fejsbuk

[Meho Krljic]

The Zuckerberg Tax

"David S. Miller writes that when Facebook goes public later this year, Mark Zuckerberg plans to exercise stock options worth $5 billion of the $28 billion that his ownership stake will be worth and since the $5 billion he will receive will be treated as salary, Zuckerberg will have a tax bill of more than $2 billion making him, quite possibly, the largest taxpayer in history. But how much income tax will Zuckerberg pay on the rest of his stock that he won't immediately sell? Nothing, nada, zilch. He can simply use his stock as collateral to borrow against his tremendous wealth and avoid all tax. That's what Lawrence J. Ellison, the chief executive of Oracle, did, reportedly borrowing more than a billion dollars against his Oracle shares to buy one of the most expensive yachts in the world. Or consider the case of Steven P. Jobs who never sold a single share of Apple after he rejoined the company in 1997, and therefore never paying a penny of tax on the over $2 billion of Apple stock he held at his death. Now Jobs' widow can sell those shares without paying any income tax on the appreciation before his death — only on the increase in value from the time of his death to the time of the sale — because our tax system is based on the concept of "realization." Individuals are not taxed until they actually sell property and realize their gains and the solution to the problem is called mark-to-market taxation. According to Miller, mark-to-market would only affect individuals who were undeniably, extraordinarily rich, only publicly traded stock would be marked to market, and a mark-to-market system of taxation on the top one-tenth of 1 percent would raise hundreds of billions of dollars of new revenue over the next 10 years."

[Karl Rosman]

Phone book to the face

[Ghoul]

od pre 10ak dana, i šokirani šozo je postao uredni korisnik fejs buka.

[Shozo Hirono]

koliko sam nekad dobrih smajlija imao u arhivi.

[Ghoul]

koliko sam nekad dobrih smajlija imao u arhivi.

ali zato sad NEMA smajlija da izrazi preneraženje tvojom pojavom na fejsu! 

[Tex Murphy]

od pre 10ak dana, i šokirani šozo je postao uredni korisnik fejs buka.

Још да доведемо Мортишу и Џона Рејнолдса и ствар ријешена!

[Джон Рейнольдс]

Ти, Харви, добијаш од Фејсбука неку надокнаду за врбовање нових чланова?

[Ghoul]

Ти, Харви, добијаш од Фејсбука неку надокнаду за врбовање нових чланова?

pre će biti da dobija naknadu za svakog koga toliko iznervira da ga anfrenduje.

[Meho Krljic]

Čisto da se baci u etar, neka vrsta tangencijalno marksističke kritike novog modela kapitalizma koji proizvod stvara "ni iz čega". Kako bi to sigurno i Skalop rekao : kada je nešto beplatno, to znači da ste proizvod vi.


They are exploiting us! Why we all work for Facebook for free

The stockmarket floatation of Facebook brings together a range of issues in how we understand work and the creation of economic value but we should be careful not to overstate the novelty and conflate the newness of the media with the basic economic logic at work here. As Chris Prener suggests in his post, 'Facebook may represent a new frontier for work and labor where even leisure activity can be exploited for the generation of profit', but is this really so new?
In their now classic study of traditional media, Manufacturing Consent, Herman and Chomsky explain the basic business model of newspapers as being the production of an audience for advertising. Their analysis suggests the counter-intuitive notion that publishers' main product is not the newspaper, which they sell to their readers, but the production of an audience of readers, which they sell to advertisers. In short, the readership is their product. This explains why newspapers will often offer a significant discount for students, as this enables them to catch future affluent consumers early on as they establish their media consumption habits. In its more extreme variants, this can lead to the thesis that even watching television can be understood as a form of labor, as by watching TV you produce the audience, which is the broadcaster's main product – an idea that was neatly captured in an Adbusters' video a few years ago.

