【明報專訊】GeneTree及ancestry.com除了可助人揭開身世之謎，更是好玩的社交網站，它們糅合流行社交網站Facebook、MySpace及影片分享網站YouTube 的功能，讓會員隨時與親友網上團聚。
會員可在網站免費上載個人的族譜、照片和影片等，與親友聯絡。GeneTree行政總裁索倫森說：「這是一個家族歷史分享網站，利用基因擴充家庭的概念，讓人們與家人及遠親保持聯繫。」
該網站十分注重私隱，嚴禁會員強行認親認戚。以GeneTree為例，會員在搜尋時，網站不會提供近100年內出生的個別人士姓名。會員必須聯絡GeneTree，由網站徵求對方同意後，才可取得對方姓名及身世資料。
美聯社
2007年10月23日 星期二
2007年10月15日 星期一
The Future of Facebook
Tuesday, Jul. 17, 2007
The Future of Facebook
By Laura Locke
In his first interview with TIME, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg sat down with reporter Laura Locke to talk about Facebook's rapid growth spurt, IPO rumors, future plans and the pressures of being a 23-year-old CEO in Silicon Valley.
TIME: Facebook is undergoing a huge period of growth. With more than 150,000 new users signing up daily, it is growing three times as fast as rival MySpace. What do you attribute that spike to?
Zuckerberg: For a while we actually constrained our growth. We made it so that only people in college could sign up. Initially it was only available to people at Harvard, where I was at college. We rolled it out to all the colleges, all the high schools, then a bunch of companies could sign up, and now everyone can sign up. It may seem like the growth is really accelerating at a crazy rate, but it's actually been growing and doubling about once every six months for quite a while.
TIME: Is Facebook's popularity connected to its focus on authenticity? On your site, misrepresentation of your real self is a violation of company policy.
Zuckerberg: That's the critical part of it. Our whole theory is that people have real connections in the world. People communicate most naturally and effectively with their friends and the people around them. What we figured is that if we could model what those connections were, [we could] provide that information to a set of applications through which people want to share information, photos or videos or events. But that only works if those relationships are real. That's a really big difference between Facebook and a lot of other sites. We're not thinking about ourselves as a community — we're not trying to build a community — we're not trying to make new connections.
TIME: Why do you describe Facebook as a "social utility" rather than a "social network?"
Zuckerberg: I think there's confusion around what the point of social networks is. A lot of different companies characterized as social networks have different goals — some serve the function of business networking, some are media portals. What we're trying to do is just make it really efficient for people to communicate, get information and share information. We always try to emphasize the utility component.
TIME: In September you rebuffed Yahoo's offer to buy Facebook for nearly $1 billion. Before that, Viacom put up a $750 million bid. And about two months ago you clearly said Facebook would stay independent. Is that still the plan?
Zuckerberg: That has always been the plan. As a company we're very focused on what we're building and not as focused on the exit. We just believe that we're adding a certain amount of value to people's lives if we build a very good product. That's the reason why more than half of our users use the product every day — it's a more efficient way for them to communicate with their friends and get information about the people around them than anything else they can do. We're not really looking to sell the company. We're not looking to IPO anytime soon. It's just not the core focus of the company.
TIME: So, if Facebook isn't for sale and there's no IPO in the works, how do you intend to satisfy your investors who put a total of $38 million into the company?
Zuckerberg: Well, they're actually really supportive of this. What they want is to build a really great company, too. And if you think about the timeframe over which this has happened — we took our venture round from Accel Partners just about two years ago — they're not in a rush. We have plenty of time to build something good.
TIME: Facebook is looking to hire a stock administrator, isn't that a signal you're preparing for an IPO?
Zuckerberg: Well, no. [Pause.] I mean, we grant options to all of our employees. At this point we have more than 250. It's a core part of compensation, so you want to make sure you get it right for people. At some point in the future, if we get a chance to go down that [IPO] path, it will be valuable to have that — it's a part of building out the company. I think it's funny that people are paying so much attention to that.
TIME: The frenzy surrounding Facebook seems to have intensified quite dramatically over the past several months. What do you think is behind the company's newfound cachet?
Zuckerberg: I think the most recent surge, at least in the press, is around the launch of Facebook Platform. For the first time we're allowing developers who don't work at Facebook to develop applications just as if they were. That's a big deal because it means that all developers have a new way of doing business if they choose to take advantage of it. There are whole companies that are forming whose only product is a Facebook Platform application. That provides an opportunity for them, it provides an opportunity for people who want to make money by investing in those companies, and I think that's something that's pretty exciting to the business community. It's also really exciting to our users because it means that a whole new variety of services are going to be made available.
TIME: What's your grand plan for the company? How do you see it evolving over the next three to five years?
Zuckerberg: It's tough to say, exactly, what things will look like in three to five years, but there's a lot of work to do in just moving along the path that we've already set out. Right now we have 30 million active users on Facebook. There's a lot more to go. And there a lot of different applications that are going to be developed to allow people to share information in different ways. I would expect the user base will grow [and there will be] more ways for advertisers to reach people and communicate in a very natural way, just like users communicate with each other. All these things will just get more and more evolved.
TIME: Beyond Facebook's exclusive advertising deal with Microsoft, which gives the software giant the right to sell ads on the site, what are some of your ideas about monetizing your 30 million users?
Zuckerberg: Advertising works most effectively when it's in line with what people are already trying to do. And people are trying to communicate in a certain way on Facebook — they share information with their friends, they learn about what their friends are doing —so there's really a whole new opportunity for a new type of advertising model within that. And I think we'll see more in the next couple months or years on that.
TIME: With more than 40 billion page views every month, Facebook is the sixth most trafficked site in the U.S., and the top photo-sharing site. What are your international expansion plans?
Zuckerberg: Right now a lot of our growth is happening internationally. We have more than 10% or 15% of the population of Canada on the site. The U.K. has a huge user base. We haven't translated the site yet, but that's something we're working on and it should be done soon. What we're doing is pretty broadly applicable to people in all different age groups and demographics and places around the world.
TIME: You recently took off for a summer vacation, what did you do?
Zuckerberg: Hang out with my family.
TIME: What's a typical day like for the guy who founded Facebook in his Harvard dorm room just three years ago before becoming a full-time entrepreneur?
Zuckerberg: I wake up in the morning, I walk to work because I live four blocks from one of our offices, and I work, meet with people, and discuss things all day, and then I go home and go to sleep. I don't have an alarm clock. If someone needs to wake me up, then I have my BlackBerry next to me.
TIME: You're a 23-year-old Silicon Valley CEO. How do you deal with all pressures that come along with running a hyper-fast paced, high-profile technology company?
Zuckerberg: I was watching an interview with Steve Jobs the other day, in which he said that 'In order to be doing something like this, you have to really, really like what you're doing, because otherwise it just doesn't make sense.' The demands and the amount of work that it takes to put something like [Facebook] into place, it's just so much that if you weren't completely into what you were doing and you didn't think it was an important thing, then it would be irrational to spend that much time on it. Part of the reason why this is fun is because we've managed to build a team of really smart people who come from different backgrounds and have different experiences and think in different ways. People constantly try to put us in a bucket: are we trying to sell the company? What are we trying to do? What is the business strategy? People are often more interested in why we're hiring a stock-options administrator. Whereas for me and a lot of people around me, that's not really what we focus on. We're just focused on building things.
Click to Print
Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1644040,00.html
The Future of Facebook
By Laura Locke
In his first interview with TIME, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg sat down with reporter Laura Locke to talk about Facebook's rapid growth spurt, IPO rumors, future plans and the pressures of being a 23-year-old CEO in Silicon Valley.
TIME: Facebook is undergoing a huge period of growth. With more than 150,000 new users signing up daily, it is growing three times as fast as rival MySpace. What do you attribute that spike to?
Zuckerberg: For a while we actually constrained our growth. We made it so that only people in college could sign up. Initially it was only available to people at Harvard, where I was at college. We rolled it out to all the colleges, all the high schools, then a bunch of companies could sign up, and now everyone can sign up. It may seem like the growth is really accelerating at a crazy rate, but it's actually been growing and doubling about once every six months for quite a while.
TIME: Is Facebook's popularity connected to its focus on authenticity? On your site, misrepresentation of your real self is a violation of company policy.
Zuckerberg: That's the critical part of it. Our whole theory is that people have real connections in the world. People communicate most naturally and effectively with their friends and the people around them. What we figured is that if we could model what those connections were, [we could] provide that information to a set of applications through which people want to share information, photos or videos or events. But that only works if those relationships are real. That's a really big difference between Facebook and a lot of other sites. We're not thinking about ourselves as a community — we're not trying to build a community — we're not trying to make new connections.
TIME: Why do you describe Facebook as a "social utility" rather than a "social network?"
Zuckerberg: I think there's confusion around what the point of social networks is. A lot of different companies characterized as social networks have different goals — some serve the function of business networking, some are media portals. What we're trying to do is just make it really efficient for people to communicate, get information and share information. We always try to emphasize the utility component.
TIME: In September you rebuffed Yahoo's offer to buy Facebook for nearly $1 billion. Before that, Viacom put up a $750 million bid. And about two months ago you clearly said Facebook would stay independent. Is that still the plan?
Zuckerberg: That has always been the plan. As a company we're very focused on what we're building and not as focused on the exit. We just believe that we're adding a certain amount of value to people's lives if we build a very good product. That's the reason why more than half of our users use the product every day — it's a more efficient way for them to communicate with their friends and get information about the people around them than anything else they can do. We're not really looking to sell the company. We're not looking to IPO anytime soon. It's just not the core focus of the company.
TIME: So, if Facebook isn't for sale and there's no IPO in the works, how do you intend to satisfy your investors who put a total of $38 million into the company?
