Facebook, The Default Is Social, Like a Smoking Room
Published: April 21, 2010
"We Are Building A Web Where The Default Is Social” Like a Smoking Room?
I was reading this post from Techcrunch and there is an idea I want to comment about. No doubt Facebook is a successful business with a few interesting points and a lot of users, but if you ask me why FB is so popular, I have another question for you: Can you explain why a poor quality good for nothing YouTube video gets viral?
I can spend hours writing about the multiples bugs I found every time I login in FB, how weird I find the API compared to other platforms, how bad FB works in my BlackBerry, the annoying same ads that keep appearing in my profile, the intricate menu system to control your privacy or how I can have little or no benefits visiting FB.
FB will stay here "forever" but I rather keep an eye in the phone/mobile area for the true social networking next thing.
BTW, finishing this post, I'm login in FB and suspending my account.
My family (who basically refused to get online for the first 15 years of the public internet) now all insist on being on Facebook. So my account will stay, but I login once or twice a month.
Though it is the only way I can easily get in touch with my family. Every single member of the extended and immediate family. No joke. Or maybe it is a joke. A cruel one. Which is annoying because I really hate FB. Both designwise and philosophically. Zuckerberg gives me a headache.
@Rob Nelson there is a news that they are shutting down the "lite" version. I don't know the FB mobile strategy, but there is a difference between an application in a phone and an original mobile service. Buzz?
Yes, they are shutting down the lite version. They're currently maintaining 4 versions of the site (I think): regular desktop www, lite, touch, and the mobile m.facebook.com site.
Considering how much browser specific code has to be written, that's a lot of maintenance. Add to that a handful of mobile apps for the various phones, and it's not a bad idea to shut down redundant services.
If you really want "facebook lite" use the touch.facebook.com site. It's basically the same data, slightly different format. This is essentially what the mobile apps are.There really isn't much difference between the Facebook Android App, and the touch.facebook.com website.
The main advantages the native mobile app has today are A) Audible/Vibration Notifications of events (messages etc) and B) integration with hardware features, like the camera.
I use the Android widget for Buzz on my phone for posting, because of the above reason - I can click on the camera icon on it, click a pic, post it with a note, and buzz onward.
Basically the only applications that a web app may be inappropriate for, are those that require background processing on the device, and those that require hardware access that isn't built into any web standard.
You know, it may be just a coincidence, but you are like the third person today that I have heard is shutting down their Facebook site, or putting up an extremely minimal profile there. I think people are getting sick of their shenanigans. I have never liked them very much, but now I don't trust them.
p.s. In response to your questions as to why systems can be of such poor quality and still be so successful - it is called "a natural monopoly" - they just got there first.
I don't think the idea of a (or rather another) "web" made out of "social" links are mutually exclusive from the mobile area .. though what facebook is proposing (so called Open Graph) indicates that all social-related links point back to facebook, which is pretty ridiculous .. again, I am not arguing from a technical standpoint that facebook is terrible, but idea wise on what they are proposing, i think it is pretty cool
This is the first time that I don't see your point Alden, the open graph is an ambitious idea, I don't know how good will be, because there is a lot of personal information involved, but the general idea seems pretty good, visit a site and see the things that you like it...
sigh I've come to despise facebook. The trouble is there's not decent alternative to which all my friends have caught on to. Infact, 99% of my friends ask me what , for example, buzz is (shame on them).
Facebook's attitude towards web collaboration is anything but social. If they cared about allowing people to express interpersonal relationships in meaningful fashion, why haven't they added support for XFN tags?
They are going after google... and it runs a big risk. Most hard core social users I know dont like FB and most less hard core have privacy concerns... hello myspace 2.0?
Problem with Facebook is there origin is based off a single website. No matter how much they branch out in partnership agreements and services their fortunes and future is tied to that site - and they have done a lot to alienate that particular customer base.
@Jacob McClain quick answer: XFN is a way to express human relationships in a machine-parseable fashion, for example on my profile page I might put <a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1017804090" rel="friend met" /> to show that I have a connection to you, and the nature of that connection is that you are a friend who I have met in real life.
