undergo opted out of the program; they’re still receiving data on people who don’t have accounts on Facebook. Thus the only way to not partake in the program is to not use any furnish web sites. Mark Zuckerberg’s approach to online business and his arrogant comments about young populate being somehow smarter than us old guys (I’m 40 - with 12 years web development experience - so I guess I was never a ‘young smart guy’ in his terms) only reinforces my previous comment that he and his aggroup of ‘young smart developers’ lack the most important ingredient - undergo! (as in LIFE experience. SOCIAL experience. BUSINESS experience). It’s ludicrous to assume that just because you can write a bit of code and draw a big audience (and let’s face it - Facebook started as a college site with a pretty fickle user base before it opened up to the rest of us ‘old guys’) that you somehow have your finger on the beat of social networking. Social networking is all about human interaction - not bits and bytes. A basic understanding of how advertising works from the human perspective would go a long way in helping Zuckerberg and his minions get their aim right. But then again measure will express. attach will eventually gain the experience he needs as he too grows older and wiser. But my bet is that it will be all too late and he and his online graffiti wall will become another addition to the ‘where are they now’ arrange. The web is a big place and fortunes are just as easily lost as they are made. the crazy part is how inconsistent the actual behavior is with their explanations it seems to be reading FB cookies and automatically adding your activity to the feed you can’t opt out until *after* the initial activity such as buying something or playing a bet is already broadcast to all your friends. from what I’ve seen there’s no notification on the partner site that they’re even participating much less asking you if you want it posted to FB the couple of people I’ve seen discover this were pretty freaked out not the kind of surprise you be from users… They should focus on implementing stuff from partners that deepends their core business and adds functonality. Zuckenberg himself says that Facebook is there to aid communication. so how does beacon add to that again? It doesn’t It’s there to apply the fact that they undergo a huge database of users. Myspace can get away with a lot of commercial activity since it’s more geared towards that.. The super clean communication and network tool that Facebook presents itself to be and well in fact is. cannot get away with this… they should forget getting big brands on there and start thinking how they can bring home the bacon on their core business geenrating revenue. and yes that’s a challenge. should have thought about that before all those millions were pumped into it… LOL Ability to increase Capital: 10Creating Smoke & Mirrors: 10Level of Shadiness: 10Manipulating Microsoft: 10Manipulating explore: 1Being replaced as CEO by end of Q1 of ‘08: 9Firing of at least two executives (taking a bullet for Beacon) by end of Q1 of ‘08: 9Probability that affiliate has lost at least $5 billion of its value in the past two weeks: 9Probability that Google Executives are right now in the conference dwell laughing their tales off at the amateur hour: 10 So what if the data is sent to Facebook or not. If it doesn’t appear on my friend’s news feeds that’s fine by me. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. >>”According to one security engineer’s analysis. Beacon partners transmit data to Facebook in bulge about members who visit their site. This is true even for those who opt out of Beacon by clicking on “No Thanks” when asked if the data can be shared with Facebook.” You’re talking about declining the *display* of single news feed. There is no GLOBAL opt-out of the Beacon schedule. You can only ‘opt-out’ of having individual feeds displayed or from having them displayed from specific affiliates - NOT from the program itself. (which is at the grow of the whole disrespect of privacy and all even non FB-user info is shared)It’s an ‘opt-out’ - that isn’t. (PR deception) This brings me to next point you alter about the NYTimes not sharing your data with FB –> The way this whole thing is set up makes it so they *have* to ! They (or any other partner) are not just sharing your stuff their sharing *everyones* There is no way for them to manage it. It’s like explore Analytics code or something. If the Beacon javascript code is on a partner’s page it’s calling home (to facebook) for *everyone* who visits. The partners aren’t therefore ‘controlling’ or managing what’s sent. Facebook is snarfing it all by way of some javascript they control embedded in their partner’s pages. It remarkably simple and yet remarkably flawed. When more businesses catch on to this shotgun approach. I have to believe it’s going to be an epic fail unless FB modifies it so the partners have more control AND users can do a *global* opt-out of the entire program. Facebook’s cerebrate for existence is to distribute information about your personal life to your friends. That’s what has made it popular to the tune of more than 40 million users and a lofty $15 billion valuation. populate clearly want to share their information with their friends. “measure for Accel and Greylock to get a new CEO with a moral accomplish. Breyer can hopefully learn from this. abstain up can mean abstain down.” Kidding. But it’s really just about instant excite everybody feels witnessing a picture of burglar going though his/her dirty laundry bin. Bigbrotherbook com just doesn’t have his understanding that’s it. Stupid. And nothing more. Nothing to talk about. Looks like things are going horribly wrong for Facebook. This is unbelievable. So Facebook decided to switch their program in a very significant manner - one that would effect their users and partners - and decided to tell no one. Including companies desire Coca Cola who I’m sure spent a great deal of time hammering out this deal with Facebook. How stupid could the populate at Facebook be? They could have major law suits on their hands. And not from an irate user but from a major corporation. If Facebook is willing to change their operational agreements without telling their partners willing will they be to change their agreements with their users without telling us? If Facebook is that incompetent in handling their operational structure then how incompetent will they be in handling the data and info they receive about us?

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/03/more-facebook-advertisers-bail-from-beacon-plus-new-concerns/#comment-1807067

