Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook Google Privacy Yahoo! Technology

Answers.com Now Only With Facebook and Own Login 127

Posted by timothy
from the you-haff-been-assimilated dept.
CptnHarlock writes "Today the registered users of Answers.com received an email informing them that the site has ended support for Yahoo, Twitter, Google, or LinkedIn as a way to sign into their site. Facebook is the sole external way left to log in. A local login and password were generated and sent by email and the old (non-Facebook) logins deactivated. Score another one for Facebook.com in the login consolidation wars."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Answers.com Now Only With Facebook and Own Login

Comments Filter:
  • Reeeaaal smart (Score:5, Informative)

    by GameboyRMH (1153867) <gameboyrmh@gmail.cCOBOLom minus language> on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @01:34PM (#37987368) Journal

    The only reason I can imagine sites are doing this is very short-term thinking. When you make Facebook your only way to log in, you make yourself dependent on Facebook, which let's not forget, could fall out of favor just as quickly as Myspace, or Geocities before that.

    It's a precedent that other sites should be afraid to set at all. They should be avoiding centralized login services like the plague. The current system is the best, where the only point of centralization is an email address, because email is 100% free and open (for now, although port 25 blocking and spam blocklist maintainers are threatening that)

    • Re:Reeeaaal smart (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kenja (541830) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @01:35PM (#37987394)
      No, the reason is money. Facebook gives them cash, they do stupid things in exchange. Facebook then hopes to get more information to sell, I mean more users.
      • by ackthpt (218170) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @01:40PM (#37987462) Homepage Journal

        No, the reason is money. Facebook gives them cash, they do stupid things in exchange. Facebook then hopes to get more information to sell, I mean more users.

        Wouldn't be a bad idea of FB put some of that money into improving their crappy interface. I hate using the site. Only post occasionally because my stress level goes up each time I use it.

      • Re:Reeeaaal smart (Score:5, Informative)

        by rwven (663186) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @01:56PM (#37987676)

        Except having worked with things like this, i know that facebook does no such thing. Facebook gives you nothing at all in return for using their services. The upside is that your content gets out, and shared on facebook....which drives users to your site. I'm sure facebook mines that data for all kinds of fun things though.

        -RV

        • by goombah99 (560566) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @04:13PM (#37989486)

          IS there any way to have hundreds of facebook accounts? I'd be fine with using facebook as a universal ID system if I can also maintain different logins of different sites rather than linking them all to one facebook ID. I don't actually use face book-- indeed I detest it, but that's another story.

        • Re:Reeeaaal smart (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Raenex (947668) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @05:39PM (#37991074)

          Except having worked with things like this, i know that facebook does no such thing.

          "Worked" in what capacity? Do you have an insiders view of the business deals that goes on in Facebook, as in do you actually work for Facebook?

          Facebook gives you nothing at all in return for using their services.

          Then why would it benefit Answers.com to exclusively rely on Facebook? Such exclusivity is often driven by bribes, err, business relationships.

          • by rwven (663186) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @02:17PM (#38002040)

            The (sizable) company that I work (on the development team) for implements the facebook login & commenting systems. It's a free service facebook offers to anyone who wants to use it. You get $0 from facebook for using it.

            The reason THEY want to only use it is the same reason WE only use it. Maintaining 6 points of entry and keeping up with changing apis for multiple networks is a huge pain. Best to pick the one with the widest possible audience and just maintain that one. Facebook's api and customer facing interface is also super simple and reliable.

            This is basic...and anyone spouting some corporate conspiracy theory needs to get a clue.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @02:08PM (#37987820)
        Has anyone ever seen an example of facebook selling information or paying companies to use FB's login service?

        Any references I do see are to bad journalism equating user-authorized, singular access for an app to collect their basic info to, "Facebook is selling your info."

        I've got other issues with FB, but if that part is just recurring FUD, that's not cool either.
      • by justforgetme (1814588) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @02:21PM (#37987986) Homepage

        No, the reason is money. Facebook gives them cash, they do stupid things in exchange. Facebook then hopes to get more information to sell, I mean more users.

