Discussion World Forum

Discussion World Forum (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forums.php)
-   Computers & Technology (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Facebook Evolution (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/showthread.php?t=1157)

Americano Feb 24th 2010 10:33 AM

Facebook Evolution
 
"On Facebook, a group called "I dont care about your farm, or your fish, or your park, or your mafia!!!" had more than 5.2 million members recently."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/23/f...ames/?hpt=Sbin

An interesting article on social gaming and where its heading.

Michael Feb 24th 2010 12:04 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano (Post 23564)
"On Facebook, a group called "I dont care about your farm, or your fish, or your park, or your mafia!!!" had more than 5.2 million members recently."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/23/f...ames/?hpt=Sbin

An interesting article on social gaming and where its heading.

Yes, an interesting tidbit that says several different things.

1. Game companies should take note. Classic arcade style game are massively popular and are generally ignored by gaming companies (who all cater to the same adrenalin-pumping first person shooter games popular with 13-34 males).

2. Facebook is a really big tent but not likely to stay that way for long.

3. Facebook's success appears to be predicated upon lots of bored people with massive amounts of liesure time available to play inane and simple games.

4. If silly and innane games are a big part of Facebook success, then I wouldn't bet on Facebook being around for long.

Americano Feb 24th 2010 12:26 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael (Post 23567)
Yes, an interesting tidbit that says several different things.

1. Game companies should take note. Classic arcade style game are massively popular and are generally ignored by gaming companies (who all cater to the same adrenalin-pumping first person shooter games popular with 13-34 males).

2. Facebook is a really big tent but not likely to stay that way for long.

3. Facebook's success appears to be predicated upon lots of bored people with massive amounts of liesure time available to play inane and simple games.

4. If silly and innane games are a big part of Facebook success, then I wouldn't bet on Facebook being around for long.

Considering the popularity of spectator sports, I'd have to disagree with #4.

Michael Feb 24th 2010 12:46 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano (Post 23568)
Considering the popularity of spectator sports, I'd have to disagree with #4.

My point is that silly games are popular. Why does one need Facebook to play silly games?

Facebook is the odd wheel there between game players and games.

The Drunk Girl Feb 24th 2010 12:47 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Those fucking invites kill me. Unfortunately, I have the luxury of having a name that begins with "A" so everyone sends invites for different shit everyday.

The only game on FB I ever really got involved with was the poker, but that soon became a pain in my ass because people aren't playing with real money and play stupidly...and win. What a quick way to get me rip-roaring mad!

But, I don't think FB is going to be going anytime soon. I remember when the site first started up and it was only for "major" universities, each one having their own particular site. You could only communicate and add people that went to the school and you had to have a valid school email address. Facebook eventually merged into one and it was just colleges and universities under one site. Then they opened the site up to high school students, and then to networks/cities. They're actually pretty smart and as we all can see has outdone MySpace. And, it wasn't that long ago that MySpace was the top dog out of the two. Facebook has just done something different...it's easier to connect with old friends and family and the games are a pain, sure, but obviously a lot of people like them. The damn thing just keeps on growing and has already outlasted what MySpace ever did.

The Drunk Girl Feb 24th 2010 12:49 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael (Post 23570)
My point is that silly games are popular. Why does one need Facebook to play silly games?

Facebook is the odd wheel there between game players and games.

Why does one have their laptop hooked up to their 42" flat screen tv?

A) The resources are there
B) Because you can

Michael Feb 24th 2010 12:52 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Drunk Girl (Post 23571)
The damn thing just keeps on growing and has already outlasted what MySpace ever did.

Bemused giggles. You state the point but miss it at the same time.

MySpace used to be as big as Facebook. That was the last fad. Facebook is the present fad. Five years from now, Facebook will be as passe as MySpace (and Napster and AOL) are now.

I do remember being told that AOL was going to rule the net. Then I was told that MySpace redefined the net. Now I'm being told that Facebook is the ultimate. I just ignore these fads as they don't seem to last very long.

Btw, Facebook has a minimum age of 13 years old. Unofficially however, Facebook's fastest growth these days is coming from the elementary school set.

Need I say more?

Btw, my little niece's elementary school just discovered that over 60% of their students, all under 12, were on Facebook, prompting a form letter message to parents. Several of these kids had over 500 "friends" on Facebook.