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

beam is a social form of advertising that shares your purchases or other actions you act on an advertiser’s place with all your friends on Facebook through their News Feeds. What has privacy advocates up in arms and advertisers skittish about Beacon is the way it seems to be spying on you as you surf the Web and then on top of that reporting what you just did to This objection was doubly true when Beacon was being forced down every Facebook member’s throat whether they wanted to be tracked this way or not. And it was the main reason that MoveOn org made killing Beacon its. Since then. Facebook has addressed most of the initial concerns by wisely forcing people to deliberately and repeatedly choose to participate. But there are still some serious issues with the way the whole system works technologically. According to one. Beacon partners transmit data to Facebook in bulk about members who visit their site. This is adjust even for those who opt out of Beacon by clicking on “No Thanks” when asked if the data can be shared with Facebook. The data is sent anyway. Facebook that it does not do anything with this opted-out data and in fact deletes it from its servers. But the deletion occurs on Facebook’s servers not the advertisers’. [ modify: It gets even worse. Beacon partners are about every single visitor to their sites approve to Facebook whether or not those people are even Facebook members. This includes very detailed user behavior. Again. Facebook says it deletes most of this data. But what are the partner sites thinking? They might as well be giving Facebook find to their bank accounts. From a technology perspective it is much more efficient for Facebook to manage these deletions and permissions. Most advertisers don’t want to shoulder the burden of figuring out who is participating and who is not. They just send all the data to Facebook and let it deal with the mess. After all who am I going to accuse if I am embarrassed by something disclosed on Facebook because it was inadvertently triggered by an action I take on another site? Well besides myself. You can be sure it won’t just be Facebook that is going to take the heat. It will also be the offending partner site. Consumer trust is a very fickle beast. It seems to me that because Facebook didn’t sell out when they could a couple of years ago they now have to justify their inflated valuation by coming up with schemes which are ragged at the edges complex and not thought out properly. This afternoon Mr Zuckerberg should be lying on a beach somewhere or having coffee with his friends at University Cafe rather than trying to force this stuff into existance! I think the bigger issue is that this is a litmus test for how far you can take social networks and a direct force on their valuation. If Facebook cannot leverage the users and their profiles without massive backlash - how much are the registered users worth? What if they are only worth what you can generate via pageviews and CPC (be per Click - Adwords kind of thing)? Because 15 billion meant each user was worth approximately 300 bucks a head - but that math does not hold up alter now because I don’t think they get that kind of revenue from the advertising - that is a lot of clicking! I am not surprised at the backlash Facebook are experiencing. This is exactly what happens when a young 20-something kid gains notoriety and control over such as vast number of users through a site like this. His and his teams apparent lack of experience is starting to show and I suspect things will only get worse. They seem to forget that web site traffic can just as easily dissipate as fast as it appeared. Facebook doesn’t do anything that a decent developer could whip up in a few weeks. Therefore their cerebrate should be on how to maximize the perceived value of Facebook by their user-base BEFORE they try to monetize the place. Simply hooking up with old friends isn’t enough anymore. Or perhaps Zuckerberg should have sold out to Yahoo a year or so ago when he had the chance. “I think the bigger issue is that this is a litmus test for how far you can take social networks and a direct impact on their valuation. If Facebook cannot leverage the users and their profiles without massive come about - how much are the registered users worth?” This is a false dichotomy. The question isn’t “how far,” because Facebook hasn’t open out yet. They seem to be finding out where “too far” is while dialing back the offering but it sure looks to me like they’re comfort on the far side of acceptible (both to their users and their advertisers). So none of us know “how far” too far is we only know that there’s a such thing as “too far.” Also another fallacy you insist is that Facebook is fomenting a yes/no decision on leveraging their users. This isn’t an “either/or” situation where Facebook now just throws their hands up and says. “Welp we tried but it looks desire users can’t be leveraged!” This is patently ridiculous as per my previous paragraph. Sure if you be a leveraged user as one that accepts Beacon but the landscape is not that cut-and-dried. There are myriad ways to turn users into dollars it’s just that Facebook used a shotgun when something smaller would have been just book but the problem with shotguns is that they cast a wide target hitting people who wouldn’t normally care about this controversy. Ooops. The problem though is not with Facebook - the problem is with us. The community and bloggers. We are focused on what we don’t desire about Facebook instead of what we do like about an alternative to Facebook. Like the mainstream media we fail to give context and alternatives to the stories being told. We need to talk about a new model of social networking. A model where we undergo undisputed find to our friends data and rights. Chris it is incorrect and unfair to pin FB’s recent problems on Zuckerberg’s age. We all know many classic examples of very good companies founded and successfully run by young people. Zuckerberg is on the record promoting ridiculous views on age and intelligence (”Young people are just smarter” : ) This shows how attach doesn’t understand advertising. When users have their information taken and used they will be okay with it as long as they get something out of it that they deem worthwhile. For example most people are okay with Google showing relevant ads to you next to your Gmail because they conclude that the benefit they get from Gmail outweighs the risks of explore having find to that information. The same goes for examine where Google. Yahoo etc undergo access to your ask history. Users are okay with it because they see the search results as worthwhile. Zuckerberg doesn’t understand that. He presumes that young populate won’t care about their privacy and knows that they won’t switch sites over this. The problem is that the way it works now. Beacon adds absolutely determine to a Facebook users undergo. Knowing what your friends purchased is not a good enough feature that it outweighs the risks involved with Facebook and third party companies having find to your buying behavior and them spamming your friends about it. This is why Beacon will fail unless they do something about it. You hit the nail on the head. Beacon is borderline exploitative. It’s about as blatant a tracking/reporting system as I’ve ever seen. I predicted this would go a little too far and perhaps it has. Or perhaps they’ll lose a percentage of users the rest will just get used to it and new users won’t know the difference. Unfortunately I think this might the way it goes with people too naive to realize how they’re being turned into $$$ and creating a permanent record of their behavior online. I would anticipate that another reason advertisers are backing out is that the value of the customers on Facebook is not really that high. How much can a teen be worth to Travelocity or Overstock when was the last time you saw an 18 year old book a 10 day vacation or acquire anything besides dorm sheets from Overstock. I would think the audience at FB is not worth very much its really desire advertising Target in a bar or other social event people just are not in the ‘purchasing’ mode when there unlike when I am searching ‘10 day vacation’ on google. Out of curiosity: my understanding is that the way Beacon works is that the partner site (let’s say Blockbuster) sends each activity and associated email address to Facebook and then Facebook decides whether to create that activity if there’s a Facebook account. That means that not only are they still receiving the data on people who have opted out of the program; they’re still receiving data on people who don’t have accounts on Facebook. Thus the only way to not partake in the program is to not use any furnish web sites. Mark Zuckerberg’s approach to online business and his arrogant comments about young populate being somehow smarter than us old guys (I’m 40 - with 12 years web development experience - so I guess I was never a ‘young smart guy’ in his terms) only reinforces my previous comment that he and his aggroup of ‘young smart developers’ lack the most important ingredient - experience! (as in LIFE experience. SOCIAL experience. BUSINESS experience). It’s ludicrous to assume that just because you can write a bit of label and attract a big audience (and let’s face it - Facebook started as a college site with a pretty fickle user base before it opened up to the rest of us ‘old guys’) that you somehow have your finger on the pulse of social networking. Social networking is all about human interaction - not bits and bytes. A basic understanding of how advertising works from the human perspective would go a long way in helping Zuckerberg and his minions get their aim right. But then again time ordain tell. attach will eventually gain the experience he needs as he too grows older and wiser. But my bet is that it will be all too late and he and his online graffiti wall ordain become another addition to the ‘where are they now’ arrange. The web is a big place and fortunes are just as easily lost as they are made. the crazy move is how inconsistent the actual behavior is with their explanations it seems to be reading FB cookies and automatically adding your activity to the cater you can’t opt out until *after* the initial activity such as buying something or playing a game is already broadcast to all your friends. from what I’ve seen there’s no notification on the partner site that they’re even participating much less asking you if you want it posted to FB the couple of people I’ve seen discover this were pretty freaked out not the kind of surprise you want from users… They should focus on implementing stuff from partners that deepends their core business and adds functonality. Zuckenberg himself says that Facebook is there to facilitate communication. so how does beacon add to that again? It doesn’t It’s there to exploit the fact that they have a huge database of users. Myspace can get away with a lot of commercial activity since it’s more geared towards that.. The super clean communication and network tool that Facebook presents itself to be and well in fact is. cannot get away with this… they should forget getting big brands on there and start thinking how they can work on their core business geenrating revenue. and yes that’s a challenge. should have thought about that before all those millions were pumped into it… LOL Ability to Raise Capital: 10Creating consume & Mirrors: 10Level of Shadiness: 10Manipulating Microsoft: 10Manipulating Google: 1Being replaced as CEO by end of Q1 of ‘08: 9Firing of at least two executives (taking a bullet for Beacon) by end of Q1 of ‘08: 9Probability that affiliate has lost at least $5 billion of its value in the past two weeks: 9Probability that Google Executives are right now in the conference room laughing their tales off at the amateur hour: 10 So what if the data is sent to Facebook or not. If it doesn’t appear on my friend’s news feeds that’s fine by me. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. >>”According to one security engineer’s analysis. Beacon partners transmit data to Facebook in bulge about members who visit their site. This is true even for those who opt out of Beacon by clicking on “No Thanks” when asked if the data can be shared with Facebook.” You’re talking about declining the *show* of single news feed. There is no GLOBAL opt-out of the Beacon program. You can only ‘opt-out’ of having individual feeds displayed or from having them displayed from specific affiliates - NOT from the program itself. (which is at the root of the whole breach of privacy and all even non FB-user info is shared)It’s an ‘opt-out’ - that isn’t. (PR deception) This brings me to next point you make about the NYTimes not sharing your data with FB –> The way this whole thing is set up makes it so they *have* to ! They (or any other partner) are not just sharing your cram their sharing *everyones* There is no way for them to manage it. It’s desire Google Analytics code or something. If the Beacon javascript code is on a partner’s summon it’s calling home (to facebook) for *everyone* who visits. The partners aren’t therefore ‘controlling’ or managing what’s sent. Facebook is snarfing it all by way of some javascript they control embedded in their partner’s pages. It remarkably simple and yet remarkably flawed. When more businesses surprise on to this shotgun approach. I have to believe it’s going to be an epic fail unless FB modifies it so the partners have more control AND users can do a *global* opt-out of the entire schedule. Facebook’s cerebrate for existence is to distribute information about your personal life to your friends. That’s what has made it popular to the tune of more than 40 million users and a lofty $15 billion valuation. People clearly want to share their information with their friends. “Time for Accel and Greylock to get a new CEO with a moral accomplish. Breyer can hopefully hit the books from this. Fast up can mean fast down.” Kidding. But it’s really just about instant disgust everybody feels witnessing a picture of burglar going though his/her dirty laundry bin. Bigbrotherbook com just doesn’t have his understanding that’s it. Stupid. And nothing more. Nothing to talk about. Looks desire things are going horribly wrong for Facebook. This is unbelievable. So Facebook decided to switch their program in a very significant manner - one that would effect their users and partners - and decided to tell no one. Including companies like Coca Cola who I’m sure spent a great deal of time hammering out this deal with Facebook. How stupid could the people at Facebook be? They could undergo major law suits on their hands. And not from an irate user but from a study corporation. If Facebook is willing to change their operational agreements without telling their partners willing ordain they be to change their agreements with their users without telling us? If Facebook is that incompetent in handling their operational structure then how incompetent will they be in handling the data and info they receive about us?

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/03/more-facebook-advertisers-bail-from-beacon-plus-new-concerns/#comment-1807067

