tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27177608029377633552024-02-06T21:18:50.613-05:00Social Network Reject[soh-shuhl net-wurk ree-jekt]: A person who dislikes and therefore rejects social networking technologies including but not limited to MySpace, Facebook and Twitter.Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-54217848837218380872011-01-30T10:36:00.000-05:002011-01-30T10:38:03.787-05:00SLATE: The Anti-Social Network<h1>By helping other people look happy, Facebook is making us sad.</h1><span class="author">By Libby Copeland</span><span class="dateline" id="dateline_top"><br />Posted Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011, at 4:51 PM ET </span><hr /><p>There are countless ways to make yourself feel lousy. Here's one more, according to research out of Stanford: Assume you're alone in your unhappiness. </p><p>"Misery Has More Company Than People Think," a paper in the <a target="_blank" href="http://psp.sagepub.com/content/37/1/120.abstract">January issue of<em> Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</em></a>, draws on a series of studies examining how college students evaluate moods, both their own and those of their peers. Led by Alex Jordan, who at the time was a Ph.D. student in Stanford's psychology department, the researchers found that their subjects consistently underestimated how dejected others were–and likely wound up feeling more dejected as a result. Jordan got the idea for the inquiry after observing his friends' reactions to Facebook: He noticed that they seemed to feel particularly crummy about themselves after logging onto the site and scrolling through others' attractive photos, accomplished bios, and chipper status updates. "They were convinced that everyone else was leading a perfect life," he told me.</p><p>The human habit of overestimating other people's happiness is nothing new, of course. Jordan points to a quote by Montesquieu: "If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we think them happier than they are." But social networking may be making this tendency worse. Jordan's research doesn't look at Facebook explicitly, but if his conclusions are correct, it follows that the site would have a special power to make us sadder and lonelier. By showcasing the most witty, joyful, bullet-pointed versions of people's lives, and inviting constant comparisons in which we tend to see ourselves as the losers, Facebook appears to exploit an Achilles' heel of human nature. And women—an especially unhappy bunch of late—may be especially vulnerable to keeping up with what they imagine is the happiness of the Joneses. </p><p>In one of the Stanford studies, Jordan and his fellow researchers asked 80 freshmen to report whether they or their peers had recently experienced various negative and positive emotional events. Time and again, the subjects underestimated how many negative experiences ("had a distressing fight," "felt sad because they missed people") their peers were having. They also overestimated how much fun ("going out with friends," "attending parties") these same peers were having. In another study, the researchers found a sample of 140 Stanford students unable to accurately gauge others' happiness even when they were evaluating the moods of people they were close to—friends, roommates and people they were dating. And in a third study, the researchers found that the more students underestimated others' negative emotions, the more they tended to report feeling lonely and brooding over their own miseries. This is correlation, not causation, mind you; it could be that those subjects who started out feeling worse imagined that everyone else was getting along just fine, not the other way around. But the notion that feeling alone in your day-to-day suffering might increase that suffering certainly makes intuitive sense.</p><p>As does the idea that Facebook might aggravate this tendency. Facebook is, after all, characterized by the very public curation of one's assets in the form of friends, photos, biographical data, accomplishments, pithy observations, even the books we say we like. Look, we have baked beautiful cookies. We are playing with a new puppy. We are smiling in pictures (or, if we are moody, we are artfully moody.) Blandness will not do, and with <a target="_blank" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/metro/facebook-story-mothers-joy-familys-sorrow.html?hpid=topnews">some exceptions</a>, sad stuff doesn't make the cut, either. The site's very design—the presence of a "Like" button, without a corresponding "Hate" button—reinforces a kind of upbeat spin doctoring. (No one will "Like" your update that the new puppy died, but they may "Like" your report that the little guy was brave up until the end.) </p><p>Any parent who has posted photos and videos of her child on Facebook is keenly aware of the resulting disconnect from reality, the way chronicling parenthood this way creates a story line of delightfully misspoken words, adorably worn hats, dancing, blown kisses. Tearful falls and tantrums are rarely recorded, nor are the stretches of