Zuckerberg: Well, they're actually really supportive of this. What they want is to build a really great company, too. And if you think about the timeframe over which this has happened — we took our venture round from Accel Partners just about two years ago — they're not in a rush. We have plenty of time to build something good.
TIME: Facebook is looking to hire a stock administrator, isn't that a signal you're preparing for an IPO?
Zuckerberg: Well, no. [Pause.] I mean, we grant options to all of our employees. At this point we have more than 250. It's a core part of compensation, so you want to make sure you get it right for people. At some point in the future, if we get a chance to go down that [IPO] path, it will be valuable to have that — it's a part of building out the company. I think it's funny that people are paying so much attention to that.
TIME: The frenzy surrounding Facebook seems to have intensified quite dramatically over the past several months. What do you think is behind the company's newfound cachet?
Zuckerberg: I think the most recent surge, at least in the press, is around the launch of Facebook Platform. For the first time we're allowing developers who don't work at Facebook to develop applications just as if they were. That's a big deal because it means that all developers have a new way of doing business if they choose to take advantage of it. There are whole companies that are forming whose only product is a Facebook Platform application. That provides an opportunity for them, it provides an opportunity for people who want to make money by investing in those companies, and I think that's something that's pretty exciting to the business community. It's also really exciting to our users because it means that a whole new variety of services are going to be made available.
TIME: What's your grand plan for the company? How do you see it evolving over the next three to five years?
Zuckerberg: It's tough to say, exactly, what things will look like in three to five years, but there's a lot of work to do in just moving along the path that we've already set out. Right now we have 30 million active users on Facebook. There's a lot more to go. And there a lot of different applications that are going to be developed to allow people to share information in different ways. I would expect the user base will grow [and there will be] more ways for advertisers to reach people and communicate in a very natural way, just like users communicate with each other. All these things will just get more and more evolved.
TIME: Beyond Facebook's exclusive advertising deal with Microsoft, which gives the software giant the right to sell ads on the site, what are some of your ideas about monetizing your 30 million users?
Zuckerberg: Advertising works most effectively when it's in line with what people are already trying to do. And people are trying to communicate in a certain way on Facebook — they share information with their friends, they learn about what their friends are doing —so there's really a whole new opportunity for a new type of advertising model within that. And I think we'll see more in the next couple months or years on that.
TIME: With more than 40 billion page views every month, Facebook is the sixth most trafficked site in the U.S., and the top photo-sharing site. What are your international expansion plans?
Zuckerberg: Right now a lot of our growth is happening internationally. We have more than 10% or 15% of the population of Canada on the site. The U.K. has a huge user base. We haven't translated the site yet, but that's something we're working on and it should be done soon. What we're doing is pretty broadly applicable to people in all different age groups and demographics and places around the world.
TIME: You recently took off for a summer vacation, what did you do?
Zuckerberg: Hang out with my family.
TIME: What's a typical day like for the guy who founded Facebook in his Harvard dorm room just three years ago before becoming a full-time entrepreneur?
Zuckerberg: I wake up in the morning, I walk to work because I live four blocks from one of our offices, and I work, meet with people, and discuss things all day, and then I go home and go to sleep. I don't have an alarm clock. If someone needs to wake me up, then I have my BlackBerry next to me.
TIME: You're a 23-year-old Silicon Valley CEO. How do you deal with all pressures that come along with running a hyper-fast paced, high-profile technology company?
Zuckerberg: I was watching an interview with Steve Jobs the other day, in which he said that 'In order to be doing something like this, you have to really, really like what you're doing, because otherwise it just doesn't make sense.' The demands and the amount of work that it takes to put something like [Facebook] into place, it's just so much that if you weren't completely into what you were doing and you didn't think it was an important thing, then it would be irrational to spend that much time on it. Part of the reason why this is fun is because we've managed to build a team of really smart people who come from different backgrounds and have different experiences and think in different ways. People constantly try to put us in a bucket: are we trying to sell the company? What are we trying to do? What is the business strategy? People are often more interested in why we're hiring a stock-options administrator. Whereas for me and a lot of people around me, that's not really what we focus on. We're just focused on building things.
Click to Print
Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1644040,00.html
TIMES:Facebook and the Election
Monday, Jul. 10, 2006
Facebook and the Election
By Tracy Samantha Schmidt
In the '90s, the message was "Rock the Vote." Now it's time to "Facebook" it. Starting in September, politicians will be able to buy ad space on networking site Facebook.com, allowing them to create profiles viewable to 8 million members. That should help pols court a group of voters who are hard to reach. Facebookers will be able to "friend" any candidate they like--linking to a profile as they would a classmate's. Facebook says politicians won't pay anything near the tens of thousands of dollars that corporate advertisers do to set up on the site. Politicians should log on, says Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos politiblog, because young people "hang out in places like ... Facebook and MySpace," which plans a similar initiative. They're the new town square--great for any candidate who can figure out the online equivalent of a handshake.
Facebook and the Election
By Tracy Samantha Schmidt
In the '90s, the message was "Rock the Vote." Now it's time to "Facebook" it. Starting in September, politicians will be able to buy ad space on networking site Facebook.com, allowing them to create profiles viewable to 8 million members. That should help pols court a group of voters who are hard to reach. Facebookers will be able to "friend" any candidate they like--linking to a profile as they would a classmate's. Facebook says politicians won't pay anything near the tens of thousands of dollars that corporate advertisers do to set up on the site. Politicians should log on, says Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos politiblog, because young people "hang out in places like ... Facebook and MySpace," which plans a similar initiative. They're the new town square--great for any candidate who can figure out the online equivalent of a handshake.
Facebook Subpoenaed in Sex Probe
Monday, Sep. 24, 2007 By MICHAEL GORMLEY/AP
不知是不是可以講下Facebook無視傳票似乎更確立了它的「ivy kids」想像。[見面可詳]
(ALBANY, N.Y.) — The New York Attorney General has subpoenaed Facebook after the company did not respond to "many" complaints by investigators who were solicited for sex while posing as teenagers on the social-networking site.
State investigators, who set up profiles as 12- to 14-year olds, said they were quickly contacted by other Facebook users with comments such as "u look too hot....... can i c u online," "do you like sex?" and "call me if u want to do sex with me."
Investigators said that when they wrote to Facebook about their experiences, the concerns were ignored "many" times.
"My office is concerned that Facebook's promise of a safe Web site is not consistent with its performance in policing its site and responding to complaints," said Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. "Parents have a right to know what their children will encounter on a Web site that is aggressively marketed as safe."
On Monday, he publicly released a letter to Facebook about its safety claims. Those concerns are based on several "undercover tests" in recent weeks, he said.
The subpoenas seek complaints made to the company and copies of its policies. Cuomo said the investigation is still in its early stages.
Privately held Facebook did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.
不知是不是可以講下Facebook無視傳票似乎更確立了它的「ivy kids」想像。[見面可詳]
(ALBANY, N.Y.) — The New York Attorney General has subpoenaed Facebook after the company did not respond to "many" complaints by investigators who were solicited for sex while posing as teenagers on the social-networking site.
State investigators, who set up profiles as 12- to 14-year olds, said they were quickly contacted by other Facebook users with comments such as "u look too hot....... can i c u online," "do you like sex?" and "call me if u want to do sex with me."
Investigators said that when they wrote to Facebook about their experiences, the concerns were ignored "many" times.
"My office is concerned that Facebook's promise of a safe Web site is not consistent with its performance in policing its site and responding to complaints," said Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. "Parents have a right to know what their children will encounter on a Web site that is aggressively marketed as safe."
On Monday, he publicly released a letter to Facebook about its safety claims. Those concerns are based on several "undercover tests" in recent weeks, he said.
The subpoenas seek complaints made to the company and copies of its policies. Cuomo said the investigation is still in its early stages.
Privately held Facebook did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.
You Are Not My Friend
You Are Not My Friend
Thursday, Oct. 04, 2007 By JOEL STEIN
In the pre-internet days, neither of us would have even thought of calling each other friends. We'd have called ourselves friends of friends who met once and yet, for some reason, kept sending each other grammatically challenged, inappropriately flirty letters with photos of ourselves attached. Police might have gotten involved.
But now we're definitively friends, having taken a public vow of friendship on friend-based websites, wearing metaphorical friendship bracelets on the earnest Facebook, the punky MySpace, the careerist LinkedIn and the suddenly very Asian Friendster. As if that wasn't enough friendship for you, some of you have also asked me to be friends on the nerdy Twitter, the dorky-élitist Doostang and the Eurotrashy hi5. You message me and comment about me and write on my walls and dedicate songs to me and invite me to join groups. More than once you have taken it upon yourself to poke me.
This is hard to say to a friend, but our relationship is starting to take up too much of my time. It's weird that I know more about you than I do about actual friends I hang out with in person--whom I propose we distinguish by calling "non-metafriends." In fact, I know more about you than I know about myself. I have no idea what my favorite movie or song or TV show is. Last I checked, they all involved Muppets.
Also, you're a bit aggressive in our friendship. Would a non-metafriend call me up and say, "Hey! Guess what? I have a bunch of new pictures of me"? Or tell me he'd colored in a map of all the places he'd ever been? Or inform me, as Michael Hirschorn did in his Facebook status update, that he "is not making decisions; he's making surprises"? It's as if I suddenly met a new group of people who were all in the special classes.
The horror is, I can't opt out. Just as I can't stop making money or my non-metafriends will have more stuff than I do, I can't stop running up my tally of MySpace friends or I'll look like a loser. Just as money made wealth quantifiable, social networks have provided a metric for popularity. We all, oddly, slot in at a specific ranking somewhere below Dane Cook.
I'm sure social networks serve many important functions that improve our lives, like reconnecting us with old friends and finding out if people we used to date are still good-looking. And social networks all have messaging functions, which would be an excellent way to send information if no one had invented e-mail.
