What is Digg?150 Comments
- inactive, on 04/13/2008, -21/+54I'd hit it.
- greenlight2001, on 04/13/2008, -7/+35I'd flip it... and hit it from the behind.
- AMSRay, on 04/13/2008, -0/+20Department of Justice, World Bank, Google Ad Words, Now Facebook. Any one of those careers would be remarkable. I feel like such an underachiever.
- elnerdo, on 04/13/2008, -5/+25I'd bop it
- sanjack, on 04/13/2008, -7/+26I'd zip it.
(WTF @ the "sip it" dude!!!!) - camilos007, on 04/13/2008, -7/+23I'd fist it
- Spies, on 04/13/2008, -7/+23I'd rip it.
- inspecality, on 04/13/2008, -3/+18I'd poke it. (this hasn't been said yet? get with it Digg)
- redjuly, on 04/13/2008, -7/+22I'd sip it.
- MelroseMan, on 04/13/2008, -4/+17No.
- mrjit, on 04/13/2008, -2/+14She sounds like a smart lady.
- sockpuppets, on 04/13/2008, -4/+16I'd number one on it.
- iofthestorm, on 04/13/2008, -1/+12C-C-C-Combo Breaker!!!111
- krisscofield, on 04/13/2008, -0/+10I'd reddit.
- sarixe, on 04/13/2008, -6/+16I'd nip it
(@sanjack: cunnilingus) - mrjit, on 04/13/2008, -2/+12Um, Zuckerberg, the founder?
- maxer64, on 04/13/2008, -2/+12Hello Number 2. I am Dr. Evil.
- afx1, on 04/13/2008, -1/+10i agree. any site that can't crash my browser doesn't deserve to be visited.
- TheThirdLevel, on 04/13/2008, -3/+11I'd hit it....twice.
- Stowz, on 04/13/2008, -2/+10Zuckerberg might have been smart enough to create the site but I question if he is talented enough to run an entity that is as big as Facebook.
- mCanada, on 04/13/2008, -0/+7go back to myspace.
- inactive, on 04/14/2008, -0/+7Theoretical internet dollars.
- synyster, on 04/13/2008, -1/+8welcome to real life.
why is she had so many jobs? oh i forgot it, women like to change their minds very often:) - eean, on 04/13/2008, -0/+6No, RTFA.
- airwalkery2k, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6Privacy settings only protect you from other people and the occasional app spammer. It doesn't save you from Facebook or it's "partners" sifting through your data.
- YodaJones, on 04/13/2008, -0/+6What's really weird is john Dvorak's comments that the CIA is behind Facebook, and now they have a ex-Treasury Department person in there.
- MonsieurShak, on 04/13/2008, -2/+8I wouldn't.
- Shatneresque, on 04/13/2008, -1/+7Found this near the bottom:
"Sandberg will bring all of these experiences to bear in her new roll at Facebook."
"roll"? WTF, it's "role" you idiots. Someone at CNN got paid to write that. Jesus. - Conwaysb0718, on 04/13/2008, -4/+10makin all that money and still no boobs, what gives?
- mrloco, on 04/13/2008, -0/+51. Hire hyped up exec
2. Add adverts to the already massive amount of app spam.
3. ????
4. Profit - inactive, on 04/13/2008, -3/+8I'd digg it.
- ButterBuddha, on 04/14/2008, -1/+6Lamest Comments Ever
- tabion, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5I'd winACE it
- manitoba98xp, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4No, she isn't. Beacon was what Facebook tried BEFORE she arrived. Beacon was in the fall, this article (published yesterday) refers to her "Day 13", so she's only been there since late March or so.
- Laughto, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4The correct answer was "You are number 6"..
- themanflounders, on 04/13/2008, -1/+5The difference between Google and Facebook with regard to revenues is that Facebook users don't particularly want to be used to make money. See the beacon project. You can't charge for the service, because everyone will leave. You can make some ad revenue, but most people I know have ads blocked or use other sites for shopping, as facebook isn't really a shopping sort of site. Google was easy because you just charged people to be top of the list in searches. But people go to google to shop, in a sense. People go to facebook to be talk, and as they say, talk is cheap. I don't see this working without a massive change in direction as to what facebook is, and up to now, with every change has come more frustration from its user base. Obviously its numbers have grown by leaps and bounds, but I still think there is a breaking point where most users will get tired of it and move to something newer and a little less corporate. I'm not cheering against though for sure, and would like to be surprised.
- Motocompo, on 04/13/2008, -1/+5If you live in the sewer maybe
- almalax19, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5And she'd hit you back... in your face... with her *****.
- PHiZ187, on 04/13/2008, -3/+7***** Facebook and their whole privacy hostile existence.
- greenlight2001, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3I'd eat it
- krewl, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Her first proposal: butterfacebook
- KGBeats, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4I'd plow it
- Extracheese, on 04/13/2008, -1/+4Google failed to make a profit on it's Myspace AD deal and more importantly, they haven't cracked the business model for youtube either...which should be an easier feat than facebook. So I don't think bringing over one exec will get anything rolling.
I think it comes down to the users, they have so much control and the number of competitors out there are so numerous. WEB 2.0 might never mature, it's more likely to evolve. (this is all just speculation by me) - G-RaZoR, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Sneezing Panda could easily buy Facebook with last month's theoretical paycheck.
- frostw, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3I am not a number, I am a free man!
- Timmmm, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3But there's huge targeted advertising potential. People have already told facebook everything they like. I think they might do this already to some extent...
- bweltondav, on 04/13/2008, -2/+5Yeah, who uses facebook anyway?
/sarc. - redneckblues, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3I'd rar it.
- NeuralOverload, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4[Citation Needed]
- Jeffler, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3I'd skip it (iofthestorm's comment)
-
Show 51 - 100 of 148 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is