SageAgainstTheMachine Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 I just find your opinion that both FB and MySpace are essentially one and the same, despite not having spent a decent amount of time on either, to be an uninformed opinion and more of a gut feeling. Maybe you're right, but what I'm saying is that I've weighed the pros and cons and tried to enjoy the network responsibly and tried to be as careful as possible. The two sites are really nothing alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Facebook has gotten all corporate now. The original facebook, actually called "thefacebook" was its best. It was only a college social networking site. And you could only get a facebook if your college was added to their system. At that point, there were no high schoolers or baby boomers. And now Zuckerberg is trying to go after Twitter when instead facebook should focus on enhancing itself. Isn't he, like, the youngest self-made billionaire in history? I'm not about to go around questioning his business techniques. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extrahammer Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Isn't he, like, the youngest self-made billionaire in history? I'm not about to go around questioning his business techniques. Not yet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 In times past, wasn't what is today's networking called cronyism? I do not think that word means what you think it means. I only wish it did, because Scott's still looking for work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deep2evans Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I'm a college student who's been on facebook for a few years and I absolutely can't stand it anymore. But it's like a drug, and every time I tell myself to get rid of my account for numerous reasons, I can't pull the trigger. There are so many pathetic people who insist on putting their every emotion online it just makes me sick. Way too much personalization now...i miss the days where if I DIDNT want to know what someone was up to, I had that ability. Now it's just a click away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 im on facebook, and just today i went through and purged about 20 "friends" because of their sh-------, non-stop updates about nothing. and their stupid, Myspace-like quizzes they cant stop taking to inform me what their favorite 5 beers are, or what country they should live in, or what Muppet they are, or what Leading Lady they are, blahblahblah. i use it to keep in touch with people since i have moved around the country a lot for my 29 years. Twitter has taken over Myspace as the #1 Downfall of Humanity. People are really that self-absorbed that they find it necessary to update "everyone" on every move they make? its unbelievable. "I just got coffee, yum" "I have a headache" "I'm still tired" big !@#$ing deal. no one cares. hate twitter. i hate the idea of twitter. You know who Twitter is GREAT for? Watching celebrities. For example, Lance Armstrong has been "twittering" his experience in the Spring Classics he's been racing in and following him along the way has been great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I do not think that word means what you think it means. Perhaps not. Working in automotive, this phrase was an absolute truth: "An ounce of pull is worth a ton of push". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 im on facebook, and just today i went through and purged about 20 "friends" because of their sh-------, non-stop updates about nothing. and their stupid, Myspace-like quizzes they cant stop taking to inform me what their favorite 5 beers are, or what country they should live in, or what Muppet they are, or what Leading Lady they are, blahblahblah. I set up an account after speaking to an old college friend of mine who had some photos he wanted to share, and like other people I was suddenly inundated with requests from old HS and college friends, and that was all fine until I noticed two completely ridiculous things: the first is as you note above. One person will take 20 tests, and all those results are logged, and usually mixed in with a bunch of other people musing about the Girl Scout cookies they're getting ready to deliver, or some cryptic, nonsensical thought of the day like "Bill Smith is wondering if eternity is wrapped in a cotton ball." The other thing (which I'm sure can be edited out, but I leave to ensure I just check in and get out) is the online messaging. It's a quick reminder how annoying IMing used to be. At first glance it was cool, but once people are sending you virtual Easter peeps and starting polls questiong whether you would tell a woman they have a moustache, the only benefit now is that I feel completely justified in moving as far away from these freaking people as I could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extrahammer Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I'm a college student who's been on facebook for a few years and I absolutely can't stand it anymore. But it's like a drug, and every time I tell myself to get rid of my account for numerous reasons, I can't pull the trigger. There are so many pathetic people who insist on putting their every emotion online it just makes me sick. Way too much personalization now...i miss the days where if I DIDNT want to know what someone was up to, I had that ability. Now it's just a click away. Yeah, it started off great when you just had profiles, no statuses, no news feed, no clutter. And for the record, Mark Zuckerberg isn't a billionaire. Facebook is estimated to be worth $1.5 billion, NOT $15 billion like some early projections, and facebook is only making a few $100 million in revenue. Don't mistake someone with a great idea for someone with a great business mind. Larry and Sergey didn't have the business mind until they hired a CEO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millbank Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 According to the new Forbes list: Mark Zuckerberg 2008 net