Wired Digital Buys Reddit, Who’s Next?

Wired Digital has announced that it is acquiring social news site Reddit, the exact terms of the deal were not disclosed. The four employee company will move to San Francisco, where they will colaborate with Wired using it’s core technology and by offering partnerships to others.

Wired Digital has purchased the personalized social news aggregation website Reddit, the company announced Tuesday.

Terms of the acquisition were not disclosed.

CondéNet, which owns and operates Wired Digital, Epicurious.com and Style.com, among other properties, plans to incorporate Reddit’s personalized news aggregation and other Web 2.0 technologies into the various online destinations maintained by CondéNet and its parent company, Condé Nast Publications. Source: Wired

Wired is looking to grow through acquisitions and by partnering with other companies. Reddit was founded by Steve Huffman and Alexis Ohanian in 2005.

So who is next?

Posted by Jimmy Daniels Posted in: Linking Strategies, Social Networks No Comments » November 2006

eBay Launches MyWorld

Hoping to exploit the social scene like everybody else, eBay launches MyWorld, where you get publishing space to tell the community what makes you … you. Its probably not a bad idea, whenever you click someones username it will go to their myworld page, so it will be like an about me page, and they’ve got millions of users already, why wouldn’t you want to get them hanging around eBay longer and longer? And its already ready to go, I just went to http://myworld.ebay.com/myusername and a page is already there, it has my feedback, the latest feedback submitted about me and a box with my latest listings, if any. Pretty good first attempt and will go hand in hand with the blogs and wiki they added earlier this year.

Found via Mashable

Posted by Jimmy Daniels Posted in: Social Networks, Web 2.0, eBay No Comments » September 2006

More Fuzzy Social Network Math

Big numbers are floating around the social network scene again, as Jordan Rohan, an RBC capital analyst, says, after a meeting with Fox interactive, that MySpace could be worth 15 billion, measured in terms of the value created for shareholders of parent company News Corp. Huh?

Rohan based his view on an extrapolation of estimates for the value of Internet properties ranging from $1 billion for both MySpace rivals YouTube and Facebook to the market capitalization of $120 billion for Google Inc. (GOOG.O: Quote, Profile, Research).

He said MySpace was currently sold out of space for video advertising. The CPM, or price per thousand ad views, on a premium show such as Fox’s The Simpsons runs as high as $35-40 on MySpace, he said.

Wow, talk about fuzzy logic, those numbers he’s throwing around are the same kind of numbers, fuzzy. This report doesn’t mean anything, and it probably just some guy trying to pump up his profile, or News corp trying to push up share prices, or both. Pete Cashmore from Mashable says,

So how did Rohan arrive at the figure? Apparently he looked at the rumored $1 billion Yahoo-Facebook talks (no purchase yet) and the $1.5 billion valuation for YouTube (this number is also baseless), then extrapolated. He also factored in Google’s $120 billion market cap, and looked at how MySpace could monetize its audience - direct response marketing, ecommerce and high-price advertising. Whether or not the prediction turns out to be true, most people would agree that this kind of comparative math is fuzzy at best, and a stab in the dark at worst - nobody is buying YouTube for $1.5 billion, for instance. Whether the aim is to bump up News Corp’s stock price or get more attention for RBC, I’m not sure, but it seems these valuations amount to little more than guesswork.

Once someone actually pays that much for one, I will believe it.

Posted by Jimmy Daniels Posted in: Facebook, MySpace, Social Networks No Comments » September 2006

Microsoft Launches Wallop, the Pretty Social Network

Microsoft has just launched Wallop, previously a semi-forgotten Microsoft Research “sandbox” social network and photo sharing project, it has VC funding already,

Wallop, the social networking startup that was spun out of Microsoft Research Labs earlier this year, has landed $10 million in venture capital that it will use to create a new competitor to MySpace, Friendster and Facebook.

Investors in the San Francisco company, which is presenting at the DEMOfall conference in San Diego this week, include Norwest Venture Partners, Bay Partners and Consor Capital. Microsoft also retains an equity stake in the company, which is led by former Microsoft Corp. employees Karl Jacob and Sean Kelly.

They say it completely integrates everything into one platform, photo sharing, music sharing, blogging and everything else we have become accustomed to. Wallop will not have advertising on the WebPages, they are planning on selling “mods”, which are games, animated backgrounds, slide shows and videos that they can integrate into their webpage. They will be selling these from 99 cents to $4 dollars.

