How Mark Zuckerberg Fooled ‘60 Minutes’
paidcontent.org
paidcontent.org
He really isn't. Jobs and Gates brought PC's to the masses, nothing Zuck has done is on that level, not even close.
People know more about the lives of their friends and
family than they ever have before
Of course more direct communication still happens outside of Facebook. I think that "random nonsense" is more valuable to people that you're assuming. Presumably, people wouldn't use Facebook if they didn't find it valuable.
I don't think I ever would've seen as many pictures of
the random events in the lives of my family and friends
without Facebook
I think that "random nonsense" is more valuable to
people that you're assuming
Yes, you are right, in terms of "one-way" communication (status updates etc), it lets you keep tabs on your friends more easily. But that sort of status-updating functionality wasn't even in there (or at least emphasized) until Twitter came along. So give them some credit. And even then, I think you overestimate just how much people share on Facebook. I've noticed that some (like 10-15%) of my fb friends constantly post updates, pictures, etc., while the others (while still maintaining a "presence" on the site) just don't. And for the purposes of this post, I actually went and checked a few friends' profiles to be sure it wasn't just that I was only seeing a select few on my feed, heh. (I'm one of the ones who don't share much, and these days I don't even check Facebook much actually.)
In terms of two-way communication, it's only real innovation was to allow others to follow along with the conversation. Which is a pretty big deal, of course--allowing others to join in on digital conversations is a big boon. But that's really it... the rest of its functionality isn't as big of a deal and frankly was scraped from other sites anyway (even being able to follow a conversation on a profile based website was an idea from Myspace actually).
That's my take anyway. I've been on Facebook since 2006 (well, on and off--deleted my profile for about a year then made a new one a few months ago), and honestly it really hasn't been a part of my life nearly to the extent that computers and all the other services they provide have been. And for what its worth, I'm a pretty social, outgoing person, so my viewpoint shouldn't be slanted by introversion.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling post.
EDIT: I should add (as danieldon noted) that events are a genuinely useful feature that Facebook had before any other site (to my knowledge). I give them credit for that. Anything else is pretty much fluff though, and while I understand the idea that even vacuous communication should lead to greater trust and social bonds in the real world, I disagree that that actually happens in practice.
[1] lesswrong.com/lw/f1/beware_trivial_inconveniences/
It's a purely cosmetic change that affects half a billion people. Does every web startup deserve news coverage when they redesign? No. Does facebook? Yup. The impact is larger. Pretty simple.
No.
Facebook has done a lot of redesigns, this is just a redesign that acts as a suitably rich metaphor for highlighting what the "new social web" is all about, or at least what part of the "new social web" is about at a level with which people can follow along.
as another commenter said,
"this is just a redesign that acts as a suitably rich metaphor for highlighting what the "new social web" is all about"
that creates a narrative that 60-minutes can get behind and milk, for eyeballs, fun and profit.
if the Red Cross poured millions of dollars into an entirely new online strategy that had a strong TV-friendly narrative ("the future of donations is social" or what have you), I'm sure they would be attractive to 60-minutes too. That's only part of the equation though, you need a hot PR team in place who can reach out to major channels like this and pitch the story right. You don't get on TV just by existing.
It doesn't take very much to fool 60 Minutes these days, actually. They ceded the crown of investigative journalism to bloggers long ago for better or for worse, and their demographic is rapidly aging to the point where virtually every commercial is for a prescription drug that would only be appropriate for those over sixty. This was an interview meant primarily to encourage younger viewership, but otherwise for the elderly, meaning those who probably don't use Facebook but have heard their children or grandchildren talk about it. It showed.