back to article Facebook litters Timeline with apps

Facebook may be slowly tip-toeing its way gently around cry babies who have yet to turn their profiles into scrapbooks for their "friends" via the new Timeline feature. But the dominant social network has a new tactic up its sleeve: the company is trying to entice more people into its "frictionless sharing" playpen with the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ... they just MUST mine more data about you and your habits/interests et al.

    It's very worrying when you think of the profile of you they could build from all the data they have on you.

    1. Sporkinum
      Flame

      Anonymous Coward

      I don't think they have much on me as I have never had an account, and have been blocking their scripts and buttons from running for years. I do understand the concept of "chaff" though. Get lost in the noise, so to speak. With almost a billion accounts, there is a lot of noise.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    For the love of god, can we move away from calling Application's Apps everywhere? Not only that, shouldn't Apps actually have an apostrophe in it?

    1. Alfie
      Headmaster

      I don't even want to think what they're not teaching you in school.

      Apostrophes indeed!

    2. Stoneshop Silver badge
      Headmaster

      shouldn't Apps actually have an apostrophe in it?

      No, you illiterate cretin.

      It's plural, not a possessive pronoun (even though that autistic twat Zuckerberg _is_ trying to possess you).

      1. jm83
        Headmaster

        Actually being as it is a contraction of the word 'applications' it does warrant an apostrophe.

        As per; don't, won't etc.

        1. Stoneshop Silver badge
          FAIL

          @jm83: App-Apps

          You form the plural of app (the shortened form of application) by adding an s, just like with most other nouns.

          Don't and won't are contractions consisting of two words, hence the apostrophe. Apps is not.

          1. jm83

            Fair enough

            Though, I'm not the original AC.

    3. Simon Harris Silver badge
      Headmaster

      I expect you're thinking app is a contraction of application, and the missing letters should be replaced by an apostrophe, however it's a clipped word - all the missing letters are from one end of it, in which case you don't need the apostrophe. Contractions generally have letters taken out of the middle.

      For example fo'c'sle is a contraction of forecastle.

      However, you wouldn't say bra' as a shortened version of brassiere (or bra's for the plural), so in the same way apps is the plural of applications, rather than app's.

      http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node20.html .. for your education.

      Oh.. now I re-read your post more closely, I have no idea why you though Application's should have an apostrophe!

      1. Simon Harris Silver badge
        Facepalm

        "why you though"

        D'oh...

        is there a name for the law that states 'while commenting on someone's grammar or spelling, one is bound to make a mistake, oneself!' ?

        If there isn't, there should be!

        1. Graham Dawson

          Muphry's Law.

  3. Daniel Bower
    FAIL

    Everytime I see Farcebook has launched a new wonder service the closer I get to closing my account.

    If they force me to have a 'Timeline' that's it - I'm off...

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    And still

    If you call FB users idiots you get down voted. Let's go...

  5. atomic jam
    Happy

    I'm free!!!!

    I left Facebook last week, and I feel great!

    Albeit I am spending a lot of my time here now.

    1. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
      Black Helicopters

      Welcome to the Hotel California,

      You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave

      Are you sure you've left it??? This is what farcebook thought of your personal information back in 2009:-

      "You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content."

      They wouldn’t put that in the T&C unless they had/have the facility to do it.

      1. Andrew Jones 2
        Meh

        Not that I am suggesting they are not underhanded enough to purposely retain your data but -

        I suspect what they mean is that as Facebook will have a huge quantity of backups - while you may delete your current data entirely from the site - they will not manually trawl through all their backups and delete any data that relates you to, and so you cannot sue for them for not doing so.

      2. atomic jam
        Pint

        @Von Krakenfart

        I know I'm not truly free of them, and I know that I can reactivate my account at anytime.

        But deactivating my account was a step in the right direction to claim my Internet independence.

        I am no longer their product. (I hope)

        And I'll have a drink to that!

        1. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
          Pint

          Cheers Atomic Jam, any relation to Goat Jam????

          I prefer to corrupt the system from the inside by feeding shit to FB whenever I can (reporting targeted ads as irrelevant, offensive etc.). Probably doesn’t do much but it helps me.