I think it's easy to find complaint with FB if there's no value in it for you. There are tolerable flaws and intolerable flaws. Friendster had the intolerable crippling flaw of being unable to deliver pages -- the feature set was beyond their ability to deliver robustly. MySpace had the big flaw of crashing page requests but you only to refresh the page to get the social crack. Then it died from the flaw of not innovating. Facebook has minor flaws I'm willing to overlook because I find it highly useful. In my city, you're off the reservation if you're not on Facebook. My only guy friend not on Facebook is so because he has a wife and kid. His wife has a presence there. Nobody asks about Buzz. They tried it in Feb, then left.
Facebook is a waste of time. The easiest way to keep in touch with people is e-mail and twittter. I can't stand facebook, the only reason why my account hasn't been deleted is because my friends would have a cow
@Richard - actually, until recently, you couldn't write an entire paragraph on Facebook either, could you? I never got that - did they thing "characters" cost too much or something?
@Richard - I liked facebook when it wasn't the "modern forum" [<== used extremely loosely]. I liked facebook when you had to be in college to use it. Now that it's inundated with bs adds, games, and I need to guard it for privacy leaks as if it were a ticking time bomb... Well let's just say I have better things to be doing with my time
I hate that on Facebook you are able to hide your identity, and I agree with you candyce, about the uni and exclusive dimension.
The thing is that we've all graduated ;-). We need a facebook for professionals. Linkedin maybe.
Facebook isn't a forum. It's a way of seeing which friends are going to which events and what interesting things they're doing. I say this losely, after all they often lose phones and need our numbers again ;-). They're not using android phones yet.
@Richard Azia You wrote: "I hate that on Facebook you are able to hide your identity"—did you mean to say aren't ? If not, would you mind clarifying that for a non-Facebooker who isn't intimate with its privacy settings? How can you possibly "hide your identity" in a network where the use of one's full real name is a TOS requirement (setting aside, for the moment, the question of how well that's enforced).
@Kathi [d/b/a fuzzyscorpio] - Actually Kathi, while yes, you do have to sign up using your real name, you can make yourself fully unsearchable on Facebook (meaning you can't be found unless someone has your email address) through the privacy settings. You can also make your profile complete non-viewable to the public, I believe. For all intents and purposes, to others, you would not exist in Facebook.
People are creating fake identities on facebook. They are not using their family name. They are creating users that are a group rather than a person and more. As a result of this behaviour friends of yours may be adding people they do not know personally.
When it was a university friends network everyone you added was a direct friend, someone you had partied with, studied with. Now that people are into the twitter "I have 20,000 friends" mentality you have it influencing how people, especially social media types, associate with, and create connections on the site.
I left Facebook 2 years ago and went back to it a year ago. For me it became an important tool of communication and find people with similar interests. I am also tired of the Slowness of Google's improvements here on Buzz and in other fields (at Adsense, Picasa, even with Chrome it goes too slow...)
FB is slowly disabling any "fake" accounts they find. Anything with an Avatar on it would be suspended unless said account can show proof that the name matches their real life name on a license or something. This happened to me and a group from Second Life.
Adoption of FB depends largely on your cohort, be it demographic or your local tribe. If your cohort doesn't use it, you're likely to not use it either. Or you use it to see what your kids or grandkids are up to.
@Dr. Matthias Thorner - Put it simply, he wants to make Facebook ubiquitous on the web. Everywhere you go and everything you do, you can display and share on Facebook. To hear him tell it, this is what you want in your deepest of hearts. You just don't know it yet.
@Betsy Hunter. I believe many adults harbor a secret hatred of Facebook, but until this there really was no alternative. Adults didn't grow up with it, and in fact for a long time weren't even allowed to join (unless you were a student) so it didn't grow "organically" for us. Parents followed their kids there, and then friends of the parents followed them. I was shocked when I first joined at the many limitations. They wouldn't let me join a network out of my city, and I could only post a few sentences at a time - crap only kids would put up with, I remember thinking. I just posted my Google profile like there and told people I wouldn't be around there much anymore. I have never liked Facebook.