The Drunk Girl Feb 24th 2010 12:58 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael (Post 23573)
Bemused giggles. You state the point but miss it at the same time.

MySpace used to be as big as Facebook. That was the last fad. Facebook is the present fad. Five years from now, Facebook will be as passe as MySpace (and Napster and AOL) are now.

I do remember being told that AOL was going to rule the net. Then I was told that MySpace redefined the net. Now I'm being told that Facebook is the ultimate. I just ignore these fads as they don't seem to last very long.

Btw, Facebook has a minimum age of 13 years old. Unofficially however, Facebook's fastest growth these days is coming from the elementary school set.

Need I say more?

Btw, my little niece's elementary school just discovered that over 60% of their students, all under 12, were on Facebook, prompting a form letter message to parents.

Glad to have given you some giggles...

I need to look up the numbers of how many people are on MySpace compared to Facebook. I really think the number of people will keep FB around longer than what you're anticipating. I never had (great) aunts and uncles join MySpace, or my Mom and Dad, or teachers Every single one of them has found something about the site that they truly enjoy, which doesn't happen much.

Michael Feb 24th 2010 12:59 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Drunk Girl (Post 23572)
Why does one have their laptop hooked up to their 42" flat screen tv?

A) The resources are there
B) Because you can

Those games are popular. How long before specialized niches pop up to fill that popularity? Facebook is just an irrelevant platform in this case.

Anyways, I'm not going to sit here and argue about how long it is going to take Facebook to become last year's fad. I really don't care. It is enough to just sit back and wait to prove my point. The net is driven by fads on steroids.

I certainly remember reading about how Yahoo was taking over the net. That was before Google came along of course. :shrug:

Michael Feb 24th 2010 01:02 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
And for those with short memories, you should look up what used to be written about the rennaissance in 'solitaire' due to Microsoft bundling it with Windows oh so many years ago.

That was another fad that was huge and passed quite quickly into irrelevance.

Americano Feb 24th 2010 01:05 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael (Post 23573)
Bemused giggles. You state the point but miss it at the same time.

MySpace used to be as big as Facebook. That was the last fad. Facebook is the present fad. Five years from now, Facebook will be as passe as MySpace (and Napster and AOL) are now.

I do remember being told that AOL was going to rule the net. Then I was told that MySpace redefined the net. Now I'm being told that Facebook is the ultimate. I just ignore these fads as they don't seem to last very long.

Btw, Facebook has a minimum age of 13 years old. Unofficially however, Facebook's fastest growth these days is coming from the elementary school set.

Need I say more?

Btw, my little niece's elementary school just discovered that over 60% of their students, all under 12, were on Facebook, prompting a form letter message to parents. Several of these kids had over 500 "friends" on Facebook.

The amount of disposable time taken by some children and adults just blows me away. It's no wonder we have increased productivity with fewer workers and our education quality has declined.

Americano Feb 24th 2010 01:14 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael (Post 23575)
Those games are popular. How long before specialized niches pop up to fill that popularity? Facebook is just an irrelevant platform in this case.

Anyways, I'm not going to sit here and argue about how long it is going to take Facebook to become last year's fad. I really don't care. It is enough to just sit back and wait to prove my point. The net is driven by fads on steroids.

I certainly remember reading about how Yahoo was taking over the net. That was before Google came along of course. :shrug:

Let's not forget that Netscape Navigator was the browser from the 1990s to 2002 when IE became bundled with Windows.

Michael Feb 24th 2010 01:19 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
I also remember being told that CD's were the cutting edge of a whole new revolution in multimedia. :lol:

And speaking of passing fads, how about the MS Messenger thing? That used to be the be-all-to-end-all of internet apps. :rofl:

About the only thing you can be certain of with the net is that all the biggest trends now will be just forgotten fads five years from now. I see no reason to believe that Facebook is any different. Indeed, Facebook is just a 'free' version of Classmates.com which has been around for twenty years or so. :shrug:

Americano Feb 24th 2010 01:25 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael (Post 23580)
I also remember being told that CD's were the cutting edge of a whole new revolution in multimedia. :lol:

And speaking of passing fads, how about the MS Messenger thing? That used to be the be-all-to-end-all of internet apps. :rofl:

About the only thing you can be certain of with the net is that all the biggest trends now will be just forgotten fads five years from now. I see no reason to believe that Facebook is any different. Indeed, Facebook is just a 'free' version of Classmates.com which has been around for twenty years or so. :shrug:

My wife looked at classmates.com for her high school about a year ago. Of the subscribed names she could remember, they were all losers.

