3 ms·

The baiting headline about "winning the net" is really annoying. I really, truly doubt any one company will own the Internet. Google has tons of fiber, a cache

by lhnn 16y ago

The baiting headline about "winning the net" is really annoying. I really, truly doubt any one company will own the Internet. Google has tons of fiber, a cache of a ton of the Internet already, maps of the entire planet, algorithms that can predict the stock market... I think Google still has more muscle than Facebook. Also, unless we get into some seriously Orwellian stuff, identity will not be required for EVERY site on the net. Therefore, no one owns the net.

malloreon 16y ago
Think about how fast the "like" button was adopted all over the internet. All these sites did so for two reasons: the possibility of getting additional free traffic from facebook, and access to their fans' feed and potentially friends' feeds. If FB can make the case that requiring people to FB connect on a 3rd party site will drive traffic, raise revenues, and whatever, many/most sites will make the change. They won't shut out non-connected users, but they may degrade the experience to encourage connectedness. It sounds Orwellian, but it's not difficult for it to make business sense for large swaths of the internet.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  I bet most websites have no idea why the hell they have a 'Like' button on their site. Everbody else is doing it, why shouldn't I?
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  Lots of sites have a bar with five+ ways of sharing every article but that's hardly a sign that delicious, digg, redit and so-forth are winning (a lot of those bars are broken too, btw). Web real estate for link-images seems easy to get once you reach a certain level of mind-share but I can't see getting image everywhere as being the same as becoming a necessary part of the web. If taking credit cost little, every remaining store in the US would do it tomorrow. Does that mean many stores would be willing to stop accepting cash? No way. (well not 'till "the beast" slouches a little closer to ba-by-lon but I'm not hold my breath).

by lhnn 16y ago

malloreon 16y ago

Think about how fast the "like" button was adopted all over the internet. All these sites did so for two reasons: the possibility of getting additional free traffic from facebook, and access to their fans' feed and potentially friends' feeds. If FB can make the case that requiring people to FB connect on a 3rd party site will drive traffic, raise revenues, and whatever, many/most sites will make the change. They won't shut out non-connected users, but they may degrade the experience to encourage connectedness. It sounds Orwellian, but it's not difficult for it to make business sense for large swaths of the internet.

chopsueyar 16y ago
I bet most websites have no idea why the hell they have a 'Like' button on their site. Everbody else is doing it, why shouldn't I?
joe_the_user 16y ago
Lots of sites have a bar with five+ ways of sharing every article but that's hardly a sign that delicious, digg, redit and so-forth are winning (a lot of those bars are broken too, btw). Web real estate for link-images seems easy to get once you reach a certain level of mind-share but I can't see getting image everywhere as being the same as becoming a necessary part of the web. If taking credit cost little, every remaining store in the US would do it tomorrow. Does that mean many stores would be willing to stop accepting cash? No way. (well not 'till "the beast" slouches a little closer to ba-by-lon but I'm not hold my breath).