Alden, Chris, Robert you all make great valid coments, I ofter wonder why FB is so big, I guess it isnt really the social aspect, the games or all of the other crap, more inportantly I think it is something to do. Something to check, something to be engaged with. It is our human nature to be curious, to seek information, to be engaged. In time another thing will come along that will engage our thoughts and waste our time. Untill then we have FB!
@Ron - Facebook is so big because it became what is known as "a natural monopoly" - or something close to that. Once they got the student population from Harvard it was not that hard to get other colleges - and then the entire student population of the U.S. Feature-wise, it is a really crappy system.
Thanks @Chris Tou and @Richard Azia for interesting and helpful clarification. Also @Stephen Venkman. (I bet they're nowhere close to catching up with all their fake users.)
@Dr. Matthias Thorner I have not found time (due partly to disinclination) for any close reading of F8 reports, but my gut on what Zuckerberg was saying in his opening comments is this. I think he's trying to convince us that we're moving toward an online world in which people seek information primarily from their contacts rather than from sites and searches.
The world we live in is a world in which we seek our information primarily from our contacts. We have only recently opened up to the world that we can "travel to" and search for online. We have always gotten the bulk of our information about the world from our closest friends (and teachers) - bringing it back to this online is not really a change, but a return to a more traditional method. It does not lead to any more disinformation or misinformation than reading it online. It just gives us a more personalized view. Right now, viewing information on something like Wikipedia we are subjected to far more disinformation and misinformation than any of our friends are likely to be able to imagine.
@Rob Nelson, it's true that Wikipedia contains many errors (in some areas is really challenging find one though) but disinformation and misinformation is everywhere. Regarding your comment, are you talking about general disposable non relevant information or information related to your formal instruction?
Actually my friends and contacts don't know squat. Facebook wants us to think that, but if I had to rely on my friends for needed information, I would be in deep doo.
I am saying that those kinds of media are very new in the history of humans - traditionally we just ask each other. (I have used a book, once. And Mad Magazine. but no TV. Southpark on the web....and I've learned a lot from that! )
I am an information "opportunivore" - I do get it from where ever I can. Some topics, my friends are best, some topics Google and the sites it points to are the best, others still, radio & tv might be best. I
Alden - I'm talking about both - but we I'm pretty sure that we can agree that as a general rule one's friends are going to know more about the "disposable" information (resutaurants, stores, etc) and other sources know more lasting information - and we hopefully choose the correct srouce to acquire that from.
It is something of a change over the last four - five hundred years to be able to look up information - and really only the last 150-200 yrs where that has been achievable by the common person. So - for most of history - the way we learn things has been to ask our friends and other contacts.
There's an old Chinese proverb that generally states that "3 people walking together, there must be something you can learn (from them)". You may think you know more than your friends, but really, unless you purposely surround yourself with incompetent and ignorant friends, there's always something you can learn from them.
I don't use Facebook too much, but my boys do. It seems to me that they go there not for information, but to chill with their friends in an asynchronous kind of way. They can write something once and all of their friends get it. With Facebook, they don't have to go out of their way to send s separate message to each person, or even to one, for that matter.
Personally, I've found it to promote a form of communication that is, well, shallow. It isn't because my friends are shallow, but, I think, because the format of the service -- with friends connecting to "friends" connecting to "friends" -- makes posting anything deeper or controversial rather risky. You could end up offending someone in FB's long chain of "friends." I don't know how much valuable information that is going to provide the people who want to sell us stuff. Maybe I just don't understand the real depth of the service FB provides.
@Daniel Graham- I agree with your analogy on FB. I use FB less and less. I find myself reading what all my "friends" have been saying and then go play Texas Holdem to unwind. If it were not for the game I would probably just dump FB entirely. The other day I went through and deleted all of the so called friends out of my friends list. Most of the people I deleted were friends of my friends who never spoke to me and mostly just sent me stupid game requests or cause requests. How social IS social media anyway? FB has been a good way to get reconnected to people I used to go to high school with 30 years ago.