On this understanding we can certainly position the users of Facebook as laborers. If labor is understood as 'value producing activity', then updating your status, liking a website, or 'friending' someone, creates Facebook's basic commodity. It produces marketing data about you, which they can leverage for market research purposes and to better target advertising you might be interested in. It also produces an audience, as your 'friends' receive updates, follow your links, or log on to Facebook to join a conversation. This is why Facebook adds ever new functions; Zuckerberg wants us to spend as much time on his platform as possible, as time is literally money.
This is the kind of work that Tiziana Terranova has called 'free labor'. It is not work as employment, because it is unpaid and freely given to the company, but it is also free from compulsion. This is not new, as Chris Prener notes and as Marx recognized in his own use of the concept of the 'free laborer', who was free both to choose his employer and free from any other means of supporting himself than to sell his ability to labor to the highest bidder. The formal freedom of the employment contract was therefore underpinned by a substantive lack of freedom resulting from the institution of private property and, specifically, from the enclosure of the commons upon which other means of provenance could historically be secured. Marx's laborer is only free insofar he or she is free to be exploited by those who own property. The main difference today is that the bourgeois class does not have to own big factories (although note Facebook's need for huge, energy hungry data centers; it can simply conduct its business over the web.
If we really want to understand the economic position of Facebook, the idea of 'free labor' needs to be combined with this concept of enclosure. For an increasing number of people today both work and other social relations are mediated by Facebook and other social networking sites. If people want to develop their social capital, maintain friendships, or just arrange a night out, they are increasingly obliged to do so through Facebook. In short, Facebook has enclosed the informational commons of social networking via the Internet by managing the protocols for communication and branding the site. Although no direct charge is made for using the site, Facebook can capitalize on the activity of its users, through the brand, by selling their data, their friends, and their attention to advertisers. But maybe this is not so much a form of labor. Perhaps we might better consider this as the extraction of a 'rent', albeit at one step removed, in the same way as Žižek explains Microsoft's profits? The difference is that Microsoft extracts a direct rent, through licensing their software, which provides users with access to the protocols of computer mediated communication. In much of our work we are dependent on their software and so pay a form of rent through the license. Universities, for example, are completely dependent on Microsoft Windows and Office. Ours does not support any other platforms, locking all staff and students into the properties and closed protocols developed by Bill Gates' microserfs. In the same way, Facebook has achieved a kind of 'lock in' for the social networking functions of the web. Many of our students don't even seem to use E-mail anymore; they are just using the messaging service of Facebook.
The value of Facebook to investors is based on a kind of enclosure through branding. The site has become an indispensable tool for communication and social reproduction. Through the brand, Facebook secures future participation and the attention of audiences, which the company can sell to advertisers. So long as it dominates the virtual space of social production, and maintains its status as an obligatory point of passage for access to valued social networks, its business proposition is strong. If Facebook maintains its virtual monopoly on web-based social networking, it has a valuable audience to sell to advertisers, and investors should hence be able to expect stable and healthy profits. Let's remember though that these profits are only possible because of the time and labor we, as users, invest in Facebook. Having said that, to restrict the analysis of Facebook to free labor misses this crucial point about how the company is successfully privatizing online communicational media in order to extract what we might call a 'rent on attention', capitalizing on this through its brand. As Hugh Willmott has recently argued, just looking at labor and the production of value misses the location of such activities within a much wider circuit of value, in which branding and enclosure are central figures.
But is this it? Will Facebook dominate the web or even all our social connections forever? Of course not! As much as we love Facebook, people are also starting to hate it, to mistrust it, to expose its privacy game. It is perhaps not coincidental that Facebook's IPO comes hot on the heels of political and media debates over Intellectual Property Rights in the wake of the SOPA and PIPA acts in the US. The social web and its politics are still up for grabs.
Chris Land and Steffen Böhm are both professors at the University of Essex in England.

Naravno, ne slažu se baš svi da to može tek tako.

Chiang Mai, Thailand - Does Facebook exploit its users? And where is the $100bn in the company's estimated value coming from?
This is not a new debate. It resurfaces regularly in the blogosphere and academic circles, ever since Tiziana Terranova coined the term "Free Labour" to indicate a new form of capitalist exploitation of unpaid labour - firstly referring to the viewers of classic broadcast media, and now to the new generation of social media participants on sites such as Facebook. The argument can be summarised very succinctly by the catch phrase: "If it's free, then you are the product being sold."
   

