<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_27_1411242</id>
	<title>The Battle Between Google and Facebook</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246114320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>A story at Wired delves into <a href="http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-07/ff\_facebookwall?currentPage=all">the ongoing struggle between Google and Facebook</a> to establish their competing visions for the future of the internet. "For the last decade or so, the Web has been defined by Google's algorithms &mdash; rigorous and efficient equations that parse practically every byte of online activity to build a dispassionate atlas of the online world. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline. In Zuckerberg's vision, users will query this 'social graph' to find a doctor, the best camera, or someone to hire &mdash; rather than tapping the cold mathematics of a Google search. It is a complete rethinking of how we navigate the online world, one that places Facebook right at the center. In other words, right where Google is now." A related article at ReadWriteWeb suggests that while Facebook's member base is enormous, the company <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook\_could\_create\_revolution\_do\_good\_make\_billions.php">hasn't taken advantage of its influence</a> as well as it should have, though the capability for it to do so still exists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A story at Wired delves into the ongoing struggle between Google and Facebook to establish their competing visions for the future of the internet .
" For the last decade or so , the Web has been defined by Google 's algorithms    rigorous and efficient equations that parse practically every byte of online activity to build a dispassionate atlas of the online world .
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized , humanized Web , where our network of friends , colleagues , peers , and family is our primary source of information , just as it is offline .
In Zuckerberg 's vision , users will query this 'social graph ' to find a doctor , the best camera , or someone to hire    rather than tapping the cold mathematics of a Google search .
It is a complete rethinking of how we navigate the online world , one that places Facebook right at the center .
In other words , right where Google is now .
" A related article at ReadWriteWeb suggests that while Facebook 's member base is enormous , the company has n't taken advantage of its influence as well as it should have , though the capability for it to do so still exists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A story at Wired delves into the ongoing struggle between Google and Facebook to establish their competing visions for the future of the internet.
"For the last decade or so, the Web has been defined by Google's algorithms — rigorous and efficient equations that parse practically every byte of online activity to build a dispassionate atlas of the online world.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline.
In Zuckerberg's vision, users will query this 'social graph' to find a doctor, the best camera, or someone to hire — rather than tapping the cold mathematics of a Google search.
It is a complete rethinking of how we navigate the online world, one that places Facebook right at the center.
In other words, right where Google is now.
" A related article at ReadWriteWeb suggests that while Facebook's member base is enormous, the company hasn't taken advantage of its influence as well as it should have, though the capability for it to do so still exists.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495765</id>
	<title>Re:Is facebook going down?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246126140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree. You should send me your username, 'cause I'd like to gift you a pizza.
<br> <br>
Pretty much my main use for facebook, which I didn't get with myspace, is for playing games with friends and lately non-immediate relatives have been contacting me a bit through there. When I first joined, it seemed like it was kind of a nice social site; instead it turned out to be myspace, only wearing wearing a fancier jacket. The amount of unfunny inanity that facebook perpetuates is staggering.
<br> <br>When I read stories like this, or their complaints against the chipmakers (no links before breakfast), I wonder things like has Facebook done a single thing that could reasonably be called innovative? Does Facebook ever plan to make money? Do the people running Facebook actually believe that they're providing a unique and valuable service? Do they have plans to some day actually provide a unique and valuable service? I mean, there's nothing wrong with starting a company just to make money but then you should probably make money and maybe not seem quite so full of yourself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
You should send me your username , 'cause I 'd like to gift you a pizza .
Pretty much my main use for facebook , which I did n't get with myspace , is for playing games with friends and lately non-immediate relatives have been contacting me a bit through there .
When I first joined , it seemed like it was kind of a nice social site ; instead it turned out to be myspace , only wearing wearing a fancier jacket .
The amount of unfunny inanity that facebook perpetuates is staggering .
When I read stories like this , or their complaints against the chipmakers ( no links before breakfast ) , I wonder things like has Facebook done a single thing that could reasonably be called innovative ?
Does Facebook ever plan to make money ?
Do the people running Facebook actually believe that they 're providing a unique and valuable service ?
Do they have plans to some day actually provide a unique and valuable service ?
I mean , there 's nothing wrong with starting a company just to make money but then you should probably make money and maybe not seem quite so full of yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
You should send me your username, 'cause I'd like to gift you a pizza.
Pretty much my main use for facebook, which I didn't get with myspace, is for playing games with friends and lately non-immediate relatives have been contacting me a bit through there.
When I first joined, it seemed like it was kind of a nice social site; instead it turned out to be myspace, only wearing wearing a fancier jacket.
The amount of unfunny inanity that facebook perpetuates is staggering.
When I read stories like this, or their complaints against the chipmakers (no links before breakfast), I wonder things like has Facebook done a single thing that could reasonably be called innovative?
Does Facebook ever plan to make money?
Do the people running Facebook actually believe that they're providing a unique and valuable service?
Do they have plans to some day actually provide a unique and valuable service?
I mean, there's nothing wrong with starting a company just to make money but then you should probably make money and maybe not seem quite so full of yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494821</id>
	<title>"What are we doing tonight, Brain?"</title>
	<author>buttfscking</author>
	<datestamp>1246118640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The same thing we do every night, Pinky -- try to TAKE OVER THE INTERNET!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The same thing we do every night , Pinky -- try to TAKE OVER THE INTERNET !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The same thing we do every night, Pinky -- try to TAKE OVER THE INTERNET!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494917</id>
	<title>Re:Well I for one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246119540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>
If you only base your decision on your friends recommendations, you would never look at anything 'new'. Somebody needs to do that.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>
Look at it from another point view:
</p><p>
If you've used Boxee and use the social aspects of that, you've most likely discovered shows and/or music (and other online content) you probably didn't know existed.  I've also discovered new things through Facebook.
</p><p>
I think there's room enough for more than one way to get information, be it impartial or through a circle of friends and colleagues, as would be the case with LinkedIn.  Discovery is discovery, wherever you get it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you only base your decision on your friends recommendations , you would never look at anything 'new' .
Somebody needs to do that .
Look at it from another point view : If you 've used Boxee and use the social aspects of that , you 've most likely discovered shows and/or music ( and other online content ) you probably did n't know existed .
I 've also discovered new things through Facebook .
I think there 's room enough for more than one way to get information , be it impartial or through a circle of friends and colleagues , as would be the case with LinkedIn .
Discovery is discovery , wherever you get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
If you only base your decision on your friends recommendations, you would never look at anything 'new'.
Somebody needs to do that.
Look at it from another point view:

