I run the twitter page for a club I belong to. I sent out a tweet and I received a like very quickly. I think it might be a trick.
Here's a fun one. As if Facebook wasn't Hitler-equivalent enough...
[ http://www.ksl.com/?sid=39954863&nid=148 [
This apartment complex in Utah, already suffering from a bad reputation in the rental marketplace, unilaterally posted an "addendum" to each tenant's lease on their doors, requiring them to "like" the apartment complex on Fecesbook.
It also includes a release allowing the management to use its tenants' names and likenesses to promote the complex.
Now the story is spreading and the backlash has started. This won't end well.
Really, Facebook should be punished for this by being shut down entirely.
What if you don't have a facebook account?
Didn't get to the point of finding out, though. A Google search for the complex's Facebook page shows a one-star rating in the cache, but clicking through to Facebook shows that the page has been removed. Obviously once the story broke, the entire Internet went in and flamed them into the depths of hell. That'll learn 'em :)
The whole "liking" facebook thing was always pathetic to me, "Oh please, please somebody like us, oh please"
It is terrible what happened at the club in Orlando. I was glancing over a webpage on the attack and came across this: "Warning: The club told revellers on Facebook that 'everyone [should] get out of Pulse and keep running' as the gunman attacked " Does this mean the club updated their facebook page during the shooting? Does this mean people were checking the facebook page as the shooting was taking place?
If this is true we have reached a new low.
And by the way -- we have no choice.
I agree that facebook needs to be shut down, I disagree with the violence part. There has been enough violence.
Facebook is a cesspool of stupidity. I understand people using social media to contact friends and loved ones. I can not understand why the bar felt they needed to update their facebook page during the event.
It would be just like a lizard to say he isn't a lizard. But Bush was a lizard.
Apparently there is a trend of websites that want you to sign up in order to view their content so they have this overlay which expands to cover content. I have seen facebook and pinerest. I am not sure if that is the name, a picture, topic/theme sharing site. If you try to look at a page an opaque overlay scrolls up from the bottom. I am not sure how this is suppose to get me to sign up. I would think if I could actually use the site I might say, "This looks interesting, I think I will sign up." Instead I just get frustrated and leave.
Recently I noticed that I can block the element with Ad Block Plus, however there are several layers of this overlay. This helps on those rare times you have to look at these sites.
I seem to remember reading that the magic number is 7 seconds. If a reader can't get to what they clicked on to see in 7 seconds, they will generally move on. This goes for not only obstacles in the way of the content, but also for waiting for the page to load.
Signups aren't so bad if you can log in using an account you already have (Twitter, Google, Hitlerbook, etc). But even that has to be done with no more than TWO CLICKS (one to select your service, another from the service to confirm the info sent to the site). If I click a button to log in to a site using my Google or Twitter account, and then the site insists on taking me through their entire signup process anyway (possibly including an email validation, wtf?!?) their time is up and I won't complete the process.
I can't imagine they get the number of signups they're hoping for when they pull stuff like this.
Not sure where to post this ... I guess this is as good a room as any.
As many of you have undoubtedly heard by now, Verizon is about to buy what's left of Yahoo for $4,800,000,000.
They are going to combine it with AOL (which they already bought for $4,400,000,000) and they believe the combined properties (along with whatever else they've got) will create a titan that will, as one writer put it, "challenge the Internet oligopoly of Facebook and Google."
Really? Combine AOL and Yahoo and you get a Google killer? They ought to do a Google search (not an AOL or Yahoo search) for the term "dinosaurs mating" and get reminded of how that type of thing usually ends up in the tech industry.
You know what ... I'd *love* for the power and influence on the Internet to be distributed out across a lot more players instead of concentrated in the hands of just a few. (As one comedian once put it, "I remember when there were more than four web sites.")
But somehow I doubt that gluing together a pair of has-beens is going to succeed in producing anything viable.
Sun Jul 24 2016 10:47:14 PM EDT from IGnatius T Foobar(As one comedian once put it, "I remember when there were more than four web sites.")
I remember when there was more that two or three of anything. The illusion of choice.
Heh... it's like there's some corporate executives at Verizon who are bored, have too much money, and want to see a pit fight.
"Let's buy AOL, then Yahoo, and force them to work together!"
"Yeah! That'll be hilarious! They'll tear each other apart!"
"How much do you want to put on AOL?"
Wow ... that's a great way to look at it, and I hope it's true! If they sold fly-on-the-wall access to the integration meetings, it would probably make them a whole lot more money than whatever they were planning to reap from the "AOL + Yahoo == Google" strategy.
Does "at&t" (which is actually SBC) still use Yahoo for all of their portal services? A few folks who used to hang around here were Prodigy employees back when SBC contracted with Prodigy to provide those services, then changed their mind and went with Yahoo, then bought Prodigy to shut them down because it was cheaper than getting out of the contract. If that arrangement is still in effect, "at&t" (actually SBC) is now going to get all of their portal services from Verizon? That doesn't sound like it's going to sit well.
(unless, of course, there's an at&t/Verizon/Qwest merger on its way, and they decide to call the new conglomerate "The Phone Company" or perhaps "Bell")
You know what ... the more a spammer uses my first name in a sales pitch, the less I want to do business with them.
That is good to know "my friend."
I use that as a strategy for knowing spammers when I inadvertently answer the phone.
If they use my first name, rather than my nick name, I know they're a spammer.
Nobody knows me by my first name. But I use it on most written media.