But really, these sites aren't about connecting and reconnecting. They're a platform for self-branding. Old people are always worrying that our blogging and personal websites and MySpace profiles are taking away our privacy, but they clearly don't understand the word privacy. We're not sharing things we don't want other people to know. We're showing you our best posed, retouched photos. We're listing the Pynchon books we want you to think we've read all the way through. We're allowing other people to write whatever they want about us on our walls, unless we don't like it, in which case we just erase it. If we had that much privacy in real life, the bathrooms at that Minnesota airport would be empty.
And like the abrasively direct ads for tinctures and cleaning products at the beginning of the advertising age, our self-branding is none too subtle. We are a blunt lot, in our bikinis and our demands that our friends go right now to check out our blog postings. We've gone 40 years back, to sales tactics predating irony, self-deprecation and actual modesty. We are, as a social network, all so awesome that we will soon not be able to type the number 1, because we will have worn out the exclamation point that shares its key.
Until we can build some kind of social network where we can present our true, flawed selves--perhaps some genius can invent something that takes place in a house over dinner with wine--I say we strip down our online communities to just the important parts. With enough venture funding--by which I mean the volunteer services of a dude who knows how to build a website--I hope to launch TrueSocialStatus.com on which users are allowed to submit only their name, their occupation, a photo, the square footage of their home and a list of any celebrities they happen to know. Then other people can vote, on a scale of 1 to 100, on how awesome they are. At the end of the year, the ones with the most points are made homecoming king and queen, which, if I remember correctly, should immediately send their scores plummeting. If nothing else, it should finally rid us of Tila Tequila.
TIMES: Why Facebook Is the Future
Thursday, Aug. 23, 2007 By LEV GROSSMAN
Thursday, Aug. 23, 2007
Why Facebook Is the Future
By Lev Grossman
On Aug. 14 a computer hacker named Virgil Griffith unleashed a clever little program onto the Internet that he dubbed WikiScanner. It's a simple application that trolls through the records of Wikipedia, the publicly editable Web-based encyclopedia, and checks on who is making changes to which entries. Sometimes it's people who shouldn't be. For example, WikiScanner turned up evidence that somebody from Wal-Mart had punched up Wal-Mart's Wikipedia entry. Bad retail giant.
WikiScanner is a jolly little game of Internet gotcha, but it's really about something more: a growing popular irritation with the Internet in general. The Net has anarchy in its DNA; it's always been about anonymity, playing with your own identity and messing with other people's heads. The idea, such as it was, seems to have been that the Internet would free us of the burden of our public identities so we could be our true, authentic selves online. Except it turns out--who could've seen this coming?--that our true, authentic selves aren't that fantastic. The great experiment proved that some of us are wonderful and interesting but that a lot of us are hackers and pranksters and hucksters. Which is one way of explaining the extraordinary appeal of Facebook.
Facebook is, in Silicon Vall--ese, a "social network": a website for keeping track of your friends and sending them messages and sharing photos and doing all those other things that a good little Web 2.0 company is supposed to help you do. It was started by Harvard students in 2004 as a tool for meeting-- or at least discreetly ogling--other Harvard students, and it still has a reputation as a hangout for teenagers and the teenaged-at-heart. Which is ironic because Facebook is really about making the Web grow up.
Whereas Google is a brilliant technological hack, Facebook is primarily a feat of social engineering. (It wouldn't be a bad idea for Google to acquire Facebook, the way it snaffled YouTube, but it's almost certainly too late in the day for that. Yahoo! offered a billion for Facebook last year and was rebuffed.) Facebook's appeal is both obvious and rather subtle. It's a website, but in a sense, it's another version of the Internet itself: a Net within the Net, one that's everything the larger Net is not. Facebook is cleanly designed and has a classy, upmarket feel to it--a whiff of the Ivy League still clings. People tend to use their real names on Facebook. They also declare their sex, age, whereabouts, romantic status and institutional affiliations. Identity is not a performance or a toy on Facebook; it is a fixed and orderly fact. Nobody does anything secretly: a news feed constantly updates your friends on your activities. On Facebook, everybody knows you're a dog.
Maybe that's why Facebook's fastest-growing demographic consists of people 35 or older: they're refugees from the uncouth wider Web. Every community must negotiate the imperatives of individual freedom and collective social order, and Facebook constitutes a critical rebalancing of the Internet's founding vision of unfettered electronic liberty. Of course, it is possible to misbehave on Facebook--it's just self-defeating. Unlike the Internet, Facebook is structured around an opt-in philosophy; people have to consent to have contact with or even see others on the network. If you're annoying folks, you'll essentially cease to exist, as those you annoy drop you off the grid.
Facebook has taken steps this year to expand its functionality by allowing outside developers to create applications that integrate with its pages, which brings with it expanded opportunities for abuse. (No doubt Griffith is hard at work on FacebookScanner.) But it has also hung on doggedly to its core insight: that the most important function of a social network is connecting people and that its second most important function is keeping them apart.
Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1655722,00.html
Thursday, Aug. 23, 2007
Why Facebook Is the Future
By Lev Grossman
On Aug. 14 a computer hacker named Virgil Griffith unleashed a clever little program onto the Internet that he dubbed WikiScanner. It's a simple application that trolls through the records of Wikipedia, the publicly editable Web-based encyclopedia, and checks on who is making changes to which entries. Sometimes it's people who shouldn't be. For example, WikiScanner turned up evidence that somebody from Wal-Mart had punched up Wal-Mart's Wikipedia entry. Bad retail giant.
WikiScanner is a jolly little game of Internet gotcha, but it's really about something more: a growing popular irritation with the Internet in general. The Net has anarchy in its DNA; it's always been about anonymity, playing with your own identity and messing with other people's heads. The idea, such as it was, seems to have been that the Internet would free us of the burden of our public identities so we could be our true, authentic selves online. Except it turns out--who could've seen this coming?--that our true, authentic selves aren't that fantastic. The great experiment proved that some of us are wonderful and interesting but that a lot of us are hackers and pranksters and hucksters. Which is one way of explaining the extraordinary appeal of Facebook.
Facebook is, in Silicon Vall--ese, a "social network": a website for keeping track of your friends and sending them messages and sharing photos and doing all those other things that a good little Web 2.0 company is supposed to help you do. It was started by Harvard students in 2004 as a tool for meeting-- or at least discreetly ogling--other Harvard students, and it still has a reputation as a hangout for teenagers and the teenaged-at-heart. Which is ironic because Facebook is really about making the Web grow up.
Whereas Google is a brilliant technological hack, Facebook is primarily a feat of social engineering. (It wouldn't be a bad idea for Google to acquire Facebook, the way it snaffled YouTube, but it's almost certainly too late in the day for that. Yahoo! offered a billion for Facebook last year and was rebuffed.) Facebook's appeal is both obvious and rather subtle. It's a website, but in a sense, it's another version of the Internet itself: a Net within the Net, one that's everything the larger Net is not. Facebook is cleanly designed and has a classy, upmarket feel to it--a whiff of the Ivy League still clings. People tend to use their real names on Facebook. They also declare their sex, age, whereabouts, romantic status and institutional affiliations. Identity is not a performance or a toy on Facebook; it is a fixed and orderly fact. Nobody does anything secretly: a news feed constantly updates your friends on your activities. On Facebook, everybody knows you're a dog.
Maybe that's why Facebook's fastest-growing demographic consists of people 35 or older: they're refugees from the uncouth wider Web. Every community must negotiate the imperatives of individual freedom and collective social order, and Facebook constitutes a critical rebalancing of the Internet's founding vision of unfettered electronic liberty. Of course, it is possible to misbehave on Facebook--it's just self-defeating. Unlike the Internet, Facebook is structured around an opt-in philosophy; people have to consent to have contact with or even see others on the network. If you're annoying folks, you'll essentially cease to exist, as those you annoy drop you off the grid.
Facebook has taken steps this year to expand its functionality by allowing outside developers to create applications that integrate with its pages, which brings with it expanded opportunities for abuse. (No doubt Griffith is hard at work on FacebookScanner.) But it has also hung on doggedly to its core insight: that the most important function of a social network is connecting people and that its second most important function is keeping them apart.
Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1655722,00.html
逃避Facebook
明報 D07 時代 女人心 By 陳惜姿
2007-09-27
以前一有人邀請我加入他們的Facebook，我一定像逃避病毒一樣，即時除那信息，永不回應，像個孤獨精。
我拒絕的大都是我的學生，我常說，我一年教八十多人，學期完了人人都跟我做朋友，我豈不是疲於奔命？而我一向認為，Facebook 內那些公諸同好的片言隻語，根本就談不上什麼友情，最多告訴人我還活而已。星期日一起吃頓午飯，到朋友家玩一個下午，才是我享受的友情。
直至最近，連一些和我年紀相近，學問又比我大很多的朋友都邀請我加入這遊戲，我才深切反省：我是不是太老套？太追不上時代？
我嘗試過「深入虎穴」，一步一步入去，一要我上載相片，我就猶豫了，為什麼呢？
然後有學生忠告我，不要胡亂加入。若我成為其中一分子，以後任何人有任何留言給我，都會電郵通知，我的信箱很快便被擠滿。
除了Facebook，還有各路英雄的網誌，朋友傳來他網誌地址，我循例把它加到「我的最愛」，但很少踏足。
現代人的生活為什麼可以過得充實，就是不拍拖不結婚不生兒女甚至連貓狗都不養，仍然心中富有？
他們的生活有兩部分，白天上學上班打瞌睡擠車排隊買飯盒和人吵架，活得如何齷齪不要緊。到了晚上，一旦開了電腦，有另一世界等他。我的學生常說自己徹夜沒睡，美其名是做功課，實際上一晚把自己的網誌update 三次，還時刻察看別人有什麼留言，兼要看別人的。如今還要加上Facebook，電車男也會八面玲瓏。
人老了，就覺得要應付這些東西很吃力，還是讓耳根清靜點好。
（隔兩日見報）
2007-09-27
以前一有人邀請我加入他們的Facebook，我一定像逃避病毒一樣，即時除那信息，永不回應，像個孤獨精。
我拒絕的大都是我的學生，我常說，我一年教八十多人，學期完了人人都跟我做朋友，我豈不是疲於奔命？而我一向認為，Facebook 內那些公諸同好的片言隻語，根本就談不上什麼友情，最多告訴人我還活而已。星期日一起吃頓午飯，到朋友家玩一個下午，才是我享受的友情。
直至最近，連一些和我年紀相近，學問又比我大很多的朋友都邀請我加入這遊戲，我才深切反省：我是不是太老套？太追不上時代？
我嘗試過「深入虎穴」，一步一步入去，一要我上載相片，我就猶豫了，為什麼呢？
然後有學生忠告我，不要胡亂加入。若我成為其中一分子，以後任何人有任何留言給我，都會電郵通知，我的信箱很快便被擠滿。
除了Facebook，還有各路英雄的網誌，朋友傳來他網誌地址，我循例把它加到「我的最愛」，但很少踏足。
現代人的生活為什麼可以過得充實，就是不拍拖不結婚不生兒女甚至連貓狗都不養，仍然心中富有？
他們的生活有兩部分，白天上學上班打瞌睡擠車排隊買飯盒和人吵架，活得如何齷齪不要緊。到了晚上，一旦開了電腦，有另一世界等他。我的學生常說自己徹夜沒睡，美其名是做功課，實際上一晚把自己的網誌update 三次，還時刻察看別人有什麼留言，兼要看別人的。如今還要加上Facebook，電車男也會八面玲瓏。
人老了，就覺得要應付這些東西很吃力，還是讓耳根清靜點好。
（隔兩日見報）
虛構天體海灘愚弄網友白走一趟
明報 A32 世界
2007-09-28
虛構天體海灘愚弄網友白走一趟
英國一名劍橋大學畢業生在網上發放假消息，訛稱康沃爾郡有一神秘海灘，是全英唯一「無上裝天堂」，准許赤裸上身曬太陽，結果許多人上當，紛紛訪尋這片「青青珊瑚海」。
海伍德在其網站Porthemmet.com 上，訛稱在康沃爾發現隱世海灘，不僅為全國「最大海灘」，更是「熱帶天堂」，因為它是「全英唯一准許無上裝日光浴的海灘」。結果很多人湧到康沃爾尋找這個神秘海灘，但都失望而回。
海伍德創造的假海灘名為「Porthemmet」，「emmet」（螞蟻）是康沃爾人對遊客的貶稱。他在網上貼出往Porthemmet 的路牌，還告訴遊客毋須理會有人說Porthemmet 並不存在的「謠言」。他說： 「這是康沃爾人的玩笑，當地人會詐稱不知道怎樣去這個沙灘，但不要被他們騙倒」。他還點出「當地地標」包括「螞蟻頭」、「螞蟻腿」及「螞蟻暗礁」。
結果「無上裝天堂」吸引了逾2000 人加入他的Facebook。海伍德說： 「所有不在康沃爾居住的人都沒有懷疑這是一個惡作劇。」當地旅遊公司總裁貝爾表示，縱使這是惡作劇，也會造成負面影響， 「若人們發現這海灘根本不存在，可能會很失望」。
每日電訊報/英國太陽報
[緬甸] 軍政府跟傳媒打訊息戰
星島日報 A28 國際
2007-09-29
軍政府跟傳媒打訊息戰
緬甸軍政府與西方世界的信息戰打響了。目擊者憶述，除了日本記者長井健司於周四在拍攝時被殺外，當天還有其他人因手持手機或相機而遭士兵毒打；緬甸部分私營報章被逼停刊，互聯網服務被切斷。另一邊廂，為了抗衡軍政府的信息封鎖，美國之音及自由亞洲電台加強對緬甸的廣播服務。
不願透露姓名的緬甸報業人員稱，部分私營報章被逼停刊，因為這些報章拒絕刊登軍政府的宣傳廣告。被逼停刊的包括緬甸傳媒集團ElevenMediaGroup發行的四份周報、「仰光傳媒」(YangonMedia)旗下兩份周刊，還有《Kamudra》、《聲音》(Voice)和《市場》(Market)這三份周刊。另一個傳媒集團PyiMyanmar也計畫完全停止出版。
本土互聯網被切斷
泰國電訊官員在曼谷稱，緬甸境內的互聯網服務已被切斷。對緬甸軍政府行為看不過眼的匿名博客，透過互聯網(包括社交網站Facebook)把大量見證緬甸軍人殘酷行為的相片傳到世界各地，肯定惹來軍政府極度不滿，互聯網遂成為誅滅的目標。據報，美國參議員麥康奈爾和范斯坦也特別向短片分享網站YouTube上載影片，聲援緬甸的示威者。
與此同時，美國之音及自由亞洲電台則於本周三起開始加強對緬甸的廣播。其中美國之音把每日緬甸語的廣播時間由個半小時增至三小時；自由亞洲電台對緬甸的每日廣播，由兩小時增至四小時。
2007-09-29
軍政府跟傳媒打訊息戰
緬甸軍政府與西方世界的信息戰打響了。目擊者憶述，除了日本記者長井健司於周四在拍攝時被殺外，當天還有其他人因手持手機或相機而遭士兵毒打；緬甸部分私營報章被逼停刊，互聯網服務被切斷。另一邊廂，為了抗衡軍政府的信息封鎖，美國之音及自由亞洲電台加強對緬甸的廣播服務。
不願透露姓名的緬甸報業人員稱，部分私營報章被逼停刊，因為這些報章拒絕刊登軍政府的宣傳廣告。被逼停刊的包括緬甸傳媒集團ElevenMediaGroup發行的四份周報、「仰光傳媒」(YangonMedia)旗下兩份周刊，還有《Kamudra》、《聲音》(Voice)和《市場》(Market)這三份周刊。另一個傳媒集團PyiMyanmar也計畫完全停止出版。
本土互聯網被切斷
泰國電訊官員在曼谷稱，緬甸境內的互聯網服務已被切斷。對緬甸軍政府行為看不過眼的匿名博客，透過互聯網(包括社交網站Facebook)把大量見證緬甸軍人殘酷行為的相片傳到世界各地，肯定惹來軍政府極度不滿，互聯網遂成為誅滅的目標。據報，美國參議員麥康奈爾和范斯坦也特別向短片分享網站YouTube上載影片，聲援緬甸的示威者。
與此同時，美國之音及自由亞洲電台則於本周三起開始加強對緬甸的廣播。其中美國之音把每日緬甸語的廣播時間由個半小時增至三小時；自由亞洲電台對緬甸的每日廣播，由兩小時增至四小時。
Student activism on the rise again at UTC
Chattanooga Times/Free Press, Tenn. By Amber J. Adams
2007-09-30
Student activism on the rise again at UTC
Source: Chattanooga Times/Free Press, Tenn.
Sep. 30--Carrying a plastic bag filled with ink pens and stationary, Cornell Gaulmon, a senior at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, addressed a group of students last week about the importance of taking a stand for what they believe in.
"College is known as a time to find yourself and be active," said Mr. Gaulmon, president of the UTC chapter of National Associated for the Advancement of Colored People. "The biggest rallies and cultural changes happen on college campuses. You get to impact people you normally can't."
The students were gathered to participate in a letter-writing campaign, organized by the campus chapter of the NAACP, on behalf of six black, high school students in Jena, La. Five of the students initially were charged with attempted second-degree murder (charges later were reduced), after being accused of beating a white classmate until he was unconscious during a fight at their school.
The case has captured the attention of national leaders, civil-rights activists and college students alike as the defendants face trial. Many allege that punishment for black students has been harsher than punishment for white students in continuing altercations between the races at Jena High School.
On Sept. 20, more than 10,000 people traveled to Jena to participate in a march of support for the six students.
Members of UTC chapter of the NAACP spent several days passing out petitions, asking students to wear black in support of the march and writing letters to Louisiana government officials.
Jim Hicks, associate dean of students at UTC, said student activism is not unusual to see on the modern college campus. He said some campus organizations such as College Democrats and the Young Republicans are frequently active in bringing national issues to campus attention.
"We have noticed that for the past few years, each freshman class is more in tune with those types of issues," he said. "Injustice anywhere affects you. Those are good lessons to learn."
Jasmine Crowell, a UTC freshman and a member of the campus chapter of NAACP, sat at a table in the University Center for hours to ask students to sign petitions and donate money for the cause.
"I am showing that everyone can come together and help make a difference," she said. "I like to give back to the community."
Dr. Jean Howard-Hill, a political-science professor at UTC, said it is beneficial for students to get involved in national issues.
"We are not living in a vacuum here at the university," she said. "What is going on in the real world impacts them. This is where they learn to become participants by researching the issues, establishing a position and coming up with a plan to execute that position."
Technology played a part in spreading the word about the Jena Six among college students across the country. Students such as Mr. Gaulmon used the social networking site Facebook to organize events and rally for or against the cause.
"Because I am on the move, being able to get on Facebook and create a group or an event helps," he said.
Facebook has more than 500 groups devoted to the Jena Six topic. The groups represent several states and universities.
Despite the availability of technology, Mr. Gaulmon said nothing can take the place of explaining the issue in person.
"We caught people off-guard in the University Center," Mr. Gualmon said, "We would say, 'Hey, have you heard about this?' That was the biggest thing we have done."
Damon Scott, a UTC senior, said signing the petition made him feel like he was making a difference. "I hope we can get more of the campus involved," he said.
For some students, the need to participate in activism events stimulates their college experience.
"I feel like I should be a part of something that students can really care about," said Chris Smith, a UTC freshman. "They (NAACP) took the time to put up posters and talk to people. I want to get involved."