If you've used Boxee and use the social aspects of that, you've most likely discovered shows and/or music (and other online content) you probably didn't know existed.
I've also discovered new things through Facebook.
I think there's room enough for more than one way to get information, be it impartial or through a circle of friends and colleagues, as would be the case with LinkedIn.
Discovery is discovery, wherever you get it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495741</id>
	<title>Re:Why not have both?</title>
	<author>mr\_lizard13</author>
	<datestamp>1246126020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>mr\_lizard13 likes this</htmltext>
<tokenext>mr \ _lizard13 likes this</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mr\_lizard13 likes this</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495475</id>
	<title>Re:Is facebook going down?</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1246123860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA:</p><blockquote><div><p> We all had that audacity, 'Anything Google does, we can do better.' No one talked about MySpace or the other social networks. We just talked about Google."</p></div> </blockquote><p>They know who their competition is, but they haven't even really matched Google. Google search and Gmail are where they are because no one can possibly come up with a service that offers the same feature set in such a clean, elegant, and efficient package.</p><p>Facebook is where they are from sheer momentum. If I thought people would read my RSS, I'd be inclined to move everything to a private site without all that Javascript, Flash, and random ad banners. At the moment, there is a certain class of social interactions that my generation expects to happen on Facebook (mostly date setting.) Email is too impersonal, phone is too difficult to get a hold of someone. Facebook is a happy medium. Unfortunately, it's a mess.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : We all had that audacity , 'Anything Google does , we can do better .
' No one talked about MySpace or the other social networks .
We just talked about Google .
" They know who their competition is , but they have n't even really matched Google .
Google search and Gmail are where they are because no one can possibly come up with a service that offers the same feature set in such a clean , elegant , and efficient package.Facebook is where they are from sheer momentum .
If I thought people would read my RSS , I 'd be inclined to move everything to a private site without all that Javascript , Flash , and random ad banners .
At the moment , there is a certain class of social interactions that my generation expects to happen on Facebook ( mostly date setting .
) Email is too impersonal , phone is too difficult to get a hold of someone .
Facebook is a happy medium .
Unfortunately , it 's a mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA: We all had that audacity, 'Anything Google does, we can do better.
' No one talked about MySpace or the other social networks.
We just talked about Google.
" They know who their competition is, but they haven't even really matched Google.
Google search and Gmail are where they are because no one can possibly come up with a service that offers the same feature set in such a clean, elegant, and efficient package.Facebook is where they are from sheer momentum.
If I thought people would read my RSS, I'd be inclined to move everything to a private site without all that Javascript, Flash, and random ad banners.
At the moment, there is a certain class of social interactions that my generation expects to happen on Facebook (mostly date setting.
) Email is too impersonal, phone is too difficult to get a hold of someone.
Facebook is a happy medium.
Unfortunately, it's a mess.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28496117</id>
	<title>Does nobody see a privacy issue?</title>
	<author>moore.dustin</author>
	<datestamp>1246129680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am certainly in the minority here, but I cannot be the only one who does not want there whole social network knowing so much about them. Call me old-fashioned I suppose... but I much rather be a mystery than a well-read novel. I just cant help but think about how many people in business will be bit in the ass by things posted online! You know HR depts. look at these things if they can. If they have a FB dev account in IT somewhere, then maybe the phone interview can get replaced by a FB profile browsing.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am certainly in the minority here , but I can not be the only one who does not want there whole social network knowing so much about them .
Call me old-fashioned I suppose... but I much rather be a mystery than a well-read novel .
I just cant help but think about how many people in business will be bit in the ass by things posted online !
You know HR depts .
look at these things if they can .
If they have a FB dev account in IT somewhere , then maybe the phone interview can get replaced by a FB profile browsing .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am certainly in the minority here, but I cannot be the only one who does not want there whole social network knowing so much about them.
Call me old-fashioned I suppose... but I much rather be a mystery than a well-read novel.
I just cant help but think about how many people in business will be bit in the ass by things posted online!
You know HR depts.
look at these things if they can.
If they have a FB dev account in IT somewhere, then maybe the phone interview can get replaced by a FB profile browsing.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497397</id>
	<title>Re:Your mother in law will be delighted to help ..</title>
	<author>Undead Waffle</author>
	<datestamp>1246095240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one can't wait to get on Facebook and ask my sister what the best resource for tranny porn is.</p><p>(I'm not quite sure which side I'm arguing here.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one ca n't wait to get on Facebook and ask my sister what the best resource for tranny porn is .
( I 'm not quite sure which side I 'm arguing here .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one can't wait to get on Facebook and ask my sister what the best resource for tranny porn is.
(I'm not quite sure which side I'm arguing here.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28496295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495567</id>
	<title>Google's data is much better</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1246124460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Facebook and everyone's "friends" do nothing but pass around a bunch of bullshit, half truths quizzes to determine who your sexual partner should be. Both models should exist but one is good for learning (Google) and the other is good for a laugh (Facebook).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook and everyone 's " friends " do nothing but pass around a bunch of bullshit , half truths quizzes to determine who your sexual partner should be .
Both models should exist but one is good for learning ( Google ) and the other is good for a laugh ( Facebook ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook and everyone's "friends" do nothing but pass around a bunch of bullshit, half truths quizzes to determine who your sexual partner should be.
Both models should exist but one is good for learning (Google) and the other is good for a laugh (Facebook).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497633</id>
	<title>Right tool for the right job...</title>
	<author>Amphetam1ne</author>
	<datestamp>1246096620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I'm looking for a website about a particular subject I'll google it.<br>If I'm looking for information on hacking an xbox I'll check xbox-scene.<br>If I'm trying to figure out where else I've seen an actor in a new tv series then I'll check imdb.<br>If I want to know what new movies, games and music have just had scene releases then I'll check rlslog.<br>If I want to know how many of my co-workers "cnt wait ntl teh wknd" or want to know in detail what mundane crap my best mate's gf has been up to then I'll check facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm looking for a website about a particular subject I 'll google it.If I 'm looking for information on hacking an xbox I 'll check xbox-scene.If I 'm trying to figure out where else I 've seen an actor in a new tv series then I 'll check imdb.If I want to know what new movies , games and music have just had scene releases then I 'll check rlslog.If I want to know how many of my co-workers " cnt wait ntl teh wknd " or want to know in detail what mundane crap my best mate 's gf has been up to then I 'll check facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm looking for a website about a particular subject I'll google it.If I'm looking for information on hacking an xbox I'll check xbox-scene.If I'm trying to figure out where else I've seen an actor in a new tv series then I'll check imdb.If I want to know what new movies, games and music have just had scene releases then I'll check rlslog.If I want to know how many of my co-workers "cnt wait ntl teh wknd" or want to know in detail what mundane crap my best mate's gf has been up to then I'll check facebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28527939</id>
	<title>Well, he's just wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246375260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline."</p><p>Do Not Want. Lots of us Internet types prefer machines over other humans. We don't now, and will never, have a Facebook account. We also despise MySpace and Twit ter, and we don't run IM programs. You won't find our names, hobbies, and dirty laundry anywhere on the Net. We'll let you incorrigibly stupid people take care of that part. Thanks though!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized , humanized Web , where our network of friends , colleagues , peers , and family is our primary source of information , just as it is offline .
" Do Not Want .
Lots of us Internet types prefer machines over other humans .
We do n't now , and will never , have a Facebook account .
We also despise MySpace and Twit ter , and we do n't run IM programs .
You wo n't find our names , hobbies , and dirty laundry anywhere on the Net .
We 'll let you incorrigibly stupid people take care of that part .
Thanks though !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline.
"Do Not Want.
Lots of us Internet types prefer machines over other humans.
We don't now, and will never, have a Facebook account.
We also despise MySpace and Twit ter, and we don't run IM programs.
You won't find our names, hobbies, and dirty laundry anywhere on the Net.
We'll let you incorrigibly stupid people take care of that part.
Thanks though!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494793</id>
	<title>Ummmm....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246118520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but Facebook is just a very small niche of the 'net. Even with it's status as a fad, Facebook still attracts only a very, very small number of users of the Internet. Even with the membership base it has, most are a bunch of mouth-breathers.</p><p>Seriously, it's just another stupid social website. Don't place more importance on it than it deserves. It's the Internet's embarrassing shit stain that won't go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but Facebook is just a very small niche of the 'net .
Even with it 's status as a fad , Facebook still attracts only a very , very small number of users of the Internet .
Even with the membership base it has , most are a bunch of mouth-breathers.Seriously , it 's just another stupid social website .
Do n't place more importance on it than it deserves .
It 's the Internet 's embarrassing shit stain that wo n't go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but Facebook is just a very small niche of the 'net.
Even with it's status as a fad, Facebook still attracts only a very, very small number of users of the Internet.
Even with the membership base it has, most are a bunch of mouth-breathers.Seriously, it's just another stupid social website.
Don't place more importance on it than it deserves.
It's the Internet's embarrassing shit stain that won't go away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497163</id>
	<title>Re:Google will always have an advantage for me</title>
	<author>erko</author>
	<datestamp>1246093800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you, although you have some sort of google account even if you haven't "joined" it.<br>
Your interactions with google are associated with your computer and a google id.  I still use google and facebook (although I resisted facebook for a while), but I wouldn't mind if they were both a little less big brother.<br>
Here the first google privacy info I found:
<a href="http://searchenginewatch.com/2189531" title="searchenginewatch.com" rel="nofollow">Search Privacy at Google</a> [searchenginewatch.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you , although you have some sort of google account even if you have n't " joined " it .
Your interactions with google are associated with your computer and a google id .
I still use google and facebook ( although I resisted facebook for a while ) , but I would n't mind if they were both a little less big brother .
Here the first google privacy info I found : Search Privacy at Google [ searchenginewatch.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you, although you have some sort of google account even if you haven't "joined" it.
Your interactions with google are associated with your computer and a google id.
I still use google and facebook (although I resisted facebook for a while), but I wouldn't mind if they were both a little less big brother.
Here the first google privacy info I found:
Search Privacy at Google [searchenginewatch.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494965</id>
	<title>Re:Well I for one</title>
	<author>gravesb</author>
	<datestamp>1246119840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that the target isn't you, or the general slashdot audience.  It is the advertisers, and they are interested in easily suggestible numbers.  The more people, and the more suggestible, the better.  Facebook also seems better targeted to guiding people to what they didn't know they needed-the advertisers' best friend.  I think control of the Internet in this sense means control of advertising dollars.  Like you, I'm going to stick with Google and discount anything I see on Facebook.  But like you, I am in the minority.  The real question is what the majority of people on the Internet will do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that the target is n't you , or the general slashdot audience .
It is the advertisers , and they are interested in easily suggestible numbers .
The more people , and the more suggestible , the better .
Facebook also seems better targeted to guiding people to what they did n't know they needed-the advertisers ' best friend .
I think control of the Internet in this sense means control of advertising dollars .
Like you , I 'm going to stick with Google and discount anything I see on Facebook .
But like you , I am in the minority .
The real question is what the majority of people on the Internet will do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that the target isn't you, or the general slashdot audience.
It is the advertisers, and they are interested in easily suggestible numbers.
The more people, and the more suggestible, the better.
Facebook also seems better targeted to guiding people to what they didn't know they needed-the advertisers' best friend.
I think control of the Internet in this sense means control of advertising dollars.
Like you, I'm going to stick with Google and discount anything I see on Facebook.
But like you, I am in the minority.
The real question is what the majority of people on the Internet will do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494783</id>
	<title>Google will always have an advantage for me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246118400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can get useful information without signing up for anything. Facebook needs me to join and create a profile.</p><p>I am not a joiner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can get useful information without signing up for anything .
Facebook needs me to join and create a profile.I am not a joiner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can get useful information without signing up for anything.
Facebook needs me to join and create a profile.I am not a joiner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495805</id>
	<title>Everyone's about the Goobook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246126560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But no one likes my idea of the Faceboogle.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But no one likes my idea of the Faceboogle .
: - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But no one likes my idea of the Faceboogle.
:-(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494867</id>
	<title>Buyer Beware!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246119120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FB's Capricious and poorly defined rules.  I was &#226;oepermanently&#226; banned from Facebook recently for about a month for violating the terms and conditions of FB.  I protested and got back on but they said that on my next infraction there will be no second chance.</p><p>This occurred shortly after I posted my position on abortion. Problem is, that they would not tell me what I had done or how I may have violated their secret rules.  My issue is that I invested my time not theirs uploading my pictures to FB and at the very least they should be able to give some guidance as to what I did so that I won't do it again.</p><p>I am fed up with their capricious and non-deterministic "rules" and their draconian administration of &#226;oejustice&#226;.  I believe in rules and the administration thereof but rules should be clearly understood, publicized and adjudicated. That IS NOT the case with FB.  And they want to rule the world?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FB 's Capricious and poorly defined rules .
I was   oepermanently   banned from Facebook recently for about a month for violating the terms and conditions of FB .
I protested and got back on but they said that on my next infraction there will be no second chance.This occurred shortly after I posted my position on abortion .
Problem is , that they would not tell me what I had done or how I may have violated their secret rules .
My issue is that I invested my time not theirs uploading my pictures to FB and at the very least they should be able to give some guidance as to what I did so that I wo n't do it again.I am fed up with their capricious and non-deterministic " rules " and their draconian administration of   oejustice   .
I believe in rules and the administration thereof but rules should be clearly understood , publicized and adjudicated .
That IS NOT the case with FB .
And they want to rule the world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FB's Capricious and poorly defined rules.
I was âoepermanentlyâ banned from Facebook recently for about a month for violating the terms and conditions of FB.
I protested and got back on but they said that on my next infraction there will be no second chance.This occurred shortly after I posted my position on abortion.
Problem is, that they would not tell me what I had done or how I may have violated their secret rules.
My issue is that I invested my time not theirs uploading my pictures to FB and at the very least they should be able to give some guidance as to what I did so that I won't do it again.I am fed up with their capricious and non-deterministic "rules" and their draconian administration of âoejusticeâ.
I believe in rules and the administration thereof but rules should be clearly understood, publicized and adjudicated.
That IS NOT the case with FB.
And they want to rule the world?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495909</id>
	<title>There is no battle...</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1246127640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The internet is so big that Google and Facebook are swinging their swords, but are nowhere near each other and cannot really hurt each other.  There is room for both 'ways', among the many many other ways the internet will be used as well.  There is still a big IRC following and surprisingly a lot of people still on Usenet.  I think its silly to act like the Google meme or the Facebook meme is in any way an 'end all' solution or method for use of the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet is so big that Google and Facebook are swinging their swords , but are nowhere near each other and can not really hurt each other .
There is room for both 'ways ' , among the many many other ways the internet will be used as well .
There is still a big IRC following and surprisingly a lot of people still on Usenet .
I think its silly to act like the Google meme or the Facebook meme is in any way an 'end all ' solution or method for use of the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet is so big that Google and Facebook are swinging their swords, but are nowhere near each other and cannot really hurt each other.
There is room for both 'ways', among the many many other ways the internet will be used as well.
There is still a big IRC following and surprisingly a lot of people still on Usenet.
I think its silly to act like the Google meme or the Facebook meme is in any way an 'end all' solution or method for use of the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495791</id>
	<title>Re:Is facebook going down?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246126380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have also stopped using it, and I've been using it for about 5 years.</p><p>It has just become unmanageable to maintain an acceptable standard of privacy and control over your details.</p><p>Nowadays, everyone's aunties have facebook, and there's no way for me to know what photos of me friends are putting up and who can see them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have also stopped using it , and I 've been using it for about 5 years.It has just become unmanageable to maintain an acceptable standard of privacy and control over your details.Nowadays , everyone 's aunties have facebook , and there 's no way for me to know what photos of me friends are putting up and who can see them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have also stopped using it, and I've been using it for about 5 years.It has just become unmanageable to maintain an acceptable standard of privacy and control over your details.Nowadays, everyone's aunties have facebook, and there's no way for me to know what photos of me friends are putting up and who can see them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495763</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook will begin to fade just like myspace d</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246126140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The funny thing is that people were saying exactly this on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. replies to FB articles two years ago, and FB has only grown.</p><p>This isn't a toddler's game of peek-a-boo...just because you closed your eyes on your FB friends doesn't mean they cease to exist. In reality, everyone but you stayed on FB after graduating, and everyone you know who graduated in the last 30 years is gradually joining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The funny thing is that people were saying exactly this on / .
replies to FB articles two years ago , and FB has only grown.This is n't a toddler 's game of peek-a-boo...just because you closed your eyes on your FB friends does n't mean they cease to exist .
In reality , everyone but you stayed on FB after graduating , and everyone you know who graduated in the last 30 years is gradually joining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The funny thing is that people were saying exactly this on /.
replies to FB articles two years ago, and FB has only grown.This isn't a toddler's game of peek-a-boo...just because you closed your eyes on your FB friends doesn't mean they cease to exist.
In reality, everyone but you stayed on FB after graduating, and everyone you know who graduated in the last 30 years is gradually joining.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495211</id>
	<title>Re:Well I for one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246121460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you only base your decision on your friends recommendations, you would never look at anything 'new'.</i></p><p>Maybe it's just my friends, but I find the range of material I find out about from my friends far more diverse than I'd find out just by looking at mainstream adverts or shops. Music would be the classic example, but I think it applies more generally.</p><p>Consider, how much of Firefox's success (not to mention Linux, to a lesser degree) is due to people seeing it advertised or otherwise finding out about it themselves, versus it being recommended by a geek friend?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you only base your decision on your friends recommendations , you would never look at anything 'new'.Maybe it 's just my friends , but I find the range of material I find out about from my friends far more diverse than I 'd find out just by looking at mainstream adverts or shops .
Music would be the classic example , but I think it applies more generally.Consider , how much of Firefox 's success ( not to mention Linux , to a lesser degree ) is due to people seeing it advertised or otherwise finding out about it themselves , versus it being recommended by a geek friend ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you only base your decision on your friends recommendations, you would never look at anything 'new'.Maybe it's just my friends, but I find the range of material I find out about from my friends far more diverse than I'd find out just by looking at mainstream adverts or shops.
Music would be the classic example, but I think it applies more generally.Consider, how much of Firefox's success (not to mention Linux, to a lesser degree) is due to people seeing it advertised or otherwise finding out about it themselves, versus it being recommended by a geek friend?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494915</id>
	<title>Hey, has anyone heard from Roland?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246119540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I noticed that his Google Ads blog hasn't been updated in a while.  I hope he's ok.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed that his Google Ads blog has n't been updated in a while .
I hope he 's ok .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed that his Google Ads blog hasn't been updated in a while.
I hope he's ok.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495589</id>
	<title>Don't forget Advertisers!</title>
	<author>StCredZero</author>
	<datestamp>1246124640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>using Facebook in place of Google sounds like many steps back</p></div><p>The questions you ask your friends are going to be more limited.  Feedback to advertisers in the form of data will also be more limited, therefore less valuable to advertisers.</p><p>You know what would be of *huge* value to advertisers?  Social news techniques used *on* advertising.  Hulu is in a great position for this.  *Let* the users skip (or better yet, 40X fast-forward) the ads!  If not that, then let users mod them up or down!  Heck, why not tags, like "irrelevant" "obsolete" or "already own?"  Advertisers would get immediate feedback on ad reception.  Correlation to buying demographic buying habits would be easier to make.  Decisions on where to put ad budget wouldn't have to be done at the huge granularity of a particular show or timeslot, but could be targeted directly at demographic cohorts.</p><p>Viewers would benefit, as ads would have to get better.  Advertisers would benefit from the better, more watchable ads!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>using Facebook in place of Google sounds like many steps backThe questions you ask your friends are going to be more limited .
Feedback to advertisers in the form of data will also be more limited , therefore less valuable to advertisers.You know what would be of * huge * value to advertisers ?
Social news techniques used * on * advertising .
Hulu is in a great position for this .
* Let * the users skip ( or better yet , 40X fast-forward ) the ads !
If not that , then let users mod them up or down !
Heck , why not tags , like " irrelevant " " obsolete " or " already own ?
" Advertisers would get immediate feedback on ad reception .
Correlation to buying demographic buying habits would be easier to make .
Decisions on where to put ad budget would n't have to be done at the huge granularity of a particular show or timeslot , but could be targeted directly at demographic cohorts.Viewers would benefit , as ads would have to get better .
Advertisers would benefit from the better , more watchable ads !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>using Facebook in place of Google sounds like many steps backThe questions you ask your friends are going to be more limited.
Feedback to advertisers in the form of data will also be more limited, therefore less valuable to advertisers.You know what would be of *huge* value to advertisers?
Social news techniques used *on* advertising.
Hulu is in a great position for this.
*Let* the users skip (or better yet, 40X fast-forward) the ads!
If not that, then let users mod them up or down!
Heck, why not tags, like "irrelevant" "obsolete" or "already own?
"  Advertisers would get immediate feedback on ad reception.
Correlation to buying demographic buying habits would be easier to make.
Decisions on where to put ad budget wouldn't have to be done at the huge granularity of a particular show or timeslot, but could be targeted directly at demographic cohorts.Viewers would benefit, as ads would have to get better.
Advertisers would benefit from the better, more watchable ads!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494833</id>
	<title>Give Me Dispassionate Information Any Day</title>
	<author>Quothz</author>
	<datestamp>1246118820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Friends, family, colleagues, and peers as my primary offline information sources? Only if I want gossip, urban legends, extemporaneous answers to avoid admissions of ignorance, and rambling anecdotes. If I need actual information offline, I use reference works. I don't want "passion" in my information; I'd rather have facts and data. Thanks just the same, Zuck, but please go back to your tea party and let the grownups deal with information systems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Friends , family , colleagues , and peers as my primary offline information sources ?
Only if I want gossip , urban legends , extemporaneous answers to avoid admissions of ignorance , and rambling anecdotes .
If I need actual information offline , I use reference works .
I do n't want " passion " in my information ; I 'd rather have facts and data .
Thanks just the same , Zuck , but please go back to your tea party and let the grownups deal with information systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Friends, family, colleagues, and peers as my primary offline information sources?
Only if I want gossip, urban legends, extemporaneous answers to avoid admissions of ignorance, and rambling anecdotes.
If I need actual information offline, I use reference works.
I don't want "passion" in my information; I'd rather have facts and data.
Thanks just the same, Zuck, but please go back to your tea party and let the grownups deal with information systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494779</id>
	<title>Facebook will begin to fade just like myspace did</title>
	<author>mc moss</author>
	<datestamp>1246118340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see facebook as anything else other than a fad that will begin to go away. I already deleted (not just disabled) my fb account and know many other people too after graduating college.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see facebook as anything else other than a fad that will begin to go away .
I already deleted ( not just disabled ) my fb account and know many other people too after graduating college .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see facebook as anything else other than a fad that will begin to go away.
I already deleted (not just disabled) my fb account and know many other people too after graduating college.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28499341</id>
	<title>Re:There is no battle...</title>
	<author>Luke has no name</author>
	<datestamp>1246110420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up. At least, I hope he's right.</p><p>As long as the Internet is maintained as a utility layer over which applications run, all will be well. If ISPs or companies are able to regulate what sites users go to, or give preference to some uses over others, we may be fucked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
At least , I hope he 's right.As long as the Internet is maintained as a utility layer over which applications run , all will be well .
If ISPs or companies are able to regulate what sites users go to , or give preference to some uses over others , we may be fucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
At least, I hope he's right.As long as the Internet is maintained as a utility layer over which applications run, all will be well.
If ISPs or companies are able to regulate what sites users go to, or give preference to some uses over others, we may be fucked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495401</id>
	<title>This is a false premise</title>
	<author>br00tus</author>
	<datestamp>1246123200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole genius of Google is that it is NOT "rigorous and efficient equations that parse practically every byte of online activity to build a dispassionate atlas of the online world".  Search engines prior to Google would classify a searched for word or phrase by how many times it was mentioned in a page, if the word/phrase was in the page's title, or in the beginning of the page, perhaps in a header, and so forth.  Google's algorithm was to do those rankings, but then to give enormous weight to what pages of that type linked to another page.  So if a large majority of baseball web sites linked to the MLB's web site, MLB's website would be on top for a Google search for baseball (as indeed it is).  This is not a dispassionate equation, but one utilizing human cognitive skills and social connections via the web to give you what you want.  Google's surge over search engines like Opentext, Webcrawler, Excite and Altavista was precisely that it began concentrating on social connections on the web.</p><p>And insofar as non-search services - Google has Orkut, on Google Mail one could only get an account originally through an acquaintance, Google Earth has a Web 2.0 collaborative piece to highlight places in a local area, Google sponsors the Summer of Code and so forth.  Facebook may be taking the social component even farther, but Google has never been just an icy monolith of sleek computers and dispassionate equations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole genius of Google is that it is NOT " rigorous and efficient equations that parse practically every byte of online activity to build a dispassionate atlas of the online world " .
Search engines prior to Google would classify a searched for word or phrase by how many times it was mentioned in a page , if the word/phrase was in the page 's title , or in the beginning of the page , perhaps in a header , and so forth .
Google 's algorithm was to do those rankings , but then to give enormous weight to what pages of that type linked to another page .
So if a large majority of baseball web sites linked to the MLB 's web site , MLB 's website would be on top for a Google search for baseball ( as indeed it is ) .
This is not a dispassionate equation , but one utilizing human cognitive skills and social connections via the web to give you what you want .
Google 's surge over search engines like Opentext , Webcrawler , Excite and Altavista was precisely that it began concentrating on social connections on the web.And insofar as non-search services - Google has Orkut , on Google Mail one could only get an account originally through an acquaintance , Google Earth has a Web 2.0 collaborative piece to highlight places in a local area , Google sponsors the Summer of Code and so forth .
Facebook may be taking the social component even farther , but Google has never been just an icy monolith of sleek computers and dispassionate equations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole genius of Google is that it is NOT "rigorous and efficient equations that parse practically every byte of online activity to build a dispassionate atlas of the online world".
Search engines prior to Google would classify a searched for word or phrase by how many times it was mentioned in a page, if the word/phrase was in the page's title, or in the beginning of the page, perhaps in a header, and so forth.
Google's algorithm was to do those rankings, but then to give enormous weight to what pages of that type linked to another page.
So if a large majority of baseball web sites linked to the MLB's web site, MLB's website would be on top for a Google search for baseball (as indeed it is).
This is not a dispassionate equation, but one utilizing human cognitive skills and social connections via the web to give you what you want.
Google's surge over search engines like Opentext, Webcrawler, Excite and Altavista was precisely that it began concentrating on social connections on the web.And insofar as non-search services - Google has Orkut, on Google Mail one could only get an account originally through an acquaintance, Google Earth has a Web 2.0 collaborative piece to highlight places in a local area, Google sponsors the Summer of Code and so forth.
Facebook may be taking the social component even farther, but Google has never been just an icy monolith of sleek computers and dispassionate equations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494987</id>
	<title>It's too much work.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1246119960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the moment you start writing reviews of your doctor friends, Facebook explodes into a giant flamewar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the moment you start writing reviews of your doctor friends , Facebook explodes into a giant flamewar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the moment you start writing reviews of your doctor friends, Facebook explodes into a giant flamewar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28501003</id>
	<title>Re:Bad crowd</title>
	<author>Lockblade</author>
	<datestamp>1246124100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the problems with the internet is that it gives people a chance to self select themselves into a tiny little corner of interstes that creates an echo chamber. I don't want recomendations from people I know to be prone to confermation bias.</p></div><p>And yet you're posting on Slashdot?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the problems with the internet is that it gives people a chance to self select themselves into a tiny little corner of interstes that creates an echo chamber .
I do n't want recomendations from people I know to be prone to confermation bias.And yet you 're posting on Slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the problems with the internet is that it gives people a chance to self select themselves into a tiny little corner of interstes that creates an echo chamber.
I don't want recomendations from people I know to be prone to confermation bias.And yet you're posting on Slashdot?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755</id>
	<title>Why not have both?</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1246118160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously. Why one way or the other. Why not both?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
Why one way or the other .
Why not both ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
Why one way or the other.
Why not both?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495277</id>
	<title>facebook==AOL</title>
	<author>saleenS281</author>
	<datestamp>1246122060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Zuckerberg wants to create a walled internet where everything goes through facebook.  We've seen it once before, back when it actually had a small chance of succeeding because a lot of the general public didn't know any better.
<br> <br>
Not happening, get over yourself.  It didn't work the first time, it won't work this time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Zuckerberg wants to create a walled internet where everything goes through facebook .
We 've seen it once before , back when it actually had a small chance of succeeding because a lot of the general public did n't know any better .
Not happening , get over yourself .
It did n't work the first time , it wo n't work this time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zuckerberg wants to create a walled internet where everything goes through facebook.
We've seen it once before, back when it actually had a small chance of succeeding because a lot of the general public didn't know any better.
Not happening, get over yourself.
It didn't work the first time, it won't work this time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495487</id>
	<title>Re:Why not have both?</title>
	<author>cashman73</author>
	<datestamp>1246123920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would trust my friends more than some salesperson motivated primarily by how much commission is offered on different products, or which products have a better extended warranty for them to make money off of. Interestingly enough, I was just talking to someone on facebook yesterday that was looking at buying a new hard drive for their laptop. Trying to decide between a standard hard disk versus a solid state drive. Several friends on facebook chimed in with insightful comments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would trust my friends more than some salesperson motivated primarily by how much commission is offered on different products , or which products have a better extended warranty for them to make money off of .
Interestingly enough , I was just talking to someone on facebook yesterday that was looking at buying a new hard drive for their laptop .
Trying to decide between a standard hard disk versus a solid state drive .
Several friends on facebook chimed in with insightful comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would trust my friends more than some salesperson motivated primarily by how much commission is offered on different products, or which products have a better extended warranty for them to make money off of.
Interestingly enough, I was just talking to someone on facebook yesterday that was looking at buying a new hard drive for their laptop.
Trying to decide between a standard hard disk versus a solid state drive.
Several friends on facebook chimed in with insightful comments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28496251</id>
	<title>Which would you prefer to live without? FB or GG?</title>
	<author>dk3d</author>
	<datestamp>1246131120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not going to find my doctor through either Facebook OR google. Chances are I'm going to use one my mom or dad or sister recommends and chances are that doctor is not a "friend" of theirs on facebook nor are they a "fan" of that Doctor.

