Facebook shutting down!! Oh no!!!

[kluk]

http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines...on-march-15th/

[Jgresch]

gtfo

[Lomac]

If only... lol

[The_AK]

"oh noez...."

very reliable source, just look at their other recent stories

[Gh0stRider]

Originally Posted by The_AK

"oh noez...."

very reliable source, just look at their other recent stories

MIKE TYSON PIGEON FETISH

GEORGE CLOONEY TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT

MICHELLE OBAMA PREGNANT!

[insomniac]

doesnt matter. my facebook chat looks like this anyways

[Lomac]

^ Sorry, I'm the guy with the car as his dp...

[insomniac]

LOL to most people im the annoying 12 year old

[OTG-ZR2]

I prefer to not have an actual photo of my person as my display pic. Mainly for security reasons.

[Gilgamesh]

I'm either the guy who is always on or the annoying 12 yo as well.

[The_AK]

definitely the asshole...

[MindBomber]

If a guy can be called a slut, I think thats me..

[lowside67]

Originally Posted by OTG-ZR2

I prefer to not have an actual photo of my person as my display pic. Mainly for security reasons.

I hear this all the time, this is the dumbest reason in the world.

While it is an amusing false sense of security, the sad reality is that in today's interconnected and incredibly information-oriented world, anybody who actually had the means, motivation, and intent to harm you would not be deterred by your lack of a facebook photo. However, none of this actually matters because how big must your ego be to actually think that anybody would give enough of a shit to actually want to impersonate or otherwise harm you?

-Mark

[insomniac]

^disagree. Look what rs did to bradford chows and 14 dolla ballas dp LOLOL!!
Posted via RS Mobile

[OTG-ZR2]

^^ There was that thread, about getting assaulted in gas town a while back. The antagonist was found or beveled to be found by someone recognizing his display picture.

[rJZx]

Guy that is always on
or guy with car profile pic

[geeknerd]

Originally Posted by lowside67

I hear this all the time, this is the dumbest reason in the world.

While it is an amusing false sense of security, the sad reality is that in today's interconnected and incredibly information-oriented world, anybody who actually had the means, motivation, and intent to harm you would not be deterred by your lack of a facebook photo. However, none of this actually matters because how big must your ego be to actually think that anybody would give enough of a shit to actually want to impersonate or otherwise harm you?

-Mark

on a very serious level, someone out to fucking get you, that is right.

but think about highschool level/small stuff.
no facebook = that much harder and might be enough to prevent an 'attack'

'an attack would be =

i could go to ur facebook account right now, get a picture of u and caption it "guy who thinks facebook doesnt overly expose yourself" and photoshop it to a nude male and do whatever and post it here.

but without facebook, i wouldnt be able to do that and wont even bother to stalk you to get pictures of you and whatnot.

[TOS'd]

I hope they do not shut down le facebook.

[LiquidTurbo]

Not even the CEO of Facebook can decide to shut down the thing. He doesn't privately own the entire company himself...

[LiquidTurbo]

This is a MUCH better article of an opinion of the fate of facebook...

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/...ebook.myspace/

All signs for Facebook appear to be pointing up.
Mark Zuckerberg is Time's Man of the Year, the movie about him seems likely to be an Oscar winner, and now Goldman Sachs is raising $1.5 billion from its favorite investors on behalf of the social networking company.
At the very same moment, Facebook's only real competitor --NewsCorps' waning social networking site, MySpace -- is shedding employees and expenses, most likely in hopes of a fire sale.

But appearances can be deceiving. In fact, as I read the situation, we are witnessing the beginning of the end of Facebook. These aren't the symptoms of a company that is winning, but one that is cashing out.
Indeed, 11 years ago this week, when AOL announced its $350 billion merger with Time Warner, I was asked to write an OpEd for the New York Times explaining what the deal between old and new media companies really meant. I said that AOL was cashing in its over-valued dotcom stock in order to purchase a stake in a "real" media company with movie studios, theme parks and even cable. In short, the deal meant AOL knew their reign was over.
The Times didn't run the piece. Of course, the merger turned out to be a disaster: AOL's revenue stream was reduced to a trickle as net users ventured out onto the Web directly.