Regardless of personal positions on any issue, Jestine Mayberry said college students should seek information on national and global topics.
"I think that as college students we should make it our responsibility to know about it," said the UTC senior. "I think we need to hold ourselves responsible for getting the word out."
Mr. Gaulmon said he is impressed with the results of their campaign so far. More than 400 signatures and $150 were collected in two days.
"If you can impact one person that makes a difference," he said. "Without struggle there is no progress."
E-mail Amber J. Adams at aadams@timesfreepress.com
Copyright: To see more of the Chattanooga Times/Free Press, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.timesfreepress.com. Copyright (c) 2007, Chattanooga Times/Free Press, Tenn. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.
Web2.0：網絡進化論
茶杯 P132 c_it
2007-10-01
標示關鍵字
Web2.0：網絡進化論
近來很多人都聽到Web 2.0這個名字，但大概沒甚麼人清楚它是甚麼。這也難怪，Web 2.0並不是一個技術標準，雖然它包含了一些技術架構，也會透過一些應用軟體和技術顯現，但它有時也比較像個網絡使用方式，甚至態度的轉變。
有2.0才有1.0如果不是Web 2.0這概念在這兩、三年內盛行，我們也不會把大約十多年前開始的Dotcom時代的萬維網（World-Wide Web）稱為Web 1.0。而早期的網頁內容概念是基於不時更新或甚至不更新的靜態、以HTML（超文件標示語言）為核心的網頁系統，到後來進入所謂Content is king時期，大批傳統內容提供者，包括報章、雜誌、電子傳媒等投資互聯網世界，利用各種內容管理系統（CMS）把經常更新的資料庫中的內容自動生產出動態頁面，但內容的提供仍以單向為主、從上而下居多。
反之，Web 2.0的核心概念是互動與分享，所有的網路行為，都可用「互動、分享」的概念來作詮釋。Web 2.0鼓勵作為資訊最終利用者透過分享，使到可供分享的資源變得更豐盛，充分挖掘網路效應。最具代表性的Web 2.0成功應用，像博客（blog）、視像分享的YouTube服務等，都是用戶創造內容（User Generated Content）分享的鮮明例子。明白Web 2.0，必須與所謂Web 1.0的應用作比較，因為Web 2.0是一個用來形容技術和使用習慣轉變的術語。O'Reilly Media的Dale Dougherty在2004年提出網絡應用正處於復興時期，規則正在不斷改變，商業模式也不斷演化，他並舉例說明：「Doubleclick是Web 1.0，Google AdSense 則是Web 2.0；Ofoto是Web 1.0，Flickr則是Web 2.0。」（詳見表格）
O'Reilly當時並指出了Web 2.0應用特色的一些關鍵原則，可說是Web 2.0最初期的「主導思想」：‧將Web作為主要平台‧駕馭群體智慧‧資料將變成未來的「Intel Inside」‧軟體不斷發行與升級的循環將會終結（永久的Beta版）‧輕量型程序設計模型‧通過內容和服務的結合，使輕量的業務模型可行‧軟體執行將跨越單一終端設備‧豐富的用戶體驗‧分享和參與的架構所驅動的網路效應‧通過帶動分散和獨立的開發者，把各系統和網站組合形成大彙集‧帶動長尾效應的能力‧快速的反應與功能新增‧雙向的互動配合這些Web 2.0概念，Web 2.0技術基礎仍在演化中，但一般Web 2.0應用會避免使用標準瀏覽器以外的增強功能和外掛程式，完全地基於標準瀏覽器，而且網站不能是封閉的，必須可以很方便地被其他系統獲取或寫入數據，用戶也應該能在網站上擁有他們自己的數據。Web 2.0強烈的分享、共用意式，與點對點技術軟件系統利用分享資源而達致共用內容的做法，不謀而合，亦與新一代版權分享概念，如開放源碼、創作共享（Creative Commons）等，關係是分不開的，所以這些技術和概念，亦往往被當作為Web 2.0的一部份。Web 2.0的數據聯合和消息傳送能力，令網上社區出現了根本變化，完全不同的社區之間很容易就能創建更加緊密的社會構造，引發了各社會網絡（Social Networking）服務出現，從標榜專業關係社會網絡的LinkedIn，至針對年輕用戶的MySpace，和近期人氣急升的Facebook等。
更多的零Web2.0既是人與人之間更為便捷的互動，得到眾多網民的接納，也帶來了很多「成功」的新商業模式，例如YouTube（Google在2006年以16.5億美元收購）、Flickr（Yahoo!在2005年收購）、Skype（eBay在2005年以26億美元收購）、MySpace（新聞集團在2005年以5.8億美元收購）、Blogger（Google在2003年收購）等，令Web 2.0在創業者和風險投資者眼中，又變成了有很多個零的機會。即使在中國內地和香港，近年其實也有不少Web 2.0創業者，中國市場龐大，自然有很多中國式的抄襲出現，當中最「離譜」的莫過於連內容也從維基百科照抄過來（當然，在內容審查過濾後）的百度百科，總體來說乏善足陳。只有在部份範疇的技術和使用量比較出色，像網絡視頻包括點對點視像川流（如UUSee、PPLive等），但卻未能充分利用Web 2.0用戶創造內容概念，自然是與中國對網絡內容監控有關。反而，香港的新進年青Web 2.0創業者，創意相比之下毫不遜色，而且更有國際視野，加上Web 2.0的本質是輕量型設計和營運的，所以他們其實是有一定的競爭優勢的。但他們如何才能得到市場和投資者對Web 2.0認識和支持，令他們有機會在技術和應用周期轉變前得以建立實力和競爭力，是應受注視的，以免我們社會把這些年青人身上的資本浪費去了。■
Web 1.0 Web 2.0 DoubleClick ?Google AdSense Ofoto ?Flickr Akamai ?BitTorrent（BT） mp3.com ?Napster 大英百科 ?維基百科 個人網頁 ?博客 Evite ?Upcoming.org和EVDB 炒賣域名 ?搜尋引擎優化 瀏覽次數 ?每次點擊成本 零碎網頁 ?網絡服務 出版 ?參與 內容出版系統（CMS） ?維基軟件目錄分類法（Taxonomy） ?Tagging，分眾分類法（Folksonomy） 黏性（Stickiness） ?聯合組織（Syndication）
抗爭，要講戰術
茶杯 P113 c_blog
2007-10-01
標示關鍵字
抗爭，要講戰術
香港近來興講策略（Strategy），補選要策略，抗爭要策略，考狀元要策略，吃頓飯可能遲早也要有策略。當策略成為一個buzzword之時，我們不妨思考這個詞本身有甚麼意義？網絡時代的策略和幾百年前的有甚麼分別？除了策略，戰術（Tactics）又應該放在甚麼位置呢？Geert Lovink是互聯網文化研究專家，他多年來提倡「戰術媒體」（Tactical Media），意即對主流文化不滿或遭排斥的個人或團體，利用廉價「do it yourself」的媒體例如廣播、網絡等進行抗爭。也即是一種是從上到下的運動，衝擊權力中心。這個現象可以追溯到上世紀初德國的Radio Project到六、七十年代意大利的無政府主義運動，以新科技宣傳政治意識。
策略和戰術的分別何在？法國哲學家、社會學家Michel de Certeau提出了一個很有趣的分別：策略依賴的是空間，也即是擁有了空間上優勢，然後置之於時間之上，再利用時間塑造和其他對手的關係。而戰術依賴的則是時間，也即是要在短時間來取得優勢，然後無論結果如何都要將其轉變成資源，並即時改變自己以迎戰另一個回合。策略長遠而有賴於充足的資源，而戰術則短線而有賴於速度。普魯士軍事理論家Karl von Clausewitz，用了一個很淺顯的比喻：策略是計劃整場戰役，而戰術則是計劃一場戰爭。政府和大機構向來不斷吸納智囊，出謀獻策，以公關戰、宣傳戰等為主。抗爭者無論在資源、資訊方面遠遜於政府，如若知己而不知彼（知己乎？），何來的策略？所以抗爭，只能以短期戰術的方式表現。而個人和小團體的優勢在於速度，相比之下也即是說主流權力對新科技的反應略慢，而且架構龐大的關係造成延遲。如果從這個角度看，民間的抗爭很難在策略上取勝，而只能在戰術上打擊對手。
但回到Geert Lovint的戰術媒體，或者有問當互聯網也成為了主流媒體，那麼戰術媒體的優勢還在哪呢？互聯網上新技術日新月異，當政府部門有網頁的時候，民間已經流行博客，當政府政黨使用博客的時候，民間已經有podcasting，或者再微觀一點，如果連podcasting也被權力中心應用，我們還可以在facebook成立不同的組織。這些便是速度上的差異，而戰術媒體的優勢始終都是屬於流動的個體。所以如果民間團體想將戰術轉型成策略來壯大聲勢，時間資源存在?颾琤貍坁滬郃謘A而抗爭也因為要爭取代表性而失去了其純粹性。為甚麼我的抗爭要寄居在某個名義之下，為甚麼抗爭的變成了爭取傳媒報道的手段？以香港近期來的社會運動為例，當抗爭由一場「我要保存皇后碼頭」變成了「群眾需要集體回憶」，一種主動的訴求，變成了一個被動的口號。■
加青年設Facebook支持僧侶抗議
am730 M06 新聞
2007-10-02
標示關鍵字
加青年設Facebook支持僧侶抗議
加拿大19歲青年Alex Bookbinder，上月19日在時興的Facebook內，設立「支持緬甸僧侶抗議」(Support the monks protest in Burma)網頁披露緬甸局勢，並讓網民討論。該網現已有14萬名會員，目前每日仍有數千人參加。Bookbinder上月到當地旅行，但期間遭到監視，令他決意成立網頁揭露緬甸真正的一面。該網呼籲網民支持僧侶抗議行動，例如去信自己國家的大使館。
Facebook 的企圖
Facebook 的企圖 [2007-10-05]
除了被收購和上市，在“當紅小生”Facebook面前，還有怎樣的選擇?