Daktoria Feb 24th 2010 02:02 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael (Post 23570)
My point is that silly games are popular. Why does one need Facebook to play silly games?

Facebook is the odd wheel there between game players and games.

People aren't rational. =P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_...ry#Assumptions

Quite literally, these games are built on taking pride in virtual production, but if that's what people want, then they're going to be gluttonous, self-absorbed pigs.

Whoohoo for utilitarianism.

Michael Feb 24th 2010 02:20 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Daktoria (Post 23583)
People aren't rational. =P

Yes, that's true. Good to see that you are coming around to understanding this important point. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daktoria (Post 23583)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_...ry#Assumptions

Quite literally, these games are built on taking pride in virtual production, but if that's what people want, then they're going to be gluttonous, self-absorbed pigs.

I think you have it backwards. Those games are popular because people are gluttonous self-absorbed pigs.

Games don't change people. Games are designed to pander to people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daktoria (Post 23583)
Whoohoo for utilitarianism.

I may think this shit is silly, but I'm not going to propose laws or rules to prevent internet companies from offering silly games.

Utilitarianism may be ugly, but it at least it doesn't prescribe or limit liberty. Ergo, I can live with it.

And I fail to see the relevance of MPT to this issue. We are talking about people playing games here. :shrug:

Americano Feb 24th 2010 02:30 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Daktoria (Post 23583)
People aren't rational. =P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_...ry#Assumptions

Quite literally, these games are built on taking pride in virtual production, but if that's what people want, then they're going to be gluttonous, self-absorbed pigs.

Keep food in their bowls, provide them with simple entertainment and they'll follow you anywhere. A deep market often referred to as the general public.

Quote:

Whoohoo for utilitarianism.

Daktoria Feb 24th 2010 04:07 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael (Post 23585)
Yes, that's true. Good to see that you are coming around to understanding this important point.

Sarcasm greeted by more sarcasm....

Quote:

:D
...gyah...

Quote:

I think you have it backwards. Those games are popular because people are gluttonous self-absorbed pigs.

Games don't change people. Games are designed to pander to people.
Well yea, hence why I said "if that's what people want".

Quote:

I may think this shit is silly, but I'm not going to propose laws or rules to prevent internet companies from offering silly games.

Utilitarianism may be ugly, but it at least it doesn't prescribe or limit liberty. Ergo, I can live with it.

And I fail to see the relevance of MPT to this issue. We are talking about people playing games here.
MPT talks about a correlation between utility and wealth, yet the "wealth" harvested in these games generates no real utility at all other than the satisfaction of doing what's cool from playing along with other players and admiring sparkly graphics for symbolism alone.

The taste has no possibility for intrinsic value, so there isn't even a spectrum for interpretation.

Daktoria Feb 24th 2010 04:11 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano (Post 23589)
Keep food in their bowls, provide them with simple entertainment and they'll follow you anywhere. A deep market often referred to as the general public.

Exxxxxxxxactly.

Adding insult to injury is how we (as Americans) embrace being labeled as a bunch of fat and spoiled retards. It opens the flood gates to multicultural and culturally relativist condescension.

See this in schools nationwide all the time, but nobody's ever done, or going to do, anything about it because it's politically incorrect from both the left and right.

The Drunk Guy Feb 24th 2010 04:37 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Naysay!




(This way I agree with everyone.)

partofme Feb 24th 2010 04:59 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael (Post 23570)
My point is that silly games are popular. Why does one need Facebook to play silly games?

Facebook is the odd wheel there between game players and games.

I think that they take the social aspect of their site and integrate it into the games. That allows old friends that follow each other on Facebook to also follow each other inside the game so they don't have to do the two in different places. It also allows people to publish how well they are doing on their Facebook page to sort of brag and compare with their friends. That's also why so many hate the games because they have to hear about how well the people they are friends with are doing constantly.

drgoodtrips Feb 24th 2010 05:49 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Drunk Girl (Post 23574)
Glad to have given you some giggles...