Facebook really worth $50 billion? Facebook's 2011 plans: Hackers wanted
Likewise, Rupert Murdoch's 2005 purchase of MySpace for $580 million coincided pretty much exactly with the website's peak of popularity. People blamed corporate ownership for the social network's demise, but the cycle had already begun.
Now, it's Facebook's turn. This week's news that Goldman Sachs has chosen to invest in Facebook while entreating others to do the same should inspire about as much confidence as their investment in mortgage securities did in 2008. For those who weren't watching, that's when Goldman got rich betting against the investments it was selling.

This time, Goldman is putting up some millions of its own -- as if this skin in the game means they couldn't be up to their old tricks. But the commissions and underwriting fees Goldman is earning for selling that other $1.5 billion of private Facebook shares could be enough to offset the cost of their own investment. And bets against Facebook could be leveraged any number of times.
These are the kinds of points those of us who lived through the AOL-Time Warner merger, the MySpace deal and the rest of the dotcom and real estate crashes now raise about such deals. These are also precisely the kinds of points that don't get addressed under the new, privatized and utterly opaque scheme Goldman has devised on behalf of its client, Facebook.
Unlike a public offering of shares, this private offering to Goldman's clients doesn't obligate Facebook to come clean on its real profits. It doesn't have to submit to standard accounting practice, or indicate how well it's really doing or isn't doing. It gets to remain in the safe cloud of hype that protects all such ventures until they either make a real profit or die trying.

The object of the game, for any one of these ultimately temporary social networks, is to create the illusion that it is different, permanent, invincible and too big to fail. And to be sure, Facebook has gone about as far as any of them has at creating that illusion.
If you were there for Compuserve, AOL, Tripod, Friendster, Orkut, MySpace or LinkedIn, you might have believed the same thing about any one of those social networks. Remember when those CD Roms from AOL came in the mail almost every day? The company was considered ubiquitous, invincible. Former AOL CEO Steve Case was no less a genius than Mark Zuckerberg.
Further confirming that the hype and market has reached its peak, social networking competitor LinkedIn is maneuvering toward its own IPO, which it likely hopes to complete before Facebook eventually gets there and poisons the well. These companies are being valued as if they will be our permanent means for identifying ourselves.

Yet social media is itself as temporary as any social gathering, nightclub or party. It's the people that matter, not the venue. So when the trend leaders of one social niche or another decide the place everyone is socializing has lost its luster or, more important, its exclusivity, they move on to the next one, taking their followers with them. (Facebook's successor will no doubt provide an easy "migration utility" through which you can bring all your so-called friends with you, if you even want to.)

We will move on, just as we did from the chat rooms of AOL, without even looking back. When the place is as ethereal as a website, our allegiance is much more abstract than it is to a local pub or gym. We don't live there, we don't know the owner, and we are all the more ready to be incensed by the latest change to a privacy policy, or to learn that every one of our social connections has been sold to the highest corporate bidder.
So it's not that MySpace lost and Facebook won. It's that MySpace won first, and Facebook won next. They'll go down in the same order.
The longer the company can maintain the illusion of great profits without alienating its user base, the longer they can delay the inevitable decline. But given that Facebook has already begun cashing in its chips, that moment has quite likely arrived.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by 737!

^disagree. Look what rs did to bradford chows and 14 dolla ballas dp LOLOL!!
Posted via RS Mobile

Yeah, but they were BEGGING for it. Most people, nobody else on the net gives a shit about.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by geeknerd

on a very serious level, someone out to fucking get you, that is right.

but think about highschool level/small stuff.
no facebook = that much harder and might be enough to prevent an 'attack'

'an attack would be =

i could go to ur facebook account right now, get a picture of u and caption it "guy who thinks facebook doesnt overly expose yourself" and photoshop it to a nude male and do whatever and post it here.

but without facebook, i wouldnt be able to do that and wont even bother to stalk you to get pictures of you and whatnot.

You'd think a geeknerd, of all people, would know how to use a spellchecker.

[ilvtofu]

I think there are talks of facebook's ipo coming out soon
Posted via RS Mobile

[Balzon_chin]

My money is on ICQ.

[geeknerd]

Originally Posted by Soundy

You'd think a geeknerd, of all people, would know how to use a spellchecker.

the only thing i missed was u for 'you' and no space in high school and no punctuation and capitalization but none of my spelling was wrong -.-

and i dont want to download spell checker so i can please grammar fanatics on revscene.