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Beacon is a social form of advertising that shares your purchases or other actions you take on an advertiser’s place with all your friends on Facebook through their News Feeds. What has privacy advocates up in arms and advertisers skittish about Beacon is the way it seems to be spying on you as you surf the Web and then on top of that reporting what you just did to This objection was doubly true when Beacon was being forced drink every Facebook member’s throat whether they wanted to be tracked this way or not. And it was the main reason that MoveOn org made killing Beacon its. Since then. Facebook has addressed most of the initial concerns by wisely forcing people to deliberately and repeatedly decide to participate. But there are still some serious issues with the way the whole system works technologically. According to one. Beacon partners transmit data to Facebook in bulk about members who visit their site. This is adjust even for those who opt out of Beacon by clicking on “No Thanks” when asked if the data can be shared with Facebook. The data is sent anyway. Facebook that it does not do anything with this opted-out data and in fact deletes it from its servers. But the deletion occurs on Facebook’s servers not the advertisers’. [ Update: It gets even worse. Beacon partners are about every single visitor to their sites back to Facebook whether or not those people are even Facebook members. This includes very detailed user behavior. Again. Facebook says it deletes most of this data. But what are the furnish sites thinking? They might as well be giving Facebook access to their bank accounts. From a technology perspective it is much more efficient for Facebook to manage these deletions and permissions. Most advertisers don’t want to bring up the burden of figuring out who is participating and who is not. They just send all the data to Facebook and let it deal with the mess. After all who am I going to accuse if I am embarrassed by something disclosed on Facebook because it was inadvertently triggered by an action I act on another site? Well besides myself. You can be sure it won’t just be Facebook that is going to take the alter. It will also be the offending partner site. Consumer trust is a very fickle beast. It seems to me that because Facebook didn’t sell out when they could a bring together of years ago they now have to justify their inflated valuation by coming up with schemes which are ragged at the edges complex and not thought out properly. This afternoon Mr Zuckerberg should be lying on a beach somewhere or having coffee with his friends at University Cafe rather than trying to compel this stuff into existance! I think the bigger issue is that this is a litmus test for how far you can take social networks and a enjoin impact on their valuation. If Facebook cannot leverage the users and their profiles without massive backlash - how much are the registered users worth? What if they are only worth what you can generate via pageviews and CPC (Cost per Click - Adwords kind of thing)? Because 15 billion meant each user was worth approximately 300 bucks a continue - but that math does not hold up right now because I don’t think they get that kind of revenue from the advertising - that is a lot of clicking! I am not surprised at the backlash Facebook are experiencing. This is exactly what happens when a young 20-something kid gains notoriety and control over such as vast number of users through a site like this. His and his teams apparent lack of experience is starting to show and I suspect things will only get worse. They seem to forget that web place traffic can just as easily divide as fast as it appeared. Facebook doesn’t do anything that a decent developer could whip up in a few weeks. Therefore their cerebrate should be on how to maximize the perceived determine of Facebook by their user-base BEFORE they try to monetize the site. Simply hooking up with old friends isn’t enough anymore. Or perhaps Zuckerberg should have sold out to Yahoo a year or so ago when he had the chance. “I evaluate the bigger issue is that this is a litmus evaluate for how far you can take social networks and a direct impact on their valuation. If Facebook cannot leverage the users and their profiles without massive backlash - how much are the registered users worth?” This is a false dichotomy. The question isn’t “how far,” because Facebook hasn’t open out yet. They be to be finding out where “too far” is while dialing approve the offering but it sure looks to me like they’re still on the far side of acceptible (both to their users and their advertisers). So none of us experience “how far” too far is we only know that there’s a such thing as “too far.” Also another fallacy you assert is that Facebook is fomenting a yes/no decision on leveraging their users. This isn’t an “either/or” situation where Facebook now just throws their hands up and says. “Welp we tried but it looks like users can’t be leveraged!” This is patently ridiculous as per my previous paragraph. Sure if you define a leveraged user as one that accepts beam but the adorn is not that cut-and-dried. There are myriad ways to turn users into dollars it’s just that Facebook used a shotgun when something smaller would have been just book but the problem with shotguns is that they cast a wide aim hitting people who wouldn’t normally care about this controversy. Ooops. The problem though is not with Facebook - the problem is with us. The community and bloggers. We are focused on what we don’t desire about Facebook instead of what we do like about an alternative to Facebook. Like the mainstream media we fail to give context and alternatives to the stories being told. We be to talk about a new model of social networking. A model where we have undisputed access to our friends data and rights. Chris it is incorrect and unfair to pin FB’s recent problems on Zuckerberg’s age. We all know many classic examples of very good companies founded and successfully run by young people. Zuckerberg is on the record promoting ridiculous views on age and intelligence (”Young people are just smarter” : ) This shows how attach doesn’t understand advertising. When users have their information taken and used they will be okay with it as long as they get something out of it that they deem worthwhile. For example most people are authorise with Google showing relevant ads to you next to your Gmail because they conclude that the benefit they get from Gmail outweighs the risks of Google having find to that information. The same goes for search where Google. Yahoo etc undergo access to your query history. Users are okay with it because they see the search results as worthwhile. Zuckerberg doesn’t understand that. He presumes that young people won’t care about their privacy and knows that they won’t switch sites over this. The problem is that the way it works now. Beacon adds absolutely value to a Facebook users experience. Knowing what your friends purchased is not a good enough feature that it outweighs the risks involved with Facebook and third party companies having access to your buying behavior and them spamming your friends about it. This is why Beacon ordain fail unless they do something about it. You hit the attach on the head. Beacon is borderline exploitative. It’s about as blatant a tracking/reporting system as I’ve ever seen. I predicted this would go a little too far and perhaps it has. Or perhaps they’ll lose a percentage of users the rest will just get used to it and new users won’t know the difference. Unfortunately I evaluate this might the way it goes with people too naive to realize how they’re being turned into $$$ and creating a permanent record of their behavior online. I would assume that another reason advertisers are backing out is that the value of the customers on Facebook is not really that high. How much can a teen be worth to Travelocity or Overstock when was the last time you saw an 18 year old book a 10 day vacation or purchase anything besides dorm sheets from Overstock. I would think the audience at FB is not worth very much its really like advertising aim in a bar or other social event people just are not in the ‘purchasing’ mode when there unlike when I am searching ‘10 day vacation’ on explore. Out of curiosity: my understanding is that the way Beacon works is that the partner site (let’s say Blockbuster) sends each activity and associated email address to Facebook and then Facebook decides whether to publish that activity if there’s a Facebook account. That means that not only are they still receiving the data on people who have opted out of the program; they’re still receiving data on populate who don’t have accounts on Facebook. Thus the only way to not partake in the program is to not use any partner web sites. Mark Zuckerberg’s come to online business and his arrogant comments about young people being somehow smarter than us old guys (I’m 40 - with 12 years web development undergo - so I guess I was never a ‘young smart guy’ in his terms) only reinforces my previous comment that he and his team of ‘young smart developers’ lack the most important ingredient - experience! (as in LIFE experience. SOCIAL experience. BUSINESS undergo). It’s ludicrous to anticipate that just because you can write a bit of label and attract a big audience (and let’s approach it - Facebook started as a college place with a pretty fickle user base before it opened up to the rest of us ‘old guys’) that you somehow have your finger on the pulse of social networking. Social networking is all about human interaction - not bits and bytes. A basic understanding of how advertising works from the human perspective would go a long way in helping Zuckerberg and his minions get their aim right. But then again time will tell. Mark will eventually gain the experience he needs as he too grows older and wiser. But my bet is that it will be all too late and he and his online graffiti protect will become another addition to the ‘where are they now’ arrange. The web is a big place and fortunes are just as easily lost as they are made. the crazy part is how inconsistent the actual behavior is with their explanations it seems to be reading FB cookies and automatically adding your activity to the cater you can’t opt out until *after* the initial activity such as buying something or playing a game is already broadcast to all your friends. from what I’ve seen there’s no notification on the furnish place that they’re even participating much less asking you if you want it posted to FB the couple of people I’ve seen discover this were pretty freaked out not the kind of affect you want from users… They should focus on implementing stuff from partners that deepends their core business and adds functonality. Zuckenberg himself says that Facebook is there to facilitate communication. so how does beacon add to that again? It doesn’t It’s there to apply the fact that they undergo a huge database of users. Myspace can get away with a lot of commercial activity since it’s more geared towards that.. The super clean communication and communicate tool that Facebook presents itself to be and well in fact is. cannot get away with this… they should forget getting big brands on there and start thinking how they can work on their core business geenrating revenue. and yes that’s a challenge. should undergo thought about that before all those millions were pumped into it… LOL Ability to increase Capital: 10Creating Smoke & Mirrors: 10Level of Shadiness: 10Manipulating Microsoft: 10Manipulating Google: 1Being replaced as CEO by end of Q1 of ‘08: 9Firing of at least two executives (taking a bullet for Beacon) by end of Q1 of ‘08: 9Probability that company has lost at least $5 billion of its value in the past two weeks: 9Probability that explore Executives are right now in the conference room laughing their tales off at the amateur hour: 10 So what if the data is sent to Facebook or not. If it doesn’t be on my friend’s news feeds that’s fine by me. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. >>”According to one security engineer’s analysis. Beacon partners transfer data to Facebook in bulk about members who tour their site. This is true even for those who opt out of Beacon by clicking on “No Thanks” when asked if the data can be shared with Facebook.” You’re talking about declining the *display* of single news feed. There is no GLOBAL opt-out of the Beacon program. You can only ‘opt-out’ of having individual feeds displayed or from having them displayed from specific affiliates - NOT from the program itself. (which is at the grow of the whole breach of privacy and all even non FB-user info is shared)It’s an ‘opt-out’ - that isn’t. (PR deception) This brings me to next point you make about the NYTimes not sharing your data with FB –> The way this whole thing is set up makes it so they *have* to ! They (or any other partner) are not just sharing your stuff their sharing *everyones* There is no way for them to manage it. It’s like Google Analytics code or something. If the Beacon javascript code is on a partner’s page it’s calling home (to facebook) for *everyone* who visits. The partners aren’t therefore ‘controlling’ or managing what’s sent. Facebook is snarfing it all by way of some javascript they control embedded in their partner’s pages. It remarkably simple and yet remarkably flawed. When more businesses catch on to this shotgun approach. I have to believe it’s going to be an epic fail unless FB modifies it so the partners have more control AND users can do a *global* opt-out of the entire program. Facebook’s reason for existence is to distribute information about your personal life to your friends. That’s what has made it popular to the adjust of more than 40 million users and a lofty $15 billion valuation. People clearly want to share their information with their friends. “measure for Accel and Greylock to get a new CEO with a moral compass. Breyer can hopefully learn from this. Fast up can convey fast drink.” Kidding. But it’s really just about instant disgust everybody feels witnessing a picture of burglar going though his/her dirty laundry bin. Bigbrotherbook com just doesn’t undergo his understanding that’s it. Stupid. And nothing more. Nothing to talk about. Looks like things are going horribly wrong for Facebook. This is unbelievable. So Facebook decided to switch their program in a very significant manner - one that would effect their users and partners - and decided to express no one. Including companies like Coca Cola who I’m sure spent a great deal of measure hammering out this deal with Facebook. How stupid could the people at Facebook be? They could have major law suits on their hands. And not from an irate user but from a major corporation. If Facebook is willing to dress their operational agreements without telling their partners willing will they be to change their agreements with their users without telling us? If Facebook is that incompetent in handling their operational structure then how incompetent will they be in handling the data and info they receive about us?

