What is Digg?298 Comments
- okayokayokay, on 06/20/2009, -7/+491How can they compare Twitter as a "competitor" of Facebook? They aren't in the same category! One is a sprawling social network, while the other is just a microblogging tool.
- inactive, on 06/21/2009, -11/+260I liked how Bill Maher said it:
"Iran saved Twitter." - GhostInAShell, on 06/20/2009, -79/+313***** Twitter.
When my ***** news comes to me in 140 characters or less, I start to get pissed.
Goodbye in-depth journalism, hello headline-only reporting. - KingSolomonJr, on 06/20/2009, -16/+250Too bad 60% of users don't come back.
Source: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/ ... - dabura, on 06/20/2009, -20/+185In case of Revolution, DO NOT USE TWITTER.
- quaunaut, on 06/21/2009, -8/+150You realize no one is trying to replace the news with Twitter, right?
- Junkyarddawg, on 06/21/2009, -5/+128Howcome every single submission marked "Infographic" is random bollox?
- thefreehunter, on 06/21/2009, -0/+114Facebook was started in 2004, Twitter in 2006. This "info"graphic is full of *****.
- SasquatchBill, on 06/21/2009, -19/+108Am I the only person who hates Twitter?
I'm slightly narcissistic, I'll admit. But I don't think I'm so special that telling people what I'm doing in 140 characters or less is worth my time or theirs. Nor do I think anyone else is so important that I can't just read about what's going on later.
I find value in what's going on with Iran and Twitter, ok, fine. But, why the ***** do people 'follow' anything or anyone that isn't newsworthy or very time relevant?
Oh... and fix the bouncing comment box, Digg. FFS. - GaltShrugged, on 06/21/2009, -14/+100Hmmm, there seems to be a missing stat.
Facebook - Unprofitable
Twitter - Unprofitable
Hence they're both losers. - lunxer, on 06/21/2009, -1/+80and facebook in 97? I call bs
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://facebook.com
First facebook cache i can find is in Aug 06, 2005
EDIT:
Oh, sorry,Feb 12, 2004
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://thefacebook.co ...
But still, not even close to 97 - ryanonfire, on 06/21/2009, -1/+69Woah Twitter started in 2000 :O
- thefreehunter, on 06/21/2009, -15/+82Very misleading part at the bottom. In big letters, it says "Facebook - $240,000,000, Twitter - $250,000,000". However, in the smaller print, it says "Microsoft bought 1.6% of Facebook for $240,000,000". Big difference.
- heyimfromreddit, on 06/21/2009, -2/+65But then what would he have to be angry about?
- lordwow, on 06/21/2009, -4/+55I use both, and I don't know how you can say Facebook "may seem quite difficult to navigate."
- diggforworld, on 06/21/2009, -12/+57TWITTER SUCKS!
- AaronS2000, on 06/21/2009, -4/+48The title should be
"facebook? vs TWITTER!" - ehaugan, on 06/21/2009, -2/+44This article is just SLIGHTLY biased in favor of Twitter, LOL. Seriously, I have a twitter account and rarely use it. I find the way twitter functions to be pretty archaic and I personally think its a fad. I give it 3 years.
- redfred18t, on 06/21/2009, -0/+39Yeah thats totally sketchy. The dude that started it would have been 13 in 97
- allocate, on 06/21/2009, -1/+36This will be very useful for the dozens of people trying to figure out whether to use facebook or twitter!
- fhornplayer, on 06/21/2009, -2/+35You had two chances, and you screwed them both up.
their*
there* - linagee, on 06/21/2009, -0/+32Howcome is not a word.
- ww3ace, on 06/21/2009, -0/+31"Goodbye in-depth journalism, hello headline-only reporting."
You know you're on Digg.com right? - ogleby, on 06/21/2009, -2/+32Iranian protesters using twitter makes it seem legitimate or useful.
- thefreehunter, on 06/21/2009, -4/+34I said it's misleading, not wrong. The misleading part comes from them making a direct comparison between 1.6% of Facebook, to 100% of Twitter, and giving Facebook's section a smaller pile of money. It makes it seem, at first glance, like Twitter is worth more than Facebook, and creates a subconscious sense, even after the reader has taken in all info, that the comparison is valid. It's similar to news agencies saying "$company has gotten $51m in bailout money, out of the $52b given out by the government". It makes the HUGE difference seem much smaller, even though the comparison is total *****.
- woog315, on 06/21/2009, -0/+29CNN appears to be
- Ray745, on 06/21/2009, -0/+25Facebook was founded Feb 4th 2004. Mark Zuckerberg was 13 in 1997. The fact that the two "online since" stats are waaay off leads me to believe that most of these stats are just random numbers made to look pretty.