I need to look up the numbers of how many people are on MySpace compared to Facebook. I really think the number of people will keep FB around longer than what you're anticipating. I never had (great) aunts and uncles join MySpace, or my Mom and Dad, or teachers Every single one of them has found something about the site that they truly enjoy, which doesn't happen much.

It makes sense that more people would be on Facebook than Mypsace in its heyday, since there are more and more people using the internet more and more regularly with more and more comfort. These users that you mention may have been oblivious to the existence of Myspace or else not comfortable enough with the interface at that time to use it. So, I'd call it a wash if Facebook is double or even triple the max size of Myspace.

Or, to put it another way, imagine saying that DVDs will, unlike VHS, last forever. Think how many more people have DVDs than ever had VHS tapes. But then, think how endless TV shows didn't release all of their seasons back in the days of VHS. Think of how movie prices weren't as expensive, so people didn't buy as many tapes. Think of how we had less of an "on-demand" culture. And... think of how DVDs are really becoming extinct, you having dozens or hundreds of them notwithstanding.

Here's the thing with AOL Friendster Myspace Facebook. Parse out revenue generating ads, and what are you left with? You're left with a 'product' whose draw is other people using the product. If you signed into Facebook and saw that there were no other users, you wouldn't sign in again. It would be functionally useless. Contrast this with other kinds of products. If I patronize an empty Chinese restaurant, I still get food. If I buy a widget from a failing widget maker, I still get a widget. But, if I patronize a "social networking" site that has become passe, I get squat (but I do get advertisements, and probably more of them, the worse its doing).

Now, AOL Friendster Myspace Facebook has millions of users, but is the market saturated? By now, most people who are going to join have joined, and others, myself included, are sick of it.

I'm sick of it because I now have about 25 times as many 'friends' as I have in real life, and all of them fill up my 'feed' with pictures of babies I will never meet and don't want to meet. I'm sick of it because all I want is an easy way to get in touch with people should I want to and what I get is endless invitations to play games like Mafia Wars - the Amway of online gaming. I'm sick of it because my friends include college drinking buddies, work acquaintances, family members young and old, and any number of other people who I can't really be myself in front of. Post something making fun of Democrats and I'll get a half dozen responses from angry liberal friends and families. Reverse it with Republicans and the same is true. If I post some bawdy reference to drinking or sex, aunts and uncles will be offended because my little cousins can see it. If I do any of that, people I work with raise eyebrows. And, if I post things that are appropriate for those sets of people, my friends will tell me I'm a dork.

What we have is such a level of interconnection that nobody really wants to say anything of substance, so all that's left is baby-pictures, and SPAM about stupid games. What it needs to attract me and others like me back as 'customers' (which is not really accurate, since I don't give them money) is a smaller, segmented user base. But, a smaller segmented user base means fewer eyeballs viewing, less ad revenue and a loss of its current appeal as the 'cool' thing. And, as more people like me get sick of the thing and drop off the radar, using it only as a way to reach out to someone, the remaining user base is distilled to one so annoying and incorrectly assumptive that others want to know every insipid detail of their lives, that it becomes uncool.

And then, Myspace and Friendster say "hi, we've been keeping a spot warm for you over here on the bench. It's not so bad, really, as long as you tricked a major conglomerate into thinking you had some kind of intrinsic value long enough to buy you out."

My two cent crystal ball gives it about two or three years before google crushes Facebook, either by absorbing it or offering a newer, cooler, better version of it.

drgoodtrips Feb 24th 2010 05:56 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
For some reason, the Web 2.0 social networking model reminds me of the South Park episode where all of the web memes were gathered in a waiting room, talking about how many theoretical dollars they are worth. The business model seems to be:

1. Get a lot of people's attention.
2. ???
3. Profit!
4. ???
5. Sell to a bigger company!

partofme Feb 24th 2010 06:09 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips (Post 23603)
For some reason, the Web 2.0 social networking model reminds me of the South Park episode where all of the web memes were gathered in a waiting room, talking about how many theoretical dollars they are worth. The business model seems to be:

1. Get a lot of people's attention.
2. ???
3. Profit!
4. ???
5. Sell to a bigger company!

I love how you actually used a meme to make your point.