From Michael Arrington of Techcrunch

So Wallop has created a marketplace for “self expression” items on the site. Flash developers can create items and sell them to users. Music clips, animated widgets, artwork, avatars, clothing for avatars, etc. will all be for sale. Wallop handles payments and DRM, and takes 30% of the sale price. The rest goes to the seller.

Marketplace functionality is still being built, but Wallop says they will have the ability for sellers to create auction sales for one of a kind items, limited edition sales, etc. in the near future.

Invited users will be given five invitations each that can be used to invite others into Wallop. More invitations will be given to users based on how active they are in the service. Look for the service to leave beta and open to the general public in early 2007.

Looks interesting and I think this business model could work, if they can attract the users, most of which will probably pay for the mods to improve their WebPages instead of trying to do it themselves. How do they get them there in the overcrowded social network scene is the main question.

Liz Gannes from GigaOM says,

CEO Karl Jacob contends “the problem with social networking today is not that you don’t have enough friends, it’s that you have too many friends.” On Wallop, you can precisely group your friends and decide what they see. You can also format a public page for non-members to see.

This attention to privacy and relationships makes Wallop a lot like Facebook. Additionally, Wallop aggregates recent activity on the site into a stream, much like Facebook’s controversial News Feeds.

Wallop is also much more open to modification from outsiders than Facebook. Feeds from sites like Flickr or TypePad are fair game for profiles, users can upload and stream music, and of course pictures. But the company has fallen behind established networks in the mobile space, with no phone version at launch.

Sounds really good, but is it way to late? The thing with Myspace is, can they continue to keep the users they have and not let them get pulled to sites like Wallop or Facebook. As their userbase grows older, only time will tell.

Posted by Jimmy Daniels Posted in: Social Networks, Wallop, Web 2.0 No Comments » September 2006

Facebook Apologizes and makes the Feeds Better

I didn’t really post anything about the big Facebook blow up over the feed changes they made recently. These was a good writeup on Techcrunch, basically, Facebook launched a couple new feeds in the hopes of helping users know whats going on better with their friends, the new products were called News Feed and Mini Feed, and they allow users to get a quick picture of what their friends are up to, including relationship changes, groups joined, pictures uploaded, etc. Here are a couple quotes from Techcrunch,

Many tens of thousands of Facebook users are not happy with the changes. Frank Gruber notes that a Facebook group has been formed called “Students Against Facebook News Feed”. A commenter in our previous post said the group was closing in on 100,000 members as of 9:33 PM PST, less than a day after the new features were launched. There are rumors of hundreds of other Facebook groups calling for a removal of the new features.

A site calling to boycott Facebook on September 12 has also been put up, as well as a petition to have the features removed. Other sites are popping up as well. There seems to be no counterbalancing group or groups in favor of the changes.

The initial rsponse from Facebook was a calm down, it’s okay, no ones privacy is being hurt, etc, but the outrage continued and yesterday they responded saying we’re sorry, we have fixed them. Here are some quotes from the Facebook Blog,

We really messed this one up. When we launched News Feed and Mini-Feed we were trying to provide you with a stream of information about your social world. Instead, we did a bad job of explaining what the new features were and an even worse job of giving you control of them. I’d like to try to correct those errors now.

When I made Facebook two years ago my goal was to help people understand what was going on in their world a little better. Somehow we missed this point with News Feed and Mini-Feed and we didn’t build in the proper privacy controls right away. This was a big mistake on our part, and I’m sorry for it. But apologizing isn’t enough. I wanted to make sure we did something about it, and quickly. So we have been coding nonstop for two days to get you better privacy controls. This new privacy page will allow you to choose which types of stories go into your Mini-Feed and your friends’ News Feeds, and it also lists the type of actions Facebook will never let any other person know about. If you have more comments, please send them over.

These companies need to realize, if they are building sites to pull in users and cater to their needs, they need to include some of the users so they can get feedback and know before hand how people will respond. Too many flubs and you may push your users to a competing “Web 2.0″ site.

Posted by Jimmy Daniels Posted in: Facebook, Social Networks, Web 2.0 1 Comment » September 2006

Can You Digg It?

Wow. Things certainly are jumping in social town, looks like some digg users are jumping ship, some people are happy, some sad, what’s going on you ask? Looks to me like people are getting fed up with the way digg works.