pure, mind-blowing tedium. We protect ourselves, and our kids, this way; happiness is impersonal in a way that pain is not. But in the process, we wind up contributing to the illusion that kids are all joy, no effort. </p><p>Facebook is "like being in a play. You make a character," one teenager tells MIT professor Sherry Turkle in her new book on technology, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465010210?ie=UTF8&tag=dblx-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0465010210"><em>Alone Together</em></a>. Turkle writes about the exhaustion felt by teenagers as they constantly tweak their Facebook profiles for maximum cool. She calls this "presentation anxiety," and suggests that the site's element of constant performance makes people feel alienated from themselves. (The book's broader theory is that technology, despite its promises of social connectivity, actually makes us lonelier by preventing true intimacy.) </p><p>Facebook oneupsmanship may have particular implications for women. As Meghan O'Rourke has <a target="_blank" href="http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/women-are-more-unhappy-ever">noted here in <strong><em>Slate</em></strong></a>, women's happiness has been at an all-time low in recent years. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.slate.com/id/2137537/">O'Rourke</a> and <a target="_blank" href="http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/papers/Paradox%20of%20declining%20female%20happiness.pdf">two University of Pennsylvania economists</a> who have studied the male-female happiness gap argue that women's collective discontent may be due to too much choice and second-guessing–unforeseen fallout, they speculate, of the way our roles have evolved over the last half-century. As the economists put it, "The increased opportunity to succeed in many dimensions may have led to an increased likelihood in believing that one's life is not measuring up." </p><p>If you're already inclined to compare your own decisions to those of other women and to find yours wanting, believing that others are happier with their choices than they actually are is likely to increase your own sense of inadequacy. And women may be particularly susceptible to the Facebook illusion. For one thing, the site is inhabited by more women than men, and women users tend to be more active on the site, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/26/popular-social-networking-sites-forbes-woman-time-facebook-twitter_print.html">as Forbes has reported</a>. According to <a target="_blank" href="http://www.theyoungandthedigital.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/watkins_lee_facebookstudy-nov-18.pdf">a recent study</a> out of the University of Texas at Austin, while men are more likely to use the site to share items related to the news or current events, women tend to use it to engage in personal communication (posting photos, sharing content "related to friends and family"). This may make it especially hard for women to avoid comparisons that make them miserable. (Last fall, for example, the <em>Washington Post </em>ran a piece <a target="_blank" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/24/AR2010102402642.html">about the difficulties of infertile women </a>in shielding themselves from the Facebook crowings of pregnant friends.)</p><p>Jordan, who is now a postdoctoral fellow studying social psychology at Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business, suggests we might do well to consider Facebook profiles as something akin to the airbrushed photos on the covers of women's magazine. No, you will never have those thighs, because <em>nobody</em> has those thighs. You will never be as consistently happy as your Facebook friends, because nobody is that happy. So remember Montesquieu, and, if you're feeling particularly down, use Facebook for its most exalted purpose: finding fat exes.</p><p><em><br /></em><em></em></p><em>Libby Copeland is a former reporter for the </em>Washington Post<em>, now writing in New York. She can be reached at libbycopeland@gmail.com.</em><br /><p><strong>Article URL: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2282620/" target="_blank">http://www.slate.com/id/2282620/</a></strong></p>Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-63730163673770571902009-08-29T13:19:00.002-04:002009-08-29T13:23:52.996-04:00Must Read II<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMU18jc9VONJdKYtg66AEiNK6q8_p8FeNUEgF-ielWUkIKvHgJw_hUVhNOJ3l1cZhEJ_eAvRS1xFLktR1zOiyH3wRCJX4Udj0ES0RjQYOADEEHaaheS2iyNSZzZ4QwhPLK6DjlSm_zCYqz/s1600-h/30medium-600.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 235px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMU18jc9VONJdKYtg66AEiNK6q8_p8FeNUEgF-ielWUkIKvHgJw_hUVhNOJ3l1cZhEJ_eAvRS1xFLktR1zOiyH3wRCJX4Udj0ES0RjQYOADEEHaaheS2iyNSZzZ4QwhPLK6DjlSm_zCYqz/s400/30medium-600.