
Fucked Facebook - momo
http://fuckedfacebook.com/
======
dpapathanasiou
You know you've arrived when someone takes the time and effort to create a
"fucked(your company)" site.

~~~
staunch
I created one for my own company just to feel good.

~~~
dpapathanasiou
_Ha!_

Have your ex-girlfriend write it, so that the vitriol comes across as
authentic.

------
kcd
facebook are your typical young, successful startup - arrogant to a fault.
doesn't help that zuck is a harvard kid.

~~~
master54
better than a yale kid

------
byrneseyeview
Hm. At 6 points in 3 hours, I don't see this article on the front page, even
though this is:

"6. Google announces purge of ad-heavy sites (nypost.com) 4 points by jkush 5
hours ago | discuss"

[Edit: Either Firefox's text search and I missed this, or it's been restored
to the front page.]

And the article is weak. They're complaining that Facebook is _competing with
Twitter_. Why would you fault someone for doing what other people do, but
better? And why would you care if they do it worse?

------
kal-el
facebook are in danger of letting their arrogance get in the way of good
judgment

~~~
bootload
_'... facebook are in danger ...'_

Don't think so. Facebook are pretty good at what they do. But saying that for
USD12.5M you should be. What will kill them is if they don't listen to users
and adapt. Social software has downsides.

There's an old saying if you work in a family business and get on the wrong
side of one. Your toast. This could have profound effects on social software
sites that peeve pivot point members who leave and their community follows.

------
geryy
bunch of losers. get a life.

~~~
SwellJoe
It's entirely relevant, and not entirely untrue. With the "platform" launching
there will likely be dozens or hundreds of young companies building tools that
work with Facebook. If Facebook eats all profitable niches (as they seem more
than willing to do, as shown by the low-hanging fruit of classifieds), even if
"partners" are living in them, there will be no room left for those young
companies.

I'd steer well clear of building anything that I expected to make money on for
Facebook.

~~~
bootload
_"... I'd steer well clear of building anything that I expected to make money
on for Facebook. ..."_

Been thinking about this problem. There is a trend at the moment for web2
companies creating apps, exposing API's then allowing third parties to use
them. If this is a trend and consolidation occurs is it wise to use these
API's? Will there be a choice as large numbers of users move to these online
apps effectively recreating the monopolies that past operating systems had?

Could a solution be to spread the usage of API's across a larger number of
services?

~~~
SwellJoe
I've been researching widgets/gadgets a bit and the Netvibes API allows cross-
platform widgets...which removes their monopoly power, and insures that even
if they replicate your functionality, you can refocus on other sources of
users.

So, if one were to abstract the Facebook API into a "social networks" API of
your own, it'd be a sane path. Then, if Facebook launches an exact duplicate
of your app, you just refocus your efforts on MySpace, Xanga, LinkedIn,
whatever.

Of course, this assumes that the others follow the lead of Facebook (which I
think is a great idea business-wise--APIs are great for business and good for
your users...but not good for your "partners", if you have a habit of picking
the winners and killing them with your own implementation).

So, I'm definitely not saying folks shouldn't make use of the Facebook API.
But think about using it to add value to something already valuable, rather
than just building tools that live and die by involvement with Facebook.

------
JMiao
why are people saying "Facebook are..."? Just listen to yourselves.

~~~
martin
"In British English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take
either singular or plural verb forms depending on the context and the
metonymic shift that it implies."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun>