For those that don’t know, Digg is a sort of news site, where users sign up and post links to news, blogs, whatever they run across on the internet, and other users can vote and comment on the articles. If a story is dugg by enough users, it will make it to front page and can receive lots of traffic, enough traffic that it takes some sites down, because they can’t handle the load, much like the Slashdot effect of being listed on slashdot.com. The whole idea is to get people involved, reading and commenting on stories, like a big community around the water cooler, where it goes wrong is the whole friends thing. People add each other as friends and digg each others stories, so a small group can control lots of the content by submitting stories and voting on them, which in turn gets them quickly to the front page where they are seen by large numbers of users who also vote on their favorites. This is what is being complained about in these posts, Digg the rigged? A closer look at Digg’s democratic model,

What does this say about Digg? It means a small ‘aristocracy’ controls the vast majority of the content that gets on Digg, and it means that every day it gets harder and harder for new users to have any kind of an impact. I think Digg made a fatal flaw by adding their friend system because it turned Digg into more of a popularity contest than it did into who has the most quality content. But, it also shows Digg is a true democracy. And like a true democracy, the crowds making the decisions tend to not make the best choices en-masse, and it follows the saying, ‘the richer get richer and the poorer get poorer’.

An article forevergeek, Digg Corrupted: Editor’s Playground, not User-Driven Website,

Digg as an idea is fantastic. As a system of disseminating news without having to wait for editors it is amazing. But it seems to be suffering from a power complex. The two articles we originally mentioned were obviously promoted to the front page in an artificial manager.. Our website getting banned was obviously in retaliation to our story. Their entire philosophy now feels shallow and false - the editors decidedly put those two articles to the front page, just like they decidedly removed us from their system. Users may have originally driven the website, but it looks like that ideal is nothing more than a nice idea in the past.

One from Slashdot, Growing Censorship Concerns at Digg, which itself has had similar trouble and accusations,

I find site rivalries boring, but growing concerns over Digg “censorship” have been submitted steadily for the last few months. Today two such stories were submitted so numerous that I had little choice but to post. The first claims that Digg is the editor’s playground- it explains how a few users control Digg, and that it’s not really the ‘Democracy’ that they claim it to be. Personally I think this is all totally within the rights of their editors to choose content however they like. But it’s less pleasant when combined with accounts getting banned for posting content critical of digg, and watching other content getting removed for being critical of sponsors (also, here is Kevin Rose’s reply).

Many digg posts on the subject, including this one, Digg Censors Stories That Offend Sponsors

This is purely that the users have reported the story as inaccurate or lame, not censorship by the Digg management. I think the real problem here on Digg is that a core of users have banded together to promote their own “party line”, so to speak. I’ve noticed that the same people seem to vote for each others posts time and time again, and almost in the same order. Very strange. It’s like a Digg Mafia underlying the community. I’m waiting for the horses head to appear next to me in bed just for saying this in public!

Michael Arrington of Techcrunch adds, Troubles in Diggville,

To some this is troubling because it removes the supposedly democratic nature of Digg. Unlike newspapers like the New York Times, where a small group of editors decide what is “news” and therefore included in the paper, Digg is a more meritocritous and democratic process where the readers actually decide what is newsworthy. If Digg is being corrupted by a relatively small group of users, the difference between Digg and the NYT becomes less clear.

Others respond that these groups are just very hard core Digg users that spend much of their day scouring the web for good stories to promote on Digg. Digg ranks users based on how successful their submitted stories become, and a handful of users are hyper-competitive about their Digg ranking. The argument is that these users are simply more proficient at finding stories.

Kevin Rose responds to all of this with this digg post, Gaming Digg / New Changes from this site Digg Friends,

That said, today we read a couple blog posts that highlight users digging each others stories. This is something we encourage through our friends features and will continue to expand as digg evolves. It is our goal to create a platform in which you can share and promote news that is important to you. What is changing however is how we are handling story promotion. While we don’t disclose exactly how story promotion works (to prevent gaming the system), I can say that a key update is coming soon. This algorithm update will look at the unique digging diversity of the individuals digging the story. Users that follow a gaming pattern will have less promotion weight. This doesn’t mean that the story won’t be promoted, it just means that a more diverse pool of individuals will be need to deem the story homepage-worthy.