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5375437484295288722" border="0" /></a><br /><h1><nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" "> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/magazine/30FOB-medium-t.html">Facebook Exodus </a></nyt_headline></h1> <nyt_byline version="1.0" type=" "> <div class="byline">By <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/virginia_heffernan/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More Articles by Virginia Heffernan">VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN</a></div> </nyt_byline> <p> <span class="bold">Things fall apart;</span> the center cannot hold. <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/facebook_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about Facebook.">Facebook</a>, the online social grid, could not command loyalty forever. If you ask around, as I did, you’ll find quitters. One person shut down her account because she disliked how nosy it made her. Another thought the scene had turned desperate. A third feared stalkers. A fourth believed his privacy was compromised. A fifth disappeared without a word. </p> <p>The exodus is not evident from the site’s overall numbers. According to comScore, Facebook attracted 87.7 million unique visitors in the United States in July. But while people are still joining Facebook and compulsively visiting the site, a small but noticeable group are fleeing — some of them ostentatiously. </p> <p>Leif Harmsen, once a Facebook user, now crusades against it. Having dismissed his mother’s snap judgment of the site (“Facebook is the devil”), Harmsen now passionately agrees. He says, not entirely in jest, that he considers it a repressive regime akin to North Korea, and sells T-shirts with the words “Shut Your Facebook.” What especially galls him is the commercialization and corporate regulation of personal and social life. As Facebook endeavors to be the Web’s headquarters — to compete with Google, in other words, and to make money from the information it gathers — it’s inevitable that some people would come to view it as Big Brother.</p> <p>“The more dependent we allow ourselves to become to something like Facebook — and Facebook does everything in its power to make you more dependent — the more Facebook can and does abuse us,” Harmsen explained by indignant e-mail. “It is not ‘your’ Facebook profile. It is Facebook’s profile about you.”</p> <p>The disillusionment with Facebook has come in waves. An early faction lost faith in 2008, when Facebook’s beloved Scrabble application, Scrabulous, was pulled amid copyright issues. It was suddenly clear that Facebook was not just a social club but also an expanding force on the Web, beholden to corporate interests. A later group, Harmsen’s crowd, grew frustrated last winter when Facebook seemed to claim perpetual ownership of users’ contributions to the site. (Facebook later adjusted its membership contract, but it continues to integrate advertising, intellectual property and social life.) A third wave of dissenters appears to be bored with it, obscurely sore or just somehow creeped out.</p> <p>My friend Alex joined four years ago at the suggestion of “the coolest guy on the planet,” she told me in an e-mail message. For a while, they cultivated a cool-planet online gang. But then Scrabulous was shut down, someone told her she was too old for Facebook, her teenage stepson seemed to be losing his life to it and she found the whole site crawling with mercenaries trying to sell books and movies. “If I am going to waste my time on the Internet,” she concluded, “it will be playing in online backgammon tournaments.”</p> <p>Another friend, who didn’t want his name used, found that Facebook undermined his whole notion of online friendship. “It’s easy to think of your circle of ‘Friends’ as a coherent circle, clear and moated, when in fact the splay of overlap/network makes drip/action painting a better (visual) analogy.” Something happened to this drip painting that he won’t discuss. He said, “Postings that seem private can scatter and slip unpredictably into a sort of semipublic status.” </p> <p>That friend was not the only Facebook dissenter who was reticent about specifics. Many seem to have just lost their appetite for it: they just stopped wanting to look at other people’s photos and résumés and updates, or have their own subject to scrutiny. Some ex-users seemed shaken, even heartbroken, by their breakups with Facebook. “I primarily left Facebook because I was wasting so much time on it,” my friend Caroline Harting told me by e-mail. “I felt fairly detached from my Facebook buddies because I rarely directly contacted them.” Instead, she felt as if she stalked them, spending hours a day looking at their pages without actually saying hello.</p> <p>But then came the truly weird part: “Facebook was stalking me,” Harting wrote. One day, on another Web site, she responded to an invitation to rate a movie she saw. The next time she logged on to Facebook, there was a message acknowledging that she had made the rating. “I didn’t appreciate being monitored so closely,” she wrote. She quit.