- J0415, on 06/21/2009, -0/+23The domains facebook.com (http://whois.domaintools.com/facebook.com) and twitter.com (http://whois.domaintools.com/twitter.com) were created in 1997 and 2000, but that doesn't mean they were what they are today. As lunxer pointed out above, before 2004, facebook.com was owned by "AboutFace" whatever the hell they are.
***** author doesn't check his facts - Sherman901, on 06/21/2009, -1/+24In case, DO NOT USE TWITTER
- gerrylazlo, on 06/21/2009, -0/+23I enjoy infographics, but this is probably the most useless one I've ever seen. Why is the page views per person a percentage? Why use percentage increases for each when twitter is such a smaller begging portion? If you have .0005% of the world's users, and then you have .0025% of the world's users, you went up 500%. Big ***** woop. Plus the section at the bottom doesn't even seem to compare anything between the two. And facebook has Obama as well (i.e. some staff member), just like twitter.
- kazo, on 06/21/2009, -2/+22buried for incorrect stats
- xDemosthenes, on 06/21/2009, -1/+20This is false
- Oniobn, on 06/21/2009, -0/+18Credible news sources post a headline and a link.
- MaxxBero, on 06/21/2009, -1/+18And yet facebook is trying more and more to be like twitter and its other "competitors", which is probably the worst decision that they made. Or make, considering that facebook changes every time something else comes up. They should just stick to what they do and not worry about fads that pop up.
- WombleSlayer, on 06/21/2009, -1/+18Yeah! Who the hell would want to be able to communicate and share pictures and videos easily with their friends?!
- GaltShrugged, on 06/21/2009, -1/+18Amazon built a business on selling stuff for money. They had a plan to make money that actually involved reality. Their business plan didn't see profit for years. They knew what they were doing. For that, they're winners. Facebook has no idea what to do. Twitter has no idea what to do. Digg has no idea what to do.
- BobiusMaximus, on 06/21/2009, -3/+19I was going to comment on this.
I don't understand what'd hard to get about Facebook's navigation.
Although that's how propaganda works - They said "May" so it's fine, it just makes Twitter seem better. - scyphozoa, on 06/21/2009, -2/+18The single best thing Twitter has ever done was what we've seen in the past few day's of Iran's election. That ability to communicate is hardly unique to twitter.
- brundlefly76, on 06/21/2009, -0/+15That chart is misleading - Facebook is WAY bigger than Twitter in users and increases by far more users every month - some of the stats chosen (like percentage growth vs 3 mo ago period) kind of mislead that.
- Soniti, on 06/21/2009, -1/+16People seem to get hard-ons over "Infographics" lately.
Noone seems to have the common sense that some of them are just plain *****- the one about exercise vs. food intake posted yesterday was totally unusable due to its' "creative" design (Text that is written in a circle with some text flipped upside down.) - 2Deluxe, on 06/21/2009, -0/+15Let's all guess who has no friends.. hmm..
- Vindexus, on 06/21/2009, -0/+15I'm going to need an infographic to prove that.
- Meltz014, on 06/21/2009, -0/+14according to this, facebook is worth 15,000,000,000. Divided by the 200million users, I am apparently worth 75 bucks
- bblande, on 06/21/2009, -3/+17Amazon wasn't profitable for its first six years.
I guess they're losers too, eh? - threat42, on 06/21/2009, -0/+13I'd like to see the sources on this information.
- inactive, on 06/21/2009, -0/+13Facebook has made profit through selling their stock to conglomorates like Microsoft.
- MScrip, on 06/21/2009, -0/+12>> "And yet facebook is trying more and more to be like twitter"
Why? Because Facebook made your home screen's entire center column the News Feed?
To me, the News Feed is the best part of Facebook. You get a quick rundown of everything that people say and do. You get to see status updates, wall posts and new photos... all on one page. I don't see what is wrong with it. It's efficient. Remember the outcry when the News Feed launched? People said it was an invasion in privacy. Now, it's the whole reason Facebook exists.
When you post something on Facebook, it shows up in your friends' News Feed. That's the "networking" part of this social networking site. When you post something on Facebook... you WANT it to be seen by your friends. If it didn't, why post it in the first place?
Imagine if your Tweets *didn't* show up on your followers' Twitter page? The whole point of Twitter is that you can say something... and all your followers can read it. By nature, anything you say on Twitter is broadcast to your followers... and the same is true for Facebook.
I don't even remember what the home screen looked like before they "copied" Twitter. I just know when I log in, I see the News Feed and all the stuff my friends are saying and doing... which is why I log in to Facebook in the first place. - bdogm, on 06/21/2009, -0/+123 years isn't a fad. That's like 20 in internet years.
- NoozeHound, on 06/21/2009, -1/+12115 charcters to spare.
- belfastbiker2, on 06/21/2009, -2/+13theres usually a link too you muppet.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 303 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is