worth: $1.5 billion Lost: At least $600 million U.S. The youngest billionaire in the world a year ago is now simply a youthful multi-millionaire. While the number of people poking each other on Facebook continues to rise at impressive rates, revenue isn't keeping up. Mind you what is a mere $600 million compared to this man Anil Ambani 2009 net worth: $10.1 billion Lost: down arrow$31.9 billion Last year's biggest billionaire gainer is this year's biggest loser. Yeah, it started off great when you just had profiles, no statuses, no news feed, no clutter. And for the record, Mark Zuckerberg isn't a billionaire. Facebook is estimated to be worth $1.5 billion, NOT $15 billion like some early projections, and facebook is only making a few $100 million in revenue. Don't mistake someone with a great idea for someone with a great business mind. Larry and Sergey didn't have the business mind until they hired a CEO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 You know who Twitter is GREAT for? Watching celebrities. For example, Lance Armstrong has been "twittering" his experience in the Spring Classics he's been racing in and following him along the way has been great. further proving my point that there is no good value in twitter. celebrity worship/stalking is not a valid reason for anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorCal Aaron Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Larry and Sergey didn't have the business mind until they hired a CEO. Larry and Sergei brought in a CEO to placate investors and add the veneer of maturity. Their CEO was considered pretty mediocre at his past posts as a VP in the Valley. According to a gal he was dating (I know hearsay but well placed hearsay), Larry and Sergei rule the roost and the CEO dude is largely a figurehead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Yeah, it started off great when you just had profiles, no statuses, no news feed, no clutter. Sounds like http://www.linkedin.com Great for keeping your professional contacts close by -- especially in this economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Twitter is a site where you post one-liners about what you're doing for those who may care... Tweeting is the verb. I don't think twitting is anything.... Personally, I don't get Twitter at all, but maybe it's just me. Throw me in the don't get group as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extrahammer Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Larry and Sergei brought in a CEO to placate investors and add the veneer of maturity. Their CEO was considered pretty mediocre at his past posts as a VP in the Valley. According to a gal he was dating (I know hearsay but well placed hearsay), Larry and Sergei rule the roost and the CEO dude is largely a figurehead. Yes, sorry for misspelling Sergei's name, but yes, I like how they held true to the greatest value at Google. The speed and results. Have you read "The Google Story"? Nice read, but it says they brought in the CEO because investors almost forced them to. Also to carry out more business related things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 i use linkedin for professional, facebook for leisure...btw, linkedin has some very useful features...i haven't even scratched the surface, but it is an awesome networking tool Sounds like http://www.linkedin.com Great for keeping your professional contacts close by -- especially in this economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorCal Aaron Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Yes, sorry for misspelling Sergei's name, but yes, I like how they held true to the greatest value at Google. The speed and results. Have you read "The Google Story"? Nice read, but it says they brought in the CEO because investors almost forced them to. Also to carry out more business related things. Haven't read it. I'm sure they realized they would need to develop a business infrastructure - Schmidt is the nominal face but he isn't "the decider". Google is similar to Oracle (where there have been a bunch of chiefs over the years - many exceptionally capable- but only Ellison is king). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extrahammer Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Haven't read it. I'm sure they realized they would need to develop a business infrastructure - Schmidt is the nominal face but he isn't "the decider". Google is similar to Oracle (where there have been a bunch of chiefs over the years - many exceptionally capable- but only Ellison is king). I like how they have the chain of command at Google. I credit Larry and Sergei more than Zuckerberg. Larry and Sergei have maintained control and consistency while Zuckerberg I think has listened to too many others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I like how they have the chain of command at Google. I credit Larry and Sergei more than Zuckerberg. Larry and Sergei have maintained control and consistency while Zuckerberg I think has listened to too many others. the fact that Facebook withdrew it's Terms and Conditions update in the wake of User uprising, and then PUT IT TO THE USERS to contribute to the Terms and Conditions, proves your point. the inmates are running the asylum. letting the general user populace write your business policies seems a little TOO progressive IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorCal Aaron Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I like how they have the chain of command at Google. I credit Larry and Sergei more than Zuckerberg. Larry and Sergei have maintained control and consistency while Zuckerberg I think has listened to too many others. I don't know anything about Zuckerberg, but here are a select group of people who have both the ideas and the vision. A revolving cast may be the means to execute, but purely as hired help. Folks with vision are like the bleach blonde with bolt-ons, everybody wants a piece, few can have it, and even less can do much with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts