Facebook may sell itself off

<p>I have a subscription to the WSJ but because of copyrights and all that stuff I'll only post this message that I got via e-mail, not the actual article. I didn't see this posted elsewhere either.</p>

<p>"From The Wall Street Journal</p>

<p>Sept. 21, 2006</p>

<p>Social-networking site Facebook is in serious talks to sell itself to Yahoo for an amount that could approach $1 billion after having held separate discussions with Microsoft and Viacom."</p>

<p>Yep. </p>

<p>Poor Zuckerberg, only getting half of the $2billion he initially wanted. </p>

<p>We should all cry for him.</p>

<p>well it was gonna happen eventually.</p>

<p>ugh zuckerberg needs to help pay for my tuition</p>

<p>I hate facebook.</p>

<p>I read the article. It mainly says that companies like Yahoo realize that there is a lot of revenue to be made from putting advertising on places like Facebook, MySpace, or Friendster.</p>

<p>Once again progress bows down to the almighty dollar.</p>

<p>Or is it that progress occurs because of the almighty dollar--well, if you call that progress.</p>

I read the article. It mainly says that companies like Yahoo realize that there is a lot of revenue to be made from putting advertising on places like Facebook, MySpace, or Friendster.</p>

<p>Once again progress bows down to the almighty dollar.</p>

<p>Or is it that progress occurs because of the almighty dollar--well, if you call that progress.


<p>man what is this hippy talk?</p>

<p>can you blame him? 1 billion dollars, I'm sure he always figured there might be a point where he could sell his site off.</p>

<p>MySpace was sold off and is still relatively the same.</p>

<p>Zuckerberg does sell off space on his site for ads, as seen by the the Facebook "flyer" purchase option available to users.</p>

<p>dcfca- </p>

<p>I so completely disagree that myspace is the same after the buyout. It might appear to be the same to casual users, but if you seriously look at what they're doing to it, it's a corporate nightmare. It completely falsifies the web 2.0 UGC experience and makes users think that they're in control of their sites when they're being played like puppets for lots and lots and lots of money. Myspace evolved from being a really simple, relatively harmless social networking site to being some ginormous corporate bohemouth. Rupert is playing the users for every cent they're worth and it's completely disingenuous. I think that eventually people will realize that it's fabricated and it'll turn them off. </p>

<p>It's no longer about Tom and Chris in some apartment in Santa Monica coding and screwing around online. It's corporate capital and it's evolved into a vehicle for NewsCorp and it's contractors to sell sell sell sell sell.</p>


<p>So? :confused:</p>

<p>What do you mean casual users?? Are there intense users LOL</p>

<p>Lol. </p>

<p>I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad thing. It was a really good move on Murdoch's part. Being in advertising I think the use of myspace/facebook/youtube/whatever could potentially do really cool things for the industry. But as a consumer, it's completely obnoxious. </p>

<p>But yeah, to say that it's the same site as it was before the buyout is a slightly uninformed statement.</p>

<p>ETA- OH LOOK WHAT I FOUND IN MY WORK INBOX THIS MORNING: <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/19/technology/myspace/index.htm?postversion=2006091915%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/19/technology/myspace/index.htm?postversion=2006091915&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Well, Myspace has consumers and advertisers. Often the line isn't too clear. </p>

<p>I'd categorize casual users as people who use it to keep in touch with friends or to see other people's profiles. People who use it to learn about new music and new comedians and new movies and whatever. Maybe spend up to an hour on Myspace a day or every few days (lots of people are logged on much, much more than this though)</p>

<p>But if you seriously take a look around the site and read about their business decisions, including the record label and the comedy thing and the movies and everything else, it's pretty clear what they're doing. </p>

<p>That isn't to say that ALL users are blind to it, but I guarentee that the 15 yr old who's HTMLing her site out and adding friends everywhere and updating her playlist every 3 days DOESN'T realize that she's buying into the corporate crap. A lot of people really, really aren't internet saavy and don't really get that it's a business. A former friend of mine (who was admittedly as dumb as a rock) thought that THE INTERNET WAS MADE FOR MYSPACE. Her exact words. So yknow, yeah, I think that a lot of people aren't too aware of what's going on behind the scenes.</p>

<p>/But OH- there ARE intense users. really.</p>

she's buying into the corporate crap.


<p>Wait, so if someone makes money off of it, it's bad?</p>

<p>wow Allie, did you write all that before or after you ate your breakfast of tree bark and tofu?</p>

<p>Not at all. I think that if they can they SHOULD make money off of it. </p>

<p>I'm just saying that (and this applies to a lot of things online, due to the nature of how advertisers make money online and blah blah blah) I don't think a lot of the users realize that by using myspace and facebook and whatever that they're being consumers. </p>

<p>In another thread during the whole newsfeed fiasco of 2006, someone said "oh why are you guys complaining, facebook is a gift! why would you complain about a gift! just take what they give you! how do you think complaining makes them feel!".</p>

<p>I think that says a lot about how unaware users are. People just don't get that by adding Dane Cook as a friend and downloading songs to their page they're being consumers and they're being sold to (and again, CC users tend to be ahead of the curve on a lot of things so I don't think this applies to most people here). I have no problem with them making money, and I think it at least initially was a really inventive way to do so. I just think that it's slightly coercive.</p>


<p>It's not coercive, per se. It's viral. And yes, it does walk a fine, grey line. But I don't really see this as being an awful thing, since you still get your service, AND it's not pop-ups.</p>

<p>My God, imagine MySpace with popups. UGH.</p>

<p>Lol how does that make me a hippie? </p>

<p>I WORK IN ADVERTISING. I LOVE money. I LOVE selling things. </p>

<p>But I'm also a consumer on these sites and so I tend to look at it from both sides. I'm not saying that the buyout was necessarily a bad thing (although I do think there's something worriesome about lots of big consumers coming in and wiping out independents). I just said that the site is now DIFFERENT. Which it is.</p>

<p>Oh God, Ari.</p>

<p>My eyes would fall out.</p>


<p>I think the intarweb is still maturing, and we may be in a phase of its growth. However, the early days, y'know the BBS and everything for free becuz I love you guys days, are over. It was inevitable. </p>

<p>Sad, too. I miss those days. A lot. But nostalgia doesn't pay for bandwidth.</p>

<p>Yep. </p>

<p>It was definitely inevitable. It'll just be interesting to see how far they can take it before people start getting ****ed off. I think people are used to having lots of control online and I think that corporate buyouts could stifle a little bit of that. We shall see.</p>