<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Jon Silk on &#8216;Greenpeace unfriends Facebook over dirty data&#8217;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://reputationonline.co.uk/2010/03/05/greenpeace-unfriends-facebook-over-dirty-data/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://reputationonline.co.uk/2010/03/05/greenpeace-unfriends-facebook-over-dirty-data/</link>
	<description>Reputationonline.co.uk weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:25:45 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jon Silk</title>
		<link>http://reputationonline.co.uk/2010/03/05/greenpeace-unfriends-facebook-over-dirty-data/comment-page-1/#comment-2018</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Silk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:56:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reputationonline.co.uk/?p=3026#comment-2018</guid>
		<description>Well the group has just gone through 100,000 members, so the message is getting out there. And it agree it is a valuable one.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I still think Greenpeace should serve up more information on Facebook&#039;s actual impact, however. Just targeting a big social network *because* it&#039;s a big social network doesn&#039;t forward the debate.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;This article goes a little further (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/facebook-update-renewable-ene&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/facebook-upd...&lt;/a&gt;) by providing some explanation of the story.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well the group has just gone through 100,000 members, so the message is getting out there. And it agree it is a valuable one.</p>
<p>I still think Greenpeace should serve up more information on Facebook&#39;s actual impact, however. Just targeting a big social network *because* it&#39;s a big social network doesn&#39;t forward the debate.</p>
<p>This article goes a little further (<a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/facebook-update-renewable-ene" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/facebook-upd.." rel="nofollow">http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/facebook-upd..</a>.) by providing some explanation of the story.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: barneyc</title>
		<link>http://reputationonline.co.uk/2010/03/05/greenpeace-unfriends-facebook-over-dirty-data/comment-page-1/#comment-2017</link>
		<dc:creator>barneyc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:18:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reputationonline.co.uk/?p=3026#comment-2017</guid>
		<description>&quot;Has Greenpeace just attacked its biggest source of support?&quot; Yes, no, maybe, no.  Probably.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I&#039;m starting to think it&#039;s a very savvy move.  Yes FB prob offers up a massive base for attention, but will they feel alienated from Greenpeace&#039;s campaign or motivated into pressuring their SNS of choice into making a change?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Has Greenpeace just attacked its biggest source of support?&#8221; Yes, no, maybe, no.  Probably.</p>
<p>I&#39;m starting to think it&#39;s a very savvy move.  Yes FB prob offers up a massive base for attention, but will they feel alienated from Greenpeace&#39;s campaign or motivated into pressuring their SNS of choice into making a change?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