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/03/more-facebook-advertisers-bail-from-beacon-plus-new-concerns/#comment-1807067

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Beacon is a social create of advertising that shares your purchases or other actions you take on an advertiser’s place with all your friends on Facebook through their News Feeds. What has privacy advocates up in arms and advertisers skittish about Beacon is the way it seems to be spying on you as you surf the Web and then on top of that reporting what you just did to This objection was doubly true when beam was being forced down every Facebook member’s throat whether they wanted to be tracked this way or not. And it was the main reason that MoveOn org made killing Beacon its. Since then. Facebook has addressed most of the sign concerns by wisely forcing people to deliberately and repeatedly choose to act. But there are still some serious issues with the way the whole system works technologically. According to one. beam partners transmit data to Facebook in bulk about members who visit their site. This is adjust even for those who opt out of Beacon by clicking on “No Thanks” when asked if the data can be shared with Facebook. The data is sent anyway. Facebook that it does not do anything with this opted-out data and in fact deletes it from its servers. But the deletion occurs on Facebook’s servers not the advertisers’. [ Update: It gets even worse. beam partners are about every hit visitor to their sites back to Facebook whether or not those people are even Facebook members. This includes very detailed user behavior. Again. Facebook says it deletes most of this data. But what are the partner sites thinking? They might as well be giving Facebook find to their bank accounts. From a technology perspective it is much more efficient for Facebook to manage these deletions and permissions. Most advertisers don’t want to shoulder the burden of figuring out who is participating and who is not. They just send all the data to Facebook and let it deal with the mess. After all who am I going to accuse if I am embarrassed by something disclosed on Facebook because it was inadvertently triggered by an action I take on another site? Well besides myself. You can be sure it won’t just be Facebook that is going to take the heat. It will also be the offending partner site. Consumer trust is a very fickle beast. It seems to me that because Facebook didn’t change out when they could a couple of years ago they now undergo to confirm their inflated valuation by coming up with schemes which are ragged at the edges complex and not thought out properly. This afternoon Mr Zuckerberg should be lying on a beach somewhere or having coffee with his friends at University Cafe rather than trying to force this cram into existance! I think the bigger air is that this is a litmus test for how far you can take social networks and a direct impact on their valuation. If Facebook cannot leverage the users and their profiles without massive backlash - how much are the registered users worth? What if they are only worth what you can create via pageviews and CPC (Cost per Click - Adwords kind of thing)? Because 15 billion meant each user was worth approximately 300 bucks a head - but that math does not hold up right now because I don’t think they get that kind of revenue from the advertising - that is a lot of clicking! I am not surprised at the backlash Facebook are experiencing. This is exactly what happens when a young 20-something kid gains notoriety and hold back over such as vast number of users through a site desire this. His and his teams apparent lack of experience is starting to show and I suspect things will only get worse. They seem to forget that web site traffic can just as easily divide as abstain as it appeared. Facebook doesn’t do anything that a decent developer could whip up in a few weeks. Therefore their focus should be on how to increase the perceived value of Facebook by their user-base BEFORE they try to decriminalise the site. Simply hooking up with old friends isn’t enough anymore. Or perhaps Zuckerberg should have sold out to Yahoo a year or so ago when he had the chance. “I evaluate the bigger issue is that this is a litmus test for how far you can act social networks and a direct impact on their valuation. If Facebook cannot leverage the users and their profiles without massive backlash - how much are the registered users worth?” This is a false dichotomy. The question isn’t “how far,” because Facebook hasn’t found out yet. They seem to be finding out where “too far” is while dialing back the offering but it sure looks to me like they’re still on the far side of acceptible (both to their users and their advertisers). So none of us know “how far” too far is we only know that there’s a such thing as “too far.” Also another fallacy you assert is that Facebook is fomenting a yes/no decision on leveraging their users. This isn’t an “either/or” situation where Facebook now just throws their hands up and says. “Welp we tried but it looks like users can’t be leveraged!” This is patently ridiculous as per my previous carve up. Sure if you define a leveraged user as one that accepts Beacon but the adorn is not that cut-and-dried. There are myriad ways to turn users into dollars it’s just that Facebook used a shotgun when something smaller would have been just fine but the problem with shotguns is that they cast a wide aim hitting populate who wouldn’t normally care about this controversy. Ooops. The problem though is not with Facebook - the problem is with us. The community and bloggers. We are focused on what we don’t like about Facebook instead of what we do desire about an alternative to Facebook. Like the mainstream media we fail to provide context and alternatives to the stories being told. We need to talk about a new model of social networking. A copy where we undergo undisputed access to our friends data and rights. Chris it is incorrect and unfair to pin FB’s recent problems on Zuckerberg’s age. We all experience many classic examples of very good companies founded and successfully run by young people. Zuckerberg is on the record promoting ridiculous views on age and intelligence (”Young people are just smarter” : ) This shows how attach doesn’t understand advertising. When users have their information taken and used they will be okay with it as long as they get something out of it that they consider worthwhile. For example most people are authorise with explore showing relevant ads to you next to your Gmail because they feel that the benefit they get from Gmail outweighs the risks of Google having access to that information. The same goes for examine where Google. Yahoo etc have access to your query history. Users are okay with it because they see the search results as worthwhile. Zuckerberg doesn’t understand that. He presumes that young populate won’t care about their privacy and knows that they won’t switch sites over this. The problem is that the way it works now. Beacon adds absolutely value to a Facebook users experience. Knowing what your friends purchased is not a good enough feature that it outweighs the risks involved with Facebook and third party companies having find to your buying behavior and them spamming your friends about it. This is why beam will fail unless they do something about it. You hit the nail on the head. beam is borderline exploitative. It’s about as blatant a tracking/reporting system as I’ve ever seen. I predicted this would go a little too far and perhaps it has. Or perhaps they’ll lose a percentage of users the rest will just get used to it and new users won’t know the difference. Unfortunately I think this might the way it goes with people too naive to realize how they’re being turned into $$$ and creating a permanent record of their behavior online. I would anticipate that another reason advertisers are backing out is that the determine of the customers on Facebook is not really that high. How much can a teen be worth to Travelocity or Overstock when was the last time you saw an 18 year old book a 10 day vacation or purchase anything besides dorm sheets from Overstock. I would think the audience at FB is not worth very much its really like advertising aim in a bar or other social event people just are not in the ‘purchasing’ mode when there unlike when I am searching ‘10 day vacation’ on google. Out of curiosity: my understanding is that the way Beacon works is that the partner site (let’s say Blockbuster) sends each activity and associated email address to Facebook and then Facebook decides whether to publish that activity if there’s a Facebook account. That means that not only are they still receiving the data on people who have opted out of the program; they’re still receiving data on people who don’t have accounts on Facebook. Thus the only way to not partake in the program is to not use any furnish web sites. Mark Zuckerberg’s approach to online business and his arrogant comments about young people being somehow smarter than us old guys (I’m 40 - with 12 years web development experience - so I guess I was never a ‘young smart guy’ in his terms) only reinforces my previous mention that he and his team of ‘young smart developers’ lack the most important ingredient - experience! (as in LIFE experience. SOCIAL experience. BUSINESS experience). It’s ludicrous to assume that just because you can write a bit of code and attract a big audience (and let’s approach it - Facebook started as a college site with a pretty fickle user base before it opened up to the be of us ‘old guys’) that you somehow have your finger on the pulse of social networking. Social networking is all about human interaction - not bits and bytes. A basic understanding of how advertising works from the human perspective would go a long way in helping Zuckerberg and his minions get their aim right. But then again time ordain tell. attach will eventually gain the experience he needs as he too grows older and wiser. But my bet is that it will be all too late and he and his online graffiti wall will become another addition to the ‘where are they now’ pile. The web is a big displace and fortunes are just as easily lost as they are made. the crazy part is how inconsistent the actual behavior is with their explanations it seems to be reading FB cookies and automatically adding your activity to the feed you can’t opt out until *after* the initial activity such as buying something or playing a game is already air to all your friends. from what I’ve seen there’s no notification on the partner site that they’re even participating much less asking you if you be it posted to FB the couple of people I’ve seen sight this were pretty freaked out not the kind of surprise you want from users… They should focus on implementing stuff from partners that deepends their core business and adds functonality. Zuckenberg himself says that Facebook is there to facilitate communication. so how does beacon add to that again? It doesn’t It’s there to exploit the fact that they have a huge database of users. Myspace can get away with a lot of commercial activity since it’s more geared towards that.. The super clean communication and network tool that Facebook presents itself to be and well in fact is. cannot get away with this… they should forget getting big brands on there and go away thinking how they can work on their core business geenrating revenue. and yes that’s a challenge. should have thought about that before all those millions were pumped into it… LOL Ability to Raise Capital: 10Creating Smoke & Mirrors: 10aim of Shadiness: 10Manipulating Microsoft: 10Manipulating Google: 1Being replaced as CEO by end of Q1 of ‘08: 9Firing of at least two executives (taking a bullet for Beacon) by end of Q1 of ‘08: 9Probability that company has lost at least $5 billion of its value in the past two weeks: 9Probability that Google Executives are alter now in the conference room laughing their tales off at the amateur hour: 10 So what if the data is sent to Facebook or not. If it doesn’t appear on my friend’s news feeds that’s fine by me. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. >>”According to one security design’s analysis. Beacon partners transmit data to Facebook in bulk about members who visit their site. This is true even for those who opt out of Beacon by clicking on “No Thanks” when asked if the data can be shared with Facebook.” You’re talking about declining the *show* of single news feed. There is no GLOBAL opt-out of the Beacon program. You can only ‘opt-out’ of having individual feeds displayed or from having them displayed from specific affiliates - NOT from the program itself. (which is at the root of the whole breach of privacy and all even non FB-user info is shared)It’s an ‘opt-out’ - that isn’t. (PR deception) This brings me to next point you make about the NYTimes not sharing your data with FB –> The way this whole thing is set up makes it so they *have* to ! They (or any other partner) are not just sharing your stuff their sharing *everyones* There is no way for them to manage it. It’s like explore Analytics code or something. If the beam javascript code is on a partner’s page it’s calling domiciliate (to facebook) for *everyone* who visits. The partners aren’t therefore ‘controlling’ or managing what’s sent. Facebook is snarfing it all by way of some javascript they control embedded in their furnish’s pages. It remarkably simple and yet remarkably flawed. When more businesses catch on to this shotgun approach. I have to believe it’s going to be an epic disappoint unless FB modifies it so the partners have more control AND users can do a *global* opt-out of the entire program. Facebook’s reason for existence is to distribute information about your personal life to your friends. That’s what has made it popular to the adjust of more than 40 million users and a lofty $15 billion valuation. People clearly want to share their information with their friends. “Time for Accel and Greylock to get a new CEO with a moral compass. Breyer can hopefully learn from this. abstain up can mean fast down.” Kidding. But it’s really just about instant excite everybody feels witnessing a picture of burglar going though his/her dirty laundry bin. Bigbrotherbook com just doesn’t have his understanding that’s it. Stupid. And nothing more. Nothing to talk about. Looks desire things are going horribly wrong for Facebook. This is unbelievable. So Facebook decided to switch their schedule in a very significant manner - one that would effect their users and partners - and decided to tell no one. Including companies desire Coca Cola who I’m sure spent a great deal of time hammering out this broach with Facebook. How stupid could the people at Facebook be? They could have study law suits on their hands. And not from an irate user but from a major corporation. If Facebook is willing to change their operational agreements without telling their partners willing will they be to dress their agreements with their users without telling us? If Facebook is that incompetent in handling their operational structure then how incompetent will they be in handling the data and info they acquire about us?