</p> <p>Julie Klam, a writer and prolific and eloquent Facebook updater, said in her own e-mail message, “I have noticed the exodus, and I kind of feel like it’s kids getting tired of a new toy.” Klam, who still posts updates to Facebook but now prefers <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/twitter/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about Twitter.">Twitter</a> for professional networking, added, “Facebook is good for finding people, but by now the novelty of that has worn off, and everyone’s been found.” As of a few months ago, she told me, Facebook “felt dead.”</p> <p>Is Facebook doomed to someday become an online ghost town, run by zombie users who never update their pages and packs of marketers picking at the corpses of social circles they once hoped to exploit? Sad, if so. Though maybe fated, like the demise of a college clique. </p> <p><span class="bold">Points of Entry:</span> This Week’s Recommendations</p> <p><span class="bold">THE QUIT</span> Put “<span class="bold">Why I Quit</span>” into Google, and the search engine proposes you look into both “Why I Quit Facebook” and “Why I Quit Church.” If you aim to be a lapsed social networker, <span class="bold">wikiHow</span>, the collaborative how-to guide, provides a useful step-by-step way to disengage, emotionally and practically: <a href="http://wikihow.com/quit-facebook" target="_">wikihow.com/quit-facebook</a>.</p> <p><span class="bold">AN INQUIRY</span> You’re not the first to think it’s creepy to have your personal life commercialized. <span class="bold">Jürgen Habermas</span> has been especially eloquent about this. Start with “<span class="bold">The Theory of Communicative Action</span>.” Copies are available on <a href="http://abebooks.com/" target="_">AbeBooks.com</a>. Also interesting on this score: “The Purchase of Intimacy,” by Viviana Zelizer.</p> <span class="bold">GET BOARD ONLINE</span> Scrabble is alive and well in cyberspace. If you like Scrabble, try <span class="bold"><a href="http://lexulous.com/" target="_">lexulous.com</a></span>. For backgammon: <a href="http://itsyourturn.com/" target="_">ItsYourTurn.com</a>.Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-63160682722600850952009-08-29T13:17:00.000-04:002009-08-29T13:19:36.637-04:00Must ReadIronically, I posted this to my facebook page:<br /><br /><h1><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/08/20/annoying.facebook.updaters/index.html#cnnSTCText">The 12 most annoying types of Facebookers</a></h1><ul><li class="cnnhiliteheader">Story Highlights</li><li>Facebook is a great tool -- and a reminder of why some people get on your nerves<br /></li><li>Too many status updates read like navel-gazing diary entries, or worse, spam<br /></li><li>A dozen of the most annoying types of Facebook users listed<br /></li><li>Among them: bores, shameless self-promoters and people who send you quizzes<br /></li></ul><div id="cnnSCByLine">By Brandon Griggs<br /> CNN</div><p><b>(CNN)</b> -- Facebook, for better or worse, is like being at a big party with all your friends, family, acquaintances and co-workers.</p><p>There are lots of fun, interesting people you're happy to talk to when they stroll up. Then there are the other people, the ones who make you cringe when you see them coming. This article is about those people.</p><p>Sure, Facebook can be a great tool for keeping up with folks who are important to you. Take the status update, the 160-character message that users post in response to the question, "What's on your mind?" An artful, witty or newsy status update is a pleasure -- a real-time, tiny window into a friend's life.</p><p>But far more posts read like navel-gazing diary entries, or worse, spam. A recent study categorized 40 percent of Twitter tweets as "pointless babble," and it wouldn't be surprising if updates on Facebook, still a fast-growing social network, break down in a similar way. <span class="cnnembeddedmoslnk"><img src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/tabs/quiz.gif" alt="" border="0" height="14" width="15" /><a href="http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=The+12+most+annoying+types+of+Facebookers+-+CNN.com&expire=-1&urlID=408991535&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2009%2FTECH%2F08%2F20%2Fannoying.facebook.updaters%2Findex.html%23cnnSTCText&partnerID=211911#cnnSTCOther1" onclick="CNN_changeMosaicTab('otherTab1','other1.html',true);">Take a CNN quiz: What kind of Facebooker are you? »</a></span></p><p>Combine dull status updates with shameless self-promoters, "friend-padders" and that friend of a friend who sends you quizzes every day, and <a href="http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Facebook_Inc" class="cnninlinetopic" target="_blank">Facebook</a> becomes a daily reminder of why some people can get on your nerves. <span class="cnnembeddedmoslnk"><img src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/tabs/video.gif" alt="Video" border="0" height="14" width="16" /><a href="http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=The+12+most+annoying+types+of+Facebookers+-+CNN.com&expire=-1&urlID=408991535&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2009%2FTECH%2F08%2F20%2Fannoying.facebook.updaters%2Findex.html%23cnnSTCText&partnerID=211911#cnnSTCVideo" onclick="CNN_changeMosaicTab('cnnVideoCmpnt','videos.html',true,'/video/#/video/living/2009/08/22/nr.annoying.facebookers.cnn');">Watch as Facebookers reveal bugbears »</a></span></p><p>Here are 12 of the most annoying types of Facebook users:</p><p><b>The Let-Me-Tell-You-Every-Detail-of-My-Day Bore.