Social media is as social as people are ready to interact with you on a regular basis. Too many people say that social media are a complete waste of time. The problem is they turn this sentence into a reality.
Everytime we send a message to someone and it goes unanswered we have wasted our time. In so doing it does turn the "social" aspect into a simple contradiction. I don't know how you find people view "social media" in your locality. In this one many find it is a waste of time.
@James Moffitt - Some people talk to everyone. Some people are like you (and me) and just use it to connect to close friends. Everyone is different I see where you are coming from, but you aren't seeing it from the person who sends 30k texts a month (used to be me)
I've sent over 69,000 tweets in three years, quite tame compared to your 30,000 texts. That's a thousand a day. Do you find anyone with that many free texts?
okay let me tell u something there bud i do not know what you are talking about i have a perfect running computer and visit the facebook website very very offten so you do not know what you are talking about that is not totally true it is like that with every website so there you have it and i do not think that you should listen to the news i mean they just want you to be scared and that is not like you will stop eating tomatoes or anything so you should just like not even worrie about that they say the world will end in 2012 do you think that is true???
I like the loyalty of FB users, my FB friends are people I know from the city/growingUp and many are techAverse nevertheless I use it the way I use Twitter which annoys my friends. Twitter and Buzz are the clear winners 4me but my city/growingUpt friends preffer the fallacy of FB's privacy settings which is an oxymoron in a world of cut&pste or SavePageAs. It causes no harm to retain your FB acccount since everything changes in hte world and whether FB user like it or not Mr. Zuckerman will make more money if FB slowly and unperceptibly behaves more like the Buzz. Lets face it our FB friends will not migrate to the Buzz. Do like i do post on FB like you do here or Twiter ...they'll catch on eventually ...the ox is slow but the earth is patient
"the ox is slow but the earth is patient" - I like that proverb.
I agree with you about everything, except forcing twitter down people's throats. Twitter is rather unique, like an anorexic model people falsely idolize. (or at least used to). Twitter is high maintenance low reward.
@Richard Azia From one who's lived under Twitter's spell for two years: Nicely put and sadly true :). I just can't quit it. (And actually it is pretty rewarding informationally, though not socially.)
@rAzia [ I agree with you about everything, except forcing twitter down people's throats. ] :: I was about to cancel my FB account when I read that Mr. Zuckerman was changing FB. The changes look migratory -->towards--> Twitter like. Also have been reading blogs and news about how HR departments slowly are examining job applicant's FB page. My "forced' FB 'tweets' are links to news/logs about professional like subjects in addition to greetings to friends & family...just an experiment ...agree is forced but they don't give a hoot anyway unless is gossip & i don't do that, soooo ..ok i agree is forced :D --- The bottom line 4me is FB sucks because the expectations and mores users have about its relationships, technically the platform is better than Twitter or LinkedIn and sooner or later it will be used more professionally I can see how the iPhone/iPad platform is quickly changing our vision of skills and careers a WWW job is more reachable to the masses is not 4geeks only or pehaps the iPad and Android will Geekify the world :D
Facebook, The Default Is Social, Like a Smoking Room
I was reading this post from Techcrunch and there is an idea I want to comment about. No doubt Facebook is a successful business with a few interesting points and a lot of users, but if you ask me why FB is so popular, I have another question for you: Can you explain why a poor quality good for nothing YouTube video gets viral?
I can spend hours writing about the multiples bugs I found every time I login in FB, how weird I find the API compared to other platforms, how bad FB works in my BlackBerry, the annoying same ads that keep appearing in my profile, the intricate menu system to control your privacy or how I can have little or no benefits visiting FB.
FB will stay here "forever" but I rather keep an eye in the phone/mobile area for the true social networking next thing.
BTW, finishing this post, I'm login in FB and suspending my account.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/21/zuckerbergs-buildin-web-default-social/
lol
Though it is the only way I can easily get in touch with my family. Every single member of the extended and immediate family. No joke. Or maybe it is a joke. A cruel one. Which is annoying because I really hate FB. Both designwise and philosophically. Zuckerberg gives me a headache.