"We can certainly position the users of Facebook as labourers. If labour is understood as 'value producing activity', then updating your status ... creates Facebook's basic commodity." - Christopher Land and Steffen Böhm

[/q]
This term was recently relaunched in an article by University of Essex academics Christopher Land and Steffen Böhm, entitled "They are exploiting us! Why we all work for Facebook for free". In this mini-essay, they make a very strong claim that "we can certainly position the users of Facebook as labourers. If labour is understood as 'value producing activity', then updating your status, liking a website, or 'friending' someone, creates Facebook's basic commodity."
This line of argument is misleading, however, because it conflates two types of value creation that were already recognised as distinct by 18th century political economists. The distinction is between use value and exchange value. For thousands of years, under conditions of non-capitalist production, the majority of the working population directly produced "use value" - either for themselves as subsistence farmers, or as tributes to the managerial class of the day. It is only under capitalism that a majority of the working population produces "exchange value" by selling their labour to firms. The difference between what we are paid and what the market pays for the products we are making is the "surplus value".
But Facebook users are not workers producing commodities for a wage, and Facebook is not selling these commodities on a market to create surplus value.
Indeed, Facebook users are not directly creating exchange value at all, but instead communicative use value. What Facebook does is to enable this pooling of sharing and collaboration around their platform - and by enabling, framing and "controlling" that activity, they create a pool of attention. It is this pool of attention which is sold to advertisers, for an estimated $3.2bn per year, which is barely $3.79 in ad revenue per user.
We can, of course, argue that Facebook does a lot more than just selling the attention. For instance, their knowledge of our social behaviour, down to the individual level, has undoubted strategic value - for political power players and commercial firms alike. But is this surplus value really worth $100bn? That remains a speculative bet. For the moment, it's likely that the nearly one billion users of Facebook do not find the $3.79 in ad revenue per user very exploitative, especially since they do not pay to use Facebook, and are using the website voluntarily. That said, there is a price to pay for not using Facebook, in terms of relative social isolation from their peers who are users.
   

"Capitalism is in fact not just a scarcity 'allocation' system but also a scarcity engineering system."

Engineering scarcity
What is important, however, is that Facebook is not an isolated phenomenon, but part of a much larger trend in our society: an exponential rise in the creation of use value by productive publics, or "produsers", as Axel Bruns calls them. It is important to understand that this creates a huge problem for a capitalist system, but also for workers as we have traditionally conceived them. Markets are defined as ways to allocate scarce resources, and capitalism is in fact not just a scarcity "allocation" system but also a scarcity engineering system, which can only accumulate capital by constantly reproducing and expanding conditions of scarcity.
Where there is no tension between supply and demand, there can be no market and no capital accumulation. What peer producers are doing, for now mostly producing intangible entities such as knowledge, software and design, is to create an abundance of easily reproduced information and actionable knowledge.
This cannot be directly translated into market value, because it is not at all scarce - it's over-abundant. And this activity, moreover, is done by knowledge workers, whose ranks are steadily expanding. This over-supply threatens to make knowledge workers' jobs precarious. Hence, an increased exodus of productive capacities, in the form of direct use value production, outside the existing system of monetisation, which only operates at its margins. In the past, whenever such an exodus occurred - of slaves in the decaying Roman Empire, or of serfs in the waning Middle Ages - that is precisely the time when conditions were set for major societal and economic changes.
Indeed, without a core reliance on capital, commodities and labour, it is hard to imagine a continuation of the capitalist system.
The problem is this: internet collaboration has enabled the creation of use value in a way that totally bypasses the normal functioning of our economic system. Normally, increases in productivity are somehow rewarded, and these rewards enable consumers to derive an income and buy products.
But this is no longer happening. Facebook and Google users create commercial value for their platforms, but only very indirectly. And they are not at all rewarded for their own value creation. Since what they are creating is not what is commodified on the market for scarce goods, these value creators do not receive income. Social media platforms are exposing an important fault line in our economic system.
We have to link this emerging social economy, based on sharing creative expression, with the more authentic field of commons-oriented peer production, as expressed in the open-source and "fair use" open-content economy, which one estimate said made up one-sixth of US GDP. There is also no doubt that one of the key ingredients of China's success so far has been the combination of the open-source - such as the country's domestic "Shanzai" economy - together with the patent-free policies that are imposed on foreign investors. This has guaranteed an open, innovative commons for much of Chinese industry.
Even as the open-source economy becomes the default way to create software, and even as it creates companies that reach a revenue of more than $1bn, such as Red Hat, the overall effect is still deflationary. It has been estimated that open-source annually destroys $60bn in revenues for the proprietary sector.
Thus, the open-source economy destroys more proprietary software value than it replaces. Even as it creates an explosion of use value, its monetary value decreases.
Open-source manufacturing
The same effects occur when the shared innovation commons approach is used in physical production, where it combines an open-source approach with distributed machinery and capital allocation (using techniques such as crowd-funding and social lending platforms, like Kickstarter).
For example, the Wikispeed SGT01, a car that received a five-star security rating and can attain a fuel efficiency of 100 miles per gallon (roughly 42.5 kilometres per litre), was developed by a team of volunteers in just three months. The car is being sold for only $29,000, about a quarter of what a traditional industrial automobile firm would charge, and for which it would have needed at least five years of development and billions of dollars.
Local Motors, a rapidly growing crowd-sourced car company, claims to develop automobiles five times faster than Detroit, with 100 times less capital, but WikiSpeed has achieved even faster design and production times. The WikiSpeed car is designed for modularity, using sophisticated software development techniques (such as agile, scrum, and extreme programming), an open design, and local production by garages, using distributed manufacturing techniques.
And Arduino, an open-source electronics prototyping platform, works similarly to WikiSpeed and is driving prices down in its sector. If Marcin Jakubowsky's Open Source Ecology project is successful, this will happen for at least 40 different types of machinery. In every field where an open-source manufacturing alternative develops - and I predict that they will be developed in every single field - there will be similar pricing and income pressures on mainstream economic models.
   

