So Facebook puts a tracking beacon on its site that gives it information about its users to others. And, people don’t like it. For a site that should be all about the User, this is a sizable PR ooops. To be fair, this beacon stuff isn’t unique to Facebook. I wish I had a list of other sites, but I don’t. Although, I would expect it to hold some well-known names. Zuckerberg continues to learn; in this case, remember your roots, Mark.

Here is some info from PC World:

On Dec. 5, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg apologized in his blog for the Beacon program, which tracked the purchases of Facebook users on third-party websites such as Overstock.com and Fandango.com. The information about those purchases was then pushed to friends of that user on their respective Facebook homepages. As an example, if one person booked a movie ticket on Fandango, his or her friends might get a notification that showed his purchase.

Even the Harvard Business sent this to my inbox (do you think they even have Facebook accounts? Probably, by now)…

Why Facebook Beacon Will Not Stick With Users
Misiek Piskorski

This week, Facebook suffered its second product roll-out gaffe of the year, when user outcry over its new Beacon advertising feature reached such a level that CEO Mark Zuckerberg was forced to issue a public apology for the way the company handled the launch. Last year, the company suffered a similar humiliation when its NewsFeed product earned the ire of users.

Facebook apparently hasn’t yet learned that online social networks are successful only when they provide features that simultaneously pass two tests:

* First, features cannot disclose any information that people would never disclose offline. If a feature fails to pass this test, users will leave the site or engage in vehement protest.
* Second, features need to help people broadcast information that friends or other recipients will find helpful. If a feature passes this test, users are guaranteed to take it up in droves. Otherwise, people will opt out or ignore the feature.

A little follow up on my last post about Li Ka-shing’s $60M investment into Facebok.  The headline pretty much says it all.  Read more…

TOM Group shrs jump, says no investment in Facebook

My initial thought is that this doesn’t really matter.  There is still potential for synergy b/w Facebook and Tom, and other entities for that matter.  Lots of potential; we’ll see what actually unfolds.  It was probably a good statement for them to make for legal/clarity reasons.

This is a big deal for Facebook and its competitors. Facebook now has an investment from Bill Gates and Li Ka-shing, two of the most influential business people today, and tomorrow. Forget all other details. With the insight and capital behind these two names, the sky could be the limit for Facebook. If you are a Facebook competitor, your world view just changed. Not because of what is, but because of what could be. Now with that said, investors like Gates and Ka-shing place bets in many places and there is always a chance the Facebook bet could flop; however, with the resources behind these two, it is hard to think that would happen.

Li Ka-shing and Bill Gates are both self made men that amassed a huge fortune and sphere of influence. Warren Buffet is another name that comes to mind along these lines. They all are, however, very different from each other. Ka-shing has a very interesting (we could say legendary) past. You can get much more depth elsewhere (read Sterling Seagrave’s “Lords of the Rim” for starters; “The Soong Dynasty” is another good one by Seagrave), but here is a small snapshot: he fled China due to the seismic political shift brought about by Mao and Communist China, he made his first fortune selling plastic flowers to foreign (U.S.) markets, he has one of the tightest and most formidable (human) networks in the world (big back story there), he has an impressive business empire today (that makes you wonder what is not visible on the surface). His son, Richard Li, went to Standford and made his mark as the head of Pacific Century CyberWorks, once a Hong Kong Internet high flyer that has experienced a rough ride since the end of the dotcom boom (more on Richard at the Economist – here, here, here).

I don’t want to overplay a single investment made by an entity under someone — Li — that makes many many investments. But in the world of Internet Tech, the Facebook game just got much, much more interesting… because of what Gates and Li could bring to the table.

Google?

(source) More on the Facebook/Ka-shing story at AllThingsD…

Facebook Nabs $60 Million Investment from Li Ka-shing

Update:

Also, more at Mashable, the Guardian, and I am sure soon-to-be many other places…