the hidden side of facebook privacy settings?

[worm]

The demise of MySpace and rise of Facebook

Edited September 29, 2011 by worm

[worm]

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 September 29, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

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.

[eFestivals]

....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 Brand Facebook may be part of that change, or it may have fallen away and been replaced by a new inventor's company.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.

[eFestivals]

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.

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.

[eFestivals]

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.

[eFestivals]

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...?

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 September 29, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

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.

[fred quimby]

We have mentioned Fad here and just wondering how long is a fad then after that what does it become. Or it's only a fad after it has finished

[eFestivals]

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.

[worm]

As I keep saying, 'social networking' in it's broadest sense will continue

[eFestivals]

Exactly. Just as I said.

You had no need to say it. I'd already done so.

If parrots make you happy, get a an aviary.

[eFestivals]

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.

[5co77ie]

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

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

[worm]

You had no need to say it. I'd already done so.

Edited September 29, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

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.

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.

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.

[mikeb]

CompuServe. It did much the same thing.

Edited September 29, 2011 by mikeb

[Kowalski]

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

[5co77ie]

Utter bullshit I'm afraid. Its never done either for me.

Edited September 30, 2011 by 5co77ie

[Kowalski]

err it's a new feature:

http://www.facebook.com/about/timeline

have you asked those of your mates who have timeline Beta to look at your profile in it?

There's more on it's teething troubles here today:

http://www.heraldsun...h-1226153882659

[Kowalski]

I've just enabled the Facebook Timeline and doesn't show any of the 15 music videos I watched last night on Youtube.

I think it's only going to list stuff where you've directly interacted with Facebook from another site!?

[5co77ie]

watch them now it's enabled and see what happens

[Kowalski]

watch them now it's enabled and see what happens

[Donkey]

A good thread ruined by the usual suspecs w*nking over each other.

[Ed209]

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