The biggest Idiot on Facebook

[eFestivals]

This place has died more of a death than facebook has.

Yep, it's certainly been affected by facebook. But it's also the case that it's less affected now than it was a year ago.

Facebook works for talking bollocks. It works far less well if you want to know something useful.

[kaosmark2]

Facebook works for talking bollocks. It works far less well if you want to know something useful.

[eFestivals]

For some things (in my case student society updates), the most reliable source of information is facebook.

Obviously only true for a few, but there are some people who prefer using facebook to contact, including about useful things, and if they're in charge of releasing information you want, facebook can be almost essential.

that's just lazy, only releasing info to facebook users.

It gets to show how far some have been sucked into it, but again outlines where it will always fail.

[kaosmark2]

that's just lazy, only releasing info to facebook users.

It gets to show how far some have been sucked into it, but again outlines where it will always fail.

[eFestivals]

Yup. The most important stuff is done by e-mail as well, but to get every update, I have to use facebook.

Of course, if it's considered the 'lazy' option, that suggests some degree of usability.

usability for the person publishing the info, not accessable or therefore usable by all those wanting the info (dependent on how things have been setup). Which is why it's lazy.

If facebook is going to replace the 'net then tens of thousands are wasting their time and will have to give up their day jobs. It's not a blindness to the world that has me rejecting that (im)possibility.

[kaosmark2]

usability for the person publishing the info, not accessable or therefore usable by all those wanting the info (dependent on how things have been setup). Which is why it's lazy.

If facebook is going to replace the 'net then tens of thousands are wasting their time and will have to give up their day jobs. It's not a blindness to the world that has me rejecting that (im)possibility.

[eFestivals]

I just think it's going to be a lot slower to fade into meaninglessness than myspace, etc.

it depends how you're meaning that.

Once it starts to properly fall then the arse will fall out of it no less quick than happened with MySpace.

The pertinant question is: when does it start that 'proper' fall? It's currently around its active user peak (if nothing else the float gives away that even those closely involved with Facebook believe that's the case), because many of those who have signed up have decided they don't like or want it for whatever reasons, but that's being balanced currently by other new users (kids growing up, people getting access to technology that they didn't previously have access to, etc).

I'd say that it's perhaps got two years of this sustained peak before it starts to fall by 10 or 20%, and then it'll stabalise around there for a while until such time as there's something else for the fashionistas to get into (and the sheep will surely follow).

But its no less easy to second guess than the likes of MySpace was - and MySpace managed to sucker a very high profile and shrewd victim in Murdoch. With facebook the suckers are going to be Joe Public, but they won't be any less suckers.

[kaosmark2]

it depends how you're meaning that.

Once it starts to properly fall then the arse will fall out of it no less quick than happened with MySpace.

The pertinant question is: when does it start that 'proper' fall? It's currently around its active user peak (if nothing else the float gives away that even those closely involved with Facebook believe that's the case), because many of those who have signed up have decided they don't like or want it for whatever reasons, but that's being balanced currently by other new users (kids growing up, people getting access to technology that they didn't previously have access to, etc).

I'd say that it's perhaps got two years of this sustained peak before it starts to fall by 10 or 20%, and then it'll stabalise around there for a while until such time as there's something else for the fashionistas to get into (and the sheep will surely follow).

But its no less easy to second guess than the likes of MySpace was - and MySpace managed to sucker a very high profile and shrewd victim in Murdoch. With facebook the suckers are going to be Joe Public, but they won't be any less suckers.

[eFestivals]

When talking about suckers, I assume you're meaning share buyers?

yeah. The banks, etc, who have funded it this far want their profit, and nows the time to get it from suckers, before facebook get found out as not being able to increase their profits to anything like the amount that would be needed to justify the fantasy valuation it has at the moment; it doesn't have the reach of google to ever be able to do what google has with its business model.

[kaosmark2]

yeah. The banks, etc, who have funded it this far want their profit, and nows the time to get it from suckers, before facebook get found out as not being able to increase their profits to anything like the amount that would be needed to justify the fantasy valuation it has at the moment; it doesn't have the reach of google to ever be able to do what google has with its business model.

[eFestivals]

Google started out with a basic feature and has just expanded and expanded carefully and brilliantly. There's been a lot of failed ventures (google wave, google plus, google buzz), but so many successful ones (chrome, android, maps, docs to a lesser extent).

more than their features is their commercial success, which is what I was getting at. By having become the hub of everyone's intenet use it gives them an incredible amount of data about every user, which they've then been able to exploit with their advertising stuff - and exploit not just on their own site but on loads of websites around the web.

Facebook is going to remain almost exclusively within facebook with its ads. There's a bit of scope to take it outside but in comparision with google it won't get beyond tiny with that side of things. So its income is limited, and it won't justify the fantasy price.

Google collapsing would cause most people genuine problems. Facebook collapsing wouldn't.

Spot on.

[kaosmark2]

more than their features is their commercial success, which is what I was getting at. By having become the hub of everyone's intenet use it gives them an incredible amount of data about every user, which they've then been able to exploit with their advertising stuff - and exploit not just on their own site but on loads of websites around the web.

Facebook is going to remain almost exclusively within facebook with its ads. There's a bit of scope to take it outside but in comparision with google it won't get beyond tiny with that side of things. So its income is limited, and it won't justify the fantasy price.

[windy_miller]

This. I have a facebook account, but I don't add people. Anyone. I don't like facebook, but some of my friends want to contact me via facebook rather than elsewhere. If they do, OK, I'll put up with it, but I'd far far rather text/phone/e-mail. If someone wants to communicate with me via facebook, alright, but I won't do anything to encourage it.

Ultimately, I'm desperate for it to die, even though I use it nearly every day.

Edited February 10, 2012 by windy_miller

[Ed209]

It is actually possible to set it up so that you have to approve "tags" before they're published to the world.

But that's not much use to you now.

[kaosmark2]

how would a collapse of Google be so devestating?

[Ed209]

I use google search engine extensively in my job, as do many people. The collapse of google would totally fuck me over. No other search engine comes close to google's capabilities.

[lost]

linkedin is up 17% today, floated at $45 nearly back up to $90 again.

[Ed209]

we managed before...

[Katster]

Vehicles aren't essential, they are convenient.

[Katster]

Similarly, the internet is now totally ingrained into our society. Things that were once held in libraries are now only found online. Google is effectively our contents page for this huge online library. We'd be fucked without it.

[Ed209]

Couldn't find the efestivals shelf last time I went to the library

(I get what you mean - proper knowledge, books, journals etc ..., although academic journals are now starting to be released in online only versions. Its the way its heading.)

[eFestivals]

Couldn't find the efestivals shelf last time I went to the library

That's mainly because I've never bothered to jump thru the overly-officious hoops that the British Library require, despite them asking me to a number of times.

(I get what you mean - proper knowledge, books, journals etc ..., although academic journals are now starting to be released in online only versions. Its the way its heading.)

They'd be the poor-selling journals then.

I used to work for one of the world's biggest publishers (a very substantial partt of their business is high-level academic journals), and they love the digital age. They get to sell the same copy twice to the same customers - the digital version is for tracking down what they wanted, and the physical version is for reading in a convenient manner.

Edited February 10, 2012 by eFestivals

[Ed209]

They'd be the poor-selling journals then.

[Katster]

Couldn't find the efestivals shelf last time I went to the library

(I get what you mean - proper knowledge, books, journals etc ..., although academic journals are now starting to be released in online only versions. Its the way its heading.)

[Ed209]

I'd have thought anyone would be able to find something like that (journals) without Google. There are other search engines as well