I’m sure this will probably help the system a little bit, but they probably need to rethink the whole friend thing, as well as posting the most popular users list. Some people will do whatever it takes to become number one, on any system. The same problem exists at Netscape.com, friends digging friends stories, heck, if I didn’t recruit some and vote for their stories, some of my stories would never get any attention, since lots of users, I’m assuming, mainly visit the front page and friends profiles to vote for stories.

What is really interesting about this article, is it caused the #1 digg user, p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, to say he is quitting,

I ignored Digg’s ice-cold level of support during the Netscape transition. Instead I stayed with Digg - for nothing.
I ignored Jay’s jack-ass condescending T-Shirt comment.
I ignored the misbegotten algorithm you all put in place shortly after that that made it MISERABLY hard for any user to get to the front page (which is a big factor in this whole issue)
I overlooked all the red ink about I/we were FOOLS to digg so hard for you - the 60 Million Dollar Man.
I overlooked the Trademark fiasco and the treatment of Digg’s users
I overlooked this: http://digg.com/music/EMI_in_free_music_downloads_deal and
But I will NOT overlook your tacit equation of BUSTING MY ASS for Digg with gaming.

As a direct result of your blog this evening. I will no longer no supporting Digg going forward. I bequeath my measly number one position to whoever wants to reign.

I don’t know about busting his ass, I mean, come on, all it requires is getting a feed reader, listing all of the big news sites feeds so you can watch them, and monitoring of news sites like techmeme, memorandum and others, and submitting and digging or voting stories like crazy. I have been involved in the Netscape community lately and it pretty much works the same way, except for the fact that the pin stories at the top of the page, probably the only reason for my only front page story, which would have eventually been popular because of the subject, but it would’ve been someone else submitting and getting their friends to vote for it. That story has almost 1000 comments, so you know it would’ve been popular no matter who submitted it. As for other posts, it is hard to get stories listed because so many are submitting so many stories, if the story is older than 10 or 15 minutes, you are probably out of luck.

Another interesting post at digg, Top Digg Users Remove Avatars in Protest and Support of p9,

Why don’t they protest in a different, more effective way- say- never post again?

We’d all be better off without each one of them spamming us with 50 articles a day that we’d get anyways. The only difference would be that the really deserving ones would make it to the front page instead of all their crap.

Lot of people are aggravated with the top users, is it jealousy, or is it they can’t work the system in the same way, or just because they feel left out, since they can’t get people to vote for their stories? Probably all of the above, I’m sure people want to see digg fail, and people want to see it get bigger and better. You have to take everything with a grain of salt, as you don’t really know what their motivations are.

Jason Calacanis weighs in, digg top users protest (or, “one user, one vote–that’s the rule),for those who don’t know, he runs Netscape, a digg “clone” that has hired some of the top diggers away,

It is so clear that the top 1% of social bookmarkers are so talented that they should do it for a living. That’s why we started our Netscape Navigators program which pays top social bookmarkers. Right now it’s just a part-time job for folks, but in another year or two I bet we have people doing this full-time all over the place. We watched this happen in blogging from 2003 to 2006.

It’s not really that difficult of a job, you just needs lots of friends and the time to submit and vote on lots of stories, I was a top Netscape user, according to their front page, in less than a day, and that was just one homepage story out of about 10 or so. But, I think we will see some full timers, users like Neophile, who actually contribute and make it easier, stand out in my mind. Check this article out, where he actually created a “tool” to help submit articles from feeds to Netscape. Jason did also take a second to invite the top digg user to contact him about finding a spot for him at Netscape. Always a self promoter that Jason.

So, what is the solution, and can there really be a good solution? When you get groups of people doing stuff, it can always get out of hand, as it appears to have at digg. digg is the first big site of it’s kind, I’m sure with the big number of users that they are working hard to make it better, or at least make it better until he can sell it, hehe. I think they need to adjust the whole friends idea, maybe not let you see who submitted it until you digg it, or make it impossible to vote for users posts from their profile, make them actually find the stories, if they aren’t emailing or instant messaging them to each other already. They should also rethink the whole top contributor thing, take the whole competition factor out of it by keeping it internal, that way, only the admins know who the top users are, and maybe point them out in some other way. Lets hope the changes that digg is making is a good start.

Here is a Photo of a digg user digging stories at about one every 1.5 seconds, think he is reading everyone, or just voting friends stories?