Daktoria Feb 24th 2010 06:18 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Considering the condescending, pretentious, narcissistic character of where it came from, it's definitely appropriate for describing the consumers, shareholders, and marketers involved with this.

Americano Feb 24th 2010 08:42 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Daktoria (Post 23597)
Exxxxxxxxactly.

Adding insult to injury is how we (as Americans) embrace being labeled as a bunch of fat and spoiled retards. It opens the flood gates to multicultural and culturally relativist condescension.

There's a valid reason for those labels, which contributes to my ever-decreasing national pride. I remember all too well quickly learning to avoid ugly fellow Americans when traveling in other countries.

Quote:

See this in schools nationwide all the time, but nobody's ever done, or going to do, anything about it because it's politically incorrect from both the left and right.
I don't really care what people do as long as it doesn't directly affect me in an adverse manner. Let them get fat, play simple games and become receptacles for targeted advertising. The US is known for providing consumer instant gratification.

Americano Feb 24th 2010 10:46 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips (Post 23603)
For some reason, the Web 2.0 social networking model reminds me of the South Park episode where all of the web memes were gathered in a waiting room, talking about how many theoretical dollars they are worth. The business model seems to be:

1. Get a lot of people's attention.
2. ???
3. Profit!
4. ???
5. Sell to a bigger company!

It has become a traditional road to professional success in the age of information. Having said that, I do consider electronic social networking part of the entertainment industry. Somewhat short-lived successes with an audience that inevitably responds to herd behavior. Takes bright people to put it together, which I admire.

drgoodtrips Feb 25th 2010 12:12 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano (Post 23618)
It has become a traditional road to professional success in the age of information. Having said that, I do consider electronic social networking part of the entertainment industry. Somewhat short-lived successes with an audience that inevitably responds to herd behavior. Takes bright people to put it together, which I admire.

I think it's a potential win-win as long as potential buying companies recognize sites like Facebook/Myspace for what they are - successful commercials.

Americano Feb 25th 2010 01:18 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips (Post 23633)
I think it's a potential win-win as long as potential buying companies recognize sites like Facebook/Myspace for what they are - successful commercials.

Acquisitions are sometimes logical for long-term market positioning for the acquirer, often not. Buying a company can be motivated by something so simple as pushing acquirer equity market value high enough for senior management to turn their $10-million pool of ripe stock options into $30-million in-hand. Five year business plan projections can be what one wants them to be for board approval.

drgoodtrips Feb 25th 2010 01:45 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano (Post 23639)
Acquisitions are sometimes logical for long-term market positioning for the acquirer, often not. Buying a company can be motivated by something so simple as pushing acquirer equity market value high enough for senior management to turn their $10-million pool of ripe stock options into $30-million in-hand. Five year business plan projections can be what one wants them to be for board approval.

So then, it's win-win-lose. Win for the fad purveyor, win for the players at the buyer, and lose (long term) for shareholders of the buyer.

Michael Feb 25th 2010 01:54 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips (Post 23641)
So then, it's win-win-lose. Win for the fad purveyor, win for the players at the buyer, and lose (long term) for shareholders of the buyer.

That describes 90% of all mergers from the last 25 years.

Time-Warner's purchase of AOL has to be one of the all-time worst. The sharevalues dropped for both parties as soon as the deal was announced - and have continued to drop ever since. Just signing this deal wiped out several billion in shareholder value.

And people wonder why I have a low opinion of modern capitalism. :shrug:

Bunch of wannabe rentiers is all I see.

Americano Feb 25th 2010 02:04 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips (Post 23641)
So then, it's win-win-lose. Win for the fad purveyor, win for the players at the buyer, and lose (long term) for shareholders of the buyer.

Lose for those unable to get out at the right time. Which is what equity market players depend on. Somebody has to take the hit.

The Drunk Guy Mar 2nd 2010 12:19 AM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips (Post 23602)

I'm sick of it because I now have about 25 times as many 'friends' as I have in real life, and all of them fill up my 'feed' with pictures of babies I will never meet and don't want to meet. I'm sick of it because all I want is an easy way to get in touch with people should I want to and what I get is endless invitations to play games like Mafia Wars - the Amway of online gaming. I'm sick of it because my friends include college drinking buddies, work acquaintances, family members young and old, and any number of other people who I can't really be myself in front of. Post something making fun of Democrats and I'll get a half dozen responses from angry liberal friends and families. Reverse it with Republicans and the same is true. If I post some bawdy reference to drinking or sex, aunts and uncles will be offended because my little cousins can see it. If I do any of that, people I work with raise eyebrows. And, if I post things that are appropriate for those sets of people, my friends will tell me I'm a dork.