Facebook, to this point in time, is nothing really more than a "hey, I had 6 beers last night check out my photos", or "oooh, look at my kid jump into the pool," type of site (ok, well a bit more deep than that perhaps). But it's still primarily "entertainment" as I see it.

Google has more going for it from a "serious" and business perspective. Search. Maps. Finding pizza close by. Serious stuff.

If I had to stop using one site or companies sites, guess which one I could easily do without? Which one would you rather have close by? Google, or Facebook? I rest my case.

Another quick point is that from a Job or professional standpoint, hasn't zuckerberg heard that when looking for a job (or trying to keep one), Facebook is not really something you want to be messing around with. Not that YOU will do something wrong, but one of your stupid friends may decide now was a good time to show that above photo of the 6 empty beer cans on your head.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not going to find my doctor through either Facebook OR google .
Chances are I 'm going to use one my mom or dad or sister recommends and chances are that doctor is not a " friend " of theirs on facebook nor are they a " fan " of that Doctor .
Facebook , to this point in time , is nothing really more than a " hey , I had 6 beers last night check out my photos " , or " oooh , look at my kid jump into the pool , " type of site ( ok , well a bit more deep than that perhaps ) .
But it 's still primarily " entertainment " as I see it .
Google has more going for it from a " serious " and business perspective .
Search. Maps .
Finding pizza close by .
Serious stuff .
If I had to stop using one site or companies sites , guess which one I could easily do without ?
Which one would you rather have close by ?
Google , or Facebook ?
I rest my case .
Another quick point is that from a Job or professional standpoint , has n't zuckerberg heard that when looking for a job ( or trying to keep one ) , Facebook is not really something you want to be messing around with .
Not that YOU will do something wrong , but one of your stupid friends may decide now was a good time to show that above photo of the 6 empty beer cans on your head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not going to find my doctor through either Facebook OR google.
Chances are I'm going to use one my mom or dad or sister recommends and chances are that doctor is not a "friend" of theirs on facebook nor are they a "fan" of that Doctor.
Facebook, to this point in time, is nothing really more than a "hey, I had 6 beers last night check out my photos", or "oooh, look at my kid jump into the pool," type of site (ok, well a bit more deep than that perhaps).
But it's still primarily "entertainment" as I see it.
Google has more going for it from a "serious" and business perspective.
Search. Maps.
Finding pizza close by.
Serious stuff.
If I had to stop using one site or companies sites, guess which one I could easily do without?
Which one would you rather have close by?
Google, or Facebook?
I rest my case.
Another quick point is that from a Job or professional standpoint, hasn't zuckerberg heard that when looking for a job (or trying to keep one), Facebook is not really something you want to be messing around with.
Not that YOU will do something wrong, but one of your stupid friends may decide now was a good time to show that above photo of the 6 empty beer cans on your head.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497845</id>
	<title>Not gonna happen</title>
	<author>billybob\_jcv</author>
	<datestamp>1246097880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait - is this the same Facebook that locks out your account if you post too much?  And that refuses to post the rules for how they determine you are "abusing" their system?  Facebook is a prime example of the least common denominator becoming the market leader.  A horrible user interface, pathetic functionality, zero personalization - and a jillion users.  AOL 2.0</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait - is this the same Facebook that locks out your account if you post too much ?
And that refuses to post the rules for how they determine you are " abusing " their system ?
Facebook is a prime example of the least common denominator becoming the market leader .
A horrible user interface , pathetic functionality , zero personalization - and a jillion users .
AOL 2.0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait - is this the same Facebook that locks out your account if you post too much?
And that refuses to post the rules for how they determine you are "abusing" their system?
Facebook is a prime example of the least common denominator becoming the market leader.
A horrible user interface, pathetic functionality, zero personalization - and a jillion users.
AOL 2.0</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495241</id>
	<title>evil</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1246121700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just remember that Google still tries to not be evil.  Facebook quite clearly has no such qualms about the standard sort of "corporate evil".  Also Facebook invades your life infinite more than Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just remember that Google still tries to not be evil .
Facebook quite clearly has no such qualms about the standard sort of " corporate evil " .
Also Facebook invades your life infinite more than Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just remember that Google still tries to not be evil.
Facebook quite clearly has no such qualms about the standard sort of "corporate evil".
Also Facebook invades your life infinite more than Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495865</id>
	<title>Zuckerbergs 'vision'</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1246127280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IM sorry, but its really hard to respect anything this guy says. IMHO, he got really lucky with Facebook, and he simply doesnt have that much intellectual capital.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IM sorry , but its really hard to respect anything this guy says .
IMHO , he got really lucky with Facebook , and he simply doesnt have that much intellectual capital .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IM sorry, but its really hard to respect anything this guy says.
IMHO, he got really lucky with Facebook, and he simply doesnt have that much intellectual capital.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28499755</id>
	<title>I'm thinking half-way between...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246113360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I need info on a new Nikon Camera, i use Google to find a Nikon camera users forum.  If I'm looking for a new DSLR in general, i'll Google for a general DSLR camera users forum.  Or i may google for reviews of cameras.</p><p>If I'm looking for a new tv or want to know about the new model of Samsung LCD TVs, i already know to use AVSForum.</p><p>For cooking tips/questions, i might use alt.food.cooking.</p><p>My point is that I don't use GOOGLE to give me information/advice on a product or item, i use GOOGLE to get me to experts in the field.  Then i ask THEM questions.  Facebook (or some other social network) could potentially fill that void by having a way to connect me with experts in particular fields.  Right now the facebook groups is not remotely near that.</p><p>I certainly have more faith in using PERSONAL recommendations/explanations than just recommendation lists.  I think most people do also.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I need info on a new Nikon Camera , i use Google to find a Nikon camera users forum .
If I 'm looking for a new DSLR in general , i 'll Google for a general DSLR camera users forum .
Or i may google for reviews of cameras.If I 'm looking for a new tv or want to know about the new model of Samsung LCD TVs , i already know to use AVSForum.For cooking tips/questions , i might use alt.food.cooking.My point is that I do n't use GOOGLE to give me information/advice on a product or item , i use GOOGLE to get me to experts in the field .
Then i ask THEM questions .
Facebook ( or some other social network ) could potentially fill that void by having a way to connect me with experts in particular fields .
Right now the facebook groups is not remotely near that.I certainly have more faith in using PERSONAL recommendations/explanations than just recommendation lists .
I think most people do also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I need info on a new Nikon Camera, i use Google to find a Nikon camera users forum.
If I'm looking for a new DSLR in general, i'll Google for a general DSLR camera users forum.
Or i may google for reviews of cameras.If I'm looking for a new tv or want to know about the new model of Samsung LCD TVs, i already know to use AVSForum.For cooking tips/questions, i might use alt.food.cooking.My point is that I don't use GOOGLE to give me information/advice on a product or item, i use GOOGLE to get me to experts in the field.
Then i ask THEM questions.
Facebook (or some other social network) could potentially fill that void by having a way to connect me with experts in particular fields.
Right now the facebook groups is not remotely near that.I certainly have more faith in using PERSONAL recommendations/explanations than just recommendation lists.
I think most people do also.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28496007</id>
	<title>You need both</title>
	<author>blcarmadillo</author>
	<datestamp>1246128600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't got the "Facebook way" without using the math behind the "Google way." Therefore imo the future will be a hybrid of the two.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't got the " Facebook way " without using the math behind the " Google way .
" Therefore imo the future will be a hybrid of the two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't got the "Facebook way" without using the math behind the "Google way.
" Therefore imo the future will be a hybrid of the two.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28510915</id>
	<title>Facebook can't face the truth...</title>
	<author>HigH5</author>
	<datestamp>1246306680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... it's just a freaking social networking site! And for most of their users, it's just that, period.  Or a phonebook of 21. century, if you will - it's just nice to have all your friends and relatives at hand, but why spam and be spammed all of the time? The economy of "free" that internet brought with it surely enabled the idiots who speak first and then think later, to spam the others who most of the time have something better to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... it 's just a freaking social networking site !
And for most of their users , it 's just that , period .
Or a phonebook of 21. century , if you will - it 's just nice to have all your friends and relatives at hand , but why spam and be spammed all of the time ?
The economy of " free " that internet brought with it surely enabled the idiots who speak first and then think later , to spam the others who most of the time have something better to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... it's just a freaking social networking site!
And for most of their users, it's just that, period.
Or a phonebook of 21. century, if you will - it's just nice to have all your friends and relatives at hand, but why spam and be spammed all of the time?
The economy of "free" that internet brought with it surely enabled the idiots who speak first and then think later, to spam the others who most of the time have something better to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28498991</id>
	<title>and from there it goes downhill...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246107600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline. In Zuckerberg's vision, users will query this 'social graph' to find a doctor, the best camera, or someone to hire &#226;" rather than tapping the cold mathematics of a Google search</p></div><p>sounds exactly like the perfect platform for the advertising / marketing industry...</p><p>so Mark, find a way to make Facebok profitable yet?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... envisions a more personalized , humanized Web , where our network of friends , colleagues , peers , and family is our primary source of information , just as it is offline .
In Zuckerberg 's vision , users will query this 'social graph ' to find a doctor , the best camera , or someone to hire   " rather than tapping the cold mathematics of a Google searchsounds exactly like the perfect platform for the advertising / marketing industry...so Mark , find a way to make Facebok profitable yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline.
In Zuckerberg's vision, users will query this 'social graph' to find a doctor, the best camera, or someone to hire â" rather than tapping the cold mathematics of a Google searchsounds exactly like the perfect platform for the advertising / marketing industry...so Mark, find a way to make Facebok profitable yet?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495165</id>
	<title>The opinion of "the masses" isn't personal</title>
	<author>Shag</author>
	<datestamp>1246121160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have somewhere north of 300 friends on Facebook.  Any question I might need help with would best be addressed to at most three of them.  If I need to know something, I'm not going to find it out by asking my cousins.  People I used to work with tend to know pretty much the same stuff I know in the field I used to work in.  And so on.  I haven't been able to enforce "you must be knowledgeable and a good thinker to know me" yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have somewhere north of 300 friends on Facebook .
Any question I might need help with would best be addressed to at most three of them .
If I need to know something , I 'm not going to find it out by asking my cousins .
People I used to work with tend to know pretty much the same stuff I know in the field I used to work in .
And so on .
I have n't been able to enforce " you must be knowledgeable and a good thinker to know me " yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have somewhere north of 300 friends on Facebook.
Any question I might need help with would best be addressed to at most three of them.
If I need to know something, I'm not going to find it out by asking my cousins.
People I used to work with tend to know pretty much the same stuff I know in the field I used to work in.
And so on.
I haven't been able to enforce "you must be knowledgeable and a good thinker to know me" yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494743</id>
	<title>Zuckerberg is a cocksucker</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246117980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a thieving, lying, backstabbing cocksucker.<br>nuff said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a thieving , lying , backstabbing cocksucker.nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a thieving, lying, backstabbing cocksucker.nuff said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495667</id>
	<title>Facebook cannot replace the internet</title>
	<author>Serious Callers Only</author>
	<datestamp>1246125240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline. In Zuckerberg's vision, users will query this 'social graph' to find a doctor, the best camera, or someone to hire - rather than tapping the cold mathematics of a Google search. It is a complete rethinking of how we navigate the online world, one that places Facebook right at the center. In other words, right where Google is now."</p></div><p>Translation from Wired corporate shilling:</p><p><b>Facebook</b> CEO envisions a walled garden controlled by <b>Facebook</b>, where your identity, network of friends, colleagues, peers and family belongs to <b>FaceBook</b>, and where <b>Facebook</b> is the primary source of all information, just as they've always dreamed of being. In Zuckerberg's vision, users will query <b>FaceBook</b> to find anything, rather than using the far more useful and wide-ranging Google search, which might lead you to sites which are not hosted by <b>Facebook</b>. It is a complete rethinking of how we navigate the online world, one that places <b>Facebook</b> right at the center. In other words, right where the real internet is now.</p><p>I've never liked sites like Facebook since they started off by trying to make everyone join their site before they can actually access content. Visit their front page, and all you see is an exhortation to give them your email address and some personal details - that tells you everything you need to know about their intentions and the utility of their site. Joining them means being data-mined by Facebook for every ounce of your worth as a consumer. Thankfully Facebook's vision of the future of the internet is about as relevant as Wired magazine is nowadays.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized , humanized Web , where our network of friends , colleagues , peers , and family is our primary source of information , just as it is offline .
In Zuckerberg 's vision , users will query this 'social graph ' to find a doctor , the best camera , or someone to hire - rather than tapping the cold mathematics of a Google search .
It is a complete rethinking of how we navigate the online world , one that places Facebook right at the center .
In other words , right where Google is now .
" Translation from Wired corporate shilling : Facebook CEO envisions a walled garden controlled by Facebook , where your identity , network of friends , colleagues , peers and family belongs to FaceBook , and where Facebook is the primary source of all information , just as they 've always dreamed of being .
In Zuckerberg 's vision , users will query FaceBook to find anything , rather than using the far more useful and wide-ranging Google search , which might lead you to sites which are not hosted by Facebook .
It is a complete rethinking of how we navigate the online world , one that places Facebook right at the center .
In other words , right where the real internet is now.I 've never liked sites like Facebook since they started off by trying to make everyone join their site before they can actually access content .
Visit their front page , and all you see is an exhortation to give them your email address and some personal details - that tells you everything you need to know about their intentions and the utility of their site .
Joining them means being data-mined by Facebook for every ounce of your worth as a consumer .
Thankfully Facebook 's vision of the future of the internet is about as relevant as Wired magazine is nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline.
In Zuckerberg's vision, users will query this 'social graph' to find a doctor, the best camera, or someone to hire - rather than tapping the cold mathematics of a Google search.
It is a complete rethinking of how we navigate the online world, one that places Facebook right at the center.
In other words, right where Google is now.
"Translation from Wired corporate shilling:Facebook CEO envisions a walled garden controlled by Facebook, where your identity, network of friends, colleagues, peers and family belongs to FaceBook, and where Facebook is the primary source of all information, just as they've always dreamed of being.
In Zuckerberg's vision, users will query FaceBook to find anything, rather than using the far more useful and wide-ranging Google search, which might lead you to sites which are not hosted by Facebook.
It is a complete rethinking of how we navigate the online world, one that places Facebook right at the center.
In other words, right where the real internet is now.I've never liked sites like Facebook since they started off by trying to make everyone join their site before they can actually access content.
Visit their front page, and all you see is an exhortation to give them your email address and some personal details - that tells you everything you need to know about their intentions and the utility of their site.
Joining them means being data-mined by Facebook for every ounce of your worth as a consumer.
Thankfully Facebook's vision of the future of the internet is about as relevant as Wired magazine is nowadays.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494841</id>
	<title>Apples and Oranges</title>
	<author>Xistenz99</author>
	<datestamp>1246118880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It doesn't make sense at all to compare these two sites because I don't think I have ever mistaken Google for facebook.  Facebook will never be a place for looking up statistics unless those statistics consist of "Who is going to my party tonight", Facebook  influence is small and limited</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't make sense at all to compare these two sites because I do n't think I have ever mistaken Google for facebook .
Facebook will never be a place for looking up statistics unless those statistics consist of " Who is going to my party tonight " , Facebook influence is small and limited</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't make sense at all to compare these two sites because I don't think I have ever mistaken Google for facebook.
Facebook will never be a place for looking up statistics unless those statistics consist of "Who is going to my party tonight", Facebook  influence is small and limited</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495075</id>
	<title>Ghettoization of the intertubes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246120440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the subject line says it all.</p><p>The advantage of a universal search engine such as Google is that it searches for data internationally and broadens one's horizons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the subject line says it all.The advantage of a universal search engine such as Google is that it searches for data internationally and broadens one 's horizons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the subject line says it all.The advantage of a universal search engine such as Google is that it searches for data internationally and broadens one's horizons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494855</id>
	<title>This is CREEPY sounding.</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1246119060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information</p></div><p>I'm sorry but honestly I like cold logic.. This sounds like some sort of RIAA / Government control the flow of information justification and creeps me the hell out.</p><p>I donno sort of like this...<br>"why do you need to look at books Timmy? Why not just ask grandpa about it? What do you have to hide from your dear old grandpa timmy?" Why don't you trust that we know best.</p><p>It just sounds creepy but maybe I just have less faith in my family's wisdom than most? Anyhow I really don't see a battle here... There is more than one way to skin a search request....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>humanized Web , where our network of friends , colleagues , peers , and family is our primary source of informationI 'm sorry but honestly I like cold logic.. This sounds like some sort of RIAA / Government control the flow of information justification and creeps me the hell out.I donno sort of like this... " why do you need to look at books Timmy ?
Why not just ask grandpa about it ?
What do you have to hide from your dear old grandpa timmy ?
" Why do n't you trust that we know best.It just sounds creepy but maybe I just have less faith in my family 's wisdom than most ?
Anyhow I really do n't see a battle here... There is more than one way to skin a search request... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of informationI'm sorry but honestly I like cold logic.. This sounds like some sort of RIAA / Government control the flow of information justification and creeps me the hell out.I donno sort of like this..."why do you need to look at books Timmy?
Why not just ask grandpa about it?
What do you have to hide from your dear old grandpa timmy?
" Why don't you trust that we know best.It just sounds creepy but maybe I just have less faith in my family's wisdom than most?
Anyhow I really don't see a battle here... There is more than one way to skin a search request....
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28500959</id>
	<title>Re:It's the Economics! (Like the 60's)</title>
	<author>Miros</author>
	<datestamp>1246123740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>of course, at the end of the day, by the numbers, google is an advertising sales company not a software company.  that's probably a little unfair, but it's necessary to point out that there are many many projects at google that do not really earn significant income, and only a few that really sustain the vast majority of their cash flow.  that is not to say that many of the other things they work on are not cool and useful; quite the opposite in fact.  we should not discourage anyone from building something of incredible usefulness (which I think facebook has de facto just based on the amount of traffic it gets) just because we don't yet know where to attach the meter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>of course , at the end of the day , by the numbers , google is an advertising sales company not a software company .
that 's probably a little unfair , but it 's necessary to point out that there are many many projects at google that do not really earn significant income , and only a few that really sustain the vast majority of their cash flow .
that is not to say that many of the other things they work on are not cool and useful ; quite the opposite in fact .
we should not discourage anyone from building something of incredible usefulness ( which I think facebook has de facto just based on the amount of traffic it gets ) just because we do n't yet know where to attach the meter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of course, at the end of the day, by the numbers, google is an advertising sales company not a software company.
that's probably a little unfair, but it's necessary to point out that there are many many projects at google that do not really earn significant income, and only a few that really sustain the vast majority of their cash flow.
that is not to say that many of the other things they work on are not cool and useful; quite the opposite in fact.
we should not discourage anyone from building something of incredible usefulness (which I think facebook has de facto just based on the amount of traffic it gets) just because we don't yet know where to attach the meter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494935</id>
	<title>Bad crowd</title>
	<author>Faux\_Pseudo</author>
	<datestamp>1246119600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the problems with the internet is that it gives people a chance to self select themselves into a tiny little corner of interstes that creates an echo chamber.  I don't want recomendations from people I know to be prone to confermation bias.  I want recomendations from a large body of evidance showing both pro's and con's.  Nothing against Facebook, its just their users I have an issue with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the problems with the internet is that it gives people a chance to self select themselves into a tiny little corner of interstes that creates an echo chamber .
I do n't want recomendations from people I know to be prone to confermation bias .
I want recomendations from a large body of evidance showing both pro 's and con 's .
Nothing against Facebook , its just their users I have an issue with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the problems with the internet is that it gives people a chance to self select themselves into a tiny little corner of interstes that creates an echo chamber.
I don't want recomendations from people I know to be prone to confermation bias.
I want recomendations from a large body of evidance showing both pro's and con's.
Nothing against Facebook, its just their users I have an issue with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494971</id>
	<title>It's the Economics! (Like the 60's)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246119900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big problem facing Facebook is difficulty of monetization.  There are societal and cultural sensitivities around companies monetizing one's "circle of friends."  This has been true since the early 90's with MCI's campaigns.</p><p>Cold mathematics (Google's way) doesn't have this problem.</p><p>I am reminded of a quote from the PBS documentary about the 60's.  A woman was lamenting that so many of the movements had powerful societal traction, but no economic basis.  So in the end, they faded away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The big problem facing Facebook is difficulty of monetization .
There are societal and cultural sensitivities around companies monetizing one 's " circle of friends .
" This has been true since the early 90 's with MCI 's campaigns.Cold mathematics ( Google 's way ) does n't have this problem.I am reminded of a quote from the PBS documentary about the 60 's .
A woman was lamenting that so many of the movements had powerful societal traction , but no economic basis .
So in the end , they faded away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big problem facing Facebook is difficulty of monetization.
There are societal and cultural sensitivities around companies monetizing one's "circle of friends.
"  This has been true since the early 90's with MCI's campaigns.Cold mathematics (Google's way) doesn't have this problem.I am reminded of a quote from the PBS documentary about the 60's.
A woman was lamenting that so many of the movements had powerful societal traction, but no economic basis.
So in the end, they faded away.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28499777</id>
	<title>Re:Why not have both?</title>
	<author>shoemilk</author>
	<datestamp>1246113540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline."<br> <br>Then why do we come online to get our information?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized , humanized Web , where our network of friends , colleagues , peers , and family is our primary source of information , just as it is offline .
" Then why do we come online to get our information ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline.
" Then why do we come online to get our information?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494767</id>
	<title>A step back perhaps?</title>
	<author>TofuMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1246118220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the magic of Google <em>is</em> that it's not (as) personalized, and I can get information outside my group of friends/peers. Frankly, my friends are great, but I don't go to them for advice on, say, programming; I go to Google. What's more, I <em>couldn't</em> get a lot of the info I get from search engines from my friends, because they <strong>just don't know</strong>. Social networking is awesome, but using Facebook in place of Google sounds like many steps back, at least the way it's being presented here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the magic of Google is that it 's not ( as ) personalized , and I can get information outside my group of friends/peers .
Frankly , my friends are great , but I do n't go to them for advice on , say , programming ; I go to Google .
What 's more , I could n't get a lot of the info I get from search engines from my friends , because they just do n't know .
Social networking is awesome , but using Facebook in place of Google sounds like many steps back , at least the way it 's being presented here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the magic of Google is that it's not (as) personalized, and I can get information outside my group of friends/peers.
Frankly, my friends are great, but I don't go to them for advice on, say, programming; I go to Google.
What's more, I couldn't get a lot of the info I get from search engines from my friends, because they just don't know.
Social networking is awesome, but using Facebook in place of Google sounds like many steps back, at least the way it's being presented here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28499347</id>
	<title>Re:Buyer Beware!</title>
	<author>rxan</author>
	<datestamp>1246110420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of time the rules <b>are</b> non-deterministic though. My guess is that someone complained about you and that's how you got kicked off of Facebook. If nobody complained then probably nothing would have happened.

</p><p>Yes it is non-deterministic, but if you do stuff that gets people pissed off enough then the authorities are going to notice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of time the rules are non-deterministic though .
My guess is that someone complained about you and that 's how you got kicked off of Facebook .
If nobody complained then probably nothing would have happened .
Yes it is non-deterministic , but if you do stuff that gets people pissed off enough then the authorities are going to notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of time the rules are non-deterministic though.
My guess is that someone complained about you and that's how you got kicked off of Facebook.
If nobody complained then probably nothing would have happened.
Yes it is non-deterministic, but if you do stuff that gets people pissed off enough then the authorities are going to notice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495289</id>
	<title>yawn</title>
	<author>ypctx</author>
	<datestamp>1246122120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just by quickly scanning the article, it looks like their world domination is intended to hinge on the "Facebook Connect" thing for websites --- which Google already has an answer to: the "Google Friend Connect". (Correct me, if you indulge in reading 20 page advertising articles about nothing.)<br>
<br>
All in all, saying that "Facebook is going to dethrone Google" sounds to me as saying "Somalian pirates are going to defeat US army and then dominate the western society."<br>
<br>
&lt;joke&gt;<br>
Facebook: blah blah dominate blah blah<br>
Google: yawn (removes Facebook from search index)<br>
&lt;/joke&gt;<br>
<br>
But to stay objective, Google should seriously do something about the abomination named Orkut, which runs on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.aspx. But I guess they don't care too much - their intent is to social-networkize the whole web using open protocols - and open thinking - which is why they will succeed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just by quickly scanning the article , it looks like their world domination is intended to hinge on the " Facebook Connect " thing for websites --- which Google already has an answer to : the " Google Friend Connect " .
( Correct me , if you indulge in reading 20 page advertising articles about nothing .
) All in all , saying that " Facebook is going to dethrone Google " sounds to me as saying " Somalian pirates are going to defeat US army and then dominate the western society .
" Facebook : blah blah dominate blah blah Google : yawn ( removes Facebook from search index ) But to stay objective , Google should seriously do something about the abomination named Orkut , which runs on .aspx .
But I guess they do n't care too much - their intent is to social-networkize the whole web using open protocols - and open thinking - which is why they will succeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just by quickly scanning the article, it looks like their world domination is intended to hinge on the "Facebook Connect" thing for websites --- which Google already has an answer to: the "Google Friend Connect".
(Correct me, if you indulge in reading 20 page advertising articles about nothing.
)

All in all, saying that "Facebook is going to dethrone Google" sounds to me as saying "Somalian pirates are going to defeat US army and then dominate the western society.
"


Facebook: blah blah dominate blah blah
Google: yawn (removes Facebook from search index)


But to stay objective, Google should seriously do something about the abomination named Orkut, which runs on .aspx.
But I guess they don't care too much - their intent is to social-networkize the whole web using open protocols - and open thinking - which is why they will succeed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497173</id>
	<title>Re:Google will always have an advantage for me</title>
	<author>BryanL</author>
	<datestamp>1246093860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An AC is not a joiner. Who would have thought..:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An AC is not a joiner .
Who would have thought.. : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An AC is not a joiner.
Who would have thought..:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28503233</id>
	<title>Re:Why not have both?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246199580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because then there would be no made-up story. ^^</p><p>You must be new here. Expect the poster to be close to criminal (retardedness|evilnees).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because then there would be no made-up story .
^ ^ You must be new here .
Expect the poster to be close to criminal ( retardedness | evilnees ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because then there would be no made-up story.
^^You must be new here.
Expect the poster to be close to criminal (retardedness|evilnees).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495747</id>
	<title>Re:Give Me Dispassionate Information Any Day</title>
	<author>pfafrich</author>
	<datestamp>1246126080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Often I will trust my friends more than the stuff on the internet. Friends are not trying to sell me stuff unlike much on the internet, friends will largely share my world view and not try to impose some other agenda on me (well not too much), and if they are good friends may actually know enough about me to know the sort of info that I need. I've also got a pretty good idea of how much weight to put on different friends suggestions.
<p>
Just the other day I was doing some DIY and a friend came by and gave me a good simple suggestion which was better than all the stuff I've read on websites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Often I will trust my friends more than the stuff on the internet .
Friends are not trying to sell me stuff unlike much on the internet , friends will largely share my world view and not try to impose some other agenda on me ( well not too much ) , and if they are good friends may actually know enough about me to know the sort of info that I need .
I 've also got a pretty good idea of how much weight to put on different friends suggestions .
Just the other day I was doing some DIY and a friend came by and gave me a good simple suggestion which was better than all the stuff I 've read on websites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Often I will trust my friends more than the stuff on the internet.
Friends are not trying to sell me stuff unlike much on the internet, friends will largely share my world view and not try to impose some other agenda on me (well not too much), and if they are good friends may actually know enough about me to know the sort of info that I need.
I've also got a pretty good idea of how much weight to put on different friends suggestions.
Just the other day I was doing some DIY and a friend came by and gave me a good simple suggestion which was better than all the stuff I've read on websites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495097</id>
	<title>Militarism and the market.</title>
	<author>delirium of disorder</author>
	<datestamp>1246120560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zuckerberg may be the cute face to front Facebook, but we all know that the (only) two other board member's Peter Theil and Jim Breyer are humanists of the highest degree.</p><p>Yes! because Thiel's extreme vision of capitalism where corporations control the whole world is 'humanizing'.  TheVanguard.Org and 'The Diversity Myth' are humanist projects, not neoconservative?   Support for the rich using offshore tax havens...that's the ethical human thing to do!</p><p>Jim Breyer's time on the board of Walmart, why, I'm sure he's helping Walmart become more caring, personal, and humane.</p><p>Greylock Venture Capital's ties to the CIA are also of no concern, I'm sure.</p><p>Can you make money out of friendship? Can you create communities free of national boundaries - and then sell Coca-Cola to them? Facebook is profoundly uncreative. It makes nothing at all. It simply mediates in relationships that were happening anyway.</p><p>I think It's pretty insane that people present their personal details in public via social networking.  This same type of connectivity could be implemented with end to end encryption, signatures to verify everyone, and secure deletion.  Social networks could be a p2p, open source, empowering service.  Instead, people just upload their entire lives to the web, and use services run by some of the most extreme right wing members of the ruling class.  WAKE THE FUCK UP!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zuckerberg may be the cute face to front Facebook , but we all know that the ( only ) two other board member 's Peter Theil and Jim Breyer are humanists of the highest degree.Yes !
because Thiel 's extreme vision of capitalism where corporations control the whole world is 'humanizing' .
TheVanguard.Org and 'The Diversity Myth ' are humanist projects , not neoconservative ?
Support for the rich using offshore tax havens...that 's the ethical human thing to do ! Jim Breyer 's time on the board of Walmart , why , I 'm sure he 's helping Walmart become more caring , personal , and humane.Greylock Venture Capital 's ties to the CIA are also of no concern , I 'm sure.Can you make money out of friendship ?
Can you create communities free of national boundaries - and then sell Coca-Cola to them ?
Facebook is profoundly uncreative .
It makes nothing at all .
It simply mediates in relationships that were happening anyway.I think It 's pretty insane that people present their personal details in public via social networking .
This same type of connectivity could be implemented with end to end encryption , signatures to verify everyone , and secure deletion .
Social networks could be a p2p , open source , empowering service .
Instead , people just upload their entire lives to the web , and use services run by some of the most extreme right wing members of the ruling class .
WAKE THE FUCK UP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zuckerberg may be the cute face to front Facebook, but we all know that the (only) two other board member's Peter Theil and Jim Breyer are humanists of the highest degree.Yes!
because Thiel's extreme vision of capitalism where corporations control the whole world is 'humanizing'.
TheVanguard.Org and 'The Diversity Myth' are humanist projects, not neoconservative?
Support for the rich using offshore tax havens...that's the ethical human thing to do!Jim Breyer's time on the board of Walmart, why, I'm sure he's helping Walmart become more caring, personal, and humane.Greylock Venture Capital's ties to the CIA are also of no concern, I'm sure.Can you make money out of friendship?
Can you create communities free of national boundaries - and then sell Coca-Cola to them?
Facebook is profoundly uncreative.
It makes nothing at all.
It simply mediates in relationships that were happening anyway.I think It's pretty insane that people present their personal details in public via social networking.
This same type of connectivity could be implemented with end to end encryption, signatures to verify everyone, and secure deletion.
Social networks could be a p2p, open source, empowering service.
Instead, people just upload their entire lives to the web, and use services run by some of the most extreme right wing members of the ruling class.
WAKE THE FUCK UP!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28499287</id>
	<title>Re:Why not have both?</title>
	<author>Nikker</author>
	<datestamp>1246110060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its funny how they talk about your 'real' life (people you already talk to in "real life") as being the best way of getting info.  Isn't the Best Way(tm) to consider as many resources and then convene with those people to determine which is best? If your only information source is your 'family' is that really the most balanced form of discovering information?  So they are basically saying if we can sell one of your friends on a product then you should buy it as well.  As a strategy this is awesome for advertising, they can take a look at your circle of friends and advertise products to your friends that are targeted at you.  To give you an example of how I would pull this off:  Lets say I am a photo-buff and I have a friend that is digitally inept you would be able to assert that the best photo-product to consider would be the one my friend was sold on.  So by coming up with a clever way of providing your friends / family with questionnaires or other types of interactions I can base your search results on those responses.  This will become useful for me because I can eventually increase the revenue of the vendor I chose to include in the questionnaire, making it more likely for me to increase traffic / make more money from that vendor, increasing that vendors presence and altering the results I provide to you because if I am basing your results on your friends then what will be my method of telling you what no one in your profile knows?  If they include a reasonable return on results for outside information how will it be influenced by your friends who don't know what its really about?  If your friends are all XP users then will all your results be leaning to that type of result?   <br> <br>
Compared to Google who concedes to the fact that they must allow vendors to have some point of latitude amongst their competitors.  The vendors are allowed to bid higher for preferred positioning, it still allows for a wider view of the available information since the vendors are competing with each other rather than you.  A great by-product of this in terms of revenue is that the more profitable any given vendor category becomes you generate what you could estimate based on the categories perspective profit margins (the more disposable income they produce the more they will invest) and this all happens dynamically across the board!  If an over night success starts hitting it rich he will likely pay more to keep his market cornered and not having to worry about negotiating or dealing with Google in a direct way other than bidding against his competitors.  Google doesn't have to do anymore then making sure the hardware is humming along.   <br> <br>
I personally will use any service that I think is interesting and don't limit myself to any one in particular but I weigh the pros, cons and angles before I use it for information I'm serious about being accurate.  Since I am not a vendor I want my results as relevant as possible so I can find data / information with pros and cons about anything I search for.  This is like being able to see everyone else's 'inner circle' and convening with my own to work out the best path rather than by proxy.   <br> <br>
As far as your post I do believe Facebook or anyone should be able to make available any service they want, they just won't be paying any bills off of me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its funny how they talk about your 'real ' life ( people you already talk to in " real life " ) as being the best way of getting info .
Is n't the Best Way ( tm ) to consider as many resources and then convene with those people to determine which is best ?
If your only information source is your 'family ' is that really the most balanced form of discovering information ?
So they are basically saying if we can sell one of your friends on a product then you should buy it as well .
As a strategy this is awesome for advertising , they can take a look at your circle of friends and advertise products to your friends that are targeted at you .
To give you an example of how I would pull this off : Lets say I am a photo-buff and I have a friend that is digitally inept you would be able to assert that the best photo-product to consider would be the one my friend was sold on .
So by coming up with a clever way of providing your friends / family with questionnaires or other types of interactions I can base your search results on those responses .
This will become useful for me because I can eventually increase the revenue of the vendor I chose to include in the questionnaire , making it more likely for me to increase traffic / make more money from that vendor , increasing that vendors presence and altering the results I provide to you because if I am basing your results on your friends then what will be my method of telling you what no one in your profile knows ?
If they include a reasonable return on results for outside information how will it be influenced by your friends who do n't know what its really about ?
If your friends are all XP users then will all your results be leaning to that type of result ?
Compared to Google who concedes to the fact that they must allow vendors to have some point of latitude amongst their competitors .
The vendors are allowed to bid higher for preferred positioning , it still allows for a wider view of the available information since the vendors are competing with each other rather than you .
A great by-product of this in terms of revenue is that the more profitable any given vendor category becomes you generate what you could estimate based on the categories perspective profit margins ( the more disposable income they produce the more they will invest ) and this all happens dynamically across the board !
If an over night success starts hitting it rich he will likely pay more to keep his market cornered and not having to worry about negotiating or dealing with Google in a direct way other than bidding against his competitors .
Google does n't have to do anymore then making sure the hardware is humming along .
I personally will use any service that I think is interesting and do n't limit myself to any one in particular but I weigh the pros , cons and angles before I use it for information I 'm serious about being accurate .
Since I am not a vendor I want my results as relevant as possible so I can find data / information with pros and cons about anything I search for .
This is like being able to see everyone else 's 'inner circle ' and convening with my own to work out the best path rather than by proxy .
As far as your post I do believe Facebook or anyone should be able to make available any service they want , they just wo n't be paying any bills off of me ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its funny how they talk about your 'real' life (people you already talk to in "real life") as being the best way of getting info.
Isn't the Best Way(tm) to consider as many resources and then convene with those people to determine which is best?
If your only information source is your 'family' is that really the most balanced form of discovering information?
So they are basically saying if we can sell one of your friends on a product then you should buy it as well.
As a strategy this is awesome for advertising, they can take a look at your circle of friends and advertise products to your friends that are targeted at you.
To give you an example of how I would pull this off:  Lets say I am a photo-buff and I have a friend that is digitally inept you would be able to assert that the best photo-product to consider would be the one my friend was sold on.
So by coming up with a clever way of providing your friends / family with questionnaires or other types of interactions I can base your search results on those responses.
This will become useful for me because I can eventually increase the revenue of the vendor I chose to include in the questionnaire, making it more likely for me to increase traffic / make more money from that vendor, increasing that vendors presence and altering the results I provide to you because if I am basing your results on your friends then what will be my method of telling you what no one in your profile knows?
If they include a reasonable return on results for outside information how will it be influenced by your friends who don't know what its really about?
If your friends are all XP users then will all your results be leaning to that type of result?
Compared to Google who concedes to the fact that they must allow vendors to have some point of latitude amongst their competitors.
The vendors are allowed to bid higher for preferred positioning, it still allows for a wider view of the available information since the vendors are competing with each other rather than you.
A great by-product of this in terms of revenue is that the more profitable any given vendor category becomes you generate what you could estimate based on the categories perspective profit margins (the more disposable income they produce the more they will invest) and this all happens dynamically across the board!
If an over night success starts hitting it rich he will likely pay more to keep his market cornered and not having to worry about negotiating or dealing with Google in a direct way other than bidding against his competitors.
Google doesn't have to do anymore then making sure the hardware is humming along.
I personally will use any service that I think is interesting and don't limit myself to any one in particular but I weigh the pros, cons and angles before I use it for information I'm serious about being accurate.
Since I am not a vendor I want my results as relevant as possible so I can find data / information with pros and cons about anything I search for.
This is like being able to see everyone else's 'inner circle' and convening with my own to work out the best path rather than by proxy.
As far as your post I do believe Facebook or anyone should be able to make available any service they want, they just won't be paying any bills off of me ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497703</id>
	<title>Count me out</title>
	<author>SilverHatHacker</author>
	<datestamp>1246096980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Facebook becomes the center of the Web, I'm forking the project. <br>
Seriously though, there's one major difference between Facebook and Google: you have to CHOOSE to be on Facebook. <br>
If a prospective employer looks at Facebook for info about me, they aren't going to find anything. If they Google me, they will find documentation of awards I've won, etc. They can't find out about me from my friends if I don't tell them who my friends are, now can they?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Facebook becomes the center of the Web , I 'm forking the project .
Seriously though , there 's one major difference between Facebook and Google : you have to CHOOSE to be on Facebook .
If a prospective employer looks at Facebook for info about me , they are n't going to find anything .
If they Google me , they will find documentation of awards I 've won , etc .
They ca n't find out about me from my friends if I do n't tell them who my friends are , now can they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Facebook becomes the center of the Web, I'm forking the project.
Seriously though, there's one major difference between Facebook and Google: you have to CHOOSE to be on Facebook.
If a prospective employer looks at Facebook for info about me, they aren't going to find anything.
If they Google me, they will find documentation of awards I've won, etc.
They can't find out about me from my friends if I don't tell them who my friends are, now can they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497339</id>
	<title>Apples and oranges</title>
	<author>r45d15</author>
	<datestamp>1246094760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>[Facebook], Microsoft, Google, IBM they all fight with each other just because they're in the same field and at the same time they're also all puppets in the hands of CIA and other agencies.
Is it still news nowadays that a big IT/social company poses a thread to another big one and hence they fight each other?</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Facebook ] , Microsoft , Google , IBM they all fight with each other just because they 're in the same field and at the same time they 're also all puppets in the hands of CIA and other agencies .
Is it still news nowadays that a big IT/social company poses a thread to another big one and hence they fight each other ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Facebook], Microsoft, Google, IBM they all fight with each other just because they're in the same field and at the same time they're also all puppets in the hands of CIA and other agencies.
Is it still news nowadays that a big IT/social company poses a thread to another big one and hence they fight each other?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494781</id>
	<title>Aardvark</title>
	<author>Mattwolf7</author>
	<datestamp>1246118340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like Facebook wants to do something similar to Aardvark - <a href="http://vark.com/" title="vark.com">http://vark.com/</a> [vark.com]

Basically you ask a question and it finds people in your "network" and poses the question to them. You get pretty good answers from people around the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like Facebook wants to do something similar to Aardvark - http : //vark.com/ [ vark.com ] Basically you ask a question and it finds people in your " network " and poses the question to them .
You get pretty good answers from people around the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like Facebook wants to do something similar to Aardvark - http://vark.com/ [vark.com]

Basically you ask a question and it finds people in your "network" and poses the question to them.
You get pretty good answers from people around the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28500757</id>
	<title>A Third Way</title>
	<author>Mandrel</author>
	<datestamp>1246121700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Instead of Facebook's community assistance, and Google's assistance from the cloud, a third way is <a href="http://rbate.com/" title="rbate.com">Rbate's</a> [rbate.com] model of assistance from professional helpers, which includes a <a href="http://rbate.com/consumers/find\_help" title="rbate.com">search engine</a> [rbate.com] that's dedicated to allowing people to find such helpers.
</p><p>
Helpers can not only include the usual forms of professional information, advice, and assistance (professional reviews, aggregators of consumer reviews, and full-service retailers), but consultants and recommendation engines that can offer more personalized service. Relying on reviews takes too much work to find and understand the information you're looking for, while retail service, which has often been pretty clueless, is further suffering due to competition from online and discount outlets.
</p><p>
If you pay these helpers for the help they give rather than the ads they expose or the sales they mediate (retailers &amp; affiliates), you can make it easier for professional help to be free.
</p><p>
Eventually though, people be willing to pay fees for professional assistance for more products than just big ones like investment advice.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of Facebook 's community assistance , and Google 's assistance from the cloud , a third way is Rbate 's [ rbate.com ] model of assistance from professional helpers , which includes a search engine [ rbate.com ] that 's dedicated to allowing people to find such helpers .
Helpers can not only include the usual forms of professional information , advice , and assistance ( professional reviews , aggregators of consumer reviews , and full-service retailers ) , but consultants and recommendation engines that can offer more personalized service .
Relying on reviews takes too much work to find and understand the information you 're looking for , while retail service , which has often been pretty clueless , is further suffering due to competition from online and discount outlets .
If you pay these helpers for the help they give rather than the ads they expose or the sales they mediate ( retailers &amp; affiliates ) , you can make it easier for professional help to be free .
Eventually though , people be willing to pay fees for professional assistance for more products than just big ones like investment advice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Instead of Facebook's community assistance, and Google's assistance from the cloud, a third way is Rbate's [rbate.com] model of assistance from professional helpers, which includes a search engine [rbate.com] that's dedicated to allowing people to find such helpers.
Helpers can not only include the usual forms of professional information, advice, and assistance (professional reviews, aggregators of consumer reviews, and full-service retailers), but consultants and recommendation engines that can offer more personalized service.
Relying on reviews takes too much work to find and understand the information you're looking for, while retail service, which has often been pretty clueless, is further suffering due to competition from online and discount outlets.
If you pay these helpers for the help they give rather than the ads they expose or the sales they mediate (retailers &amp; affiliates), you can make it easier for professional help to be free.
Eventually though, people be willing to pay fees for professional assistance for more products than just big ones like investment advice.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28496295</id>
	<title>Your mother in law will be delighted to help ..</title>
	<author>Savage650</author>
	<datestamp>1246131300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline.</p></div><p>And those family members, friends and peers will be <i>utterly delighted</i> to become an integral part of your private life.
Just imagine having your private questions forwarded to your least favorite family member (lets say, your mother-in-law)
</p><ul>
<li> <b>need a doctor?</b> what kind of doctor? GP? VD? need a Shrink?</li>
<li> <b>need a lawyer?</b> what for? want a divorce? what have you done this time?</li>
<li> <b>need another mortgage?</b> You were never good enough for my son/daughter!</li>
</ul><p>

And that's just one immediate drawback. Other posters have already listed various long-term problems (cultural stratification, deprecation of "outside" information, etc.)

</p><p>All in all, its a profoundly dumb idea. The fact that some schmuck (excuse me, CEO) calls it "his vision for the internet" just illustrates the kind mental vacuum that accompanies plans like this one:</p><blockquote><div><p>1) Facebook<br>
2) ???<br>
3) Profit</p></div>
</blockquote><p>The Internet is too important to be in the hands of the CEOs</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized , humanized Web , where our network of friends , colleagues , peers , and family is our primary source of information , just as it is offline.And those family members , friends and peers will be utterly delighted to become an integral part of your private life .
Just imagine having your private questions forwarded to your least favorite family member ( lets say , your mother-in-law ) need a doctor ?
what kind of doctor ?
GP ? VD ?
need a Shrink ?
need a lawyer ?
what for ?
want a divorce ?
what have you done this time ?
need another mortgage ?
You were never good enough for my son/daughter !
And that 's just one immediate drawback .
Other posters have already listed various long-term problems ( cultural stratification , deprecation of " outside " information , etc .
) All in all , its a profoundly dumb idea .
The fact that some schmuck ( excuse me , CEO ) calls it " his vision for the internet " just illustrates the kind mental vacuum that accompanies plans like this one : 1 ) Facebook 2 ) ? ? ?
3 ) Profit The Internet is too important to be in the hands of the CEOs</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline.And those family members, friends and peers will be utterly delighted to become an integral part of your private life.
Just imagine having your private questions forwarded to your least favorite family member (lets say, your mother-in-law)

 need a doctor?
what kind of doctor?
GP? VD?
need a Shrink?
need a lawyer?
what for?
want a divorce?
what have you done this time?
need another mortgage?
You were never good enough for my son/daughter!
And that's just one immediate drawback.
Other posters have already listed various long-term problems (cultural stratification, deprecation of "outside" information, etc.
)