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/03/more-facebook-advertisers-bail-from-beacon-plus-new-concerns/#comment-1807067

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Beacon is a social form of advertising that shares your purchases or other actions you take on an advertiser’s place with all your friends on Facebook through their News Feeds. What has privacy advocates up in arms and advertisers skittish about Beacon is the way it seems to be spying on you as you surf the Web and then on top of that reporting what you just did to This objection was doubly true when Beacon was being forced down every Facebook member’s throat whether they wanted to be tracked this way or not. And it was the main cerebrate that MoveOn org made killing Beacon its. Since then. Facebook has addressed most of the initial concerns by wisely forcing populate to deliberately and repeatedly choose to participate. But there are still some serious issues with the way the whole system works technologically. According to one. beam partners transmit data to Facebook in bulk about members who visit their place. This is true even for those who opt out of Beacon by clicking on “No Thanks” when asked if the data can be shared with Facebook. The data is sent anyway. Facebook that it does not do anything with this opted-out data and in fact deletes it from its servers. But the deletion occurs on Facebook’s servers not the advertisers’. [ modify: It gets even worse. Beacon partners are about every hit visitor to their sites back to Facebook whether or not those people are even Facebook members. This includes very detailed user behavior. Again. Facebook says it deletes most of this data. But what are the partner sites thinking? They might as well be giving Facebook access to their bank accounts. From a technology perspective it is much more efficient for Facebook to manage these deletions and permissions. Most advertisers don’t be to shoulder the burden of figuring out who is participating and who is not. They just send all the data to Facebook and let it deal with the mess. After all who am I going to blame if I am embarrassed by something disclosed on Facebook because it was inadvertently triggered by an action I take on another site? Well besides myself. You can be sure it won’t just be Facebook that is going to act the alter. It will also be the offending partner place. Consumer trust is a very fickle beast. It seems to me that because Facebook didn’t sell out when they could a bring together of years ago they now have to confirm their inflated valuation by coming up with schemes which are ragged at the edges complex and not thought out properly. This afternoon Mr Zuckerberg should be lying on a land somewhere or having coffee with his friends at University Cafe rather than trying to force this stuff into existance! I think the bigger issue is that this is a litmus test for how far you can take social networks and a direct impact on their valuation. If Facebook cannot leverage the users and their profiles without massive backlash - how much are the registered users worth? What if they are only worth what you can create via pageviews and CPC (be per Click - Adwords kind of thing)? Because 15 billion meant each user was worth approximately 300 bucks a continue - but that math does not hold up right now because I don’t think they get that kind of revenue from the advertising - that is a lot of clicking! I am not surprised at the backlash Facebook are experiencing. This is exactly what happens when a young 20-something kid gains notoriety and control over such as vast be of users through a site like this. His and his teams apparent lack of experience is starting to show and I guess things will only get worse. They seem to drop that web site merchandise can just as easily dissipate as fast as it appeared. Facebook doesn’t do anything that a decent developer could beat up in a few weeks. Therefore their cerebrate should be on how to maximize the perceived determine of Facebook by their user-base BEFORE they try to monetize the place. Simply hooking up with old friends isn’t enough anymore. Or perhaps Zuckerberg should have sold out to Yahoo a year or so ago when he had the chance. “I think the bigger issue is that this is a litmus test for how far you can take social networks and a direct impact on their valuation. If Facebook cannot leverage the users and their profiles without massive backlash - how much are the registered users worth?” This is a false dichotomy. The question isn’t “how far,” because Facebook hasn’t found out yet. They seem to be finding out where “too far” is while dialing back the offering but it sure looks to me like they’re comfort on the far side of acceptible (both to their users and their advertisers). So none of us know “how far” too far is we only know that there’s a such thing as “too far.” Also another fallacy you assert is that Facebook is fomenting a yes/no decision on leveraging their users. This isn’t an “either/or” situation where Facebook now just throws their hands up and says. “Welp we tried but it looks desire users can’t be leveraged!” This is patently ridiculous as per my previous carve up. Sure if you define a leveraged user as one that accepts Beacon but the landscape is not that cut-and-dried. There are myriad ways to turn users into dollars it’s just that Facebook used a shotgun when something smaller would have been just fine but the problem with shotguns is that they cast a wide aim hitting people who wouldn’t normally care about this controversy. Ooops. The problem though is not with Facebook - the problem is with us. The community and bloggers. We are focused on what we don’t like about Facebook instead of what we do like about an alternative to Facebook. Like the mainstream media we fail to provide context and alternatives to the stories being told. We need to talk about a new model of social networking. A model where we have undisputed access to our friends data and rights. Chris it is incorrect and unfair to pin FB’s recent problems on Zuckerberg’s age. We all know many classic examples of very good companies founded and successfully run by young people. Zuckerberg is on the record promoting ridiculous views on age and intelligence (”Young populate are just smarter” : ) This shows how Mark doesn’t understand advertising. When users have their information taken and used they ordain be okay with it as long as they get something out of it that they deem worthwhile. For example most people are okay with Google showing relevant ads to you next to your Gmail because they feel that the benefit they get from Gmail outweighs the risks of Google having access to that information. The same goes for examine where Google. Yahoo etc undergo find to your ask history. Users are okay with it because they see the search results as worthwhile. Zuckerberg doesn’t understand that. He presumes that young people won’t care about their privacy and knows that they won’t change by reversal sites over this. The problem is that the way it works now. Beacon adds absolutely determine to a Facebook users experience. Knowing what your friends purchased is not a good enough feature that it outweighs the risks involved with Facebook and third party companies having access to your buying behavior and them spamming your friends about it. This is why Beacon will disappoint unless they do something about it. You hit the nail on the continue. beam is borderline exploitative. It’s about as blatant a tracking/reporting system as I’ve ever seen. I predicted this would go a little too far and perhaps it has. Or perhaps they’ll suffer a percentage of users the rest ordain just get used to it and new users won’t know the difference. Unfortunately I evaluate this might the way it goes with populate too naive to realize how they’re being turned into $$$ and creating a permanent record of their behavior online. I would assume that another reason advertisers are backing out is that the value of the customers on Facebook is not really that high. How much can a teen be worth to Travelocity or Overstock when was the last time you saw an 18 year old book a 10 day vacation or purchase anything besides dorm sheets from Overstock. I would evaluate the audience at FB is not worth very much its really like advertising aim in a bar or other social event people just are not in the ‘purchasing’ mode when there unlike when I am searching ‘10 day vacation’ on google. Out of curiosity: my understanding is that the way Beacon works is that the partner site (let’s say Blockbuster) sends each activity and associated email address to Facebook and then Facebook decides whether to create that activity if there’s a Facebook be. That means that not only are they still receiving the data on populate who have opted out of the program; they’re comfort receiving data on people who don’t have accounts on Facebook. Thus the only way to not partake in the schedule is to not use any partner web sites. attach Zuckerberg’s come to online business and his arrogant comments about young people being somehow smarter than us old guys (I’m 40 - with 12 years web development undergo - so I guess I was never a ‘young cause to be perceived guy’ in his terms) only reinforces my previous mention that he and his team of ‘young smart developers’ lack the most important ingredient - experience! (as in LIFE experience. SOCIAL undergo. BUSINESS experience). It’s ludicrous to anticipate that just because you can write a bit of code and draw a big audience (and let’s approach it - Facebook started as a college site with a pretty fickle user base before it opened up to the rest of us ‘old guys’) that you somehow have your finger on the pulse of social networking. Social networking is all about human interaction - not bits and bytes. A basic understanding of how advertising works from the human perspective would go a long way in helping Zuckerberg and his minions get their aim right. But then again time ordain tell. Mark will eventually gain the experience he needs as he too grows older and wiser. But my bet is that it will be all too late and he and his online graffiti wall will become another addition to the ‘where are they now’ pile. The web is a big displace and fortunes are just as easily lost as they are made. the crazy part is how inconsistent the actual behavior is with their explanations it seems to be reading FB cookies and automatically adding your activity to the feed you can’t opt out until *after* the sign activity such as buying something or playing a game is already broadcast to all your friends. from what I’ve seen there’s no notification on the furnish site that they’re even participating much less asking you if you want it posted to FB the couple of populate I’ve seen sight this were pretty freaked out not the kind of surprise you be from users… They should focus on implementing stuff from partners that deepends their core business and adds functonality. Zuckenberg himself says that Facebook is there to facilitate communication. so how does beacon add to that again? It doesn’t It’s there to exploit the fact that they have a huge database of users. Myspace can get away with a lot of commercial activity since it’s more geared towards that.. The super alter communication and network tool that Facebook presents itself to be and well in fact is. cannot get away with this… they should forget getting big brands on there and start thinking how they can bring home the bacon on their core business geenrating revenue. and yes that’s a contend. should have thought about that before all those millions were pumped into it… LOL Ability to Raise Capital: 10Creating Smoke & Mirrors: 10aim of Shadiness: 10Manipulating Microsoft: 10Manipulating Google: 1Being replaced as CEO by end of Q1 of ‘08: 9Firing of at least two executives (taking a bullet for Beacon) by end of Q1 of ‘08: 9Probability that company has lost at least $5 billion of its value in the past two weeks: 9Probability that Google Executives are right now in the conference room laughing their tales off at the amateur hour: 10 So what if the data is sent to Facebook or not. If it doesn’t appear on my friend’s news feeds that’s fine by me. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. >>”According to one security engineer’s analysis. Beacon partners transfer data to Facebook in bulk about members who visit their site. This is true even for those who opt out of Beacon by clicking on “No Thanks” when asked if the data can be shared with Facebook.” You’re talking about declining the *display* of single news feed. There is no GLOBAL opt-out of the Beacon program. You can only ‘opt-out’ of having individual feeds displayed or from having them displayed from specific affiliates - NOT from the schedule itself. (which is at the root of the whole breach of privacy and all even non FB-user info is shared)It’s an ‘opt-out’ - that isn’t. (PR deception) This brings me to next point you make about the NYTimes not sharing your data with FB –> The way this whole thing is set up makes it so they *have* to ! They (or any other partner) are not just sharing your stuff their sharing *everyones* There is no way for them to manage it. It’s desire Google Analytics code or something. If the beam javascript code is on a partner’s page it’s calling home (to facebook) for *everyone* who visits. The partners aren’t therefore ‘controlling’ or managing what’s sent. Facebook is snarfing it all by way of some javascript they control embedded in their partner’s pages. It remarkably simple and yet remarkably flawed. When more businesses catch on to this shotgun approach. I have to believe it’s going to be an epic fail unless FB modifies it so the partners have more control AND users can do a *global* opt-out of the entire program. Facebook’s reason for existence is to distribute information about your personal life to your friends. That’s what has made it popular to the tune of more than 40 million users and a lofty $15 billion valuation. People clearly want to overlap their information with their friends. “Time for Accel and Greylock to get a new CEO with a moral compass. Breyer can hopefully learn from this. Fast up can mean fast drink.” Kidding. But it’s really just about instant disgust everybody feels witnessing a picture of burglar going though his/her alter laundry bin. Bigbrotherbook com just doesn’t have his understanding that’s it. Stupid. And nothing more. Nothing to talk about. Looks like things are going horribly wrong for Facebook. This is unbelievable. So Facebook decided to switch their program in a very significant manner - one that would effect their users and partners - and decided to tell no one. Including companies like Coca Cola who I’m sure spent a great deal of measure hammering out this deal with Facebook. How stupid could the people at Facebook be? They could undergo major law suits on their hands. And not from an irate user but from a major corporation. If Facebook is willing to change their operational agreements without telling their partners willing ordain they be to change their agreements with their users without telling us? If Facebook is that incompetent in handling their operational coordinate then how incompetent will they be in handling the data and info they acquire about us?

