Intent. Google advertises where you are already "in the market" for something (be it a physical product or a site). Facebook advertises where you hang out with your friends, which is less effective and feels ickier. Which doesn't mean FB ads don't work, but it does mean they work very differently than google ads and have very different connotations.

It seems you're comparing Google Adwords anno 2001 with Facebook Ads anno 2008.

Today Google ads are everywhere - even in mobile apps and email. And they work with any signal they can get. Facebook Ads on the other hand are now using retargeting ads based on your searches outside of Facebook. Not that any of the two types of ads are inherently more evil than the other in my point of view.

Yeah I don't even disagree with that haha (I mean youtube is another great example), but the analysis I provided is still probably the reason FB gets a hardtime on HN while Google doesn't.

Perhaps because: 1. The shabby way the business was taken from the Winklevosses 2. The shabby way small businesses have been treated: building up fan pages (and bringing people to FB) and then having their access to their own fans throttled 3. The shabby way video creators are being screwed out of their earnings by freebooters, while FB gets billions of views and claims to be "working on it". 4. The shabby way FB takes control of user's news feeds to give them what FB want them to see i.e. what will sell, rather than what the user wants. These seem to point to a general culture of greed that even Google does not have.

Say what? I'd rather have a hacker, that created something reap its benefits, rather than some "idea bros".

Winklevosses were just a couple of deuchebags with an idea. Go to any Techcrunch/tech party in NYC, and you will meet plenty of them. They go nowhere, because they don't have the hard skills to make something a reality.

Ideas, are cheap. Given some beer, and one hour of time, anybody can come up with a dozen of decent ones. Execution on the other hand is hard. It takes sweat and real work to make something happen.

So you are ok with contracting to do some work for someone, but instead of delivering the product that was asked for, you delay your client's work, and then release a similar product of your own, taking the market away from them? You think it's okay to do that because you (after the fact) consider your client to be a "douchebag"? Do you think that your ethical failings are somehow negated because you are a hacker, or because you meet "people like them" at some tech party? After all, according to you, they weren't going anywhere anyway? I wonder if you would say all of that if it was you sitting with a fraction of Zuckerberg's $40 billion. Would you say, "Well he deserved it because he was a hacker and I was just an idea guy. Oh man, ideas are cheap." Seriously, W.T.F.

It's not a matter of the Winklevosses being "douchebags", or even "just coming up with an idea", which is false anyway as they had already developed the code and wanted Zuckerberg to finish it. They trusted Zuckerberg to deliver a product. Instead he held them back, while making his own version of their work. He screwed them over plain and simple.

Are you basing this argument off of the movie? It is well know to have many known inaccuracies. Where is the source of all these details.

I made a newsline of the events. The key is the IM messages, which were released after the movie. http://newslines.org/mark-zuckerberg/?order=ASC

There are only few ways to monetize a business model. While some people object to any ad supported business, others only to data driven ad business, and others care about specific pragmatic day to day consequences on people's privacy. It seems that last category where Facebook is more likely to complicate people's lives.

Also, perhaps, pagerank is viewed as an innovation founded on real technical insight, as opposed to Facebook, which basically recreated MySpace (etc.), initially resegementing the market by serving privileged Ivy kids rather than lower status music fans. That's not the sort of story that people valorize here.

At it's core, a search engine is high tech while a social networking website is low tech. Before you want to argue, I know Facebook is nowadays damn high tech but that's not the point. Techies will always have more respect for a business built on actual high tech. See Apple. See Tesla. I happen to respect Zuck a lot for his amazing ability to grow the company and maintain control rather than his tech prowess, which is nothing to be ashamed of.

Totally upsupported supposition - maybe because Zuck basically is in the same age bracket as a lot of the population on here, whereas Larry and Sergey are a bit older?

Could be. Another difference is how they came to success. Zuckerberg solved an "easy" problem building a social network web app whereas the Google founders solved a "hard" problem building search engine algorithms.

He didn't solve any problem. He stole the Winklevosses work.

I was thinking about this on the way home. Regardless of what has become of Google they started off with "don't be evil", whereas Facebook has basically been "by any means necessary" from day 1.

The Winklevosses didn't do any work. They wanted someone to build them a dating site for Harvard students.

He was an asshole in their business relationship and should have stopped working with them the minute he was inspired to create Facebook. But he didn't steal anything that belonged to them. They would not have succeeded with their original idea even if they found a developer to do all the work for them.

The Winklevosses already had a substantial part of the project done, and it was more than a dating site. In fact, Zuckerberg copied the Winklevosses feature to connect people. In the absence of competition it seems likely that the Winklevosses product would have been successful. Zuckerberg admits they were well known on campus and would have promoted the site well. The key determining factor in the success of Facebook was not the quality of the software, or even its features, but that it was first social network introduced to the closed Harvard internal market.

http://newslines.org/mark-zuckerberg/?order=ASC

Of course my impression is anecdotal (as is yours of HN's sentiment toward Facebook), but I see Google take a lot of flak here. Privacy, sunsetting services that are still used, privacy.

I would also say that in contrast to Facebook Google has used their mountains of cash to try to make meaningful contributions to research (the whole life extension gambit for example).

It's a good question. I think Brin/Page can be seen as bringing more value to users, as opposed to people who see FB as a waste of time, and a bane on how people spend time on the internet.

It also probably has to do how media props Zuckerberg as always trying to change the world vs Brin/Page who seem to lead more quiet personal lives.

They definitely should, but Google is a lot like a cult in many ways where Facebook isn't. Kind of the same way Apple has its ridiculous cult following.

Cults always have their most staunch defenders even in the face of shady goings on.

Google's non-advertising actions have earned them more goodwill (or less badwill) than Facebook's actions have.

Google spends a _lot_ more on PR.

(In a literal sense, by giving out free cool technology, for example.)