"What will happen with capitalism given social media-based exchanges, commons-based production of software and hardware, and collaborative consumption?"

'Collaborative consumption'
Another expression of the sharing economy is collaborative consumption. As Rachel Botsman and Lisa Gansky have demonstrated in their recent books - What's Mine is Yours and The Mesh, respectively - there is a rapidly growing sharing economy developing through product-service systems, sharing marketplaces and collaborative lifestyles.
For example, it's estimated that there are about 460 million homes in the developed world, and that each home has, on average, $3,000 worth of unused items available. There is clearly economic benefit to be had by using these idle resources. Much of it will not be rented, however, but swapped and bartered for free. Even the paid sharing economy will have a depressive effect on the buying of new products.
Such developments are good for the planet and good for humanity, but the larger question is: are they good for capitalism?
What will happen with capitalism given social media-based exchanges, commons-based production of software and hardware, and collaborative consumption, on an increasingly massive scale?
What happens if more and more of our time goes into producing use value - a fraction of which creates monetary value - but there is not a substantial return of income to the use value producers?
The financial crisis beginning in 2008, far from diminishing the enthusiasm for sharing and peer production, is in fact accelerating the adoption of such practices. This is not just a problem for the increasingly precarious working class, but also for capitalism itself, which is seeing its opportunities for accumulation and expansion dry up.
Not only is the world faced with a global resource crisis, it is also facing a crisis of intensive development, because value creators are increasingly income-less. The knowledge economy turns out to be a pipe dream, because what is abundant cannot sustain market dynamics.
Thus we have an exponential rise in the creation of use value, but only a linear increase in the creation of monetary value. If workers have less and less income, who can buy the commodities that are offered for sale by companies? This, in a nutshell, is the crisis of value that we are facing as humanity. It is a challenge just as big as climate change or increases in social inequality.
The meltdown of 2008 was a prefiguration of this crisis. Since the advent of neoliberalism, workers' wages have been stagnating and purchasing power was maintained only by an over-extension of credit throughout society. This was the first phase of the knowledge economy, in which only capital had access to networks, which it used to create globally coordinated multinationals.
As the knowledge society grew in size, more and more of businesses' value consisted of intangible, not physical, assets. The neoliberal stock market and its speculative excesses can be seen as a way to evaluate the amount of intangible value that is added to the stock's value by human co-operation. This bubble had to burst.
The second phase of the knowledge society, in which networks are diffused throughout society and allow productive publics to be directly engaged in peer production, creates an additional layer of problems. Add to the wage stagnation and the exodus out of wage labour that peer-based use value creation causes, and we can see that the problem is not solvable within the present paradigm. Is there a solution?
There is - but that is for the next installment. The solution involves an adaptation of capitalism to peer production, but also opens up the avenues for a transcendence of capitalism.
Michel Bauwens is a theorist, writer and a founder of the P2P (Peer-to-Peer) Foundation.
Follow Michel on Twitter: @MBauwens
  The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. 