@The Penciler, I will try to see the episode. Leaving FB is not like leaving Google, it took me only 5 seconds lol.
Considering how much browser specific code has to be written, that's a lot of maintenance. Add to that a handful of mobile apps for the various phones, and it's not a bad idea to shut down redundant services.
If you really want "facebook lite" use the touch.facebook.com site. It's basically the same data, slightly different format. This is essentially what the mobile apps are.There really isn't much difference between the Facebook Android App, and the touch.facebook.com website.
The main advantages the native mobile app has today are A) Audible/Vibration Notifications of events (messages etc) and B) integration with hardware features, like the camera.
I use the Android widget for Buzz on my phone for posting, because of the above reason - I can click on the camera icon on it, click a pic, post it with a note, and buzz onward.
Basically the only applications that a web app may be inappropriate for, are those that require background processing on the device, and those that require hardware access that isn't built into any web standard.
p.s. In response to your questions as to why systems can be of such poor quality and still be so successful - it is called "a natural monopoly" - they just got there first.
It is proposed Facebook users will be able to directly "like" web content, but privacy concerns have been raised about this.
I agree this type of status should be open - not owned by any proprietary platform.
Long answer: http://gmpg.org/xfn/
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML_Friends_Network
It's the modern forum. You never had 6 paragraph conversations in IRC form.
The thing is that we've all graduated ;-). We need a facebook for professionals. Linkedin maybe.
Facebook isn't a forum. It's a way of seeing which friends are going to which events and what interesting things they're doing. I say this losely, after all they often lose phones and need our numbers again ;-). They're not using android phones yet.
When it was a university friends network everyone you added was a direct friend, someone you had partied with, studied with. Now that people are into the twitter "I have 20,000 friends" mentality you have it influencing how people, especially social media types, associate with, and create connections on the site.
I'm going off topic.
People are going against the terms of service.
For some strange reason I do not understand what Zuckerberg is announcing. I understand every word - but not what they mean for us.
Isn't the web social by nature? What did I miss?
Can someone explain in baby language what his next vision is?
Sorry
@Dr. Matthias Thorner I have not found time (due partly to disinclination) for any close reading of F8 reports, but my gut on what Zuckerberg was saying in his opening comments is this. I think he's trying to convince us that we're moving toward an online world in which people seek information primarily from their contacts rather than from sites and searches.
Don't like the overall direction of the company and the way they are treating the privacy of users
This would lead to so much misinformation, disinformation, and rumors that can destroy lives, careers, and even nations.
I am an information "opportunivore" - I do get it from where ever I can. Some topics, my friends are best, some topics Google and the sites it points to are the best, others still, radio & tv might be best. I
Alden - I'm talking about both - but we I'm pretty sure that we can agree that as a general rule one's friends are going to know more about the "disposable" information (resutaurants, stores, etc) and other sources know more lasting information - and we hopefully choose the correct srouce to acquire that from.
It is something of a change over the last four - five hundred years to be able to look up information - and really only the last 150-200 yrs where that has been achievable by the common person. So - for most of history - the way we learn things has been to ask our friends and other contacts.
Personally, I've found it to promote a form of communication that is, well, shallow. It isn't because my friends are shallow, but, I think, because the format of the service -- with friends connecting to "friends" connecting to "friends" -- makes posting anything deeper or controversial rather risky. You could end up offending someone in FB's long chain of "friends." I don't know how much valuable information that is going to provide the people who want to sell us stuff. Maybe I just don't understand the real depth of the service FB provides.
Everytime we send a message to someone and it goes unanswered we have wasted our time. In so doing it does turn the "social" aspect into a simple contradiction. I don't know how you find people view "social media" in your locality. In this one many find it is a waste of time.
I agree with you about everything, except forcing twitter down people's throats. Twitter is rather unique, like an anorexic model people falsely idolize. (or at least used to). Twitter is high maintenance low reward.