MySpace: 179 million times more open than Facebook

MySpace: 179 million times more open than Facebook

Summary: Tom Anderson has 179,564,767 MySpace friends, and I can see them all via his open profile at the number one (by far) social nework (or social utility, as Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg insists) that Anderson co-founded and later sold to News Corp.What about Facebook founder, and still owner, Zuckerberg?


Tom Anderson has 179,564,767 MySpace friends, and I can see them all via his open profile at the number one (by far) social nework (or social utility, as Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg insists) that Anderson co-founded and later sold to News Corp.

What about Facebook founder, and still owner, Zuckerberg?

Can I get to know him at Facebook? NO. Can I see his "face," can I be introduced to his friends at Facebook? NO. How many Facebook friends does Zuckerberg have? Not the 179 million Anderson boasts!

Why does it matter? Because "opening up" to become a third-party application platform does not actually open up a closed Web-based application, contrary to popular perception.


Via a Google search for "Tom Anderson MySpace profile," I "hooked-up" with the very open, social Tom at MySpace, immediately.

Via a Google search for "Mark Zuckerberg Facebook profile," Zuckerberg, himself, was nowhere to be found.

Not only does MySpace dwarf Facebook in actual numbers of registered users, MySpace benefits, big time, from the old media notion of "pass along" audience.

Any one, at any time, can browse MySpace profile pages to their hearts content, and all the while deliver more page views and ad impressions to the MySpace bottom line.

Facebook, however, is not an open platform like MySpace, it is slammed tightly shut; No one can see any Facebook page without "registering" with an email address.

Developers may now have "privileged" access to the much smaller than MySpace Facebooker communty, but non-Facebookers continue to be blocked from Facebook.


Zuckerberg's vaunted "open platform" pitch belies the closed platform that is Facebook.

BUT, that is a good thing, the Facebook faithfull will counter, echoing the Facebook company line that Facebook is all about "trusted connections," as opposed to the anything goes wild wild MySpace west.

I have underscored, however, that Facebook WAS a safe haven for "trusted connections," once upon its .edu required founding time.

As Zuckerberg's corporate ambitions grow, however, his concern for real "trusted connections," diminishes. After all, Facebook proudly declares now that "anyone can join Facebook, all that's needed to join Facebook is a valid email address. "

Can  a "valid" Hotmail address really guarantee "trusted connections."

NO, as I reported yesterday in Who needs Facebook? Students fight back.

ALSO: MySpace to Facebook: WE have the friends, and money

Topic: Social Enterprise

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • It?s time for Face Book to Pay Up.

    The recent announcements by Face Book that they are going to be the next OS, or the next platform, or the next goggle, reeks of egotism and self indulgence as well as a master slave mentality. In the bravado of the announcements that spewed forth from the reality distorted world of Face Book what was left out was the untold fact that Face Book would have little or no value if it were not for it?s 25 million members.

    The hard fact and truth of the matter is that Face Book makes hundreds of millions of dollars off of the backs of its 25 million members and has no plans to share the true wealth (money) of the revenue they generate with them.

    Does Mr.Zuckerberg or anyone at Face Book believe that they add more value to Face Book than the 25 million members ?

    If the answer is no then the revenue generated and the value added to Face Book should be shared monetarily with the members that have have generated the revenue and added the value. Without the members Face Book would have little or no Value.

    We now live in a technical age where a close to approximate monetary value can be assigned to the value and revenue that Facebook members add to the company. This fact can no longer be hidden, it can be found and it should be known by all of the members that generate the wealth and revenue.

    Why cant we see a graph on Face Book that discloses to the members the amount of revenue that is generated from them in terms of revenue generating partnership deals and advertising ?

    Why cant Facebook give an equitable portion of its ad revenue directly to its 25 million members ?

    Of the revenue that Face Book generates, as a percentage how much is given back to its 25 million members in a monetary form ?

    The advertising revenue that is generated by Face Book come from the actions of the 25 Million members, not the Face Book staff, so the members should receive the lions share of the revenue

    How much stock in the company do the 25 million members that generate hundreds of millions of dollars for Face Book own. Because the 25 million members generate most if not all of the revenue and value for Face Book, shouldn?t they all be stock owners ?

    As a group the 25 million members add value to the company and generate revenue, as a group they should own stock in proportion to the vaue that the add and the revenue that they generate.

    How much is Microsoft paying Face book for the rights to serve ads to Face Book members? Since the value of the ad deal is probably based on the amount of members that face books has, it would make sense that the members should be given a share of the money that Microsoft has paid to Face Book for the rights to serve the ads. Mr Zuckerberg and the rest of the Face Book team should give the 25 million members the money they deserve for the value that they add to Face Book.

    If yahoo would have acquired face book for one billion dollar, would any of this money be given to the 25 million members that have given Face Book the one billion dollar valuation ?

    For a one billion dollar acquisition that is by and large based on membership size as well as advertising revenue generated by the members; it seems that giving each of the 25 million members 1 million dollars would be an almost equatable reward for their participation.

    There is little difference between how Face Book treats its members and the share cropping schemes that were used to generate wealth for rich land owners on the backs of poor people and slaves. At least in the old share cropping schemes the works received a small portion of revenue, in the current situation members receive none of the revenue from the content that they create. Face Book and other sites that do not share the revenue and wealth that members create for them do not understand that the times have changed and the plantation game will no longer work. Now members have the ability to leave the plantation and to either create their own communities or to become members of communities that will pay them an equitable portion of the revenue and value that they create. This is one of the key revolutions of technology. There are no barriers to owning the means of production. Members are the means of productions, and are the value add. The pyramid that had members who are content creators and add value on the bottom has now been turned upside down. Unlike slaves that could not break free of the wealthy plantation owners bonds, members now have the ability to demand their equitable share and if they are not given it they can leave without retribution.

    It is time that members demand to be equitably rewarded (in the form of money) for the revenue and value that they generate.The 25 million Face Book members as a group should demanded to become stock holders and to be given a part of the revenue that they generate from advertisement clicks as well as a portion of the revenue that is generated from partnership deals based on their action and their numbers . If the members do make this demand and they are not rewarded in an equitable manner they should leave Face Book and any other site that will not reward equitably for the value and revenue that they generate.
    • Oh gee, another evil scheme toi make money

      Why don't we just insist that the governemnt take over Facebook and distribute it's revenue to its users?

      Keywords: means of production, share cropping schemes, plantation, should share, equitable.

      How were all of the facebook "slaves" captured and transported to the "plantation"?
  • MySpace works to control/limit outside development!

    This article feels like a troll for a flame war about MySpace vs FaceBook. Remember that Facebook is announcing an API.

    Given that there is no API to MySpace, then it's 175 times more closed to added features. One has to stand on their head to add stuff to MySpace. See

    Openess/transparency comes in many flavors. An API usually (not always) is the best way to be open.