        No, it's not. The reason is conversion rate. (Full stop)

        The only reason there is for a site owner to implement facebook login is a high conversion rate from guests to logged in users.
        The user just does one click and milliseconds later has given up all his personal data to the site he just autoregistered for.

        by doing conventional logins small portal admins get around 80% less registrations and the quality of the data they get of the users is much lower.
        Facebook login is tailored for identity retrieval which benefits mostly facebook but also the busynesses that implement it. The only one who doesn't get something in return is You.

        facebook login is a very bad thing, don't use it (as a user).

        • by Lehk228 (705449) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @02:24PM (#37988020) Journal
          you get logged in witha single click and one less site out there with a password to have to remember
        • by ganjadude (952775) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @03:53PM (#37989152) Homepage
          exactly, i have a fb account with no info about anything i leave logged in at all times and use to register at sites i find from slashdot or digg or other sites that i dont plan on using more than a time or two, in the past i would read something and move on, now all i have to do is click the fb button to login? so those sites that i would have read once and moved on now have a user. it is smart on the sites end
        • by phoncible (2468768) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @05:01PM (#37990354)

          The user just does one click and milliseconds later has given up all his personal data to the site he just autoregistered for.

          Only the personal data you supplied to FB in the first place. Don't give it to FB, no one else gets it either. And if it's "required", just fudge it. Can't remember if my b-day was a required, but if it was I certainly didn't give them the real one. Same for just about every other shred of info on that site: it's either inconsequential (like a "throwaway" email addy) or falsified. And to any responses that say "it's against their TOS", well then call my honeybadger, cuz I just don't give a sh*t.

    • Re:Reeeaaal smart (Score:2, Insightful)

      by RazzleFrog (537054) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @01:40PM (#37987458)

      Facebook is far more entrenched in a more diverse population than MySpace or Geocities every were. It will likely be a while before it is replaced - longer than the terms of this contract at least.

      • Re:Reeeaaal smart (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cayenne8 (626475) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @01:58PM (#37987722) Homepage Journal
        Well...hoping this isn't a trend for too many sites...as that I don't have now, nor do I ever intend to have a FB account.

        That being said, as long as they have their own login too, that's cool....I'd just use that.

        But, if I site goes FB logon only, that'll be the end of my use of it. I'd have a hard time thinking any site would limit themselves to only FB members....while FB does indeed have a huge membership, they aren't 100%....and as a business owner, I'd not like to risk losing anyone as a potential customer.

        • by JohnFen (1641097) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @03:21PM (#37988738)

          I do have a FB account, but I do not, and never will, use it as a unified login service. I keep it as disconnected from my activities as possible (blocking FB servers when I don't want to talk with them, etc.) Facebook is not to be trusted.

          If a site goes purely to using FB login, that will be the end of my use of the site as well.

          • by knorthern knight (513660) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @07:26PM (#37992704)

            > (blocking FB servers when I don't want to talk with them, etc.)

            Speaking of blocking Fecesbook, here are a few entries for your firewall. I ran nslookups on the following...

            66.220.144.0/20 fbcdn.net
            69.63.176.0/20 facebook.com
            69.171.224.0/19 facebook.com
            200.58.112.0/20 opengraph.net
            213.155.64.0/19 opengraphprotocol.net

            Anybody got more ranges? The first 3 entries are on AS 32934. I was going to post more detailed output at the end, but I ran into Slashdot's "lame filter".

        • by viracochas (628648) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @04:09PM (#37989424)
          I expect to see Slashdot announcing Facebook-only login next April 1st.
    • by Amouth (879122) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @01:57PM (#37987700)

      To be fair Geocities was on the same scale as facebook at one point (for people who did use the net not in general society). And they could have stayed around a lot longer but they died due to how they handled their community. if Facebook started charging $ per post and a monthly login fee i'm sure it would die extremely quickly.

      yes Geocities did have some ad revenue - but companies where not paying for web marketing at the time and the potential funds to tap into for that was much smaller relative to userbase than it is now for facebook.