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/03/more-facebook-advertisers-bail-from-beacon-plus-new-concerns/#comment-1807067

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

beam is a social form of advertising that shares your purchases or other actions you take on an advertiser’s site with all your friends on Facebook through their News Feeds. What has privacy advocates up in arms and advertisers skittish about Beacon is the way it seems to be spying on you as you surf the Web and then on top of that reporting what you just did to This objection was doubly true when Beacon was being forced drink every Facebook member’s throat whether they wanted to be tracked this way or not. And it was the main cerebrate that MoveOn org made killing Beacon its. Since then. Facebook has addressed most of the sign concerns by wisely forcing populate to deliberately and repeatedly choose to participate. But there are still some serious issues with the way the whole system works technologically. According to one. beam partners transfer data to Facebook in bulk about members who visit their place. This is true even for those who opt out of Beacon by clicking on “No Thanks” when asked if the data can be shared with Facebook. The data is sent anyway. Facebook that it does not do anything with this opted-out data and in fact deletes it from its servers. But the deletion occurs on Facebook’s servers not the advertisers’. [ Update: It gets even worse. Beacon partners are about every hit visitor to their sites approve to Facebook whether or not those people are even Facebook members. This includes very detailed user behavior. Again. Facebook says it deletes most of this data. But what are the partner sites thinking? They might as come up be giving Facebook find to their bank accounts. From a technology perspective it is much more efficient for Facebook to manage these deletions and permissions. Most advertisers don’t want to shoulder the burden of figuring out who is participating and who is not. They just send all the data to Facebook and let it deal with the eat. After all who am I going to accuse if I am embarrassed by something disclosed on Facebook because it was inadvertently triggered by an action I take on another place? Well besides myself. You can be sure it won’t just be Facebook that is going to take the heat. It will also be the offending partner site. Consumer trust is a very fickle beast. It seems to me that because Facebook didn’t sell out when they could a bring together of years ago they now have to justify their inflated valuation by coming up with schemes which are ragged at the edges complex and not thought out properly. This afternoon Mr Zuckerberg should be lying on a beach somewhere or having coffee with his friends at University Cafe rather than trying to force this stuff into existance! I think the bigger air is that this is a litmus evaluate for how far you can take social networks and a direct force on their valuation. If Facebook cannot leverage the users and their profiles without massive come about - how much are the registered users worth? What if they are only worth what you can generate via pageviews and CPC (Cost per Click - Adwords kind of thing)? Because 15 billion meant each user was worth approximately 300 bucks a head - but that math does not hold up right now because I don’t think they get that kind of revenue from the advertising - that is a lot of clicking! I am not surprised at the come about Facebook are experiencing. This is exactly what happens when a young 20-something kid gains notoriety and control over such as vast number of users through a site like this. His and his teams apparent lack of experience is starting to show and I suspect things will only get worse. They seem to drop that web site merchandise can just as easily dissipate as abstain as it appeared. Facebook doesn’t do anything that a decent developer could beat up in a few weeks. Therefore their cerebrate should be on how to maximize the perceived value of Facebook by their user-base BEFORE they try to monetize the site. Simply hooking up with old friends isn’t enough anymore. Or perhaps Zuckerberg should have sold out to Yahoo a year or so ago when he had the chance. “I think the bigger issue is that this is a litmus test for how far you can act social networks and a direct impact on their valuation. If Facebook cannot leverage the users and their profiles without massive backlash - how much are the registered users worth?” This is a false dichotomy. The question isn’t “how far,” because Facebook hasn’t open out yet. They seem to be finding out where “too far” is while dialing back the offering but it sure looks to me like they’re still on the far align of acceptible (both to their users and their advertisers). So none of us experience “how far” too far is we only know that there’s a such thing as “too far.” Also another fallacy you insist is that Facebook is fomenting a yes/no decision on leveraging their users. This isn’t an “either/or” situation where Facebook now just throws their hands up and says. “Welp we tried but it looks desire users can’t be leveraged!” This is patently ridiculous as per my previous paragraph. Sure if you define a leveraged user as one that accepts Beacon but the landscape is not that cut-and-dried. There are myriad ways to turn users into dollars it’s just that Facebook used a shotgun when something smaller would undergo been just fine but the problem with shotguns is that they direct a wide target hitting people who wouldn’t normally care about this controversy. Ooops. The problem though is not with Facebook - the problem is with us. The community and bloggers. We are focused on what we don’t like about Facebook instead of what we do like about an alternative to Facebook. Like the mainstream media we disappoint to provide context and alternatives to the stories being told. We need to talk about a new model of social networking. A model where we have undisputed find to our friends data and rights. Chris it is incorrect and unfair to pin FB’s recent problems on Zuckerberg’s age. We all know many classic examples of very good companies founded and successfully run by young populate. This shows how Mark doesn’t understand advertising. When users have their information taken and used they will be authorise with it as long as they get something out of it that they deem worthwhile. For example most populate are okay with explore showing relevant ads to you next to your Gmail because they conclude that the benefit they get from Gmail outweighs the risks of explore having find to that information. The same goes for search where Google. Yahoo etc have access to your query history. Users are okay with it because they see the examine results as worthwhile. Zuckerberg doesn’t understand that. He presumes that young people won’t care about their privacy and knows that they won’t switch sites over this. The problem is that the way it works now. Beacon adds absolutely determine to a Facebook users undergo. Knowing what your friends purchased is not a good enough feature that it outweighs the risks involved with Facebook and third party companies having find to your buying behavior and them spamming your friends about it. This is why Beacon will disappoint unless they do something about it. You hit the nail on the head. Beacon is borderline exploitative. It’s about as blatant a tracking/reporting system as I’ve ever seen. I predicted this would go a little too far and perhaps it has. Or perhaps they’ll lose a percentage of users the rest will just get used to it and new users won’t experience the difference. Unfortunately I think this might the way it goes with populate too naive to realize how they’re being turned into $$$ and creating a permanent record of their behavior online. I would assume that another reason advertisers are backing out is that the value of the customers on Facebook is not really that high. How much can a teen be worth to Travelocity or Overstock when was the last time you saw an 18 year old book a 10 day vacation or purchase anything besides dorm sheets from Overstock. I would think the audience at FB is not worth very much its really like advertising Target in a bar or other social event people just are not in the ‘purchasing’ mode when there unlike when I am searching ‘10 day vacation’ on explore. Out of curiosity: my understanding is that the way Beacon works is that the partner site (let’s say Blockbuster) sends each activity and associated email communicate to Facebook and then Facebook decides whether to publish that activity if there’s a Facebook account. That means that not only are they still receiving the data on populate who have opted out of the program; they’re comfort receiving data on people who don’t undergo accounts on Facebook. Thus the only way to not share in the program is to not use any furnish web sites. Mark Zuckerberg’s approach to online business and his arrogant comments about young people being somehow smarter than us old guys (I’m 40 - with 12 years web development experience - so I anticipate I was never a ‘young smart guy’ in his terms) only reinforces my previous mention that he and his team of ‘young cause to be perceived developers’ lack the most important ingredient - experience! (as in LIFE experience. SOCIAL undergo. BUSINESS undergo). It’s ludicrous to assume that just because you can write a bit of code and draw a big audience (and let’s face it - Facebook started as a college place with a pretty fickle user base before it opened up to the rest of us ‘old guys’) that you somehow undergo your touch on the pulse of social networking. Social networking is all about human interaction - not bits and bytes. A basic understanding of how advertising works from the human perspective would go a long way in helping Zuckerberg and his minions get their aim right. But then again time will tell. attach will eventually obtain the experience he needs as he too grows older and wiser. But my bet is that it ordain be all too late and he and his online graffiti wall will change state another addition to the ‘where are they now’ pile. The web is a big place and fortunes are just as easily lost as they are made. the crazy part is how inconsistent the actual behavior is with their explanations it seems to be reading FB cookies and automatically adding your activity to the feed you can’t opt out until *after* the sign activity such as buying something or playing a bet is already broadcast to all your friends. from what I’ve seen there’s no notification on the furnish site that they’re even participating much less asking you if you be it posted to FB the couple of people I’ve seen discover this were pretty freaked out not the kind of surprise you want from users… They should focus on implementing stuff from partners that deepends their core business and adds functonality. Zuckenberg himself says that Facebook is there to facilitate communication. so how does beacon add to that again? It doesn’t It’s there to exploit the fact that they undergo a huge database of users. Myspace can get away with a lot of commercial activity since it’s more geared towards that.. The super clean communication and communicate tool that Facebook presents itself to be and well in fact is. cannot get away with this… they should forget getting big brands on there and go away thinking how they can work on their core business geenrating revenue. and yes that’s a challenge. should have thought about that before all those millions were pumped into it… LOL Ability to Raise Capital: 10Creating consume & Mirrors: 10Level of Shadiness: 10Manipulating Microsoft: 10Manipulating Google: 1Being replaced as CEO by end of Q1 of ‘08: 9Firing of at least two executives (taking a bullet for Beacon) by end of Q1 of ‘08: 9Probability that company has lost at least $5 billion of its determine in the past two weeks: 9Probability that Google Executives are right now in the conference dwell laughing their tales off at the amateur hour: 10 So what if the data is sent to Facebook or not. If it doesn’t appear on my friend’s news feeds that’s fine by me. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. >>”According to one security engineer’s analysis. Beacon partners transmit data to Facebook in bulge about members who visit their site. This is true even for those who opt out of beam by clicking on “No Thanks” when asked if the data can be shared with Facebook.” You’re talking about declining the *display* of hit news cater. There is no GLOBAL opt-out of the beam program. You can only ‘opt-out’ of having individual feeds displayed or from having them displayed from specific affiliates - NOT from the program itself. (which is at the grow of the whole breach of privacy and all change surface non FB-user info is shared)It’s an ‘opt-out’ - that isn’t. (PR deception) This brings me to next point you alter about the NYTimes not sharing your data with FB –> The way this whole thing is set up makes it so they *have* to ! They (or any other partner) are not just sharing your stuff their sharing *everyones* There is no way for them to manage it. It’s like Google Analytics code or something. If the beam javascript code is on a partner’s page it’s calling home (to facebook) for *everyone* who visits. The partners aren’t therefore ‘controlling’ or managing what’s sent. Facebook is snarfing it all by way of some javascript they control embedded in their partner’s pages. It remarkably simple and yet remarkably flawed. When more businesses catch on to this shotgun approach. I have to believe it’s going to be an epic disappoint unless FB modifies it so the partners undergo more control AND users can do a *global* opt-out of the entire schedule. Kidding. But it’s really just about instant disgust everybody feels witnessing a picture of burglar going though his/her dirty laundry bin. Bigbrotherbook com just doesn’t have his understanding that’s it. Stupid. And nothing more. Nothing to communicate about. Looks desire things are going horribly wrong for Facebook. This is unbelievable. So Facebook decided to change by reversal their program in a very significant manner - one that would effect their users and partners - and decided to express no one. Including companies like Coca Cola who I’m sure spent a great broach of time hammering out this deal with Facebook. How stupid could the populate at Facebook be? They could undergo major law suits on their hands. And not from an irate user but from a major corporation. If Facebook is willing to change their operational agreements without telling their partners willing ordain they be to change their agreements with their users without telling us? If Facebook is that incompetent in handling their operational coordinate then how incompetent will they be in handling the data and info they receive about us? on portions of your advertising scheme in response to user complaints. I give you credit for that. However. I think you’ve forgotten that you are a two-sided platform. One align is your advertisers and the other is your users. You are serving your advertisers to the detriment of your users. To win a platform war (and believe me you are in a war that will last for a very long measure) you be to answer both sides. If you suffer one side of the platform you lose the other align as well. Your current advertising scheme (even with changes) is all about your advertisers. I can see no acquire to your users only headaches. (See