本刊特約記者萬贇╱發自美國
自從默多克的新聞集團在2005年以5.8億美元收購了MySpace的母公司之後，美國媒體的注意力逐漸開始轉向最近一段時間不斷創新、風頭直逼Google的Facebook。最近，更有消息說，微軟有可能出手60億美元收購Facebook。更逼真的消息是，微軟準備斥資5億美元收購Facebook大約5%的股份。這一切固然使人們對Facebook的前景更加看好;但另一方面，人們也不得不懷疑，對於一家成立不到三年的公司，是什麼魅力使其能夠坐享吸引高達數十億美元的收購價位呢?
Facebook的創建者是哈佛大學的一個叫Mark Zuckerberg的猶太裔本科生。關於Facebook的起源，有兩種不同的版本。根據Zuckerberg的說法，當時做Facebook的動機是想提供一個網上通訊錄，讓住在不同宿舍樓里的同學之間加強聯繫。而根據Zuckerberg的三個正在跟他打官司的同學描述，是他們最初僱傭Zuckerberg為他們的ConnectU.com社區網站做程序，可是Zuckerberg一直沒有提交程序，卻隨後用本來給他們做的程序源代碼創建了Facebook。換句話說，是Zuckerberg偷了他們的計劃，“捷足先登”。
無論真實情況如何，由於Zuckerberg創建Facebook的時機恰到好處，Facebook網站在2004年2月成立後不久，就在校園內迅速傳播開來。並且，憑借哈佛在美國院校中的影響，它很快就從哈佛傳到了麻省理工學院等眾多在波士頓的其他學校。在其後的兩個多月內又傳到了羅徹斯特、斯坦福、紐約大學、西北大學和包括所有常青藤聯校在內的美國中西部和西海岸的幾乎所有大學。
眼見時機成熟，當年5月，Zuckerberg和他的兩個同學來到硅谷，開始正式創業。由於正好趕上那波Web 2.0熱潮，Facebook很快就得到了50萬美元的第一筆風投，其註冊用戶數在2004年年底達到了100萬。到2005年，它又得到了1200多萬美元的第二筆風投。同年8月，Facebook斥資20萬美元買到了facebook.com的域名，正式換掉了原來一直沿用的thefacebook.com。9月，在完成了美國主要大學的“圈地運動”之後，Facebook適時開始嚮美國高中挺進。與此同時，網站放寬了加入限制，將以前的邀請製，改為開放註冊製。這一舉措，恰到好處地延續了Facebook的高速增長勢頭。
到2005年底，Facebook已經滲透到了包括美國以外的大學和中學在內的2000多所大學和25000多所高中。至此，Facebook完成了早期創業。
其實，Facebook並不是最早的社區網站，在1995年上的classmate.com纔是;Facebook也不是當前最流行的社區網站，MySpace的訪問量和註冊用戶到現在為止都要比它高一個數量級，而且躋身千萬級註冊用戶的社區網站也有近十家。但Facebook的發展速度和受媒體關注的程度已經開始超過MySpace。人們之所以看好Facebook，是因為它的創始人、發源地、發展模式和發展勢頭這幾個方面，都有幾分微軟和Google當年的綽約風姿。
Zuckerberg是一個從小在紐約郊區長大的猶太裔青年。據他在哈佛校刊的自述，他從六年級開始就迷上了計算機編程。在未創建Facebook之前，他就和另一個同學設計了一個媒體播放器軟件，得到了包括微軟在內的不少軟件公司的注意，由此可見其編程功力。
當然，在猶太文化熏陶下長大的Zuckerberg捕捉商業機會的本能應該絲毫不遜於其技術能力。要不然恐怕也不會有與其同學的訴訟官司。象當年的蓋茨一樣，Zuckerberg在Facebook有了起色之後，就從哈佛休學去了加州開始創業。
Facebook雖然沒有誕生在斯坦福和硅谷，但對社區網站而言，講究校友圈子的哈佛應該有同樣的“光環效應”和甚至更高的成功概率。事實上，在Facebook之前，硅谷也曾經有一個一度流行的名為Friendster的社區網站。可是該網站僅僅維持了一年就風光不再。這裡面當然有很多具體策略上的失誤，但不可否認的是，在盛行極客(Geek)文化的硅谷和斯坦福，社區網站發展的“土壤”可能遠不及東海岸的哈佛肥沃。
Facebook的發展模式跟其它流行的社區網站也有本質的區別。這或許是Facebook走紅的決定性因素。MySpace和流行一時的Friendster，以及更早的Classmates.com採取的都是先有網站、後有社區的自上而下式發展模式。在這種模式下，人們通過網站結識，其關係也往往局限於虛擬社區。採取這種模式發展起來的網站就像流行性感冒的傳播一樣，常常是流行的快，衰落的也快。只有少數幸運的如MySpace能夠及時引進獨立音樂這樣的賣點，給社區成員一個經常聚攏的話題，從而形成較為穩定的經營模式。即便如此，由於各自文化的背景差異，其社區成員之間仍然很難建立起真實社區中，成員之間的那種全面的信任和默契。
而Facebook則採取了自下而上的發展模式。其網站是建立在已經存在的社區基礎上，並且採用“邀請”加入制度。這無疑減少了文化差異，增強了成員的隱私和歸屬感。從而能夠較好的复製真實社區成員之間的信任和默契。而後者為新的商業模式提供了重要的基礎前提。
不僅如此，Facebook在經歷了初期成長後，果斷地採取了開放註冊和開放平台的轉型策略。這使它不僅保持了自今年年初開始的每周3%的活躍用戶數增長率，還有平均每天每個成員使用其服務20分鐘的驚人發展勢頭，這使它在最近一段時間備受媒體關注和看好。
Facebook顯然意識到要想保持持續發展，就必須開放其註冊制度。但過度開放的同時，也有可能對已有社區成員的信任度和隱私感造成負面衝擊，使吸引力下降，所以Facebook就採取了分幾小步走的逐步開放註冊方式。這包括從美國名校到普通大學和社區大學以及海外英語國家的大學擴展的第一步，這一步在2005年底已經基本完成。從2006年初，Facebook開始允許現有的社區成員邀請高中學生加入。同時，開始加入非英語國家高校和高中的學生註冊。這是第二步。
最後的一步是在2006年9月邁出的，Facebook全面開放了其註冊制度，允許任何人以所居住的地區為條件加入。據ComScore統計，自去年9月至今，Facebook的用戶數勁增89%。與此但同時，Facebook仍舊保持了其隱私政策，比如，只有同校的成員之間纔可以互相查看聯繫信息，而部分個人信息需要授權才能查看。所有這些措施使Facebook在不斷擴張的同時，能夠較好的鞏固住Facebook對現有成員的凝聚力，從而加強了社區氛圍和成員的歸屬感。
如果說逐步開放註冊是Facebook的一手穩招的話，今年5月開始的開放平台策略則是Facebook的一記重拳。所謂開放平台就是Facebook將其內部系統和數據通過應用程序接口的形式提供給任何第三方程序使用，就好比計算機的操作系統給應用程序提供接口一樣。這樣，任何感興趣的個人或公司均可以根據Facebook提供的接口設計各種應用程序供社區成員使用。這一舉措立即將Facebook提升到了與微軟、Google、Amazon、eBay等四大平台戰略的網絡巨頭同一競爭舞台上。
Facebook甚至更超前。最近，它聯合風投公司共投入1000萬美元成立了內部風險資金“fbFund”，為第三方程序設計者提供從2.5萬到25萬美元不等的基金，用來資助以Facebook為平台的應用程序和商業計劃的開發。所謂“重賞之下必有勇夫”，估計此舉肯定會激勵不少大學生，尤其是目前Facebook的成員來利用這個機會創業。
關於Facebook的下一步，大概有三種可能性。
一是目前媒體中討論最多的被收購。市場上傳言最多的可能收購者是Google、雅虎、微軟和維亞康姆這四家公司。人們普遍看好Google，因為Google如果收購Facebook的話，將不但減少一個潛在的競爭對手，還有可能將Facebook與其現有的Orkut進行整合。Orkut在巴西和印度非常流行，而Facebook主要流行於北美和其它英語國家，這兩者恰恰有很好的互補效應。
微軟也有很強的意願收購Facebook，這是因為微軟的競爭對手主要是Google，如果這次讓Google占了先，將會對微軟造成進一步的打擊。而收購Facebook則有可能使其與Google在社區網站上分庭抗禮，甚至一舉超過後者的影響力。
雅虎在早些時候也曾經試圖收購Facebook，但由於出價過低，沒能成功。目前來看，雅虎很有可能選擇另一家面嚮兒童和博客的社區網站Bebo。而維亞康姆是更傳統的傳媒公司，估計在收購價格上出的不會太高。不管花落誰家，Facebook的收購價應該不會低於60億美元。
Facebook的另一個未來可能是在2008年上市。象當年的PayPal和Google一樣，雖然目前美國的股票市場很不景氣，但一個公司只要有好的發展潛力，不愁沒有好的IPO。事實上，2002年2月PayPal上市時，恰逢美國股市最低谷，並受到“9·11”襲擊事件的影響，可是它上市當天就從開盤的15美元漲到18美元，並在當年7月被eBay以接近每股24美元的價格收購。而Google上市前也不被投資銀行界看好，它還採取了荷蘭式股票拍賣方式，可是其股價仍然從上市的85美元一路漲到現在的500多美元。Facebook現在的勢頭跟它們都很類似。所以盡管很多華爾街的業內人士並不看好其IPO的前景，但Facebook如果真的選擇上市，很可能又會創出一個IPO奇跡。
最後一種可能，是繼續保持獨立發展的道路。根據目前Facebook的盈利情況，其去年5000萬美元左右和今年預計1.5億美元的營業額完全可以使其維持獨立發展。事實上，Facebook的平台開放策略如果發揮得當，其基於真實社會網絡的海量用戶社交數據將給第三方程序提供無窮無盡的數據挖掘機會。幾乎可以肯定的是，在眾多的嘗試中，新的廣告模式將會出現。到時，Facebook將象Google一樣，通過聯合商業網站、分流銷售利潤來迅速發展，最終取代現有的網絡營銷模式。
另一方面，為了滿足早期投資者和風投的回報需要，Facebook有可能出售一部分股份套現。Craiglist的創業人巴克馬斯特在2004年將其公司的25%股份賣給了eBay就是一個例子。作為出售條件之一，Craiglist將繼續保持其無商業廣告的風格。如果Facebook能夠達成類似的協議，將使Facebook的早期投資者和用戶都能各得其所。
後面兩步舉措都能夠較好的保持Facebook現在的特色。而第一種可能，雖然會給創業人和投資者帶來巨大的經濟回報，但有可能會扼殺其現有的創新能力，使Facebook淪為僅為其收購公司提供新的客戶群而已。
熟悉網絡搜索技術的人都知道，微軟的成功來自與其對個人電腦操作系統的市場創建和壟斷;Google的成功是基於其對幾百億網頁之間超文本鏈接內涵的深度挖掘。如果說蓋茨象是當年的福特，則布林和佩奇更象是加州的兩個淘金者發現了一座塵封已久但無人開採的金礦。
而Facebook的角色既象微軟，又像Google。其最終目標是，一方面象微軟一樣，創建一個基於互聯網之上的包容一切的“社區網絡操作系統”，嚮其成員提供各種各樣的信息、購物和社交服務;同時象Google一樣，充分發掘系統之內人們使用這些服務的數據金礦，並從每一筆交易中抽取利潤分成。這一總的商業模型的威力已經從微軟、Google和比價購物網站的成功中得到了驗證。
近幾個月，Facebook與Google的直接競爭已經初見倪端。不久的將來，恐怕連Amazon和eBay都不能幸免。Amazon的主要特色是其協同過濾技術，但是社交網絡顯然可以提供更準確的協同過濾信息。買賣雙方的信用信息是eBay保持其比較優勢的看家武器。但Facebook社區成員之間的信任和信任傳遞顯然具有與eBay信用系統相同甚至更高的可操作性。至於其它主要網絡零售商如Buy.com則早已開始和Facebook合作。