    • by wiedzmin (1269816) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @02:10PM (#37987848)
      I know, what the hell. I haven't used Facebook in 2 years, I guess I'll just use BugMeNot if I need to login to that site.
    • Re:Reeeaaal smart (Score:5, Informative)

      by JazzHarper (745403) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @02:17PM (#37987932) Journal

      Answers.com did NOT make Facebook the only way to log in. They are eliminating support for three centralized login services, which should make you happy. They probably kept Facebook because too many people would have complained. However, the only thing you need to maintain an account on Answers.com is an e-mail address, which should also make you happy.

      • If they got rid of all their social network logins I would be happy, but the fact that they whittled it down to email and Facebook tells me they see those two as being the most important, as if they're in the same league. Why was Facebook more important than all the others that were ditched?

      • by williamhb (758070) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @11:38PM (#37995164) Journal

        Answers.com did NOT make Facebook the only way to log in. They are eliminating support for three centralized login services, which should make you happy. They probably kept Facebook because too many people would have complained. However, the only thing you need to maintain an account on Answers.com is an e-mail address, which should also make you happy.

        I can suggest a very simple strategic reason for this change. If you look on their front page, the questions and answers tend not to be businessy. So they don't want your LinkedIn, Twitter, or Google graph. They'd much rather you OAuth-orise them to access your personal social graph instead. This change corrals those users who are willing to use a social network log-in into using their Facebook one.

    • by icebraining (1313345) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @02:49PM (#37988310) Homepage

      OpenID > email. It's 100% free and open too, and it doesn't force you to have a different password for every site - you can even login with a personal certificate on your OpenID provider.

    • by Cyberllama (113628) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @03:28PM (#37988848)

      Not to mention I don't have a Facebook account and don't plan to get one. You've just told me, and probably many others, "Thanks, but no thanks. We don't want your contributions."

    • by Tolkien (664315) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @03:39PM (#37988952) Journal
      OpenID is decent, granted it doesn't solve the whole single point of failure problem but it doesn't try to, either. It does a good job of consolidating login and user data, so the only trust a user need grant is to that of their provider.
  • Oh noes! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @01:34PM (#37987378)

    A crappy scraper site that republishes Wikipedia's content will no longer allow me to use an account I don't have from a provider I don't use!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @01:35PM (#37987392)

    Well, they never really gave me good answers anyway.

    Oh the irony, captcha was totality

  • by Animats (122034) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @01:37PM (#37987436) Homepage

    Answers.com is an ad-heavy content farm. Why would anyone want a login there?

  • by bogaboga (793279) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @01:42PM (#37987484)

    Is there a [real dollar] cost? I would like to know.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @01:43PM (#37987492)

    Now, everything you do on Answers.com will be tracked, recorded, and logged to your Facebook account, which is also routinely furnished to the NSA and other government agencies to help them figure out how best to trample on your rights.

  • by iceaxe (18903) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @01:45PM (#37987538) Journal

    OK, so answers.com goes on the list of sites I will continue to not use.

  • by knarf (34928) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @01:50PM (#37987594) Homepage

    Given that most network assets registered under facebook and related domains resolve to 0.0.0.0 on my network, this would seem like a counterproductive strategy.

    In other words, making your site dependent on the availability of a function offered by facebook is not a good business strategy - more of a lousy exit strategy. Oh well, answers.com belongs in the bin anyway.

  • by achowe (829564) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @01:51PM (#37987610) Homepage
    No love for Facebook. I've never joined and won't join just because they're the only choice for some web site of questionable use. Twitter is my social network choice, because they are more open; my words, good or bad, aren't hidden from non-members.
  • by LordNicholas (2174126) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @01:55PM (#37987654)
    Let's not overhype what's occurring here. FTA: "You now have two ways you can sign in and stay with us and keep your contributions and earned badges." They're only dropping support for other single sign on type logins, probably all of which had been provided by a 3rd party like Gigya. Standard old-fashioned site registration/login is still supported. I work for a major TV network website; we have single sign on via Facebook and also offer signup via the rogue's gallery of Twitter, LinkedIn, mySpace, etc in addition to a standard old-fashioned signup. Literally 99% of our signups come from either Facebook or standard registration. We'll probably drop support for the others as well, as they're not worth the dev resources or the fee we pay to Gigya.
  • by jcombel (1557059) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @01:58PM (#37987718)

    now i have to use that site with zero logins instead of my usual zero.