[scallop]

Prihvatam, sviđa mi se. Društvene mreže su roba par exelence. Sve što izjavite na njima ide u sažvakavanje. To je neverending anketni resurs. Kad sam svojevremeno odvalio da Magma tiganji Metalac, Valjevo zadovoljavaju 80% potrebe sudova u kuhinji, to je na Guglu dve nedelje stajalo u samom vrhu informacija o tiganjima. Nevolja je što naša lupetanja ne možemo da naplatimo. Inači bi to bio naš najbolji izvozni artikal.

[Karl Rosman]

Annoying Facebook Statuses.

[mac]

Profili sa novim timelinenom imaju pozdravnu sliku određenog formata. Ako tražite ideje kakva bi za vas ta slika mogla da bude pogledajte ovde: http://io9.com/5871756/gloriously-geeky-images-that-make-great-facebook-timeline-banners

Evo još nekih slika ko stvorenih za cover photo, s motivima Dine: http://io9.com/5898849/amazing-dune-concept-art-will-make-you-see-arrakis-anew

[Josephine]

Sad, nisam nešto paranoična, a ponajmanje me zabole za nekakvu podelu na nacije i narode, no primetila sam čudnu stvar: mnogo Albanaca sa Kosova lajkuje fan stranicu moje firme. I to su, mahom, muškaraci. Letimičnim pregledom njihovih profila, naletela sam na UČK simbole i slično.

Na mom fan pejdžu, koji je na srpskom, eksplicitno je navedeno da smo iz Beograda. Poskidala sam ih sve sa liste (nekoliko desetina, i svakog dana stižu novi), ne zato što sam nacionalista, zatrašena ili nešto treće, već zato što mi sve to užasno liči na virtuelnu najezdu i nekakvu informacionu/internet strategiju (?!). Nisam proveravala druge fan stranice, možda sam ja izuzetak.

Prvi moj potez ovakve vrste ikad.

[Ghoul]

tako to počinje, a onda... dok se okreneš, a već si u odboru za nekulturu SRS-a.

[Josephine]

 

Zvuči smešno, da. Ali ipak, imam neki jezovit osećaj, a osećaj me retko vara. Pažnju mi često privlače sitnice sa potencijalom da se pretvore u lavinu, tako je i ovog puta. Ne bih znala da objasnim zašto sam reagovala kako sam reagovala, ali morala sam to da podelim sa vama.

[Barbarin]

Pa čim si obrisala jednog doćiče ti stotine...

[Josephine]

pa čim je došao jedan, došle su desetine, sa tendencijom da se pretvore u stotine... Samo su tu, miruju, ne rade ništa, ne učestvuju, samo lajkuju i samo dolaze novi. Internet je moćno mesto.

[Ghoul]

Pa čim si obrisala jednog doćiče ti stotine...

sećam se, tačno tako je bilo i sa pokušajima da ih očistimo s kosova... 

[zakk]

reko kramb davno:

[lilit]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/6948600/Why-millions-refuse-to-like-Facebook


Btw, imho, ovaj članak je dizajniran da pruži potporu prodaji akcija tokom IPO-a. . Previše teksta da bi rekli kako ima još grdilo ljudi koji će pre ili kasnije da se pridruže, ergo FB tek ima da raste, ergo ulaganje u kompaniju je "a no-brainer". Dajte sve pare u akcije FB-a. Ali za razliku od Googleovih ili Apple akcija, ove će da roknu dole hard. I neće se vraćati.
When something's too good to be true, well, usually, it ain't
Takođe, ako namaknu 100 milijardi dolara tokom Initial Public Offering, well, to je jedinstvena prilika za prevaru stoleća, a takve prilike liberalni kapitalizam ne propušta.
Verovatno grešim, ali biram da tako mislim.

[Meho Krljic]

Koliko se dalo videti i koliko ja, kao laik shvatam, nisu se baš omastili tokom prvog dana, sa početne cene od 42 dolara po deonici završili su na 38... Moglo je to i bolje...

[džin tonik]

dobili i ameri svoju volksakciju.