所以，Facebook如果繼續保持其目前的創新勢頭和發展速度，很有可能會在5年以內再造Google當年崛起時的輝煌，甚至顛覆互聯網。
100億美元
如果微軟真出資收購Facebook公司5%的股份,這相當於於為後者定下了100億美元的市面值
Facebook
Facebook的角色既象微軟，又像Google。其最終目標是，一方面象微軟一樣，創建一個基於互聯網之上的包容一切的“禮區網絡操作系統”，嚮其成員提供各種各樣的信息、購物和社交服務；同時象Google一樣，充分發掘系統之內人們使用這些服務的數據金礦，並從每一筆交易中抽取利潤分成。
除了被收購和上市，在“當紅小生”Facebook面前，還有怎樣的選擇?
本刊特約記者萬贇╱發自美國
自從默多克的新聞集團在2005年以5.8億美元收購了MySpace的母公司之後，美國媒體的注意力逐漸開始轉向最近一段時間不斷創新、風頭直逼Google的Facebook。最近，更有消息說，微軟有可能出手60億美元收購Facebook。更逼真的消息是，微軟準備斥資5億美元收購Facebook大約5%的股份。這一切固然使人們對Facebook的前景更加看好;但另一方面，人們也不得不懷疑，對於一家成立不到三年的公司，是什麼魅力使其能夠坐享吸引高達數十億美元的收購價位呢?
Facebook的創建者是哈佛大學的一個叫Mark Zuckerberg的猶太裔本科生。關於Facebook的起源，有兩種不同的版本。根據Zuckerberg的說法，當時做Facebook的動機是想提供一個網上通訊錄，讓住在不同宿舍樓里的同學之間加強聯繫。而根據Zuckerberg的三個正在跟他打官司的同學描述，是他們最初僱傭Zuckerberg為他們的ConnectU.com社區網站做程序，可是Zuckerberg一直沒有提交程序，卻隨後用本來給他們做的程序源代碼創建了Facebook。換句話說，是Zuckerberg偷了他們的計劃，“捷足先登”。
無論真實情況如何，由於Zuckerberg創建Facebook的時機恰到好處，Facebook網站在2004年2月成立後不久，就在校園內迅速傳播開來。並且，憑借哈佛在美國院校中的影響，它很快就從哈佛傳到了麻省理工學院等眾多在波士頓的其他學校。在其後的兩個多月內又傳到了羅徹斯特、斯坦福、紐約大學、西北大學和包括所有常青藤聯校在內的美國中西部和西海岸的幾乎所有大學。
眼見時機成熟，當年5月，Zuckerberg和他的兩個同學來到硅谷，開始正式創業。由於正好趕上那波Web 2.0熱潮，Facebook很快就得到了50萬美元的第一筆風投，其註冊用戶數在2004年年底達到了100萬。到2005年，它又得到了1200多萬美元的第二筆風投。同年8月，Facebook斥資20萬美元買到了facebook.com的域名，正式換掉了原來一直沿用的thefacebook.com。9月，在完成了美國主要大學的“圈地運動”之後，Facebook適時開始嚮美國高中挺進。與此同時，網站放寬了加入限制，將以前的邀請製，改為開放註冊製。這一舉措，恰到好處地延續了Facebook的高速增長勢頭。
到2005年底，Facebook已經滲透到了包括美國以外的大學和中學在內的2000多所大學和25000多所高中。至此，Facebook完成了早期創業。
其實，Facebook並不是最早的社區網站，在1995年上的classmate.com纔是;Facebook也不是當前最流行的社區網站，MySpace的訪問量和註冊用戶到現在為止都要比它高一個數量級，而且躋身千萬級註冊用戶的社區網站也有近十家。但Facebook的發展速度和受媒體關注的程度已經開始超過MySpace。人們之所以看好Facebook，是因為它的創始人、發源地、發展模式和發展勢頭這幾個方面，都有幾分微軟和Google當年的綽約風姿。
Zuckerberg是一個從小在紐約郊區長大的猶太裔青年。據他在哈佛校刊的自述，他從六年級開始就迷上了計算機編程。在未創建Facebook之前，他就和另一個同學設計了一個媒體播放器軟件，得到了包括微軟在內的不少軟件公司的注意，由此可見其編程功力。
當然，在猶太文化熏陶下長大的Zuckerberg捕捉商業機會的本能應該絲毫不遜於其技術能力。要不然恐怕也不會有與其同學的訴訟官司。象當年的蓋茨一樣，Zuckerberg在Facebook有了起色之後，就從哈佛休學去了加州開始創業。
Facebook雖然沒有誕生在斯坦福和硅谷，但對社區網站而言，講究校友圈子的哈佛應該有同樣的“光環效應”和甚至更高的成功概率。事實上，在Facebook之前，硅谷也曾經有一個一度流行的名為Friendster的社區網站。可是該網站僅僅維持了一年就風光不再。這裡面當然有很多具體策略上的失誤，但不可否認的是，在盛行極客(Geek)文化的硅谷和斯坦福，社區網站發展的“土壤”可能遠不及東海岸的哈佛肥沃。
Facebook的發展模式跟其它流行的社區網站也有本質的區別。這或許是Facebook走紅的決定性因素。MySpace和流行一時的Friendster，以及更早的Classmates.com採取的都是先有網站、後有社區的自上而下式發展模式。在這種模式下，人們通過網站結識，其關係也往往局限於虛擬社區。採取這種模式發展起來的網站就像流行性感冒的傳播一樣，常常是流行的快，衰落的也快。只有少數幸運的如MySpace能夠及時引進獨立音樂這樣的賣點，給社區成員一個經常聚攏的話題，從而形成較為穩定的經營模式。即便如此，由於各自文化的背景差異，其社區成員之間仍然很難建立起真實社區中，成員之間的那種全面的信任和默契。
而Facebook則採取了自下而上的發展模式。其網站是建立在已經存在的社區基礎上，並且採用“邀請”加入制度。這無疑減少了文化差異，增強了成員的隱私和歸屬感。從而能夠較好的复製真實社區成員之間的信任和默契。而後者為新的商業模式提供了重要的基礎前提。
不僅如此，Facebook在經歷了初期成長後，果斷地採取了開放註冊和開放平台的轉型策略。這使它不僅保持了自今年年初開始的每周3%的活躍用戶數增長率，還有平均每天每個成員使用其服務20分鐘的驚人發展勢頭，這使它在最近一段時間備受媒體關注和看好。
Facebook顯然意識到要想保持持續發展，就必須開放其註冊制度。但過度開放的同時，也有可能對已有社區成員的信任度和隱私感造成負面衝擊，使吸引力下降，所以Facebook就採取了分幾小步走的逐步開放註冊方式。這包括從美國名校到普通大學和社區大學以及海外英語國家的大學擴展的第一步，這一步在2005年底已經基本完成。從2006年初，Facebook開始允許現有的社區成員邀請高中學生加入。同時，開始加入非英語國家高校和高中的學生註冊。這是第二步。
最後的一步是在2006年9月邁出的，Facebook全面開放了其註冊制度，允許任何人以所居住的地區為條件加入。據ComScore統計，自去年9月至今，Facebook的用戶數勁增89%。與此但同時，Facebook仍舊保持了其隱私政策，比如，只有同校的成員之間纔可以互相查看聯繫信息，而部分個人信息需要授權才能查看。所有這些措施使Facebook在不斷擴張的同時，能夠較好的鞏固住Facebook對現有成員的凝聚力，從而加強了社區氛圍和成員的歸屬感。
如果說逐步開放註冊是Facebook的一手穩招的話，今年5月開始的開放平台策略則是Facebook的一記重拳。所謂開放平台就是Facebook將其內部系統和數據通過應用程序接口的形式提供給任何第三方程序使用，就好比計算機的操作系統給應用程序提供接口一樣。這樣，任何感興趣的個人或公司均可以根據Facebook提供的接口設計各種應用程序供社區成員使用。這一舉措立即將Facebook提升到了與微軟、Google、Amazon、eBay等四大平台戰略的網絡巨頭同一競爭舞台上。
Facebook甚至更超前。最近，它聯合風投公司共投入1000萬美元成立了內部風險資金“fbFund”，為第三方程序設計者提供從2.5萬到25萬美元不等的基金，用來資助以Facebook為平台的應用程序和商業計劃的開發。所謂“重賞之下必有勇夫”，估計此舉肯定會激勵不少大學生，尤其是目前Facebook的成員來利用這個機會創業。
關於Facebook的下一步，大概有三種可能性。
一是目前媒體中討論最多的被收購。市場上傳言最多的可能收購者是Google、雅虎、微軟和維亞康姆這四家公司。人們普遍看好Google，因為Google如果收購Facebook的話，將不但減少一個潛在的競爭對手，還有可能將Facebook與其現有的Orkut進行整合。Orkut在巴西和印度非常流行，而Facebook主要流行於北美和其它英語國家，這兩者恰恰有很好的互補效應。
微軟也有很強的意願收購Facebook，這是因為微軟的競爭對手主要是Google，如果這次讓Google占了先，將會對微軟造成進一步的打擊。而收購Facebook則有可能使其與Google在社區網站上分庭抗禮，甚至一舉超過後者的影響力。
雅虎在早些時候也曾經試圖收購Facebook，但由於出價過低，沒能成功。目前來看，雅虎很有可能選擇另一家面嚮兒童和博客的社區網站Bebo。而維亞康姆是更傳統的傳媒公司，估計在收購價格上出的不會太高。不管花落誰家，Facebook的收購價應該不會低於60億美元。
Facebook的另一個未來可能是在2008年上市。象當年的PayPal和Google一樣，雖然目前美國的股票市場很不景氣，但一個公司只要有好的發展潛力，不愁沒有好的IPO。事實上，2002年2月PayPal上市時，恰逢美國股市最低谷，並受到“9·11”襲擊事件的影響，可是它上市當天就從開盤的15美元漲到18美元，並在當年7月被eBay以接近每股24美元的價格收購。而Google上市前也不被投資銀行界看好，它還採取了荷蘭式股票拍賣方式，可是其股價仍然從上市的85美元一路漲到現在的500多美元。Facebook現在的勢頭跟它們都很類似。所以盡管很多華爾街的業內人士並不看好其IPO的前景，但Facebook如果真的選擇上市，很可能又會創出一個IPO奇跡。
最後一種可能，是繼續保持獨立發展的道路。根據目前Facebook的盈利情況，其去年5000萬美元左右和今年預計1.5億美元的營業額完全可以使其維持獨立發展。事實上，Facebook的平台開放策略如果發揮得當，其基於真實社會網絡的海量用戶社交數據將給第三方程序提供無窮無盡的數據挖掘機會。幾乎可以肯定的是，在眾多的嘗試中，新的廣告模式將會出現。到時，Facebook將象Google一樣，通過聯合商業網站、分流銷售利潤來迅速發展，最終取代現有的網絡營銷模式。
另一方面，為了滿足早期投資者和風投的回報需要，Facebook有可能出售一部分股份套現。Craiglist的創業人巴克馬斯特在2004年將其公司的25%股份賣給了eBay就是一個例子。作為出售條件之一，Craiglist將繼續保持其無商業廣告的風格。如果Facebook能夠達成類似的協議，將使Facebook的早期投資者和用戶都能各得其所。
後面兩步舉措都能夠較好的保持Facebook現在的特色。而第一種可能，雖然會給創業人和投資者帶來巨大的經濟回報，但有可能會扼殺其現有的創新能力，使Facebook淪為僅為其收購公司提供新的客戶群而已。
熟悉網絡搜索技術的人都知道，微軟的成功來自與其對個人電腦操作系統的市場創建和壟斷;Google的成功是基於其對幾百億網頁之間超文本鏈接內涵的深度挖掘。如果說蓋茨象是當年的福特，則布林和佩奇更象是加州的兩個淘金者發現了一座塵封已久但無人開採的金礦。