  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @02:03PM (#37987756)
    I wonder how much Facebook paid for this privilege?
  • by rorywilliams (2476742) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @02:05PM (#37987788)
    I deleted my facebook and will not re-create it, so I guess these sites are off limits to me forever. Seems like a good business model
  • by koan (80826) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @02:08PM (#37987814)

    A lot of sites are doing this (LAtimes is Facebook only) the reason is to track dissent and document every comment made by people then associate it with the actual person, so "how to make thermite" question you asked out of curiosity becomes your downfall at a later date, made illegal and prosecuted retroactively or just used to smear you if you get involved in politics in any way or even just a little bit too "outspoken".
    This is another step in the ongoing move to a controlled Internet.

    If you have a Facebook account, first I have to say you're a tool, second do you know everyone of your "friends" IRL well enough to go to trial for them?
    If not, close your account now.

  • Misleading summary (Score:2, Insightful)

    by JazzHarper (745403) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @02:08PM (#37987822) Journal

    The summary states that all non-Facebook logins have been deactivated.
    That is not true. One does not need a Facebook account to log into Answers.com.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @02:11PM (#37987852)

    I've been using a greasemonkey script to purge these crap sites from google results for forever. Why anyone would use this site, let alone need an account, is beyond me.

  • by JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @02:11PM (#37987862)
    From a business point of view, especially so if they generate their funds through ads, why cut your userbase? Your ads are just going to be seen even less.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @02:37PM (#37988164)

      1) They still have their own login which has more features anyways

      2) They stated that 99% of their logins is from facebook and their own login. They PAY a 3rd parties like http://www.gigya.com/ to implement the other logins. In which case, it makes perfect sense to drop those not used or worth the cost.

  • by Tharsman (1364603) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @02:13PM (#37987882)

    A local login and password were generated and sent by email and the old (non-Facebook) logins deactivated.

    So... without asking users they went through the trouble of handing all personal data required to create a Facebook profile and email the new Facebook profile login info to those users? Is this what happened?

    Do I have to join Facebook to get an answer to that?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @02:37PM (#37988162)

    Why?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @02:46PM (#37988258)

    I tried. I tried really hard.

  • by LynnwoodRooster (966895) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @03:24PM (#37988782) Journal
    Why must I be part of a social network in order to log in to a non-social-networking site? Sorry, not worth the hassle to set up a facebook account just to get access to another website...
  • by MrDiablerie (533142) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @03:28PM (#37988844) Homepage
    People actually log into answers.com?
  • by wcrowe (94389) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @03:32PM (#37988886)

    I'm beginning to think Facebook is the mark of the beast.

  • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @04:54PM (#37990198)

    I have a Facebook account that I *only* use to allow old friends to locate me. I never stay logged in on my account. But, I also like answering programming questions from newbies as a bit of a pay it forward effort. No way will I leave my Facebook account logged in for this crap. I foresee this decision being reversed pretty quickly...unless Facebook dropped some insane amount of cash on them.

  • by Sir_Eptishous (873977) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @05:34PM (#37990986) Homepage
    I remember when someone said to me that "You HAVE to get a MySpace account". That was in around 2005. I didn't create one. I also don't have a FB account. So, what I'm finding is that more and more things online are REQUIRING to have a FB account. This is very wrong for a few different reasons that don't need to be explained, as they are so obvious. As an example, I tried to send a message to my local PBS station and discovered that their only means of communication was via FB, and had ditched email. I couldn't believe it. I'm a contributing member, yet I couldn't communicate with them unless I did it via FB. Of all organizations, I would imagine that a PBS station would see the irony in that.
  • by rabidmuskrat (1070962) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @05:46PM (#37991216)

    Nowadays with things like OpenId and Disqus, it's very easy for a site to allow users to customize what provider they go through for a login. Restrictions like this seem just plain silly.

