Why we really go on Facebook

I came across an amusing (and insightful?) article in Newsweek the other day. It is entitled Facebook Made Me Do It: Seven lies we tell ourselves about social networking. The article lists the reasons we tell ourselves we use Facebook and the reasons we actually on go on Facebook. I must admit that I have very little experience with Facebook, but judging by my more extensive experience with Myspace the article hits home on many points. As we discussed in class, people online tend to be more open when it comes to divulging very personal information (sometimes uncomfortably so) about themselves and their friends. We often blame the social platform for our verbal vomit, rationalizing to ourselves that “it’s what Facebook is for” or “everyone else is doing it.” I also found it interesting that the author likened Facebook to a reality show, where people can get into each other’s business and find juicy information about friends and foes, all relatively anonymously. The author asserts that we may tell ourselves that we use Facebook to keep in touch with old friends and aquaintances, but we're really just nosy. People have always been nosy, Facebook just provides us with a newer, convenient way to snoop. I have to admit I have been guilty of this nosy obsession, but this probably would not be the case if people were not so open with their private lives on these social networking sites. So, instead of shifting the blame to Facebook, I shift the blame to those overly candid Myspace-ers and Facebook-ers. You know who you are.

There are more interesting insights in the article; hopefully some of you can look it over sometime. I’m interested in what those who frequent Facebook have to say about this article, especially since I don’t have much experience with online social networks like Facebook. Does it ring true or is totally off base? In addition, does anyone have any Facebook stories they would like to share that relate to the article above?

Facebook's "25 Random Things"

Of course, you're all well-versed in the note, "25 Random Things," by now. But my friend actually just sent me this Slate article, and it is actually really intriguing! The goal, albeit an unrealistic one, was to track down the "creator" of the note. While no person was ever found and credited with birthing the note, over 3000 Slate people responded to a series of inquiries regarding "25 Random Things." The results, according to the Slate journalist, reveal a trend that resembles the "classic exponential growth of an epidemic curve."

Apparently, the trends revealed in the recorded posting and sharing of "25 Random Things" corroborates the hypothesis that catchy online ideas propagate according to evolutionary principles of mutation and selection. I think this only has a chance of holding true if the "ideas" are short enough to catch a user's attention, and entertaining enough to warrant a passing on. In any case, this might be useful to anyone doing research on social dynamics and Facebook. It definitely says a lot about the evolution of culture, whether virtual or in real life.

Social Networking Sites - New Way of Delivering the News??

I’m not big on gaming at all, and never have been, (except like Mario Kart and Tetris – which is totally from YEARS ago!) so the topics discussed in class are really new and interesting for me. I do feel out of the loop sometimes, but the discussions definitely do help clarify a lot and I do get a better understanding of online gaming. I may not be big on games, but of course like everyone else in the world today, I’m always on Facebook and Myspace. (I hate to admit it, but it is so true!) It’ really interesting how it is not only used for “social networking” purposes, but these sites have expanded into things like sharing news and starting discussions about things that are going on in the world. I personally think it is a great way to get information out there. To tie this into our class discussion from last week, our modern technology has greatly evolved and it isn’t like the telegraph anymore - which would take days to deliver - but with our high speed internet today, we can deliver and share information instantly.  

So, I was online reading the news and found this article on social networking sites and how it has been an effective way to share breaking news. 

For example, there was a guy who took a picture of the recent emergency plane landing in the Hudson River on his iPhone and uploaded it onto his Twitter account. He was on a ferry and got took the picture to share with his “friends” because he thought it was newsworthy. He got so many views of it after it was loaded on the site, that it even caused the server of TwitPic to crash!

I’m personally not that big on TV so I never really watch the news. I am so dependent on the internet, so having the news online and the news being shared on sites like Facebook is actually really helpful for me, and I’m thinking it is the same way for many other people as well. I think sooner or later, it is not just going to be just TV news, newspaper, radio, magazines and online news, but these sites are going to be sources that people rely on for the news. 

Which Social Network to Friend?

In summary, the embedded video shows a person talking to the anthromorphs of four social networking platforms: MySpace, Facebook, Friendster, and Second Life. MySpace is personified as a person desperate for attention. Facebook as a sophisticate. Friendster as a runt. And Second Life as an escapist charmer. This video creates the premise that a person can only commit to only one social network, since most of one's friends are members on that due to the "network effect" and most of one's time will be spent checking up on the network with the most friends. So interaction in other networks is extremely minimal. Build from this premise, a person can only be "friends" with one social network. Somewhere to emote, share ideas, and expand the social web.

Since the social networks are personified, the creators could attach several symbols to the icons to situate them with the growing publicity that molds their perceived characteristics. First, the attention-seeking and pursuit stems from the recognition that these social networks need an audience. If they can successfully build an audience, then they can finally turn a profit from selling lucrative advertising space. Second, Friendster is portrayed as an unpopular runt because its US membership had sharply fallen since its inital popularity resulting from its novelty. MySpace with its open registration had diverted interest away from Friendster since it was still in beta testing and more people were becoming more impatient to get an invitation.

The tennis sweater wrapped around Facebook's shoulders brings up issue of social class. A controversial research paper written by sociologist danah boyd, suggested that the preference between MySpace and Facebook tended to indicate which class the person belonged. The findings asserted that college-bound high school students tended to use Facebook, whereas those who tended to work right out of school would find their friends on MySpace.

The end sequence shows the person in the "actual" world and declaring that it is "lame". This could imply that the "actual" would could be a social network with its own set of rules for interaction. And moreover, the internet generation would perfer to interact in the "virtual" world at the speed of broadband.

--Brian