Posted by Jimmy Daniels Posted in: Digg, Netscape, Social Networks 1 Comment » September 2006

It’s Official Jason Calacanis Was Right

Okay, I’ve officially changed my mind, [tag]Jason Calacanis[/tag] was right. Originally, I didn’t think the offer, as it has become known, was a good idea. In a nutshell, he offered to pay $1,000 a month for “social bookmarking” rights. Put in at least 150 stories a month and they’ll pay you $12,000 a year. I thought it would cause a lot of people to start submitting stories to get noticed and figured it would gum up the system with people posting the same urls over and over. I don’t see that happening, so these sites duplicate story detection and voting mechanisms are doing their jobs so far.

I have been watching Netscape and the participation is increasing, the number of stories is increasing, the number of Netscape users submitting stories is probably increasing, members like Tim Loftis really stepped up to the plate and convinced Jason to hire Netscape users earlier than he figured he would.

Voting, comments, and a number of other factors have doubled (or tripled) over the past two weeks at Netscape since we hired our first 10 Navigators. These folks are doing an AMAZING job of not only putting in good stories, but they are building the community by *teaching* and *showing* folks how to be good citizens on a social bookmarking site. That is really what this is about, training folks on how to be members of the community and truth be told I’ve learned a lot from the Navigators and Benkler on that subject–it is the key.

I like the direction Netscape is going in and have decided to contribute more there myself, Digg is the big site, but you have to deal with trolls on every post. I realize not everyone agrees with everything, but come on, I’ve always believed that if you don’t have anything good and constructive to say, then you shouldn’t say it. So, Jason has won me over as well.

Posted by Jimmy Daniels Posted in: Netscape, Paid Blogging, Social Networks 1 Comment » September 2006

Big Social Network Advertising Deals

Social networks continue to do ad deals to try to make some of the money that everyone seems to think they are worth. Google and MySpace just did a close to billion dollar deal and now Facebook and MSN are inking a deal that will put banners and text links on Facebook pages. Of course the Google and MySpace deal put’s actual money in the pocket or Rupert Murdock while Google could be doing the deal just to get more exposure to and more people using their search engine. Here is the press release from Microsoft.

Microsoft Corp. has struck a deal to provide advertising for social networking site Facebook, in one of the first high-profile agreements for the software maker’s online advertising platform.

Under the deal announced late Tuesday, Microsoft will sell and provide banner ads and sponsored links for Facebook using the adCenter online advertising platform and other in-house technology and services.

Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed. It is expected to run through mid-2009. Source: Yahoo.

I am assuming Microsoft is planning on loosing money as well, as everyone that I know who has advertised on MySpace has lost money, and there is no reason to think the Facebook site will be any different, people aren’t there to shop, they are there because their friends are there. Plus, you know some advertisers will be reluctant to advertise knowing there could be some edgy content next to their ad, especially with stories such as this one involving a banner ad infecting a million computers, Banner Ad on MySpace Infects Over 1 Million Computers and this one involving the adware programs from Zango being pimped on MySpace users, Would you kindly shut your noise-hole?.

Techcrunch says this is notable news because Google wasn’t involved,

This news is most notable because the partner that Facebook chose isn’t Google.

Google is generally thought to generate more revenue per page than either Yahoo or Microsoft due to their method of choosing which ads go on top. While Yahoo places the highest bidding ad on top, Google also takes into account the click through rate on individual ads in deciding which go on top. This seemingly simple feature increases revenue substantially, and along with Google’s superior search product is the single biggest factor in Google’s financial success to date. Yahoo, it is worth noting, is developing a similar system, called Panama, which is rumored to be launching later this year.

I really don’t think targeting will matter as much for the same reasons, people aren’t looking to buy something, unless they landed on a page while searching for something from a search engine or another site, and while the page views on these sites are unreal, click thru’s on ads aren’t very good, so, no matter how you slice it, ROI will always be low to non-existent, and that means the ad spots will be worth less and less as time goes on and advertisers spend less money. But, the thing this deal has over the MySpace deal, Facebook has 10 million college age members, while MySpace has 100 million high school age members, these college kids will have more money and more need for “stuff” if they are on their own, so, this might be a better deal for Microsoft.

Microsoft could also be thinking of using this as a test bed in that they can develop new targeting methods for these users which they could use elsewhere. Definitely an interesting deal, just wish we could see the financials involved.