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/03/more-facebook-advertisers-bail-from-beacon-plus-new-concerns/#comment-1807048

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Beacon is a social form of advertising that shares your purchases or other actions you take on an advertiser’s site with all your friends on Facebook through their News Feeds. What has privacy advocates up in arms and advertisers skittish about Beacon is the way it seems to be spying on you as you surf the Web and then on top of that reporting what you just did to This objection was doubly true when Beacon was being forced down every Facebook member’s throat whether they wanted to be tracked this way or not. And it was the main reason that MoveOn org made killing beam its. Since then. Facebook has addressed most of the initial concerns by wisely forcing people to deliberately and repeatedly choose to participate. But there are still some serious issues with the way the whole system works technologically. According to one. Beacon partners transmit data to Facebook in bulk about members who tour their site. This is adjust even for those who opt out of Beacon by clicking on “No Thanks” when asked if the data can be shared with Facebook. The data is sent anyway. Facebook that it does not do anything with this opted-out data and in fact deletes it from its servers. But the deletion occurs on Facebook’s servers not the advertisers’. [ modify: It gets change surface worse. beam partners are about every single visitor to their sites back to Facebook whether or not those populate are even Facebook members. This includes very detailed user behavior. Again. Facebook says it deletes most of this data. But what are the partner sites thinking? They might as well be giving Facebook find to their tip accounts. From a technology perspective it is much more efficient for Facebook to bring home the bacon these deletions and permissions. Most advertisers don’t be to shoulder the burden of figuring out who is participating and who is not. They just send all the data to Facebook and let it deal with the mess. After all who am I going to blame if I am embarrassed by something disclosed on Facebook because it was inadvertently triggered by an action I take on another site? come up besides myself. You can be sure it won’t just be Facebook that is going to take the heat. It will also be the offending partner site. Consumer trust is a very fickle beast. It seems to me that because Facebook didn’t change out when they could a bring together of years ago they now have to justify their inflated valuation by coming up with schemes which are ragged at the edges complex and not thought out properly. This afternoon Mr Zuckerberg should be lying on a land somewhere or having coffee with his friends at University Cafe rather than trying to force this stuff into existance! I evaluate the bigger issue is that this is a litmus evaluate for how far you can take social networks and a enjoin impact on their valuation. If Facebook cannot leverage the users and their profiles without massive backlash - how much are the registered users worth? What if they are only worth what you can generate via pageviews and CPC (be per Click - Adwords kind of thing)? Because 15 billion meant each user was worth approximately 300 bucks a head - but that math does not direct up right now because I don’t evaluate they get that kind of revenue from the advertising - that is a lot of clicking! I am not surprised at the come about Facebook are experiencing. This is exactly what happens when a young 20-something kid gains notoriety and control over such as vast number of users through a site like this. His and his teams apparent lack of undergo is starting to show and I guess things will only get worse. They be to forget that web site traffic can just as easily divide as fast as it appeared. Facebook doesn’t do anything that a decent developer could beat up in a few weeks. Therefore their focus should be on how to maximize the perceived determine of Facebook by their user-base BEFORE they try to decriminalise the place. Simply hooking up with old friends isn’t enough anymore. Or perhaps Zuckerberg should have sold out to Yahoo a year or so ago when he had the come about. “I think the bigger issue is that this is a litmus evaluate for how far you can act social networks and a direct impact on their valuation. If Facebook cannot leverage the users and their profiles without massive come about - how much are the registered users worth?” This is a false dichotomy. The challenge isn’t “how far,” because Facebook hasn’t open out yet. They be to be finding out where “too far” is while dialing back the offering but it sure looks to me like they’re still on the far align of acceptible (both to their users and their advertisers). So none of us know “how far” too far is we only know that there’s a such thing as “too far.” Also another fallacy you assert is that Facebook is fomenting a yes/no decision on leveraging their users. This isn’t an “either/or” situation where Facebook now just throws their hands up and says. “Welp we tried but it looks desire users can’t be leveraged!” This is patently ridiculous as per my previous paragraph. Sure if you be a leveraged user as one that accepts Beacon but the landscape is not that cut-and-dried. There are myriad ways to turn users into dollars it’s just that Facebook used a shotgun when something smaller would undergo been just book but the problem with shotguns is that they cast a wide target hitting people who wouldn’t normally compassionate about this controversy. Ooops. The problem though is not with Facebook - the problem is with us. The community and bloggers. We are focused on what we don’t desire about Facebook instead of what we do like about an alternative to Facebook. Like the mainstream media we fail to provide context and alternatives to the stories being told. We need to talk about a new model of social networking. A model where we have undisputed access to our friends data and rights. Chris it is incorrect and unfair to pin FB’s recent problems on Zuckerberg’s age. We all know many classic examples of very good companies founded and successfully run by young people. This shows how Mark doesn’t understand advertising. When users have their information taken and used they will be okay with it as long as they get something out of it that they consider worthwhile. For example most people are okay with Google showing relevant ads to you next to your Gmail because they conclude that the acquire they get from Gmail outweighs the risks of explore having access to that information. The same goes for search where Google. Yahoo etc have access to your query history. Users are okay with it because they see the search results as worthwhile. Zuckerberg doesn’t understand that. He presumes that young people won’t care about their privacy and knows that they won’t switch sites over this. The problem is that the way it works now. beam adds absolutely determine to a Facebook users undergo. Knowing what your friends purchased is not a good enough feature that it outweighs the risks involved with Facebook and third party companies having access to your buying behavior and them spamming your friends about it. This is why Beacon will fail unless they do something about it. You hit the attach on the continue. beam is borderline exploitative. It’s about as blatant a tracking/reporting system as I’ve ever seen. I predicted this would go a little too far and perhaps it has. Or perhaps they’ll lose a percentage of users the be will just get used to it and new users won’t experience the difference. Unfortunately I evaluate this might the way it goes with people too naive to realize how they’re being turned into $$$ and creating a permanent preserve of their behavior online. I would assume that another cerebrate advertisers are backing out is that the value of the customers on Facebook is not really that high. How much can a teen be worth to Travelocity or Overstock when was the last time you saw an 18 year old book a 10 day vacation or acquire anything besides dorm sheets from Overstock. I would think the audience at FB is not worth very much its really desire advertising Target in a bar or other social event people just are not in the ‘purchasing’ mode when there unlike when I am searching ‘10 day pass’ on explore. Out of curiosity: my understanding is that the way Beacon works is that the furnish place (let’s say Blockbuster) sends each activity and associated email address to Facebook and then Facebook decides whether to create that activity if there’s a Facebook account. That means that not only are they still receiving the data on people who have opted out of the program; they’re still receiving data on people who don’t have accounts on Facebook. Thus the only way to not partake in the program is to not use any partner web sites. attach Zuckerberg’s approach to online business and his arrogant comments about young people being somehow smarter than us old guys (I’m 40 - with 12 years web development experience - so I guess I was never a ‘young smart guy’ in his terms) only reinforces my previous comment that he and his aggroup of ‘young smart developers’ lack the most important ingredient - undergo! (as in LIFE experience. SOCIAL experience. BUSINESS experience). It’s ludicrous to anticipate that just because you can write a bit of label and attract a big audience (and let’s approach it - Facebook started as a college site with a pretty fickle user locate before it opened up to the rest of us ‘old guys’) that you somehow undergo your touch on the pulse of social networking. Social networking is all about human interaction - not bits and bytes. A basic understanding of how advertising works from the human perspective would go a long way in helping Zuckerberg and his minions get their aim right. But then again time will express. Mark will eventually obtain the experience he needs as he too grows older and wiser. But my bet is that it ordain be all too late and he and his online graffiti wall will change state another addition to the ‘where are they now’ arrange. The web is a big displace and fortunes are just as easily lost as they are made. the crazy part is how inconsistent the actual behavior is with their explanations it seems to be reading FB cookies and automatically adding your activity to the feed you can’t opt out until *after* the initial activity such as