Remember When We Were All Supposed To Quit Facebook?
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Nobody else cares.
Right now, Facebook is practically the only game in town, they don't have to worry about these mass migrations. But if Google manages comes up with an even comparably good clone of Facebook, it may become an issue.
That's the downfall of the Web age of the Internet; we (the public) reverted to a client-server attitude rather than a network of equal peers.
My Facebook account is still active, but there's nothing there but an email address and a picture now. I think that's a fair compromise for the time being.
It's a very popular choice.
I can never get over the irony of this type of meta-journalism. It's not like TechCrunch hasn't been actively participating in covering the Facebook privacy "debacle".
"Little girl brutally murdered after FB's privacy controls reveal her to a crazy stalker"
People just don't respond to rational argument, data, and talk the way they do to fear. Obviously for the little girl's sake I hope this never happens, but honestly I don't see Facebook going down any other way anytime soon.
Facebook's earlier negatives were more in line with employers screening you out of jobs or tracking your use (http://mashable.com/2009/08/10/social-media-misuse/)
Now with privacy being the big story, this may evolve to more of what you suggest, though there are already horror stories: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256552/Facebook-sta...
It's not clear what drives the stories/cultural view, though 146's comment about having a viable alternative seems to be important in actually causing people to quit a service.
Who are the 'facebook enemies'?
> Facebook is only evil as long as saying Facebook is evil is driving traffic, is my takeaway from this.
It's about what happens to news in a lucrative, competitive environment. The reason we haven't had to use the term "yellow journalism" since the turn of the last century is because the market for news was so stagnant.
Now there's a new, robust market, and we're seeing a lot of the same tactics all over again.
I guess not RTFA and commenting on the title alone isn't isolated to Slashdot. er... I actually knew that but this thread shows it splendourly (is that a word?).
Anyway, the actual meat of the article, although a known issue for those who have any interest in the media business, would give HNers an opportunity for some shots at Techcrunch (pottle/kettle).
The internet isn't much different than television on this regard. There's a popular, hot topic one week that vanishes on the other. The blond girl that has gone missing happens every couple years. The media reports the case extensively, then another shiny topic comes, and it's dropped. Of course, boys/girls gone missing/kidnapped happens way more frequently than every two years, but sometimes through some crazy conjunction of factors, one is disproportionally reported.
Social networking have been deprecated in the past. It happened to myspace, and friendfeed before it.
I remember the proponents of myspace arguing it couldn't lose momentum when it was at its peak, but it surely did. Perhaps predicting these things is a bit of a black swan event.
I think you meant Friendster.
I'm much happier as a result.
Not you personally, really I should phrase that, "what percentage would stay off"? The social pressure has lifted, suddenly it doesn't seem worth the trouble. It and certainly doesn't seem worth the meta-trouble of a continued checkup process to make sure nobody defects.
I think the point of this article is that people don't care as much as they think they should. They just try to convince themselves they do. Not pretty (kind of scary), but a fact we'll have to come to terms with.