而Facebook的角色既象微軟，又像Google。其最終目標是，一方面象微軟一樣，創建一個基於互聯網之上的包容一切的“社區網絡操作系統”，嚮其成員提供各種各樣的信息、購物和社交服務;同時象Google一樣，充分發掘系統之內人們使用這些服務的數據金礦，並從每一筆交易中抽取利潤分成。這一總的商業模型的威力已經從微軟、Google和比價購物網站的成功中得到了驗證。
近幾個月，Facebook與Google的直接競爭已經初見倪端。不久的將來，恐怕連Amazon和eBay都不能幸免。Amazon的主要特色是其協同過濾技術，但是社交網絡顯然可以提供更準確的協同過濾信息。買賣雙方的信用信息是eBay保持其比較優勢的看家武器。但Facebook社區成員之間的信任和信任傳遞顯然具有與eBay信用系統相同甚至更高的可操作性。至於其它主要網絡零售商如Buy.com則早已開始和Facebook合作。
所以，Facebook如果繼續保持其目前的創新勢頭和發展速度，很有可能會在5年以內再造Google當年崛起時的輝煌，甚至顛覆互聯網。
100億美元
如果微軟真出資收購Facebook公司5%的股份,這相當於於為後者定下了100億美元的市面值
Facebook的角色既象微軟，又像Google。其最終目標是，一方面象微軟一樣，創建一個基於互聯網之上的包容一切的“禮區網絡操作系統”，嚮其成員提供各種各樣的信息、購物和社交服務；同時象Google一樣，充分發掘系統之內人們使用這些服務的數據金礦，並從每一筆交易中抽取利潤分成。
Power puff protest
Grand Forks Herald, N.D. By Yangkyoung Lee
2007-10-06
Power puff protest
Source: Grand Forks Herald, N.D.
Oct. 6--Nick Cuskey doesn't respect UND's new tobacco-free policy.
So in an act of protest Friday, the UND student lit up one cigarette after another.
The aviation senior didn't hide. He puffed for five hours right in front of the Memorial Union, where there used to be a cigarette receptacle. He went through a whole pack.
And Cuskey wasn't alone Friday, the day UND's campus went tobacco free. Five smokers were with him. They were joined by another, and then several more.
"I usually don't smoke like this," Cuskey said. "But we are doing this for the sake of our rights to smoke. Everybody knows that smoking is bad, and yes, I know that."
"We are addicts," Cuskey continued. "You cannot just take that away from us saying that it's not good for us. . . (the) smoking ban is an ill-advised policy, and how they did it is not correct."
Like wildfire
Cuskey gathered fellow like-minded students and formed a group about three weeks ago.
Through words of mouth and the Facebook online network, close to 81 students expressed interest in participating in the "peaceful" protest, Cuskey said.
He said about 25 people showed up on the rainy and chilly Friday protest that began at noon and ended a little after 5 p.m.
All six smokers who were still smoking and protesting past 4 p.m. said they always respected nonsmokers and smoked 20 feet away from the building, the previous UND smoking rule.
"I try to be as courteous as possible when I smoke," said Cuskey, who's been smoking eight years.
"Yeah, we respect non-smokers' rights, too," another protester, Nick Gowan, agreed.
"I smoke far away from a building, and like today, when children passed us by, we stepped aside to keep the smoking from them," Cuskey added.
'Silly' policyGowan said the smoking ban is "a kind of silly" policy.
"People are not going to stop because of this," said Gowan, a freshman international studies major. "And I am not going to stop. They cannot expel us for smoking, can they? It's just a waste of time and money. I would like to quit someday, but not now."
Even though they said the protest was peaceful and harmless, several complaints of their audacious and outright violation of a less-than-day-old school policy reached a school official.
"The assistant vice president came and told us he received some complaints," Cuskey said. "That was it. We continued smoking after that. As I said before, it's impossible to enforce the policy."
The protesting students said what they want is a "compromise."
"The whole process was just too quick," Jayson Danto said. "There wasn't a step 1, then step 2 and then step 3. It's just too extreme.
"I come from a smoking family," said Danto, a junior commercial aviation major. "But it's my choice. I am addicted to cigarettes. We find comfort in that. And I am not ready to quit smoking yet. Pushing ideas is not right. They are trying to scapegoat smokers."
'Defrauding'Cuskey said the reason why the university adopted the smoking ban policy is that it can cut its health insurance policy.
"Now they can say they have this campuswide smoking ban," Cuskey said. "They want to go down on their insurance. People will still smoke. But from the outside, it looks like people are getting healthier. They are defrauding insurance companies. And UND is not the only one. It is happening everywhere in America now."
The students also said even though the university announced its intention to go tobacco-free a year ago it seems many students are neither aware of it nor had enough chances to make their voices heard.
"They said the Student Senate approved it, but it seems like the Student Senate didn't do their job in letting their constituents know about the ban," Cuskey said. "Look at the national or state politicians. Do they go around door to door and explain about a policy? Nope."
"It happened too fast," said Skeeter Hedoesit, a biology health science and anthropology major. "There were not many outlets where we could put our input."
Copyright: To see more of the Grand Forks Herald, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.grandforks.com. Copyright (c) 2007, Grand Forks Herald, N.D. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)