[zakk]

Gagi Bend - Fejsbuk (2012) Grand Diet Plus Festival (Live)

[Gaff]

 

[Meho Krljic]

Survey: 1 in 3 Facebook users getting bored with the social network 

Are you just not as drawn to the social network comings and goings of your friends and family as you once were? If so, you're not alone: According to a new poll by Reuters and research firm Ipsos, roughly one-third of Facebook users are feeling pretty "meh" about the social network these days, and the sentiment seems to be growing.
The survey focused more on the potential monetization of Facebook than current user habits, but the data was telling in several ways. According to the poll of over 1,000 Americans, 80% of Facebook users have never purchased a product or service because of what they saw on the site, meaning that whatever advertising techniques companies are currently employing to grab your cash simply isn't working.
Unsurprisingly, the survey found that users between the ages of 18 and 34 were the most active, while just 29% of people over 55 considered themselves regular users. Unfortunately, people who spend a great deal of time on the network are often victims of what the researchers call "Facebook fatigue," leading them to spend less and less time checking in with friends and browsing the profiles of their peers. What do you think? Have your Facebook habits changed? Let us know in the comments.

[Meho Krljic]

Fesjbuk tražio od korisnika da glasaju za ili protiv promene svoje politike zaštite privatnosti, ljudi glasali protiv ogromnom većinom (87%) a Fejsbuk onda kaže "Hmmm, mali je uzorak, ipak ćemo da promenimo politiku".

[Meho Krljic]

O istom trošku, čini se da je vreme širenja mjehura fejsbuk igara prošlo i kreće skupljanje.

[Mims]

Kreditna klopka na Fejsbuku

Nemačka razvija program koji bi mogao da stigne i u Srbiju: navike posetilaca društvenih mreža određivale bi njihovu kreditnu sposobnost...

http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Svet/Kreditna-klopka-na-Fejsbuku.lt.html

[Meho Krljic]

Ja sam to pročitao u Politici, ali, iskreno, ništa mi nije bilo jasno pa nisam hteo da kačim ovde 

[Mims]

Pa kad nemaš fejsbuk.    Dakle, oni bi eventualno mogli da provere kolikovremena provodiš na fejsbuku i u koje vreme pada to vreme, kakave su ti sve akcije i interakcije tamo i na osnovu toga procene tvoju odgovornost prema slobodnom i neslobodnom vremenu, a kako je vreme novac, onda i prema novcu koji treba da ti povere. Mada, možda proveravaju koliko si kokošaka kupio na FarmVillu i da li si skupom hranom hranio svog kućnog ljubimca u Pet Societyju...

[Meho Krljic]

Ali ja ništa od toga nisam video u ovom tekstu, samo neke opšte naznake o špijunskim programima koji registruju određene reči itd. Ili je tekst loše napisan ili, verovatnije, je moja koncentracija otišla u kuras i nije se vratila.

[Mims]

Ma, ja sam ionako pročitala samo naslov i učitala ostatak. Ali, evo, sad čitam tekst i nailazim i na ovo:

Ideja je da se uz pomoć novog programa otkriju crte karaktera korisnika kredita. Na ocenu bi uticali nivo disciplinovanosti, zavisnost od komunikacije na internetu, posvećenost kompjuterskim igricama, seksualne navike, definicija granice stida i skrupula.

[angel011]

O istom trošku, čini se da je vreme širenja mjehura fejsbuk igara prošlo i kreće skupljanje.

Oni to o igrama koje proizvodi Zynga, čiji je customer support toliko blizu nepostojećeg da se slobodno može reći da ga nema, igre su im bagovite, a umesto da porade na tome, oni samo izbace nove igre.

[Meho Krljic]

Ma, ja sam ionako pročitala samo naslov i učitala ostatak. Ali, evo, sad čitam tekst i nailazim i na ovo:

Ideja je da se uz pomoć novog programa otkriju crte karaktera korisnika kredita. Na ocenu bi uticali nivo disciplinovanosti, zavisnost od komunikacije na internetu, posvećenost kompjuterskim igricama, seksualne navike, definicija granice stida i skrupula.

Video sam taj deo, ali mi deluje kao nabrajanje opštih mesta i ne vidi se iz ostatka teksta kako bi to išlo 

O istom trošku, čini se da je vreme širenja mjehura fejsbuk igara prošlo i kreće skupljanje.

Oni to o igrama koje proizvodi Zynga, čiji je customer support toliko blizu nepostojećeg da se slobodno može reći da ga nema, igre su im bagovite, a umesto da porade na tome, oni samo izbace nove igre.

Da, da, ali nije se to promenilo u poslednjih par meseci, dakle, radi se ipak o tektonskom pomeranju!!!

[Albedo 0]

haha, taj fejs stvarno gori od Velikog brata, onog Orvelovog.

[Dr00d]

Google je mnoooogoo gori!