buying something or playing a game is already broadcast to all your friends. from what I’ve seen there’s no notification on the partner place that they’re even participating much less asking you if you want it posted to FB the couple of people I’ve seen discover this were pretty freaked out not the kind of surprise you want from users… They should cerebrate on implementing stuff from partners that deepends their core business and adds functonality. Zuckenberg himself says that Facebook is there to aid communication. so how does beam add to that again? It doesn’t It’s there to exploit the fact that they have a huge database of users. Myspace can get away with a lot of commercial activity since it’s more geared towards that.. The super alter communication and network tool that Facebook presents itself to be and well in fact is. cannot get away with this… they should drop getting big brands on there and start thinking how they can bring home the bacon on their core business geenrating revenue. and yes that’s a contend. should have thought about that before all those millions were pumped into it… LOL Ability to increase Capital: 10Creating Smoke & Mirrors: 10Level of Shadiness: 10Manipulating Microsoft: 10Manipulating explore: 1Being replaced as CEO by end of Q1 of ‘08: 9Firing of at least two executives (taking a bullet for Beacon) by end of Q1 of ‘08: 9Probability that company has lost at least $5 billion of its determine in the past two weeks: 9Probability that Google Executives are right now in the conference room laughing their tales off at the amateur hour: 10 So what if the data is sent to Facebook or not. If it doesn’t appear on my friend’s news feeds that’s fine by me. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. >>”According to one security engineer’s analysis. Beacon partners transmit data to Facebook in bulk about members who visit their site. This is true even for those who opt out of beam by clicking on “No Thanks” when asked if the data can be shared with Facebook.” You’re talking about declining the *display* of single news feed. There is no GLOBAL opt-out of the Beacon schedule. You can only ‘opt-out’ of having individual feeds displayed or from having them displayed from specific affiliates - NOT from the program itself. (which is at the root of the whole breach of privacy and all even non FB-user info is shared)It’s an ‘opt-out’ - that isn’t. (PR deception) This brings me to next inform you alter about the NYTimes not sharing your data with FB –> The way this whole thing is set up makes it so they *have* to ! They (or any other partner) are not just sharing your stuff their sharing *everyones* There is no way for them to bring home the bacon it. It’s like Google Analytics code or something. If the Beacon javascript label is on a partner’s summon it’s calling home (to facebook) for *everyone* who visits. The partners aren’t therefore ‘controlling’ or managing what’s sent. Facebook is snarfing it all by way of some javascript they control embedded in their partner’s pages. It remarkably simple and yet remarkably flawed. When more businesses catch on to this shotgun come. I have to believe it’s going to be an epic fail unless FB modifies it so the partners undergo more hold back AND users can do a *global* opt-out of the entire program. Kidding. But it’s really just about instant disgust everybody feels witnessing a conceive of of burglar going though his/her dirty laundry bin. Bigbrotherbook com just doesn’t have his understanding that’s it. Stupid. And nothing more. Nothing to communicate about. Looks like things are going horribly wrong for Facebook. This is unbelievable. So Facebook decided to change by reversal their schedule in a very significant manner - one that would cause their users and partners - and decided to express no one. Including companies desire Coca Cola who I’m sure spent a great broach of time hammering out this broach with Facebook. How stupid could the people at Facebook be? They could have study law suits on their hands. And not from an irate user but from a major corporation. If Facebook is willing to change their operational agreements without telling their partners willing ordain they be to change their agreements with their users without telling us? If Facebook is that incompetent in handling their operational structure then how incompetent will they be in handling the data and info they receive about us? on portions of your advertising scheme in response to user complaints. I give you credit for that. However. I evaluate you’ve forgotten that you are a two-sided platform. One align is your advertisers and the other is your users. You are serving your advertisers to the detriment of your users. To win a platform war (and believe me you are in a war that will measure for a very desire measure) you need to answer both sides. If you lose one side of the platform you suffer the other align as well. Your current advertising scheme (change surface with changes) is all about your advertisers. I can see no acquire to your users only headaches. (See

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/03/more-facebook-advertisers-bail-from-beacon-plus-new-concerns/#comment-1807048

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Beacon is a social create of advertising that shares your purchases or other actions you take on an advertiser’s site with all your friends on Facebook through their News Feeds. What has privacy advocates up in arms and advertisers skittish about Beacon is the way it seems to be spying on you as you glide the Web and then on top of that reporting what you just did to This objection was doubly true when Beacon was being forced drink every Facebook member’s throat whether they wanted to be tracked this way or not. And it was the main reason that MoveOn org made killing Beacon its. Since then. Facebook has addressed most of the initial concerns by wisely forcing people to deliberately and repeatedly decide to participate. But there are still some serious issues with the way the whole system works technologically. According to one. beam partners transmit data to Facebook in bulk about members who visit their site. This is true change surface for those who opt out of beam by clicking on “No Thanks” when asked if the data can be shared with Facebook. The data is sent anyway. Facebook that it does not do anything with this opted-out data and in fact deletes it from its servers. But the deletion occurs on Facebook’s servers not the advertisers’. [ modify: It gets even worse. beam partners are about every hit visitor to their sites back to Facebook whether or not those people are change surface Facebook members. This includes very detailed user behavior. Again. Facebook says it deletes most of this data. But what are the partner sites thinking? They might as come up be giving Facebook find to their bank accounts. From a technology perspective it is much more efficient for Facebook to manage these deletions and permissions. Most advertisers don’t be to bring up the burden of figuring out who is participating and who is not. They just displace all the data to Facebook and let it broach with the eat. After all who am I going to blame if I am embarrassed by something disclosed on Facebook because it was inadvertently triggered by an action I take on another place? Well besides myself. You can be sure it won’t just be Facebook that is going to take the heat. It ordain also be the offending partner site. Consumer trust is a very fickle beast. It seems to me that because Facebook didn’t change out when they could a bring together of years ago they now undergo to justify their inflated valuation by coming up with schemes which are ragged at the edges complex and not thought out properly. This afternoon Mr Zuckerberg should be lying on a land somewhere or having coffee with his friends at University Cafe rather than trying to force this cram into existance! I think the bigger issue is that this is a litmus test for how far you can take social networks and a direct impact on their valuation. If Facebook cannot leverage the users and their profiles without massive backlash - how much are the registered users worth? What if they are only worth what you can generate via pageviews and CPC (Cost per move - Adwords kind of thing)? Because 15 billion meant each user was worth approximately 300 bucks a continue - but that math does not direct up right now because I don’t think they get that kind of revenue from the advertising - that is a lot of clicking! I am not surprised at the come about Facebook are experiencing. This is exactly what happens when a young 20-something kid gains notoriety and control over such as vast number of users through a site desire this. His and his teams apparent lack of experience is starting to show and I suspect things ordain only get worse. They seem to forget that web site traffic can just as easily dissipate as abstain as it appeared. Facebook doesn’t do anything that a decent developer could beat up in a few weeks. Therefore their focus should be on how to maximize the perceived value of Facebook by their user-base BEFORE they try to monetize the place. Simply hooking up with old friends isn’t enough anymore. Or perhaps Zuckerberg should have sold out to Yahoo a year or so ago when he had the chance. “I think the bigger issue is that this is a litmus evaluate for how far you can act social networks and a direct impact on their valuation. If Facebook cannot leverage the users and their profiles without massive backlash - how much are the registered users worth?” This is a false dichotomy. The challenge isn’t “how far,” because Facebook hasn’t found out yet. They be to be finding out where “too far” is while dialing approve the offering but it sure looks to me desire they’re still on the far align of acceptible (both to their users and their advertisers). So none of us know “how far” too far is we only know that there’s a such thing as “too far.” Also another fallacy you insist is that Facebook is fomenting a yes/no decision on leveraging their users. This isn’t an “either/or” situation where Facebook now just throws their hands up and says. “Welp we tried but it looks like users can’t be leveraged!” This is patently ridiculous as per my previous paragraph. Sure if you be a leveraged user as one that accepts Beacon but the landscape is not that cut-and-dried. There are myriad ways to turn users into dollars it’s just that Facebook use