The initial image that greets you is a fuzzy matrix of TV static-like dots. You click on the space to zoom in on users — who are arranged by chronological order based on when they registered on the social network — and, of course, their faces…
The site is the work of freelance designer Natalia Rojas, who says she isn’t breaking any rules because it doesn’t store any private information, photos or real names.
It’s quite a head-trip but is testament to the huge global distribution that Mark Zuckerberg’s social network enjoys today.
This is it. TechCrunch Disrupt is back in San Francisco, and even though the show is sold out, we’re still going to bring you all the action on our official Ustream feed and on the site. Disrupt is just too big for one site. Watch TechCrunch’s social feeds for even more action!
Under the concept of sharing privacy goes through the window!
Dear Facebook (Photo credit: JAMES ANTHONY CAMPBELL)
If people have good intentions about sharing they would use their real names, provided their names are available.
The judgement is correct.
Facebook Inc has agreed to pay $10 million to charity to settle a lawsuit that accused the site of violating users’ rights to control the use of their own names, photographs and likenesses, according to court documents made public over the weekend.
The lawsuit, brought by five Facebook members, alleged the social networking site violated California law by publicizing users’ “likes” of certain advertisers on its “Sponsored Stories” feature without paying them or giving them a way to opt out, the documents said.
A “Sponsored Story” is an advertisement that appears on a member’s Facebook page and generally consists of another friend’s name, profile picture and an assertion that the person “likes” the advertiser.
The settlement was reached last month but made public this weekend. Facebook declined to comment on Saturday.
The proposed class-action lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Jose, California, could have included nearly one of every three Americans, with billions of dollars in damages, according to previous court documents.
In the lawsuit, Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg was quoted as saying that a trusted referral was the “Holy Grail” of advertising.
In addition, the lawsuit cited comments from Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, saying that the value of a “Sponsored Story” advertisement was at least twice and up to three times the value of a standard Facebook.com ad without a friend endorsement.
U.S. District JudgeLucy Koh said the plaintiffs had shown economic injury could occur through Facebook’s use of their names, photographs and likenesses.
“California has long recognized a right to protect one’s name and likeness against appropriation by others for their advantage,” Koh wrote.
The settlement arrangement is known as a cy-pres settlement, meaning the settlement funds can go to charity.
Twitters reacted negatively for Facebook concluding the deal with Instagram.
Is the deal worth $1 Billion for an application?
I am doubtful.
Sometimes.deliberated decisions in Business do not pay off, but gut feelings do.
Mark Zuckerberg might prove to be right other wise he might not be where he is today
”
Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg choose to spend $1bn on Instagram, a small web start-up just under two years old, with 13 full-time staff who work on a single smartphone app.
The business model Yes, Instagram is very popular. The app’s fancy “filters” give your photos a lovely vintage feeling, a bit like the faded Polaroids tucked away in the drawers of your parents’ living room. They port mediocre photos into an alternate universe where they look kind of good; an online service allows users to share their pictures with friends.
The drawback, of course, is Instagram’s business model. The company has no revenue to speak of. Maybe its business model was to be bought by another tech firm with too much money in the bank.
So is this the return of silly money to Silicon Valley? Is it a case of panic buying, with valuations pushed up in a bidding war with Google or another competitor?
Facebook is certainly not spending $1bn on an app.
Rather, it is buying three things: a potential rival with a rapidly growing user base; a weapon to fight other even bigger threats in the social networking space; and most importantly a better hook into the world of mobile computing.
“And now Facebook has announced it’s buying the super popular photo-sharing app and social network for $1 billion.
As @HmSeb put it on Twitter, Instagram is in a relationship now, and it’s complicated.
And, as with any new relationship, there is no shortage of opinion and overreaction. Here’s a sampling of the unfiltered hyperbole:
“Instagram just officially died today,” wrote @AmirKassaei .
“I liked instagram before they sold out,” wrote @EAJosh .
Not everyone was turned off. Some said they might now reconsider. “I might install @instagram now that all the whiny hipsters are leaving,” wrote @commagere . And @benjaminjackson had a good point: “At least you can look forward to your mother being on Instagram soon.” Lovely.
Springing up are tweets and tips on how to break camp and pull out your content and links to delete your account altogether. But take a minute before clicking that link and maybe use more caution about leaving than you do about what you shoot or what filter to use. Facebook has said it plans to leave Instagram independent.
One man on the cyberstreet suggested this could actually solve a cultural quandary. Assuming the voice of Facebook, @DavidSlack tweeted that maybe job applicants won’t need to worry about those embarrassing pictures on Facebook anymore: “We’re buying Instagram to ensure photos of our era are blurred enough that no-one in the future can identify the stupidest people in history.”
Additional input received from Maduhr Gupta is here below.
“In updated s1 Facebook reveals that it agreed to pay $1 billion for the photo-sharing site Instragram consists of $300 million in cash and about 23 million shares of the company’s common stock. The company also noted that it agreed to pay Instragram(photo sharing sites) a $200 million termination fee in the event the deal for some reason is not completed. for more logon to’
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has said that he should “pay more” tax, adding that US President Barack Obama‘s proposal to increase the amount paid by America’s super wealthy is “just justice”.
Gates, worth an estimated $60bn (£38bn), agreed with his friend and fellow billionaire Warren Buffet that drastic measures are required to help the struggling US economy.
Speaking on BBC World News about his charity work, Gates said: “The United States has a huge budget deficit so taxes are going to have to go up.
“I certainly agree that they should go up more on the rich than everyone else, that’s just justice.”
In his final State of the Union speech before the US presidential election, Obama argued for a strengthening of the tax code to force millionaires and billionaires to contribute a larger share of their earnings to the country.
Gates will give his own version of the Obama speech, entitles The State of the World, at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland this week.
The technology billionaire, who has focused mainly on charitable activity in recent years, feels that the wealthy are not doing enough to ease America’s crippling deficit problem.
“I hope we can solve that deficit problem with a sense of shared sacrifice where everybody would feel like they’re doing their part,” he said.
“Right now I don’t feel like people like myself are doing as much as we should.”
Buffet, often known as the ‘Sage of Omaha‘ after a string of visionary investment successes, is a co-sponsor of Gates’s Giving Pledge initiative, which aims to encourage billionaires to pledge half their wealth to charity during their lifetime, or after their death.
Around 69 people are known to have committed to the pledge, thought to include Facebookfounder Mark Zuckerberg. ”
You must be logged in to post a comment.