What we have is such a level of interconnection that nobody really wants to say anything of substance, so all that's left is baby-pictures, and SPAM about stupid games. What it needs to attract me and others like me back as 'customers' (which is not really accurate, since I don't give them money) is a smaller, segmented user base. But, a smaller segmented user base means fewer eyeballs viewing, less ad revenue and a loss of its current appeal as the 'cool' thing. And, as more people like me get sick of the thing and drop off the radar, using it only as a way to reach out to someone, the remaining user base is distilled to one so annoying and incorrectly assumptive that others want to know every insipid detail of their lives, that it becomes uncool.

This reminds me of a new Facebook hobby of mine. I like to look at the motherfucker who has sent nothing but invites all week and hasn't posted anything about his/her life. Then I hit delete. I don't care if it's sweet Aunt Allie or an old high school buddy; I just weigh their value in my real life to their annoying presence on Facebook.

For instance, I added a friend from high school about six months ago. Wasn't close to guy at all, but we were in the same circle. Anyway, he must have went to a revival or something because he just started posting the fuck out of some scripture and links to gospel videos. So, I just shitcanned him. It felt pretty good, too. Then, his wife sends me an invite the next day. I don't even remember that bitch. BAM! Ignore.

(By the way, this whole ritual reminds me a lot of a George Carlin joke. After someone dies, he waits a few weeks, and then he pulls out his address book and boldly crosses out their names while thinking, Lasted longer than that fuck! This makes me happy. :D See, smiling happy.)

Anyway, my point is that you have some control. Also, keep in mind that it's free. Free shit in America is something that's hard to get truly angry over. This isn't a public service: it's a multi-million dollar industry, yet it's free.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips (Post 23602)
My two cent crystal ball gives it about two or three years before google crushes Facebook, either by absorbing it or offering a newer, cooler, better version of it.

Despite my earlier defense of the site, I have to agree with you here. I think the internet can only allow something to remain on top for a maximum of five years. Even with updates and new designs, you still have the same basic system that just bores the fuck out of the ADHD Nation. Something new and snazzy will come out (thought I doubt it will be Google to create it) and that will be all she wrote. :shrug:

Lily Mar 2nd 2010 05:00 AM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
I don't want a Facebook account. Too many people out there I don't want to find, and don't want them to find me. It's like when you run into someone you haven't seen in years and the conversation goes something like this:

"Hey! Long time!"

"Yeah. You haven't changed a bit. What have you been up to?"

"Oh, you know, kids, job, life...."

"We should get together sometime."

"Yeah, we should."

And then you never see them or hear from them again. Unless you have a social networking site. Then you get to see way too much of them, and hear way more than you ever wanted to know even when you knew them.

Yeah. No thanks.

Americano Mar 2nd 2010 10:54 AM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Facebook never really held any interest for me. I use email to keep in touch with those geographically removed relatives/friends who matter to me and have absolutely no desire to expand that obligation with meaningless, casual, time consuming associations.

I must add that if I was still single I'd probably be a big Facebook fan looking for casual, brief associations. It does appear to be a massive bachelor's hunting reserve.

Zarquon Mar 2nd 2010 12:43 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano (Post 23973)
I must add that if I was still single I'd probably be a big Facebook fan looking for casual, brief associations. It does appear to be a massive bachelor's hunting reserve.

Adult Friend Finder[dot][com] would appear to serve that purpose better.
And Craigslist too.
Though, I can see how Facebook might be seen as more decent or bonafide.

Americano Mar 2nd 2010 02:07 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zarquon (Post 23982)
Adult Friend Finder[dot][com] would appear to serve that purpose better.
And Craigslist too.

Adult friend finder sounds like a hooker magnet.

Quote:

Though, I can see how Facebook might be seen as more decent or bonafide.

