Ashton Kutcher clearly does't know all 7.6 million of his followers, but Facebook isn't twitter. A good thing too-- they're completely different social platforms. Twitter is more like broadcasting. Masscasting, to coin a word. Facebook is more about your circles.
From Zuckerber's viewpoint, it makes sense to look closely at twitter's successes and G+'s innovation, and to see what good ideas Facebook can adopt. The reciprocal arrangement of friending limits broad outreach, and I can see the logic of subscriptions. The twitter-like follow feature of Google+ shifts the paradigm, and Zuckerberg is right to respond. But we can't handle all of it. Someone's going to fail.
The big social beasts seemed spooked by each other's unique successes, and seem determined that we be served an all-you-can-eat social smorgasbord. A kind of twitbook.
Google+ has a lovely interface, and the integration with Picaca photo albums is very well thought out. But Google, who promised they'd "do no evil", did something dickish in my book. The seemingly straightforward process of allowing your circles to see your photo albums, randomly generates emails to your individual contacts, unless you unchecked an easy to miss checkbox. If as I did you enable your old classmates to see about a dozen albums, that's a lot of emails you didn't know you sent.
That's a sneaky way of getting numbers for Google+. As the New Zealand barman said about the previously unknown sport of dwarf-throwing-- that's just not cool.
How many rows have we had with Facebook about features they seemed to sneak in that made us raise questions about privacy?
Social networking is great on many levels. But in the race for dominance, the big guys seem to care less about throwing a few elbows.
The obvious rebuttal is that it's all by choice. We don't have to do it. Correct. I shut down FB before and didn't miss it. I'm probably going to have to axe one of them, as i simply don't have the time for both.
The big social beasts seemed spooked by each other's unique successes, and seem determined that we be served an all-you-can-eat social smorgasbord. A kind of twitbook.
Google+ has a lovely interface, and the integration with Picaca photo albums is very well thought out. But Google, who promised they'd "do no evil", did something dickish in my book. The seemingly straightforward process of allowing your circles to see your photo albums, randomly generates emails to your individual contacts, unless you unchecked an easy to miss checkbox. If as I did you enable your old classmates to see about a dozen albums, that's a lot of emails you didn't know you sent.
That's a sneaky way of getting numbers for Google+. As the New Zealand barman said about the previously unknown sport of dwarf-throwing-- that's just not cool.
How many rows have we had with Facebook about features they seemed to sneak in that made us raise questions about privacy?
Social networking is great on many levels. But in the race for dominance, the big guys seem to care less about throwing a few elbows.
The obvious rebuttal is that it's all by choice. We don't have to do it. Correct. I shut down FB before and didn't miss it. I'm probably going to have to axe one of them, as i simply don't have the time for both.
0 comments:
Post a Comment