All in all, its a profoundly dumb idea.
The fact that some schmuck (excuse me, CEO) calls it "his vision for the internet" just illustrates the kind mental vacuum that accompanies plans like this one:1) Facebook
2) ???
3) Profit
The Internet is too important to be in the hands of the CEOs
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28496149</id>
	<title>Re:Don't forget Advertisers!</title>
	<author>JorDan Clock</author>
	<datestamp>1246130040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You already can mod advertisements up and down on Hulu....</htmltext>
<tokenext>You already can mod advertisements up and down on Hulu... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You already can mod advertisements up and down on Hulu....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494789</id>
	<title>Well I for one</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1246118460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do not want to have searches, research, news exposure, etc, mainly recommended by my friends and social network contacts. It's way too limiting. And it's not just because I don't have any friends. People don't even necessarily have the same interests as their friends.  Peoples opinions have value,  but so does objectivity. Think about buying a camera. If you only base your decision on your friends recommendations, you would never look at anything 'new'. Somebody needs to do that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do not want to have searches , research , news exposure , etc , mainly recommended by my friends and social network contacts .
It 's way too limiting .
And it 's not just because I do n't have any friends .
People do n't even necessarily have the same interests as their friends .
Peoples opinions have value , but so does objectivity .
Think about buying a camera .
If you only base your decision on your friends recommendations , you would never look at anything 'new' .
Somebody needs to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do not want to have searches, research, news exposure, etc, mainly recommended by my friends and social network contacts.
It's way too limiting.
And it's not just because I don't have any friends.
People don't even necessarily have the same interests as their friends.
Peoples opinions have value,  but so does objectivity.
Think about buying a camera.
If you only base your decision on your friends recommendations, you would never look at anything 'new'.
Somebody needs to do that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494887</id>
	<title>And Facebook would do it, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246119240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only Intel and AMD and...</p><p>Would get it together and build their servers right!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only Intel and AMD and...Would get it together and build their servers right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only Intel and AMD and...Would get it together and build their servers right!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495397</id>
	<title>Self centered view of the world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246123140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Googles advertising policies seem to have directly made it profitable for the scum of the net to prosper.  For me search results are incresingly full of crap sites with no useful content followed by the words "ads by google" somewhere on the page.</p><p>If facebook thinks its users are going to share all of their personal information re doctors for their "friends" to discover they are not being realistic.</p><p>While both sites provide useful services to the world to think that either one is "the way forward" is in my view doing is a disservice to Internet users... I believe we can do better than either vision and have our cake and eat it too.</p><p>If I had to pick any one single improvement to the network in the last ten years it would be wikipedia hands down.. no contest.  I would rather have wikipedia<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/w dialup than not having wikipedia with broadband.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Googles advertising policies seem to have directly made it profitable for the scum of the net to prosper .
For me search results are incresingly full of crap sites with no useful content followed by the words " ads by google " somewhere on the page.If facebook thinks its users are going to share all of their personal information re doctors for their " friends " to discover they are not being realistic.While both sites provide useful services to the world to think that either one is " the way forward " is in my view doing is a disservice to Internet users... I believe we can do better than either vision and have our cake and eat it too.If I had to pick any one single improvement to the network in the last ten years it would be wikipedia hands down.. no contest .
I would rather have wikipedia /w dialup than not having wikipedia with broadband .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Googles advertising policies seem to have directly made it profitable for the scum of the net to prosper.
For me search results are incresingly full of crap sites with no useful content followed by the words "ads by google" somewhere on the page.If facebook thinks its users are going to share all of their personal information re doctors for their "friends" to discover they are not being realistic.While both sites provide useful services to the world to think that either one is "the way forward" is in my view doing is a disservice to Internet users... I believe we can do better than either vision and have our cake and eat it too.If I had to pick any one single improvement to the network in the last ten years it would be wikipedia hands down.. no contest.
I would rather have wikipedia /w dialup than not having wikipedia with broadband.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495989</id>
	<title>Social Norms vs. Market Norms</title>
	<author>cabazorro</author>
	<datestamp>1246128480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facebook muscles itself on others by social norms and peer pressure (Like a Thanksgiving dinner you dread to assist)<br>Sure, go ahead and stay out of Facebook but don't blow a gasket by the the fact that people are talking about YOU on it.</p><p>The Market Norms put information exchange as a commodity.<br>The Social Norms put information exchange as a human activity (like breathing)</p><p>The trick is to make the humans feel a safe and familiar experience (like a quiet summer afternoon conversation in you uncle's porch) when<br>typing away are a social network web site. Trick people using social norms to hand out information to be treated using market norms.</p><p>Google knows it's that IT is being perceived as a information crunching machine and subconsciously humans don't trust machines.</p><p>Facebook, MySpace and Twitter (notice their names) are percieved as human driven connection "thingy" where humans interact. Like a cork<br>board outside the supermarket t.</p><p>But mark my words. Google is going to do something about that. They will spin off something or buy some start up to to create an aura<br>of humanity around their algorithms.</p><p>A simple GIF with o a floating balloon behind the search field won't do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook muscles itself on others by social norms and peer pressure ( Like a Thanksgiving dinner you dread to assist ) Sure , go ahead and stay out of Facebook but do n't blow a gasket by the the fact that people are talking about YOU on it.The Market Norms put information exchange as a commodity.The Social Norms put information exchange as a human activity ( like breathing ) The trick is to make the humans feel a safe and familiar experience ( like a quiet summer afternoon conversation in you uncle 's porch ) whentyping away are a social network web site .
Trick people using social norms to hand out information to be treated using market norms.Google knows it 's that IT is being perceived as a information crunching machine and subconsciously humans do n't trust machines.Facebook , MySpace and Twitter ( notice their names ) are percieved as human driven connection " thingy " where humans interact .
Like a corkboard outside the supermarket t.But mark my words .
Google is going to do something about that .
They will spin off something or buy some start up to to create an auraof humanity around their algorithms.A simple GIF with o a floating balloon behind the search field wo n't do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook muscles itself on others by social norms and peer pressure (Like a Thanksgiving dinner you dread to assist)Sure, go ahead and stay out of Facebook but don't blow a gasket by the the fact that people are talking about YOU on it.The Market Norms put information exchange as a commodity.The Social Norms put information exchange as a human activity (like breathing)The trick is to make the humans feel a safe and familiar experience (like a quiet summer afternoon conversation in you uncle's porch) whentyping away are a social network web site.
Trick people using social norms to hand out information to be treated using market norms.Google knows it's that IT is being perceived as a information crunching machine and subconsciously humans don't trust machines.Facebook, MySpace and Twitter (notice their names) are percieved as human driven connection "thingy" where humans interact.
Like a corkboard outside the supermarket t.But mark my words.
Google is going to do something about that.
They will spin off something or buy some start up to to create an auraof humanity around their algorithms.A simple GIF with o a floating balloon behind the search field won't do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28498109</id>
	<title>Re:evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246099860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Order versus Chaos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Order versus Chaos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Order versus Chaos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494849</id>
	<title>Re:Why not have both?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246119000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Precisely. My friends may be good at recommending a pub that I would like. But I don't think my network of friends would be particularly trustworthy for recommending with digital SLR to buy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Precisely .
My friends may be good at recommending a pub that I would like .
But I do n't think my network of friends would be particularly trustworthy for recommending with digital SLR to buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Precisely.
My friends may be good at recommending a pub that I would like.
But I don't think my network of friends would be particularly trustworthy for recommending with digital SLR to buy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495319</id>
	<title>there's one tiny difference</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1246122480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>facebook is good for knowing what the idiotic things the idiots you're surrounded by do to kill time online. Google is good for everything else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>facebook is good for knowing what the idiotic things the idiots you 're surrounded by do to kill time online .
Google is good for everything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>facebook is good for knowing what the idiotic things the idiots you're surrounded by do to kill time online.
Google is good for everything else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28499939</id>
	<title>Re:Militarism and the market.</title>
	<author>MrPhilby</author>
	<datestamp>1246114980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finally</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495759</id>
	<title>It's just different positions on the same scale</title>
	<author>Sapphon</author>
	<datestamp>1246126140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Several posts I've read here say things like "My friends may be good for recommending , but they're no good for recommending ", or "I don't want recommendations from people, who are prone to errors, but from algorithms, which are objective and logical."<br>
<br>
I can't really understand that argument: the primary difference between Facebook's and Google's search models is the level of data aggregation.<br>
<br>
Want to find a website that sells digital cameras? A Facebook search would "ask" your friends, and perhaps their friends, and maybe members of groups and networks you're in, whatever. Then it combines the answers and recommends one or more websites for you.<br>
A Google search differs in that it "asks" <i>everyone</i>.<br>
<br>
I've put "asks" in quotations marks because, obviously, there is no directing questioning occurring: the search engines are simply aggregating information from user behaviour. But the process is the same for Facebook as it is for Google. Everything eventually goes back to what users do, which in turned in a result of their subjective choices.<br>
<br>
Let's assume a search function that simply returns the most popular site. If my group of Facebook friends visits the top-ranked digital camera page twice as often as the second ranked page, is that result more or less useful to me than if all internet users (whose traffic Google can track) visit Page A twice as often as Page B? The answer depends on how you regard your friends' suitability to make those recommendations.<br>
<br>
People who say they prefer Google's results are, at root, saying they prefer the recommendation of the masses over the recommendation of their friends. Sure, there's algorithms that adjust the numbers so that links from more frequented pages count more than links from less frequented pages &ndash; but let's not kid ourselves: there is no expert opinion involved here. Google hasn't hired consumer experts to check out digital camera pages and rank them, and neither will Facebook. The important thing is <i>whose data is being used</i> as basis for the calculations.<br>
<br>
Now, there is quite clearly a place for "social searching". All of us have, at some point or another, asked people we know to recommend products or services. We don't ask all of our friends, though, just the ones we think know what they're talking about. So Facebook's problem is going to be evaluating the responses of all of our friends to the "question" of "What is the best digital camera website". Comparing its algorithms with Google's is a little (or possibly even a lot) like comparing Google's with Bing's.<br>
<br>
What it will (should) come down to for most of us is, "Do I trust my friends or the masses more to give me a good recommendation?". Based on that answer, we'll choose Facebook search or Google, respectively.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Several posts I 've read here say things like " My friends may be good for recommending , but they 're no good for recommending " , or " I do n't want recommendations from people , who are prone to errors , but from algorithms , which are objective and logical .
" I ca n't really understand that argument : the primary difference between Facebook 's and Google 's search models is the level of data aggregation .
Want to find a website that sells digital cameras ?
A Facebook search would " ask " your friends , and perhaps their friends , and maybe members of groups and networks you 're in , whatever .
Then it combines the answers and recommends one or more websites for you .
A Google search differs in that it " asks " everyone .
I 've put " asks " in quotations marks because , obviously , there is no directing questioning occurring : the search engines are simply aggregating information from user behaviour .
But the process is the same for Facebook as it is for Google .
Everything eventually goes back to what users do , which in turned in a result of their subjective choices .
Let 's assume a search function that simply returns the most popular site .
If my group of Facebook friends visits the top-ranked digital camera page twice as often as the second ranked page , is that result more or less useful to me than if all internet users ( whose traffic Google can track ) visit Page A twice as often as Page B ?
The answer depends on how you regard your friends ' suitability to make those recommendations .
People who say they prefer Google 's results are , at root , saying they prefer the recommendation of the masses over the recommendation of their friends .
Sure , there 's algorithms that adjust the numbers so that links from more frequented pages count more than links from less frequented pages    but let 's not kid ourselves : there is no expert opinion involved here .
Google has n't hired consumer experts to check out digital camera pages and rank them , and neither will Facebook .
The important thing is whose data is being used as basis for the calculations .
Now , there is quite clearly a place for " social searching " .
All of us have , at some point or another , asked people we know to recommend products or services .
We do n't ask all of our friends , though , just the ones we think know what they 're talking about .
So Facebook 's problem is going to be evaluating the responses of all of our friends to the " question " of " What is the best digital camera website " .
Comparing its algorithms with Google 's is a little ( or possibly even a lot ) like comparing Google 's with Bing 's .
What it will ( should ) come down to for most of us is , " Do I trust my friends or the masses more to give me a good recommendation ? " .
Based on that answer , we 'll choose Facebook search or Google , respectively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several posts I've read here say things like "My friends may be good for recommending , but they're no good for recommending ", or "I don't want recommendations from people, who are prone to errors, but from algorithms, which are objective and logical.
"

I can't really understand that argument: the primary difference between Facebook's and Google's search models is the level of data aggregation.
Want to find a website that sells digital cameras?
A Facebook search would "ask" your friends, and perhaps their friends, and maybe members of groups and networks you're in, whatever.
Then it combines the answers and recommends one or more websites for you.
A Google search differs in that it "asks" everyone.
I've put "asks" in quotations marks because, obviously, there is no directing questioning occurring: the search engines are simply aggregating information from user behaviour.
But the process is the same for Facebook as it is for Google.
Everything eventually goes back to what users do, which in turned in a result of their subjective choices.
Let's assume a search function that simply returns the most popular site.
If my group of Facebook friends visits the top-ranked digital camera page twice as often as the second ranked page, is that result more or less useful to me than if all internet users (whose traffic Google can track) visit Page A twice as often as Page B?
The answer depends on how you regard your friends' suitability to make those recommendations.
People who say they prefer Google's results are, at root, saying they prefer the recommendation of the masses over the recommendation of their friends.
Sure, there's algorithms that adjust the numbers so that links from more frequented pages count more than links from less frequented pages – but let's not kid ourselves: there is no expert opinion involved here.
Google hasn't hired consumer experts to check out digital camera pages and rank them, and neither will Facebook.
The important thing is whose data is being used as basis for the calculations.
Now, there is quite clearly a place for "social searching".
All of us have, at some point or another, asked people we know to recommend products or services.
We don't ask all of our friends, though, just the ones we think know what they're talking about.
So Facebook's problem is going to be evaluating the responses of all of our friends to the "question" of "What is the best digital camera website".
Comparing its algorithms with Google's is a little (or possibly even a lot) like comparing Google's with Bing's.
What it will (should) come down to for most of us is, "Do I trust my friends or the masses more to give me a good recommendation?".
Based on that answer, we'll choose Facebook search or Google, respectively.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28504339</id>
	<title>Re:Why not have both?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246208400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agree.  It's as if to say that some radical innovation in television will somehow displace the automobile.  They serve entirely different roles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agree .
It 's as if to say that some radical innovation in television will somehow displace the automobile .
They serve entirely different roles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agree.
It's as if to say that some radical innovation in television will somehow displace the automobile.
They serve entirely different roles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495881</id>
	<title>Re:A step back perhaps?</title>
	<author>Cosmo the Cat</author>
	<datestamp>1246127340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facebook is like the new AOL of the internet.  A walled off, members only version that doesn't want any outside association or connections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook is like the new AOL of the internet .
A walled off , members only version that does n't want any outside association or connections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook is like the new AOL of the internet.
A walled off, members only version that doesn't want any outside association or connections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494979</id>
	<title>Beauty of the Internet</title>
	<author>Auxis</author>
	<datestamp>1246119960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The beauty of the Internet is that I'm not limited to asking questions to the peers around me in real life (or on some social network.)  I've never used Facebook for anything else than looking at pictures of friends I haven't seen in years, keeping in contact with them, and trying to talk to the single ladies that I know.  I can remember only one situation where a friend was interested in a subject (programming) which I offered to help him through a private message.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The beauty of the Internet is that I 'm not limited to asking questions to the peers around me in real life ( or on some social network .
) I 've never used Facebook for anything else than looking at pictures of friends I have n't seen in years , keeping in contact with them , and trying to talk to the single ladies that I know .
I can remember only one situation where a friend was interested in a subject ( programming ) which I offered to help him through a private message .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The beauty of the Internet is that I'm not limited to asking questions to the peers around me in real life (or on some social network.
)  I've never used Facebook for anything else than looking at pictures of friends I haven't seen in years, keeping in contact with them, and trying to talk to the single ladies that I know.
I can remember only one situation where a friend was interested in a subject (programming) which I offered to help him through a private message.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495857</id>
	<title>My vision of the Internet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246127160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... is not being spammed with 200 goddamn "Mafia Wars" requests every time I log in.  Seriously, Facebook is slowly approaching MySpace levels of obnoxiousness... and it hasn't gotten better as Facebook started trying to "out-Twitter" Twitter.  I used to log in multiple times a day... now I only log in once a week or so to clean up all the annoying notifications.  Zuckerberg should have sold back when the economy was booming and his company wasn't facing exposure as a mere fad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... is not being spammed with 200 goddamn " Mafia Wars " requests every time I log in .
Seriously , Facebook is slowly approaching MySpace levels of obnoxiousness... and it has n't gotten better as Facebook started trying to " out-Twitter " Twitter .
I used to log in multiple times a day... now I only log in once a week or so to clean up all the annoying notifications .
Zuckerberg should have sold back when the economy was booming and his company was n't facing exposure as a mere fad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is not being spammed with 200 goddamn "Mafia Wars" requests every time I log in.
Seriously, Facebook is slowly approaching MySpace levels of obnoxiousness... and it hasn't gotten better as Facebook started trying to "out-Twitter" Twitter.
I used to log in multiple times a day... now I only log in once a week or so to clean up all the annoying notifications.
Zuckerberg should have sold back when the economy was booming and his company wasn't facing exposure as a mere fad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28504429</id>
	<title>Re:It's the Economics! (Like the 60's)</title>
	<author>GuldKalle</author>
	<datestamp>1246208940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google knows what you are looking for, but Facebook knows what is happening in your life. Both things are a good angle for targeting advertising. Facebook just needs to brush off their algorithm and offer something like adsense, and then they're in the ad-game</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google knows what you are looking for , but Facebook knows what is happening in your life .
Both things are a good angle for targeting advertising .
Facebook just needs to brush off their algorithm and offer something like adsense , and then they 're in the ad-game</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google knows what you are looking for, but Facebook knows what is happening in your life.
Both things are a good angle for targeting advertising.
Facebook just needs to brush off their algorithm and offer something like adsense, and then they're in the ad-game</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28496809</id>
	<title>Where is the Wikipedia of social networking?</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1246134660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, how hard could it be? A few million for servers and bandwidth, a team of visionaries, developers and project managers that give a fig about privacy, usability, and openness, and you just start building the thing. Social networking without ads or marketing. <br> <br>
(Or perhaps even better, the p2p social network.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , how hard could it be ?
A few million for servers and bandwidth , a team of visionaries , developers and project managers that give a fig about privacy , usability , and openness , and you just start building the thing .
Social networking without ads or marketing .
( Or perhaps even better , the p2p social network .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, how hard could it be?
A few million for servers and bandwidth, a team of visionaries, developers and project managers that give a fig about privacy, usability, and openness, and you just start building the thing.
Social networking without ads or marketing.
(Or perhaps even better, the p2p social network.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495137</id>
	<title>Re:Aardvark</title>
	<author>badzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1246120920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow you can't even visit that link using Google Chrome</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow you ca n't even visit that link using Google Chrome</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow you can't even visit that link using Google Chrome</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495395</id>
	<title>is the battle between Britney and Christina</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246123080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google and Facebook have done very little for the advancement of humanity, tbh. They respectively make it easier for the laypersons to look up unreliable information they don't really need, and allow the lazy to broadcast recreational updates on their life to more people than care. If you are using either tool for work then, sorry to break it to you, but your job is not doing anything to improve the world. Professionals and academics carry on using specialist applications.</p><p>I used the Internet to communicate for a whole decade before Page and Brin were dragging up at Stanford. Today I use mostly the same protocols and resources I've been enjoying since 1996.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google and Facebook have done very little for the advancement of humanity , tbh .
They respectively make it easier for the laypersons to look up unreliable information they do n't really need , and allow the lazy to broadcast recreational updates on their life to more people than care .
If you are using either tool for work then , sorry to break it to you , but your job is not doing anything to improve the world .
Professionals and academics carry on using specialist applications.I used the Internet to communicate for a whole decade before Page and Brin were dragging up at Stanford .
Today I use mostly the same protocols and resources I 've been enjoying since 1996 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google and Facebook have done very little for the advancement of humanity, tbh.
They respectively make it easier for the laypersons to look up unreliable information they don't really need, and allow the lazy to broadcast recreational updates on their life to more people than care.
If you are using either tool for work then, sorry to break it to you, but your job is not doing anything to improve the world.
Professionals and academics carry on using specialist applications.I used the Internet to communicate for a whole decade before Page and Brin were dragging up at Stanford.
Today I use mostly the same protocols and resources I've been enjoying since 1996.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494885</id>
	<title>Trusting strangers vs. cicrle jerking</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1246119240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's basically what you get when you define "opinions from everyone vs. opinions from friends" negatively.</p><p>On one hand, in google, the recommendations and answers you get are from strangers. They may be experts, they may be deluded and full of it, they may actively try to misinform you. You don't know. Now, Google holds the creed that the majority isn't out there to "get you" and to con you, so the numbers work in your favor. If, and only if, the majority actually has the right answer. If you asked some 500 years ago the majority about the revolution of sun and earth around each other, the answer you would have gotten had been a wrong one. When your source is the majority, new insight is rarely possible. The majority never thinks "outside of the box", it usually goes with what's tried and (perceived) true.</p><p>The other extreme is relying only on your network of friends and other people who think like you (because else, they would probably not be on your friends list) for information. The danger here is that wrong information will become reinforced and more readily believed as truth because it will be confirmed by many. A says X, B agrees, C doesn't know, but he perceives A and B as experts in this field, so he takes over their theory as reality.</p><p>Either has its advantages and drawbacks. The internet is no dinner where you get your answers and informations served. It's more a buffet where you have them offered, but you alone are responsible to get the right ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's basically what you get when you define " opinions from everyone vs. opinions from friends " negatively.On one hand , in google , the recommendations and answers you get are from strangers .
They may be experts , they may be deluded and full of it , they may actively try to misinform you .
You do n't know .
Now , Google holds the creed that the majority is n't out there to " get you " and to con you , so the numbers work in your favor .
If , and only if , the majority actually has the right answer .
If you asked some 500 years ago the majority about the revolution of sun and earth around each other , the answer you would have gotten had been a wrong one .
When your source is the majority , new insight is rarely possible .
The majority never thinks " outside of the box " , it usually goes with what 's tried and ( perceived ) true.The other extreme is relying only on your network of friends and other people who think like you ( because else , they would probably not be on your friends list ) for information .
The danger here is that wrong information will become reinforced and more readily believed as truth because it will be confirmed by many .
A says X , B agrees , C does n't know , but he perceives A and B as experts in this field , so he takes over their theory as reality.Either has its advantages and drawbacks .
The internet is no dinner where you get your answers and informations served .
It 's more a buffet where you have them offered , but you alone are responsible to get the right ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's basically what you get when you define "opinions from everyone vs. opinions from friends" negatively.On one hand, in google, the recommendations and answers you get are from strangers.
They may be experts, they may be deluded and full of it, they may actively try to misinform you.
You don't know.
Now, Google holds the creed that the majority isn't out there to "get you" and to con you, so the numbers work in your favor.
If, and only if, the majority actually has the right answer.
If you asked some 500 years ago the majority about the revolution of sun and earth around each other, the answer you would have gotten had been a wrong one.
When your source is the majority, new insight is rarely possible.
The majority never thinks "outside of the box", it usually goes with what's tried and (perceived) true.The other extreme is relying only on your network of friends and other people who think like you (because else, they would probably not be on your friends list) for information.
The danger here is that wrong information will become reinforced and more readily believed as truth because it will be confirmed by many.
A says X, B agrees, C doesn't know, but he perceives A and B as experts in this field, so he takes over their theory as reality.Either has its advantages and drawbacks.
The internet is no dinner where you get your answers and informations served.
It's more a buffet where you have them offered, but you alone are responsible to get the right ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495683</id>
	<title>What if you don't have any friends on facebook?</title>
	<author>12Iceman</author>
	<datestamp>1246125420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The google approach is a lot better for those of us without any friends on facebook.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The google approach is a lot better for those of us without any friends on facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The google approach is a lot better for those of us without any friends on facebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28514967</id>
	<title>Re:Trusting strangers vs. cicrle jerking</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1246294800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To me it's a question of just what info you're looking for.  Google will give me large amounts of info on Product-X, from detailed specifications to total company propaganda.</p><p>But Facebook can tell me what an average person thinks about Product X.  Probably none of my friends is an X-purt, but they know whether or not X sucked for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To me it 's a question of just what info you 're looking for .
Google will give me large amounts of info on Product-X , from detailed specifications to total company propaganda.But Facebook can tell me what an average person thinks about Product X. Probably none of my friends is an X-purt , but they know whether or not X sucked for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me it's a question of just what info you're looking for.
Google will give me large amounts of info on Product-X, from detailed specifications to total company propaganda.But Facebook can tell me what an average person thinks about Product X.  Probably none of my friends is an X-purt, but they know whether or not X sucked for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495949</id>
	<title>Re:Buyer Beware!</title>
	<author>Cross-Threaded</author>
	<datestamp>1246128120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you get <i>permanently</i> banned for a month? I'm sure that is simply a poor choice of words, oh well.</p><p>Getting angry at a web service for their rules, and style of applying them, is not very constructive.</p><p>Even if they aren't as transparent, or helpful, as you think they should be.</p><p>When you opened your account, you agreed to be censored by them. Since they are the service provider, it is their prerogative to run that service in whatever way they see fit. They will do it their way, and the only reason they will change is if they see that revenue is dropping because of the way they run it.</p><p>If they provide a service that you find valuable enough that you still want it after this realization, then you will choose to put up with it. If not, you will leave, and either find a service that is more compatible with your views, or create your own.</p><p>There is nothing requiring you to use their website, you can go to a competitor, and there is nothing stopping you from creating your own website to post your views. Who knows, you website might just be the next big winner, and eclipse Google, and Facebook, combined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you get permanently banned for a month ?
I 'm sure that is simply a poor choice of words , oh well.Getting angry at a web service for their rules , and style of applying them , is not very constructive.Even if they are n't as transparent , or helpful , as you think they should be.When you opened your account , you agreed to be censored by them .
Since they are the service provider , it is their prerogative to run that service in whatever way they see fit .
They will do it their way , and the only reason they will change is if they see that revenue is dropping because of the way they run it.If they provide a service that you find valuable enough that you still want it after this realization , then you will choose to put up with it .
If not , you will leave , and either find a service that is more compatible with your views , or create your own.There is nothing requiring you to use their website , you can go to a competitor , and there is nothing stopping you from creating your own website to post your views .
Who knows , you website might just be the next big winner , and eclipse Google , and Facebook , combined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you get permanently banned for a month?
I'm sure that is simply a poor choice of words, oh well.Getting angry at a web service for their rules, and style of applying them, is not very constructive.Even if they aren't as transparent, or helpful, as you think they should be.When you opened your account, you agreed to be censored by them.
Since they are the service provider, it is their prerogative to run that service in whatever way they see fit.
They will do it their way, and the only reason they will change is if they see that revenue is dropping because of the way they run it.If they provide a service that you find valuable enough that you still want it after this realization, then you will choose to put up with it.
If not, you will leave, and either find a service that is more compatible with your views, or create your own.There is nothing requiring you to use their website, you can go to a competitor, and there is nothing stopping you from creating your own website to post your views.
Who knows, you website might just be the next big winner, and eclipse Google, and Facebook, combined.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495415</id>
	<title>Re:Why not have both?</title>
	<author>kappa962</author>
	<datestamp>1246123260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. I RTFA and I am still not seeing a huge overlap between the two services, even with the growth they are planning. There's just doesn't appear to be much conflict here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I RTFA and I am still not seeing a huge overlap between the two services , even with the growth they are planning .
There 's just does n't appear to be much conflict here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I RTFA and I am still not seeing a huge overlap between the two services, even with the growth they are planning.
There's just doesn't appear to be much conflict here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495215</id>
	<title>ep!-?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246121460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">the latest Netcraft triumphs would soon ARE THERE? OH, continues to lose Love of two is Usenet is roughly is also a miserable ABOUT HALF OF THE all along. *BSD out of businees influence, the Everyday...Redefine *BSD has steadily All major surveys</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>the latest Netcraft triumphs would soon ARE THERE ?
OH , continues to lose Love of two is Usenet is roughly is also a miserable ABOUT HALF OF THE all along .
* BSD out of businees influence , the Everyday...Redefine * BSD has steadily All major surveys [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the latest Netcraft triumphs would soon ARE THERE?
OH, continues to lose Love of two is Usenet is roughly is also a miserable ABOUT HALF OF THE all along.
*BSD out of businees influence, the Everyday...Redefine *BSD has steadily All major surveys [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497127</id>
	<title>Re:Why not have both?</title>
	<author>AliasMarlowe</author>
	<datestamp>1246093560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline.</p></div><p>Zuckerberg's vision of offline life must be based on that Idiocracy movie.<br> <br>
My "network" of family, friends, colleagues, etc. is not my <b>primary</b> source of information. They may contribute valuable opinions, and frequently some useful facts or pointers to where relevant information can be found. However, most of my information - online or offline - comes from more authoratitive sources. I rely on textbooks, reference books, and so forth, as well as on searches online (google/wikipedia are starting points). I also actually seek out and consult with experts for facts/advice, whether medical or construction or fishing or whatever.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized , humanized Web , where our network of friends , colleagues , peers , and family is our primary source of information , just as it is offline.Zuckerberg 's vision of offline life must be based on that Idiocracy movie .
My " network " of family , friends , colleagues , etc .
is not my primary source of information .
They may contribute valuable opinions , and frequently some useful facts or pointers to where relevant information can be found .
However , most of my information - online or offline - comes from more authoratitive sources .
I rely on textbooks , reference books , and so forth , as well as on searches online ( google/wikipedia are starting points ) .
I also actually seek out and consult with experts for facts/advice , whether medical or construction or fishing or whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline.Zuckerberg's vision of offline life must be based on that Idiocracy movie.
My "network" of family, friends, colleagues, etc.
is not my primary source of information.
They may contribute valuable opinions, and frequently some useful facts or pointers to where relevant information can be found.
However, most of my information - online or offline - comes from more authoratitive sources.
I rely on textbooks, reference books, and so forth, as well as on searches online (google/wikipedia are starting points).
I also actually seek out and consult with experts for facts/advice, whether medical or construction or fishing or whatever.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495365</id>
	<title>Yeah right</title>
	<author>elashish14</author>
	<datestamp>1246122840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get back to me when Facebook gives a damn what I want. Always changing the layout because of this stupid concept of 'sharing' every fucking detail of our lives. Tell me on the right side of the homepage that I should friend my 60-year-old former diffusion professor. Forcing me to use their stupid minifeeds and asshole applications. You know why people consult Google for shit? Because Google gives them what they want. Facebook is just for dicking around and bending over while millions of drones come back and bend over for Mark Zuckerberg to come up with some new fucked up idea for changing the layout and pissing off the userbase again. Whereas Google will always be the same old Google, typically (not always, of course) well in touch with their userbase, providing what you need and far more powerful than Facebook. And above all, Google gives me the entire web, whereas Facebook just constrains me to this stupid social networking concept. Seriously, if the entire web became personal profiles and Facebook fan pages, I wouldn't bother paying for my connection anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get back to me when Facebook gives a damn what I want .
Always changing the layout because of this stupid concept of 'sharing ' every fucking detail of our lives .
Tell me on the right side of the homepage that I should friend my 60-year-old former diffusion professor .
Forcing me to use their stupid minifeeds and asshole applications .
You know why people consult Google for shit ?
Because Google gives them what they want .
Facebook is just for dicking around and bending over while millions of drones come back and bend over for Mark Zuckerberg to come up with some new fucked up idea for changing the layout and pissing off the userbase again .
Whereas Google will always be the same old Google , typically ( not always , of course ) well in touch with their userbase , providing what you need and far more powerful than Facebook .
And above all , Google gives me the entire web , whereas Facebook just constrains me to this stupid social networking concept .
Seriously , if the entire web became personal profiles and Facebook fan pages , I would n't bother paying for my connection anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get back to me when Facebook gives a damn what I want.
Always changing the layout because of this stupid concept of 'sharing' every fucking detail of our lives.
Tell me on the right side of the homepage that I should friend my 60-year-old former diffusion professor.
Forcing me to use their stupid minifeeds and asshole applications.
You know why people consult Google for shit?
Because Google gives them what they want.
Facebook is just for dicking around and bending over while millions of drones come back and bend over for Mark Zuckerberg to come up with some new fucked up idea for changing the layout and pissing off the userbase again.
Whereas Google will always be the same old Google, typically (not always, of course) well in touch with their userbase, providing what you need and far more powerful than Facebook.
And above all, Google gives me the entire web, whereas Facebook just constrains me to this stupid social networking concept.
Seriously, if the entire web became personal profiles and Facebook fan pages, I wouldn't bother paying for my connection anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28501039</id>
	<title>Re:Give Me Dispassionate Information Any Day</title>
	<author>Miros</author>
	<datestamp>1246124520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel like this is a straw man argument, at least as it pertains to how I use facebook and google (that statement alone may discredit the rest of my comment).  If I'm searching for something with a general purpose search engine like google, I generally am looking for a piece of factual information that I know to exist, or at least a relevant reference point as a starting place for a topic of interest.  I go to facebook to "browse" what my friends, family, and colleagues are up to in their day to day lives; which is an entirely different type of information.  additional things may leak through, such as if a friend has just purchased a new digital SLR camera and they post about it to facebook, I may send them a message asking them how they like it or something like that, but such things (at least in my case) are more often coincidences than purposeful encounters.

</p><p>furthermore, i dont feel as though sites like facebook purport to be general human knowledge-bases any more than google claims to be an authoritative reference point for my former college roommate's birthday and current place of residence.  it can also be good for remembering which of my friends are trek fans and which are not ("which of my friends likes star trek" doesn't work in google yet, but i'm feeling optimistic about the future)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel like this is a straw man argument , at least as it pertains to how I use facebook and google ( that statement alone may discredit the rest of my comment ) .
If I 'm searching for something with a general purpose search engine like google , I generally am looking for a piece of factual information that I know to exist , or at least a relevant reference point as a starting place for a topic of interest .
I go to facebook to " browse " what my friends , family , and colleagues are up to in their day to day lives ; which is an entirely different type of information .
additional things may leak through , such as if a friend has just purchased a new digital SLR camera and they post about it to facebook , I may send them a message asking them how they like it or something like that , but such things ( at least in my case ) are more often coincidences than purposeful encounters .
furthermore , i dont feel as though sites like facebook purport to be general human knowledge-bases any more than google claims to be an authoritative reference point for my former college roommate 's birthday and current place of residence .
it can also be good for remembering which of my friends are trek fans and which are not ( " which of my friends likes star trek " does n't work in google yet , but i 'm feeling optimistic about the future )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel like this is a straw man argument, at least as it pertains to how I use facebook and google (that statement alone may discredit the rest of my comment).
If I'm searching for something with a general purpose search engine like google, I generally am looking for a piece of factual information that I know to exist, or at least a relevant reference point as a starting place for a topic of interest.
I go to facebook to "browse" what my friends, family, and colleagues are up to in their day to day lives; which is an entirely different type of information.
additional things may leak through, such as if a friend has just purchased a new digital SLR camera and they post about it to facebook, I may send them a message asking them how they like it or something like that, but such things (at least in my case) are more often coincidences than purposeful encounters.
furthermore, i dont feel as though sites like facebook purport to be general human knowledge-bases any more than google claims to be an authoritative reference point for my former college roommate's birthday and current place of residence.
it can also be good for remembering which of my friends are trek fans and which are not ("which of my friends likes star trek" doesn't work in google yet, but i'm feeling optimistic about the future)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28503089</id>
	<title>Re:My vision of the Internet...</title>
	<author>novakreo</author>
	<datestamp>1246198200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... is not being spammed with 200 goddamn "Mafia Wars" requests every time I log in. Seriously, Facebook is slowly approaching MySpace levels of obnoxiousness... and it hasn't gotten better as Facebook started trying to "out-Twitter" Twitter. I used to log in multiple times a day... now I only log in once a week or so to clean up all the annoying notifications. Zuckerberg should have sold back when the economy was booming and his company wasn't facing exposure as a mere fad.</p></div><p> <a href="http://bit.ly/fbpure" title="bit.ly">Facebook Purity</a> [bit.ly] will clean up the main page. And you can block applications and/or application invites from particular people as desired. You know, where it says "Block this application | Ignore all invitations from this friend" under every single one of those requests?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... is not being spammed with 200 goddamn " Mafia Wars " requests every time I log in .
Seriously , Facebook is slowly approaching MySpace levels of obnoxiousness... and it has n't gotten better as Facebook started trying to " out-Twitter " Twitter .
I used to log in multiple times a day... now I only log in once a week or so to clean up all the annoying notifications .
Zuckerberg should have sold back when the economy was booming and his company was n't facing exposure as a mere fad .
Facebook Purity [ bit.ly ] will clean up the main page .
And you can block applications and/or application invites from particular people as desired .
You know , where it says " Block this application | Ignore all invitations from this friend " under every single one of those requests ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... is not being spammed with 200 goddamn "Mafia Wars" requests every time I log in.
Seriously, Facebook is slowly approaching MySpace levels of obnoxiousness... and it hasn't gotten better as Facebook started trying to "out-Twitter" Twitter.
I used to log in multiple times a day... now I only log in once a week or so to clean up all the annoying notifications.
Zuckerberg should have sold back when the economy was booming and his company wasn't facing exposure as a mere fad.
Facebook Purity [bit.ly] will clean up the main page.
And you can block applications and/or application invites from particular people as desired.
You know, where it says "Block this application | Ignore all invitations from this friend" under every single one of those requests?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495231</id>
	<title>Re:A step back perhaps?</title>
	<author>empraptor</author>
	<datestamp>1246121580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google is not the solution for your programming domain inquries.

Facebook is.

You just need to get better friends.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is not the solution for your programming domain inquries .
Facebook is .
You just need to get better friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is not the solution for your programming domain inquries.
Facebook is.
You just need to get better friends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494795</id>
	<title>Science and Statistical Data Mining</title>
	<author>strannik</author>
	<datestamp>1246118520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Statistical and Scientific Data will become more relevant as soon as all my friends take this cool quiz on facebook!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Statistical and Scientific Data will become more relevant as soon as all my friends take this cool quiz on facebook !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Statistical and Scientific Data will become more relevant as soon as all my friends take this cool quiz on facebook!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495345</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook will begin to fade just like myspace d</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1246122600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I already deleted (not just disabled) my fb account and know many other people too after graduating college.</p></div><p>An interesting statement. I <i>resisted</i> getting a Facebook account until <i>after</i> college, when I decided I wanted to try to find old school friends.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I already deleted ( not just disabled ) my fb account and know many other people too after graduating college.An interesting statement .
I resisted getting a Facebook account until after college , when I decided I wanted to try to find old school friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already deleted (not just disabled) my fb account and know many other people too after graduating college.An interesting statement.
I resisted getting a Facebook account until after college, when I decided I wanted to try to find old school friends.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28496717</id>
	<title>Re:Don't forget Advertisers!</title>
	<author>ScytheBlade1</author>
	<datestamp>1246134240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hulu actually already has this, in the browser. During an ad, if you mouse over the playing video, two icons will appear on the left hand side.</p><p>A thumbs up, and a thumbs down.</p><p>While they don't let you skip or tag, I think you get the idea. They could absolutely renovate and add more feedback options to end users, but this basic "I like it" vs. "I don't like it" has been around for quite a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hulu actually already has this , in the browser .
During an ad , if you mouse over the playing video , two icons will appear on the left hand side.A thumbs up , and a thumbs down.While they do n't let you skip or tag , I think you get the idea .
They could absolutely renovate and add more feedback options to end users , but this basic " I like it " vs. " I do n't like it " has been around for quite a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hulu actually already has this, in the browser.
During an ad, if you mouse over the playing video, two icons will appear on the left hand side.A thumbs up, and a thumbs down.While they don't let you skip or tag, I think you get the idea.
They could absolutely renovate and add more feedback options to end users, but this basic "I like it" vs. "I don't like it" has been around for quite a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497799</id>
	<title>Re:Ghettoization of the intertubes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246097580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, just like one of the original people implied facebook serves a niche, as does google; neither one can nor will replace the other. A hammer can't replace a wrench and vice versa, however in a few cases both can be used to get the job done (aka the overlap in a Venn diagram). Wired just needs to mentally masturbate for a while to sell online ads. Nothing more. Sometimes they have a good article though. Just don't accept it as gospel and you'll be fine.  There is nothing Ghetto about facebook. I keep in touch with friends and share opinions when I don't want to call up everyone and say "watch movie XXXXX". People outside my circle could give a shit, people inside it, often like my opinion on certain things. And we all agree twitter is shit. So anyway, open your mind and see there is more than one way to skin a cat and more than one use case for the intertubes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , just like one of the original people implied facebook serves a niche , as does google ; neither one can nor will replace the other .
A hammer ca n't replace a wrench and vice versa , however in a few cases both can be used to get the job done ( aka the overlap in a Venn diagram ) .
Wired just needs to mentally masturbate for a while to sell online ads .
Nothing more .
Sometimes they have a good article though .
Just do n't accept it as gospel and you 'll be fine .
There is nothing Ghetto about facebook .
I keep in touch with friends and share opinions when I do n't want to call up everyone and say " watch movie XXXXX " .
People outside my circle could give a shit , people inside it , often like my opinion on certain things .
And we all agree twitter is shit .
So anyway , open your mind and see there is more than one way to skin a cat and more than one use case for the intertubes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, just like one of the original people implied facebook serves a niche, as does google; neither one can nor will replace the other.
A hammer can't replace a wrench and vice versa, however in a few cases both can be used to get the job done (aka the overlap in a Venn diagram).
Wired just needs to mentally masturbate for a while to sell online ads.
Nothing more.
Sometimes they have a good article though.
Just don't accept it as gospel and you'll be fine.
There is nothing Ghetto about facebook.
I keep in touch with friends and share opinions when I don't want to call up everyone and say "watch movie XXXXX".
People outside my circle could give a shit, people inside it, often like my opinion on certain things.
And we all agree twitter is shit.
So anyway, open your mind and see there is more than one way to skin a cat and more than one use case for the intertubes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495559</id>
	<title>Aardvark is annoying</title>
	<author>Gary W. Longsine</author>
	<datestamp>1246124400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I signed up early and played with it some.  It's an interesting concept, but it suffers mightily from a signal to noise ratio which started out at "Digg" level and is falling rapidly to "Reddit".  Last week they finally added an option to reply to a query with the single magic keyword  "google", and the system will construct a polite reply suggesting that the person who asked, "Where can I download Microsoft Windows security patches" or whatever, will get a polite reply suggesting they try a google search.  This won't save it, however.  The model is broken, and it's not clear how to fix it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I signed up early and played with it some .
It 's an interesting concept , but it suffers mightily from a signal to noise ratio which started out at " Digg " level and is falling rapidly to " Reddit " .
Last week they finally added an option to reply to a query with the single magic keyword " google " , and the system will construct a polite reply suggesting that the person who asked , " Where can I download Microsoft Windows security patches " or whatever , will get a polite reply suggesting they try a google search .
This wo n't save it , however .
The model is broken , and it 's not clear how to fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I signed up early and played with it some.
It's an interesting concept, but it suffers mightily from a signal to noise ratio which started out at "Digg" level and is falling rapidly to "Reddit".
Last week they finally added an option to reply to a query with the single magic keyword  "google", and the system will construct a polite reply suggesting that the person who asked, "Where can I download Microsoft Windows security patches" or whatever, will get a polite reply suggesting they try a google search.
This won't save it, however.
The model is broken, and it's not clear how to fix it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495521</id>
	<title>social networks for reliable information?</title>
	<author>gintoki</author>
	<datestamp>1246124160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry, but am I the only one that sees this as an oxymoron(for the most part)? Its the internet. Like its been mentioned in the comments above, why can't both solutions exist? I for one would use google overr facebook 100\% of the time if i needed anything academic. I have many friends, out of them about 3 would actually know anything if i asked them to help me (for example, with a graph involving polar coordinates). Hell, 80\% of my friends think that graphs can only ever be a straight line.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but am I the only one that sees this as an oxymoron ( for the most part ) ?
Its the internet .
Like its been mentioned in the comments above , why ca n't both solutions exist ?
I for one would use google overr facebook 100 \ % of the time if i needed anything academic .
I have many friends , out of them about 3 would actually know anything if i asked them to help me ( for example , with a graph involving polar coordinates ) .
Hell , 80 \ % of my friends think that graphs can only ever be a straight line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but am I the only one that sees this as an oxymoron(for the most part)?
Its the internet.
Like its been mentioned in the comments above, why can't both solutions exist?
I for one would use google overr facebook 100\% of the time if i needed anything academic.
I have many friends, out of them about 3 would actually know anything if i asked them to help me (for example, with a graph involving polar coordinates).
Hell, 80\% of my friends think that graphs can only ever be a straight line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495135</id>
	<title>Is facebook going down?</title>
	<author>Psychotic\_Wrath</author>
	<datestamp>1246120920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it just me and a few other people, or is this becoming common. I am really getting sick of facebook. I don't really use it as much as I used to. There are just too many things that I don't rally like. It would be nice to know if there are others that have quit or slowed their use of facebook.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me and a few other people , or is this becoming common .
I am really getting sick of facebook .
I do n't really use it as much as I used to .
There are just too many things that I do n't rally like .
It would be nice to know if there are others that have quit or slowed their use of facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me and a few other people, or is this becoming common.
I am really getting sick of facebook.
I don't really use it as much as I used to.
There are just too many things that I don't rally like.
It would be nice to know if there are others that have quit or slowed their use of facebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495233</id>
	<title>Re:Why not have both?</title>
	<author>dtzitz</author>
	<datestamp>1246121640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline."

These groups can aggregate information but they are not really a primary information source. As an idea it sounds a bit like digg but in practice digg doesn't exactly function that way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized , humanized Web , where our network of friends , colleagues , peers , and family is our primary source of information , just as it is offline .
" These groups can aggregate information but they are not really a primary information source .
As an idea it sounds a bit like digg but in practice digg does n't exactly function that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline.
"

These groups can aggregate information but they are not really a primary information source.
As an idea it sounds a bit like digg but in practice digg doesn't exactly function that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497089</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook cannot replace the internet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246093260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  Visit their front page, and all you see is an exhortation to give them your email address and some personal details - that tells you everything you need to know about their intentions and the utility of their site. Joining them means being data-mined by Facebook for every ounce of your worth as a consumer.</p></div><p>Which is why I really don't know what is on facebook other than what I have heard through hearsay. Not worth the effort if I can't peek behind the kimono without baring myself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Visit their front page , and all you see is an exhortation to give them your email address and some personal details - that tells you everything you need to know about their intentions and the utility of their site .
Joining them means being data-mined by Facebook for every ounce of your worth as a consumer.Which is why I really do n't know what is on facebook other than what I have heard through hearsay .
Not worth the effort if I ca n't peek behind the kimono without baring myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Visit their front page, and all you see is an exhortation to give them your email address and some personal details - that tells you everything you need to know about their intentions and the utility of their site.
Joining them means being data-mined by Facebook for every ounce of your worth as a consumer.Which is why I really don't know what is on facebook other than what I have heard through hearsay.
Not worth the effort if I can't peek behind the kimono without baring myself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495393</id>
	<title>Facebook's Vision?</title>
	<author>dhammond</author>
	<datestamp>1246123080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't really get Facebook's vision for the web.  It seems like wishful thinking to me.  That is, they're starting with the fact that they have all this data that they want to use to make money, and they're envisioning what a world would look like that would make them insanely rich.
<br> <br>
Anyway, I, for one, am more comfortable with Google vision, which is not predicated on the idea of a single company having exclusive access to vast amounts of personal information.
<br> <br>
By the way, it's easy to forget that what makes Google's "rigorous and efficient" algorithms work is that they model the work that all of the millions of people in the world do every day to build the web.  When someone reads something online that they like, they create a new page and link to it.  That is the powerful idea -- harnessing the work of real people -- that made Google work, and allowed it to supplant earlier search engines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really get Facebook 's vision for the web .
It seems like wishful thinking to me .
That is , they 're starting with the fact that they have all this data that they want to use to make money , and they 're envisioning what a world would look like that would make them insanely rich .
Anyway , I , for one , am more comfortable with Google vision , which is not predicated on the idea of a single company having exclusive access to vast amounts of personal information .
By the way , it 's easy to forget that what makes Google 's " rigorous and efficient " algorithms work is that they model the work that all of the millions of people in the world do every day to build the web .
When someone reads something online that they like , they create a new page and link to it .
That is the powerful idea -- harnessing the work of real people -- that made Google work , and allowed it to supplant earlier search engines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really get Facebook's vision for the web.
It seems like wishful thinking to me.
That is, they're starting with the fact that they have all this data that they want to use to make money, and they're envisioning what a world would look like that would make them insanely rich.
Anyway, I, for one, am more comfortable with Google vision, which is not predicated on the idea of a single company having exclusive access to vast amounts of personal information.
By the way, it's easy to forget that what makes Google's "rigorous and efficient" algorithms work is that they model the work that all of the millions of people in the world do every day to build the web.
When someone reads something online that they like, they create a new page and link to it.
That is the powerful idea -- harnessing the work of real people -- that made Google work, and allowed it to supplant earlier search engines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494883</id>
	<title>The Wired heuristic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246119240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A good general heuristic: plans exposed on Wired never come to fruition.  Wired is where you go when you want to gain exposure for a plan that can't get traction.</p><p>So no, Facebook isn't going to challenge Google with any success.  If they're lucky, they'll continue to be an interesting niche player, like blogs.  More likely, they'll let their success go to their heads and they'll become MySpace, which people abandon in droves for the next flashy thing.</p><p>In this case I also RTFA and I think their plan is dumb: I use google precisely to find out what I don't already know.  But even without RTFA, the Wired heuristic tells me it's a bad idea.  That heuristic has served me well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A good general heuristic : plans exposed on Wired never come to fruition .
Wired is where you go when you want to gain exposure for a plan that ca n't get traction.So no , Facebook is n't going to challenge Google with any success .
If they 're lucky , they 'll continue to be an interesting niche player , like blogs .
More likely , they 'll let their success go to their heads and they 'll become MySpace , which people abandon in droves for the next flashy thing.In this case I also RTFA and I think their plan is dumb : I use google precisely to find out what I do n't already know .
But even without RTFA , the Wired heuristic tells me it 's a bad idea .
That heuristic has served me well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good general heuristic: plans exposed on Wired never come to fruition.
Wired is where you go when you want to gain exposure for a plan that can't get traction.So no, Facebook isn't going to challenge Google with any success.
If they're lucky, they'll continue to be an interesting niche player, like blogs.
More likely, they'll let their success go to their heads and they'll become MySpace, which people abandon in droves for the next flashy thing.In this case I also RTFA and I think their plan is dumb: I use google precisely to find out what I don't already know.
But even without RTFA, the Wired heuristic tells me it's a bad idea.
That heuristic has served me well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28499287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28499939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28504429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28501039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28500959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28496295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28499755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28514967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28503089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28503233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28496149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28499777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28500757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28499347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28501003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28504339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28499341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28496717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28498109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1411242_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28501003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28499347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28514967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494987
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28496809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28499755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495589
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28496149
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28496717
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497163
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28496117
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495345
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494743
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494849
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495233
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28499777
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497127
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495487
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28500757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28499287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494971
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28500959
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28504429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28503233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28504339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28496295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497397
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28503089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28498109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497799
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495165
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494887
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28497633
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495211
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494855
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28501039
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28494883
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28499341
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495759
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1411242.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28495097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1411242.28499939
</commentlist>
</conversation>
