The End of the Facebook Era
huffingtonpost.com
huffingtonpost.com
The media does like stories, and nothing better than building something up to be huge, and then shooting it down. Recent episodes of this include Microsoft and Apple.
But despite what the media says, or how powerful the media seems to believe it is, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook are still strong and huge. The average person just does not concern themselves with what seems to be SO important to the media.
In regards to facebook, the simple fact is that we have all been losing privacy for many years, thanks to technology. We are photographed, filmed, tracked, catalogued so many times in the modern day, and this worries the majority very little. They still carry supermarket loyalty cards, fill out surveys, put in their real names and addresses.
I can't see this affecting facebook in any meaningful way. I wish I was wrong.
Further, what's "the open internet" in your analogy? There is no decentralized social platform that at all compares to Facebook, and currently I fail to see how there could be one that is viable. Diaspora will certainly not be it, unless the readership of HN encompasses all of your friends.
Having everyone sign messages on NNTP would work too since you could whitelist a set of people or alternatively a black list of known bad people.
Forums like this are good, but lack the convenience that a NNTP news reader used to have of having all your conversations in one place.
WHAT?
Have you noticed how many corporations these days advertise not their web site, but their facebook (or twitter) page? Of course games are a huge reason Facebook is big today. Email: I cannot stop people from "emailing" me via Facebook's internal messaging. I tell them again and again to just email me directly, but they've been stupidified into thinking that they are emailing me. It's very annoying.
Facebook -- like all sites of the sort -- absolutely wants to be your AOL.
(1) http://gigaom.com/2007/11/06/facebook-beacon-privacy-issues/
It's easy to find first-person accounts of what it's like to be, say, schizophrenic or delusional or manic-depressive or to have Asperger's, but I've never heard of anyone admitting "I'm a sociopath. Here's what it's like to be me."
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/a5xvv/iama_diagnosed_s...
This was posted several months ago, looks like he's still taking questions.
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Bastard-Autobiography-Sociopath...
House System, was, at best, about 10% as influential in the creation of Facebook as was Friendster. You take every opportunity to hate on Mark and Facebook, even when it makes no sense... Why can't you just move on? Mark/Facebook owe you nothing; quit deluding yourself. Go be productive!!
I can be productive and write too.
It's well intentioned most of the time - people who want to see you succeed.
> I can be productive and write too.
Yes and no. Hatred can actually be a powerful motivator - I remember a few years ago, sometimes I'd be low energy, and I'd go check out what my most-disliked-competitor was doing, and then I'd be all fired up and ready to take on the world. The problem is, hatred is a fuel that burns really, really dirty and takes its toll on you. So you've got to meditate a little about whether the price you're paying in terms of time and negative energy is worth the energy boost and subject matter to write about.
Also, you might be getting this reaction because people who read multiple pieces on Facebook by you are getting a very similar angle and facts presented each time. That can get a little boring - and I say that as a non-Facebook user who isn't particularly a fan of Facebook. But whatever, if the Facebook angle is serving your current goals, so be it, and here's wishing for much successes for you.
When I write one of these columns, it's not because I'm filled with hatred. It's because I don't see anyone making a point I think is obvious or important about the whole affair, and each time I write I'm put in a position of having to explain why I think I'm qualified to comment. You have to keep in mind that I'm not writing primarily for the Hacker News audience, even though I'll post some things on here. To people here it sounds like I'm stuck in a cave full of hatred writing about Facebook. I'm not. I just want to make sure I'm reaching the first-time reader who doesn't realize that there's more to this story.
It's much less about "the Facebook angle" serving my goals as you say, and more about sticking to what's right.
I think one of the main takeaways here is that an initial media backlash is the fastest way to kill a social site looking for its critical mass. It's like any party, if people think it'll be lame or unsafe because that's the word of mouth, nobody will go. Whether playing fair or foul, somehow Mark got the right words in people's mouths about his site and it took off.
Thanks for your wisdom.
It also helped them escape the growing pains we have seen form twitter and the like.
This is why I'm still not sure that Facebook can do anything to monetize its user base without being off-putting to many members of its user base. To not be annoying takes a lot of data processing for every page view (and every advertisement served up), while to be profitable (and speedily responsive to user page requests) requires as little demand on the Facebook server farms as possible. It may not be technically possible today to run a profitable Facebook that pleases many normal users.
Who knows, but Facebook isn't just Mark, it's a large team of highly intelligent and talented (and in most cases PHD level) engineers who I'm sure want nothing more than to protect people's privacy, make a fantastic product, and above all help people connect with current and past friends.
Aaron, I don't doubt that Zuckerberg screwed you over. Unlike many, I'm willing to take you at your word. You should have written your book, profited from it to the max, and then relegated the whole thing to cocktail party joke. There's no reason to cling to this story; it can only make you look bad.
Really, what is the difference between being a sociopath and being relentlessly resourceful?
To be relentlessly resourceful is a great quality in anyone. You get things done.
To be a sociopath means you have lack of empathy or remorse, usually with an inflated sense of self worth.
You can be a resourceful sociopath, or you can be resourceful but empathetic and socially responsible. The former implies you're likely to screw people over and not care about it.
You could have an evil resourceful person who is not a sociopath. You could have a good resourceful person who is a sociopath.
Just because you are a sociopath does not mean you can't pursue a socially responsible goal. Also, the the definition of 'good', 'evil', 'socially responsible', we know are relative terms. In history, some sociopaths have used resourcefulness to re-define these norms for society.
The point I am trying to make is that being relentlessly resourceful, in the most rational sense, often means acting like a sociopath in the sense that you need to disregard social inputs unless they help accomplish your goal.
You can certainly find a sociopath that is helpful to society, they just wouldn't care on an emotional level.
I would be hard pressed to find an evil person who is relentlessly resourceful and social responsible.
now give me an alternative, where I can just transfer all my information, friends, and photos in one click, and I'll move - no questions asked...
damn, didn't think so.
The FB privacy thing has turned into a true media frenzy. Look, FB is not going to go away anytime soon, users just have invested too much time into it. So, forget about the whole "four brave kids take on FB with open platform". How to make FB behave nicely without any viable competition is the question here.
If you're going to comment on an article, you might want to take the time to actually read it. The author graduated from college in 2004 and is in his mid to late 20's.
Seriously, he needs to find a new hobby. He looks like an absolute twat, pursuing that "OMG Mark Zuckerberg stole my idea" horse for half a decade.