Notice the "Sign Up" link points to ConnectU, who is currently suing Facebook? Might be a little more at work here than mere satire...

At any rate, it definitely took me a minute to realize that this was NOT real.

Heh, I also thought that Beacon was fake too. Sometimes, reality is stranger than fiction.

Alex3917, had a really good post on this. He basically said that as FB becomes more and more desperate for revenue, they'll try more and more audacious ways of selling your personal info. So I don't think this parody is that far off at all.

Edit: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=86427

I looked into the ConnectU connection a little more. Apparently, there's nothing to it, besides the link being an additional joke:

http://pranks.com/2007/12/15/facebook-takes-it-on-the-chin/

I hear folks at facebook planned on adopting a corporate philosophy like "don't be evil" but instead decided upon "too late"

Surf already exists-- it's called behavioral targeting. Of course, no one (not even facebook) is stupid enough to directly report this information back to the user or the user's friends, except in the form of targeted ads.

Image Scan actually sounds like a pretty good business plan-- once again, for ad targeting. Although there are some quality issues--- do you really want your ad showing next to someone burning one of your shoes, or a picture of a sweatshop worker?

Locate-- facebook might not be working on it, but google definitely is.

Diary-- livejournal. fb notes. 'nuff said.

Receipt-- Beacon on crack. Marketers have been chasing the holy grail of tracking customers purchases across all channels. If you've ever given a "source code" or "catalog code" when ordering from a paper catalog, that's what you're doing. Cross-channel microtargeting is the future!

One wonders if the credit card processors are doing the kinds of under-the-table clickstream-data types of deals that the ISPs are doing.

Wow, for a moment I thought it was for real :)

edit: good job, BTW.

Image Scan, Receipt, and Locate are all only a few years away. And in lesser forms, they could actually be cool features.

Someone's going to get sued.

Protected- satire. Though a clearer "satire warning" is probably needed for true CYA.

IIRC satire isn't protected speech, only parody.

Funny, the first entry in my thesaurus for parody is satire. And vice versa.

Also, last time I checked, the first amendment protects pretty much all forms of speech.

The first amendment doesn't protect using someone else's brand with only a few exceptions, parody being one, satire not being one. As for the difference, parody:satire::sarcasm:facetious

The distinction is highly subjective. Nevertheless, its actually a somewhat interesting subject.

This paper outlines the historical legal perspective:

http://www.abanet.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/rou...

Among other things, it suggests that the dichotomy of satire and parody is artificial, and furthermore should not be within the realm of the courts to distinguish.

Excellent paper. For those who don't want to download the PDF, the relevant paragraph is as follows:

"The dichotomy approach is certainly easier to apply: if the new work arguably criticized or commented on the original, a parodic character reasonably can be perceived ... and a fair use finding is quick to follow. On the other hand, if the new work used the original work as a mere vehicle to criticize something else (such as society in general), it is satire, not parody, and therefore not fair use. However, while the parody/satire distinction has become the central issue in many cases, the proper dividing line between quintessential parody and satire is blurry at best. Creative lawyers and judges have taken advantage of this blurriness..."

It became unreal when the status bar kept trying to ping onlinehome.us