          1. atomic jam
            Pint

            No Relation

            No I'm no relation to Goat Jam, I took my name from my love of all things Atomic and Jam!

            And remember everyone, "Don't be bad be good and if you can't be good be lucky"

            (That quote was sitting in my head all day, can't remember who said it though.)

            Beer, cause I'm having one now.

  6. Gil Grissum
    FAIL

    I don't think so

    I've never used Facebook apps and have no intention of ever doing so. They can mine someone else's data. Facebook apps don't entice me to use Timeline. I don't like anything about it and refuse to use it unless forced to and if they do that, I'll just block all past content, limit future posts on my primary profile and just post from my band fan site exclusively. I've reduced my usage of Facebook dramatically, as each update brings with it more of what I don't want. I spend more time on Google+ and Twitter. They are far more interesting.

  7. the-it-slayer
    Alert

    Tick, tock, tick, tock...

    The ticking time-bomb for Facebook has just started. For once an actual revolutionary way to communicate/share/bully/take the piss (take your pick), people don't want more junk littered on their profiles.

    Personally, I find the time-line pointless. I want information on what's going on "now" infront of me. Not have to be forced in exposing all my previous information on a single page.

    It just shows how easily corrupt Facebook are to £££ ($$$ if you're American), with 800 million users. Is minimalistic design in simplistic interfaces not cool now for you Zuckerbucks?

  8. Mike Flugennock

    Cry baby? Hardly

    You'd be referring to those of us who want to stay in touch with friends (not "friends"), maybe organize a party or an event or two, and maybe check out some news of interest, without having to fight through a bunch of useless dross.

    My Farcebook usage is minimal; I use it to promote my cartoon art and pretty much the only time I log on is when I've posted a new cartoon -- I post the blog entry URL on my feed, a copy of the cartoon in my album, maybe check a few items of interest on the newsfeed, and I'm off.

    The first thing I did when I opened my account was to go to the settings for things like Privacy, Sharing and Apps and make sure they were locked down tighter than a prima donna's corset -- especially the Apps. I think I might have a couple of "stock" apps running which perform basic necessary functions, and absolute zero others, especially weird third-party crap. I don't play any games there at all.

    In fact, it's been weeks since I logged on there -- it was to post my last piece of art -- and now I'm thinking I should jump on real quick now, just to double-check my settings and make sure FB hasn't made a mess of my feed.

    1. Gil Grissum

      It's good to know I'm not the only one who jumps on FB just to check and see if one of their pointless system updates has reset my privacy settings. I'm with you on not having to wade through the useless clutter of updates on what games people are playing, their past posts form years ago and other useless info. Every time they update the thing, I use it less.

  9. The Jase
    Unhappy

    I'm a crybaby...

  10. I Like Heckling

    I left facebook in Oct and now exclusively use G+, so far about 25 people I know have joined me but they tend to use both still.

    But with each passing week, and each change on FB... they are slowly starting to prefer G+.

  11. Gordon Pryra
    Stop

    Organise a party?

    use the bloody phone

  12. Derk
    Happy

    Bye bye

    I left FB this week, and as a previous poster says it feels great! Don't feel the need to join G+ or any other "network" snoppers, stalkers and nosey parkers paradise. Have ditched the TV too. Tend to leave the house more for entertainment now.

  13. Wile E. Veteran
    Happy

    So glad

    Between El Reg and the local TV news continuously telling about the latest Farcebook "features" the more happy I am I severed all association with that useless "service." I may be on their backup tapes but rarely posted anything they would be very interested in or that I mind sharing. Between Ghostery, Better Privacy and AdBlock I only see a "targeted advert" once in a blue moon anyway.

    So far, G+ is pretty nice and most of the people and pages I am interested in are already there.

  14. Spud2go
    Pint

    Hey guys, you know...

    that facebook isn't compulsory.

    BTW, & out of curiosity, where did the '800 million facebook users' figure originate from - facebook itself?

    uh huh....

    1. Mike Flugennock

      800 million?

      I suspect they based that figure on the number of unique account registrations. They don't say how many are dummy accounts, how many are fake/parody accounts, and how many accounts are hardly ever touched.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019