Greendruid Mar 2nd 2010 03:11 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Drunk Guy (Post 23963)
Despite my earlier defense of the site, I have to agree with you here. I think the internet can only allow something to remain on top for a maximum of five years. Even with updates and new designs, you still have the same basic system that just bores the fuck out of the ADHD Nation. Something new and snazzy will come out (thought I doubt it will be Google to create it) and that will be all she wrote. :shrug:

It came to me in a vision - it will be social networking combined with the 3D realism from the movie Avatar where you will be able to virtually interact with your friends. Glasses not included. Some assembly required. Small parts not suitable for children under 18 years of age.

The Drunk Guy Mar 2nd 2010 03:30 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greendruid (Post 23987)
It came to me in a vision - it will be social networking combined with the 3D realism from the movie Avatar where you will be able to virtually interact with your friends. Glasses not included. Some assembly required. Small parts not suitable for children under 18 years of age.

The Matrix?

Caprica (new show on SyFy) talks about something quite similar: they have created visors that link users' brains with an internet where avatars interact with other people and software. Pretty neat, actually. I would buy it. I think Korymir would be doing back-flips of joy. :D (By the way, what rat-hole did he run off to?)

The Drunk Guy Mar 2nd 2010 04:02 PM

Re: Facebook Evolution
 
One man's garbage, another man's treasure...

Quote:

Beth doesn't like Jim Bunning. Can we elect for Bunning to take a furlough?


2 hours ago
Vickie and NOT receive his salary or benefits for as long as he holds them up for others who are in far more difficult financial situations than him.

2 hours ago



Chet No, but I hear there is a protest at his Lexington office at 3 today. 771 Corporate Drive

2 hours ago



Casey Please. He is doing what the democrats just asked for. Pay-go. The bill adds to the deficit... Democrats are getting exactly what they wanted. Secondly, unemployment already gives money away for far far far too long.

about an hour ago



Lori I think I am with Casey here.. America is in such debt that we cannot keep on going like this..

about an hour ago



Beth I respect your opinions, but I would like to remind you that it was a republican president that began the spending that lead to the deficit. I am not saying that I am against/for any bailouts to boost the economy, but I want to encourage others to look at both sides of the argument.

about an hour ago



Lori I honestly have and the outcome is that China owns most of our debt. That is a HUGE problem. If China bails the dollar collapses and we have even bigger problems then. We have to stop this out of control spending

about an hour ago



Tom George Bush did not start deficit spending. That is completely false. Roosevelt started it, and no one since has corrected it. Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats, so stop acting like the parties actually differ on this issue.

China won't bail on us because they would be screwing themselves out of a huge market. The problem is that we have such a huge debt in the first place, never mind who holds it.

Jim Bunning has the right idea. It is idiotic to extend unemployment benefits any further if we can't pay for the programs already on the books.... See More

Also, he pitched a perfect game. Beat THAT.

50 minutes ago



Beth Tom, I am not blaming one party or another. I am just saying that both parties spend; sometimes out of control.

I agree that China will not bail, but I also agree with Lori that we should work on becoming more self-sufficient and decrease out debt.

Pitching does not equal good politics.

41 minutes ago



Chet I agree whole-heartedly that our spending is out of control. I just disagree that denying people unemployment benefits is going to fix anything. Right argument, wrong time. Want to cut back spending? Bring our troops home, close foreign bases, and quit subsidizing corporations.

It's idiotic to pay for those program that are already in the books because the books already read -$10,000,000,000,000.00. So, how about we end Medicare, Social Security, all the bureaus, dismiss all full-time military staff, end infrastructure payments to the states, call home the border guards, and just make payments for 5 or 6 years?

32 minutes ago



Casey Chet. Some of ideas are not bad. Like ending subsidies, ending Medicare and social security, since the constitution does not specifically allow those programs. However, the consitution does allow for defense. And we know for history, post WWI, that being isolationist is a very bad idea.

The governemnt should not be providing unemploymet, retirement, subsidies, grants, loans, cars, space programs.

9 minutes ago



Chet How was isolationism bad? Because we didn't try to police the world, Hitler came to power? What a straw-man argument that is!

And if you want to see a nation crumble, go ahead and vote for Medicare and Social Security to be eradicated. Fine by me, I've got guns. Better to live free in a third world nation than to labor under the heel of a police state.

about a minute ago



We need some teabaggers or something around here. Spice things up a bit. ;)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008 - 2017, DiscussionWorldForum.com