    • by cpghost (719344) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @10:15AM (#37998706) Homepage
      I know quite a lot of newspapers that switched their comment sections to Disqus... only to lose their most valuable writers. Personally, I intensely dislike centralized commenting systems a la Disqus, because of their quite scary cross-site-profiling capabilities. I'm wondering how such an evil scheme could become so popular among journals.
  • by Hazelfield (1557317) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @06:07PM (#37991610)
    If services start using Facebook as sole login credential - which Answers.com apparently hasn't done, but Spotify, for instance, has - what's there to prevent millions of users to register accounts like bjsjfo88803 or e93u9f39f for the sole purpose of logging in to other sites? I already do this for Youtube.
  • by Jerry (6400) on Tuesday November 08, 2011 @10:24PM (#37994502)

    When I bought my first computer in the summer of 1978, an Apple ][+, I had several other makes to choose from, each running their own OS and offering their own peripheral device cards. When IBM released their "PC" they included a disk operating system (DOS) which was a subset of Unix. There were several versions of DOS but the best one was DRDOS. Eventually, the other computers and operating systems faded away, and only Apples and PCs, and their clones, were left, along with DOS and other operating systems, which included Linux. The rich chose Apple. Everyone else bought PCs. After they bought their PC they purchased the Operating System they wanted to run on it. I chose OS/2. Later, in 1997, I installed Win95 but after five disastrous months with it I discovered Linux.

    There was a time when makers of peripheral devices for PCs thought it normal to include CPUs on their cards to handle IO so that they would be compatible with PCs running any DOS, OS/2, Linux or the others. You could buy a Hayes modem and plug it into the serial port of any computer, regardless of the OS it ran, and it would work. Printers hooked to the parallel printer port allowed them to work the same way. The OS didn't matter.

    Then, Microsoft convinced modem makers to leave the CPU off of their devices and cards, and to rely on the Windows OS for the cards control. Thus was born the "WinModem". WinPrinters soon followed, blocking out large segments of the market who, at the time, were not using any Microsoft OS. This was before Microsoft acquired their 95% desktop market share. Leaving the CPU and intelligence off of their cards, but not lowering their prices, PC OEMs realized a larger profit by using the CPU on the computer replace the CPU on their cards, and letting Windows control the card. TO make things easy Microsoft at first began paying PC OEMs to install Windows on their computers. As Windows market share grew the amounts Microsoft paid dropped. When Windows acquired desktop dominance and PC OEMs were not pre-installing any other OS except Windows, Microsoft began requiring PC OEMs to pay for a copy of Windows for each PC they shipped. MS also instituted secret contracts with the PC OEMS which prohibited them from selling any PC without Windows pre-installed. The MS-DOJ trial eliminated that kind of contract but the PCs became commodities and their prices dropped into the basement. For several years now, most PC OEMS make a profit on the ad rebates they receive from Microsoft. Microsoft's monopoly has cost consumers billions in overcharges and restrained software innovation. However, slowly and surely the PC market is digging itself out from under Microsoft's thumb. Unable to trap the tablet/smartmphone market share the way they did the PC market share, the WP7 is sliding away from 15% and is seeking the 1% market share level. Microsoft is making up for it by taxing Android phone makers (and Linux) on the strength of unproven IP claims against companies that find it cheaper to pay the "tax" than to fight them in court.

    If Facebook pays websites to require readers to create Facebook accounts to log into their comment sections do you think the "leveraging" will stop there? Those that keep several log in options, or their own, won't be receiving Facebook money and so will face more economic difficulties than those who take the money. (Sound like WinModem and WinPrinter makers versus those who didn't? How did that work out? With Microsoft owning a monopoly on the PC OS market. It cost consumers dearly.). In these economically tough times poor financing, or not being able to afford classier sites and services, will make independent sites less able to compete against sites taking Facebook money. Sooner or later, Facebook will acquire a monopoly on blogging access, and if the movie about the owner of Facebook has taught you anything it has shown you how ruthless and greedy he can be. He won't stop with the log ins. After they get hooked on the Facebook mon

In a consumer society there are inevitably two kinds of slaves: the prisoners of addiction and the prisoners of envy.

Working...