Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

the hidden side of facebook privacy settings?


Guest 5co77ie

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think the reason Facebook was succesful in overtaking myspace was becuase it did what a lot of people wanted mypsace to do, but didn't. Myspace was more like mini websites, like an advertising board for people and musicians mainly, but it didn't fill the inter-personal hole which facebook did

Edited by worm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I think the reason Facebook was succesful in overtaking myspace was becuase it did what a lot of people wanted mypsace to do, but didn't. Myspace was more like mini websites, like an advertising board for people and musicians mainly, but it didn't fill the inter-personal hole which facebook did

but facebook fails back in the opposite direction - it's becoming filled by companies, which helps destroy that "interpersonal hole". That's not an irrelevance, it's a part of what will stop it being 'cool', what will make it fall out of fashion.

social networking...? isn't it just another expression for keeping up with your friends and family? which will always be around

At one level, yep - but just at one level. The same exists with business doings of all types too. It's all networking, the 'social' part is meaningless really.

The problem for the likes of facebook is that you get the morons along with the good stuff, and that the simple fact of the numbers makes it impossible to filter out. Using Glasto as an example, the facebook 'forum' is completely pointless, it's merely a shoutbox and not a communication tool; something more focused (such as here) allows something different to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

....is a typical example of one brand being more successful than the other.

That's all it is. You're making too much out of it. Someone compared the example of VHS and Beta Max. Same here. DVD will be along next, which will be replaced by BluRay. Brand Facebook may be part of that change, or it may have fallen away and been replaced by a new inventor's company. In each eventuality, social networking is part of the developing age of technology. It's not going to fall away.

Nope, that's not all there is, as the history of online social networks gets to prove beyond all doubt.

As I keep saying, 'social networking' in it's broadest sense will continue, but a be-everything-to-everyone format such as Facebook will not be the winner. Specialism is far more important to networking than the just-noise that the likes of Facebook will always give by default.

At the end of the day, Facebook is simply of no importance (tho that doesn't mean it can't be of importance to some individuals). Huge numbers of people don't use it and never will, and no negative consequences at all fall on them because they don't. It could only ever be what you say if it actually had a negative impact on those who didn't use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Correct.

It supplied a demand, while producing an expectation. Myspace didn't compete.

It's really quite simple.

And really quite simply at total odds to the facts of things. :lol::lol:

Facebook initially met no demand that wasn't already covered by MySpace. If demand and only demand was the driver, then MySpace wouldn't have fallen.

The demographics of the users of both sites at the relevant points in time prove beyond all doubt that it's success is age & fashion led, and not anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

although I'm not sure anyone thinks it's particulalry 'cool'...?

ooooo, they do - that's been the driver of its success. Kids saying "I'm on Facebook, are you?" to their mates.

It's grown to that out of first being the same thing to Uni kids.

that side of Facebook I've never really understood. It seems like any commercial enterprise will use any tool to hook it's consumers in... facebook, myspace, twatter... everything has a link to them

yep, companies will do - which is a part of why things like Facebook will never succeed in the long term. The problem for Facebook - and a huge one - is that they can't get rid of those companies so that it didn't have that effect on its individual users, because the company angle is their only possibility of financial success.

Don't forget, Facebook is a huge money-loser. The changes it'll need to make to change that will be its suicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

you could say that about almost anything

but yea, ineviatably, something else will come along, and it'll all get more fragmented. Isn't that part of Facebooks appeal for now, that it's pretty much the only major site going? Facebook users will look back on this as a golden age, never to be repeated...? :D

that's my point tho, and one borne out by the history of computing, and all of human history.

Things come together, then things fragment again. Repeat forever.

It's precisely because of this that Facebook is not the future. Facebook is merely a fad.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

but there was a kind of demand. It's not as if there were thousands of people waiting for it, but I remember when it started, and lots of people loved it straight away. It was doing something myspace wasn't. Mainly it was much simpler.

I joined because a friend of mine was using myspace to invite people to her party, and she couldn't send me an invite unless I was on it (her choice...). Now, I find it quite usefull and entertaining.... my brother-in-law (in Rome) got reconnected (via his sister, here in London) with an ex-girlfriend from when he was a teenager (over 30 years ago), and they're in a happy relationship now. No real biggie, if they hadn't met up.. who knows... but it's lovely to see them together now as they're so happy.

but just as much as it becomes useful when people you know have joined it, it ceases to have that use when people you know have stopped using it.

And people ARE stopping using it, for a whole range of different reasons - but mostly because huge numbers joined to see what it was all about, but then found they didn't actually find it useful for anything much, that ultimately it was just an unnecessary drain on their time.

Facebook love to bang on about how many accounts they have because it makes them sound hugely important, but they're seriously worried by the number of dormant accounts which already show a drift away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Love the way he has raised Billions in funding based on so little :) Some people must love losing money! :)

It has eyeballs.

To the very dumb people "in business" who's eyes are glazed over with the idea that eyeballs are the equivalent of feet thru the door of a shop - glazed over by the thoughts of huge profits - that's more than enough.

My old Glastonbury website was valued "in the city" as worth $12M to $16M on the basis of the eyeballs it had. I wet myself laughing, knowing just how ridiculous that figure was and that it would never be justified via spends on that website, but those city traders are smart and always right and gave me that figure with a totally straight face. Of course, only one of us was right.

A short time later I had an offer to buy it from similar 'smart' city types who were running a major dot.com of the time for £975k - which I knocked back for a number of reasons, including the fact that I realised that these 'smart' guys were so thick as pigshit that their whole operation and the tens (perhaps hundreds?) of millions they'd got in funding would be dead within a year. Of course, only one of us was right.

Rupert spent $700M buying MySpace. City types said that Rupert was smart, while I wet myself once again. Of course, only one of us was right.

It's possible that Facebook might do better, and just about get to justify the valuation it's had - but only for a very short period, before it starts a very obvious slide.

But that aside anyway, its investment has mostly come from city banks, who plan to offload their shares to mug punters before that slide, just as some did so successfully around this current financial crisis (and where some are being lined up for court for fraud as a result). So they really don't care, there's money to be made, just not directly from Facebook itself. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

well every one of the investors unless Facebooks makes billions...

what would actually be correct is: those who are left holding the shares when the shit hits the fan.

Last I heard it turned a £10 million profit...

ahh, OK, so it's finally got there - tho probably more to do with 'the rush to facebook' than anything that's likely to be sustainable.

The way I see it, the advertising style they've rolled out isn't one that'll work with good enough value for those advertisers until the adverts become more intrusive, which of course then has a negative effect on facebook use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

No, you tried to contradict me before ultimately agreeing with me.

that would be pretty clever of me, when I'd been saying explicitly that before you even posted in this thread. :lol::lol:

It will go from one thing to another. Facebook is just the currently popular model in use, like VHS. Then will come DVD and then BluRay and so on. You may theorize about specialist sites all you like, but only time will tell.

Time has already told. :lol::lol:

Social networks on computers have faded from fashion, and then returned. It has not simply been one thing that does the same thing replacing another.

This is historical fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if this latest admission from Facebook might be a nail in its coffin.

Anyone that uses the site has probably noticed that it now tells folks (thanks to timeline) all the videos you watch on youtube and the music you're listening to even when you're not on facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Couldnt think where else to post this, but why is "facebook" reading a lot of the threads now. Is this people who have signed in to efests with facebook? how does that work? Can they post? And why would you do that?

So many questions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Ah, well. Never mind, hey.
    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...