Dear "Quit Facebook Day": The Privacy Policy Won't Lead to World Domination

Similar to how Y2K didn't happen, 2012 isn't going to happen, and the Pittsburgh Pirates aren't going to win the World Series, Facebook will never take over the world. If it's alright with any fearful Facebookers out there, I'm going to put my money on Mark Zuckerberg not wanting to be the world's next supreme dictator.
With the recent uproar about Facebook's controversial privacy policy changes, people have started a "Quit Facebook Day" on May 31.
The group that started this movement has expressed concern over the "Open Graph" concept that Mark Zuckerberg has pioneered. Basically, this will allow Facebook, CNN, and 6 other sites to share the personal information of users, in order to adapt content, advertising, etc. to everyone's personal needs. Unless people think that Facebook wants to overthrow the government-- or for that matter, create a new super-awesome mind-control regime-- I don't see why this is problem. They're improving our user experience and showing the ads we would most likely click on and/or find useful.
Also, another concern is that more user information is being shared with the public, and not just your friends. My view on this is that if you're not OK with your profile picture and personal interests being shared with everyone, you shouldn't be posting them in the first place. If you feel that these pieces of information would embarass you if some people saw them, why would you post them?
All in all, unless you seriously think Facebook wants world domination, don't quit Facebook.

Comparing America's Top 2 News Magazines: Time and Newsweek Broken Down

These two covers, both taken from the same week, tell a whole lot about this battle.

Time Magazine, the often quoted, well-respected news magazine that just about every businessperson reads. And Newsweek, the not-so-often quoted, not-so-respected, often forgotten, but still considerably well-read news magazine. In this sort of a battle, we almost always, automatically say that Time is quite a bit better than Newsweek. However, don't be so quick; Useful Crap has formulated 7 criteria to evaluate the quality of news of these two prominent United States magazines. This means that how well-designed the magazine is, how good the paper feels, how cluttered the site is, how appealing the logo is and how affordable the subscription is, don't count towards determining who's better in this examination. So let's get started:

1. Conciseness

While Time's articles extend on and on and on, Newsweek's rarely exceed two pages. You may say that detail is a good thing but sometimes, you simply want to get to the point and I often find myself taking a peak at how many pages are left to read in some of Time's articles while I know Newsweek can pack quite a bit into the few paragraphs that are used. In addition, Time has a habit of burying the lead; in other words, making people wait to find the main point while Newsweek is much more succinct. So if conciseness is the game then Newsweek takes the cake.

Time: 0 Newsweek: 1

A somewhat surprising start; let's see if Newsweek will hold on.

2. The Intrigue Factor

There isn't much of a question of who wins in this battle. Although Newsweek makes a decent case for itself with a few small special reports, a new "Conventional Wisdom" poll and a highlight on opinion-based pieces, Time easily triumphs. The latter produces plenty of lengthy specials all pleasantly titled as well as articles that are more fascinating in the nature of the topic (who doesn't want to read about Bush and Cheney's last days?) and the always entertaining Best and Worst Lists

Time: 1 Newsweek: 1

One of these magazines will really make a run for it now. Let's see which one.

3. Importance of News

Ah, what else can be faulted of Newsweek but it's notorious track record of reporting more on insignificant side-news than anything else. These days, while Time spits out articles regarding stem cells and Obama's health care plan, Newsweek is lulling on why Britney Spears is good for you. So what can I say, when you're closely affiliated with CNN, the most trusted name in news (as Time Magazine is), who can fault you one what you cover?

Time: 2 Newsweek: 1

Hey, don't rule good ol' Newsweek out yet.

4. Range/Variety

This has to be the most obvious one. One glance at the link bars on the top of both Time and Newsweek's websites and you'll see what you need to know. Time has sections regarding the U.S., World, Politics, Biz and Tech, Health and Science, Entertainment, Travel as well as People. On the other hand, Newsweek shies in comparison, with only the first five. But that's not the whole story. Newsweek essentially limits itself to those five topics while just peering at Time's homepage will show you that right beside each other are three articles: "Puppies Behind Bars", "Apollo 11's Next Giant Leap", and "Asia's Easy Money Bubble Fueling New Bubbles".

Time: 3 Newsweek: 1

Just like its parent company's (The Washington Post) neighbourhood baseball team, Newsweek is losing again.