[Albedo 0]

ma Google vjerovatno koristi samo statističk podatke, kako on može imenom i prezimenom nekoga da provjerava kao Dojče banka na fejsu?

[Dr00d]

Pa ako nemaš gmail account, brišeš kukije i browser history posle svake upotrebe (ili još bolje između svake upotrebe googla) i eventualno imaš dinamičku IP adresu onda nije toliko strašno. Ali u slučaju da si baš bio nevaljao na netu onda se SVI podaci mogu dobiti na osnovu saradnje sa tvojim provajderom.
Ako ne odgovaraš gornjim uslovima onda te verovatno znaju pod imenom i prezimenom, jer si sigurno bar jednom napisao svoje puno ime kada si kucao mejl... ili poslao neku svoju sliku. Facebook više koristi one podatke koje mu sam ostaviš, dok Google kupi i sve ono što ne želiš da ostaviš. Mada Google to više koristi za preporučivanje sadržaja na osnovu tvojih interesovanja, nije to ništa strašno, oni tebe lično možda i gledaju kao deo statistike, ali kad bude zatrebalo imaju sve.
A tu je i jutjub čiji je Google vlasnik... ako si upload-ovao neke svoje snimke milina!
I da, vlasnici ovih smartphone android telefona (a takivh će biti sve više) ukoliko žele da pristupe downloadu besplatnih igrica i aplikacija moraju da se prijave sa gmail nalogom. A ako koristiš GPS i google map aplikaciju (koja čak ima i za ove obične java telefone) onda Google zna i kuda se krećeš. A da ne pominjem da Google sve kotnakte iz telefona kopira u gmail nalog.
Naravno, možeš ti da napraviš poseban Google nalog samo za telefon ili da skidaš igirce preko kompa pa da ih kopiraš na telefon, ali to baš i ne pomaže puno, a najveći deo ljudi ne želi previše da se cima oko toga...
Pa ti vidi...

[Albedo 0]

uf, pa šta mi ostaje onda, neki ustanak, revolucija? 

[Dr00d]

Pa da te strpaju u sobu 101   

[Agota]

Gagi Bend - Fejsbuk (2012) Grand Diet Plus Festival (Live)

ganci hipster  kakva je ovo boles  ljubavnik sa fejsa 

[Gaff]

The Big Bang Theory - "Facebook"

"Look at that! I have a girlfriend!"

[Father Jape]

Kliknuo sam na neki turski klip, i zarazio se spamom. I sad svaki put kad se ulogujem on okači po turski klip svakom mom frendu. Obrisao sam sve kukije, i promenio šifru, i ne pomaže.

VAT DU? 

[mac]

Deinstaliraj sa Fejsbuka sve sumnjive aplikacije. http://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=applications , desno od svake aplikacije imaš krstić (X), kojim više ne dozvoljavaš toj aplikaciji da ima pristup tvojim podacima.

[Meho Krljic]

Facebook Abstainers could be labeled Suspicious 

According to this article printed in tagesspiegel.de, not having a facebook account should be the first sign that you are a mass murderer.

The article mentions the fact that in the US, people were subject to handing their passwords over to potential employers, which privacy advocates, facebook, and the US government disagree with. But the article takes it one step further in claiming that not only did US employers have a legitimate point, but also suggesting that those who abstain from facebook could be mass murderers.


As examples they use Norwegian shooter Anders Breivik, who used myspace instead of facebook (or as they put it, "largely invisible on the web", haha @ myspace), and the newer Aurora shooter who used adultfriendfinder instead of facebook. So being social on any other website isn't good enough, it has to be specifically facebook that people are using.

While it is already established that sites like facebook and google+ are no good for political activists, abuse survivors, and people in the witness protection program; abuse survivors will have to take a back seat while more and more insane articles like this come out.

There seems to be an insanity bubble around older people which has arrived after the initial facebook boom that brought in the youth, where they see facebook as a necessary utility; instead of a trendy website that will have passed in a few years.

[zakk]

o bože oO 

[lilit]

napalm je zaista jedino rešenje.

[Ghoul]

napalm je zaista jedino rešenje.

ajde šic, potencijalna masovna umoriteljko!

[Джон Рейнольдс]

not having a facebook account should be the first sign that you are a mass murderer.

ХАХАХАХАХА!!!! Е, ово ми је улепшало дан! Чувајте се, багро! 

[дејан]

и мени    a писање ћирилицом на интернету доноси још који негативан поен!