Earlier this month, Google struck a deal with News Corp.’s MySpace.com, the top social-networking site, to pay at least $900 million in shared advertising revenue and become the online hangout’s exclusive search provider. Under the multiyear deal, Fox Interactive Media will add Google search boxes to MySpace and other sites. Google also get first rights to sell any display ads Fox doesn’t sell directly.

About Facebook: Founded in February 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook helps people better understand the world around them by developing technologies that facilitate the spread of information through social networks. The site has over 9 million registered users in over 40,000 geographic, work-related, collegiate, and high school networks, and according to ComScore’s MediaMetrix report, Facebook ranks as the seventh-most trafficked site in the United States. Facebook is privately held and headquartered in Palo Alto, Calif.

YouTube also just announced a big deal Tuesday involving branded commercial channels, with Paris Hilton being the first, using this to promote her new album. It’s Hot. (Note: This is a joke, her big saying, I think she’s a skank, but she’s one hell of a promoter.) This is from Techcrunch,

YouTube will unveil a number of custom branded commercial channels tomorrow in its latest move to monetize the site. The bizarre cultural icon Paris Hilton is already highlighted on the front page of the site with her own YouTube channel, to correspond with the release of her debut musical album on Tuesday. Fox has paid an undisclosed sum to advertise its TV show Prison Break on the YouTube channel of Hilton, whose album is produced by Warner Brothers. YouTube reportedly pays more than $1 million each month in bandwidth costs and some people have been concerned that it would be a challenge to turn its huge traffic into money. Thus Paris Hilton to the rescue.

Well, I think this will have the same problems as the other deals, unless they can make the same kind of videos as the ones offered on YouTube, i.e. containing half naked chicks and stupid stunts or jokes. I still think the best way for them to monetize YouTube would be to insert video ads in front of each video, that way everyone has to see it, or at least play it.

Posted by Jimmy Daniels Posted in: Facebook, Google, Linking Strategies, MSN, MySpace, Online Marketing, Social Networks, Web 2.0 1 Comment » August 2006

Digg User Profile Geekforlife Goes for $822

How much is a top 75 user on digg worth? According to this auction, $822. I had posted about this auction earlier, Top 100 Digg Profile for Sale on eBay and just realized I hadn’t followed up to see how much it went for, so here you go. The profile looks like it is still valid on digg, and it still has 103 friends, even though some users had been calling for people to drop this profile as a friend in the original digg post.

For Auction one Digg.com user profile, currently rated 75th out of about 445,000 registered users. You can check it out here http://digg.com/users/Geekforlife/profile

Everything about this profile is editable except the username, I will give you the password for the account along with a new gmail account that you will need for password verification.

Please pay with PAYPAL within 48 hours after auction ends. Failure will result in negative feedback.

Posted by Jimmy Daniels Posted in: Blogging, Digg, Social Networks, eBay No Comments » August 2006

How to Keep Your Kids Safe Online

Talk to them. It’s that simple, tell them there are bad people in the world who are looking to take advantage of them, tell them you can’t really be 100% safe unless they are at home, let them know they have to watch out for themselves and their friends. Talk to them. Why do I post this now? After reading the umpteenth story on someone being raped after they met someone on MySpace, that’s why.

Girl Accuses MySpace Acquaintances Of Rape Three Teens Formally Charged, One Still Being Sought.

At least three assailants, including a current and former Senn High School student, raped a 14-year-old girl they met through the MySpace.com Web site, then left her passed out in an alley, prosecutors said Monday.

It’s not just MySpace, anywhere they go online and they interact with people, they can get into trouble if they don’t know what to do. Girls, never put yourself in a similar situation, this girl went to one of their houses and drank a lot and passed out. Big mistake. Of course, this doesn’t give anyone the right to take advantage of her, but the big mistake was being there with people she didn’t know to start with.

Talk to your kids, you won’t regret it.

If you need extra protection, install Teen Minder on their computer and you’ll be able to see everything they do online. Talk about making you feel a little safer, if you could play a video of what happened on their computer, wouldn’t that make you feel better? Try it now, it’s some of the best child monitoring software around.

Added: Just spell checked this and realized that the article from the NBC site misspelled acquaintances, it was spelled with an e acquaintences instead of an a acquaintances.

Posted by Jimmy Daniels Posted in: Attacks, Mistakes, MySpace, Social Networks No Comments » August 2006

« Previous Entries