5. Quality of Journalism

Despite Time's massive workforce that pumps out the most-read articles day after day, you have to give credit to Newsweek for its efforts. With a smaller workforce, Newsweek actually has recruited some of the better journalists who are dwelling in the shadows. If you actually decide to tune into Newsweek for a little while, you'll probably find their more opinion-based articles a lot more stimulating and entertaining, even if they concern generally petty subjects. Time's articles are packed with hard facts that are tough to remember but Newsweek might actually be fun to read. Not to mention the conciseness.

Time: 3 Newsweek: 2

6. Graphics

This is really tough one; but the final question that it came down to was: "Do photos truly contribute to the insights of the actual article?" And I say, no. Time Magazine not only includes good articles but some of the best photos out there as well. They make news beautiful. But of course, that doesn't count. Time does come out with cool graphics and this might be controversial, but I think that Newsweek wins this battle. "News/Week" a bar at the bottom of every Newsweek page is one of the most useful and innovative things I've seen on a website. It's quite simple but very effective, highlighting the most important articles in every section for every day in a convenient interface. Many other little things put Newsweek ahead in this department as well.

Time: 3 Newsweek: 3

7. Depth

So it all boils down to this. The depth. But there's really no contest here, unfortunately. While Newsweek is concise and easy-to-read, Time is a lot more in-depth. Simply compare the number of special reports and you'll see. Compare the number of videos, the number of photos, the number of pages in each article. And you'll see how much more detail-oriented Time is.

Time: 4 Newsweek: 3

So it was a good battle, but in the end, the victor was the more popular and more powerful, Time Magazine. Even after its complete re-invention, Newsweek falls short in a number of key categories. Time has brute force on its side with the amount of money it is able to spend on its quality. Newsweek doesn't have this privelege. And CNN is a good asset as well while the general mission of Time Magazine seems to be quite a bit better.
Still, they are both insightful news magazines and it may even take other factors to decide on your preference.

Time Magazine's Terrible Treason: The Story of How One of the World's Biggest Magazine's Abandoned its Subscribers

I'd always been intrigued by Time's insightful articles and I'll give them credit. Their writers are great and always will be great. And that's why I decided it'd be cool to subscribe to the publication and so spent $30 (Canadian dollars) on a year's subscription.
So quickly, they sent me the first issue, which happened to be the Barack Obama Time Person of the Year Issue. I was very satisfied by the content and the service; it was in perfect condition and everything was great ... at the time that is.
After this, I thought I knew my next issue would come on January 19th but that day passed without any sign of a Time Magazine coming any time soon. But I decided that I was so satisfied with the first issue that I didn't care; I'd just wait another week to see if I'd get anything (despite the fact that it's a news magazine and many of the stories' validity and interest quickly expire). However, I waited another week, and nothing came, and another. In fact, I've been waiting until now, more than 4 weeks, and still nothing has come. And you bet that's frustrating because in these tough economical times, you want everything for your dollar and I wasn't getting anything for my hard 30.
Thus, I did the only sensible thing I could and decided I would investigate. So I went to the site (which by the way they had no Canadian version of) and tried to enter my account number, which I had to use to contact them. But somehow, it seemed that all of my account information had been erased from the Time database because, even after continuously trying to get into my account, they refused to grant me entry. And so I called them. But it turned out that the provided phone number could not be called from Canada.
After looking around for awhile though, I came across a little text (maybe font size 6, and grey to boot): It said that there was a specific place to enter account info for Canadians. I clicked and here's where it took me. In case you didn't click, here's the message I was shown:

TIME will no longer be publishing a Canadian advertiser edition. The final issue of TIME Canada is the December 29, 2008 issue.
An official notification will be sent in the next 2-3 weeks. If you have any questions, please call customer service at 1-800 843-8463.

You might spot the phone number at the end, which is what I called to inquire about this. And what I got was a long waiting process followed by a totally unhelpful answerer who just assertively backed this message. So I basically won't get 6 or 7 Time Magazine issues. There cheating me out of 5 bucks. It sounds petty but that's not the point; you wouldn't be happy either if you were denied of your only source of informational entertainment for 2 months.

So thanks Time, for spitting on all of the loyal Canadian subscribers out there.