</b> "I'm waking up." "I had Wheaties for breakfast." "I'm bored at work." "I'm stuck in traffic." You're kidding! How fascinating! No moment is too mundane for some people to broadcast unsolicited to the world. Just because you have 432 Facebook friends doesn't mean we all want to know when you're waiting for the bus.</p><p><b>The Self-Promoter.</b> OK, so we've probably all posted at least once about some achievement. And sure, maybe your friends really do want to read the fascinating article you wrote about beet farming. But when almost EVERY update is a link to your blog, your poetry reading, your 10k results or your art show, you sound like a bragger or a self-centered careerist.</p><p><b>The Friend-Padder.</b> The average Facebook user has 120 friends on the site. Schmoozers and social butterflies -- you know, the ones who make lifelong pals on the subway -- might reasonably have 300 or 400. But 1,000 "friends?" Unless you're George Clooney or just won the lottery, no one has that many. That's just showing off.</p><p><b>The Town Crier.</b> "Michael Jackson is dead!!!" You heard it from me first! Me, and the 213,000 other people who all saw it on TMZ. These Matt Drudge wannabes are the reason many of us learn of breaking news not from TV or news sites but from online social networks. In their rush to trumpet the news, these people also spread rumors, half-truths and innuendo. No, Jeff Goldblum did not plunge to his death from a New Zealand cliff.</p><p><b>The TMIer.</b> "Brad is heading to Walgreens to buy something for these pesky hemorrhoids." Boundaries of privacy and decorum don't seem to exist for these too-much-information updaters, who unabashedly offer up details about their sex lives, marital troubles and bodily functions. Thanks for sharing.</p><p><b>The Bad Grammarian.</b> "So sad about Fara Fauset but Im so gladd its friday yippe". Yes, I know the punctuation rules are different in the digital world. And, no, no one likes a spelling-Nazi schoolmarm. But you sound like a moron.</p><p><b>The Sympathy-Baiter.</b> "Barbara is feeling sad today." "Man, am I glad that's over." "Jim could really use some good news about now." Like anglers hunting for fish, these sad sacks cast out their hooks -- baited with vague tales of woe -- in the hopes of landing concerned responses. Genuine bad news is one thing, but these manipulative posts are just pleas for attention.</p><p><b>The Lurker.</b> The Peeping Toms of Facebook, these voyeurs are too cautious, or maybe too lazy, to update their status or write on your wall. But once in a while, you'll be talking to them and they'll mention something you posted, so you know they're on your page, hiding in the shadows. It's just a little creepy.</p><p><b>The Crank.</b> These curmudgeons, like the trolls who spew hate in blog comments, never met something they couldn't complain about. "Carl isn't really that impressed with idiots who don't realize how idiotic they are." [Actual status update.] Keep spreading the love.</p><p><b>The Paparazzo.</b> Ever visit your Facebook page and discover that someone's posted a photo of you from last weekend's party -- a photo you didn't authorize and haven't even seen? You'd really rather not have to explain to your mom why you were leering like a drunken hyena and French-kissing a bottle of Jagermeister.</p><p><b>The Obscurist.</b> "If not now then when?" "You'll see..." "Grist for the mill." "John is, small world." "Dave thought he was immune, but no. No, he is not." [Actual status updates, all.] Sorry, but you're not being mysterious -- just nonsensical.</p><p><b>The Chronic Inviter.</b> "Support my cause. Sign my petition. Play Mafia Wars with me. Which 'Star Trek' character are you? Here are the 'Top 5 cars I have personally owned.' Here are '25 Things About Me.' Here's a drink. What drink are you? We're related! I took the 'What President Are You?' quiz and found out I'm Millard Fillmore! What president are you?"</p>You probably mean well, but stop. Just stop. I don't care what president I am -- can't we simply be friends? Now excuse me while I go post the link to this story on my Facebook page.Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-30993263635057362122009-05-05T12:39:00.002-04:002009-05-05T12:52:33.810-04:00Apple Rumored to Buy TwitterYup, you heard it here first. Rumors have it that Steve Jobs (or whatever's left of him) is willing to pay up to $700 MILLION for Twitter. Yowza! Now there is a great partnership. But can't you already buy a Twitter app on the iPhone? Why would Apple need to own it outright? Hmmm....Jobs must have something big cookin'.Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-25397643862217108342009-05-05T12:37:00.003-04:002009-05-05T12:39:52.967-04:00Blog Assignment Over!So yes, my class has ended and I am therefore no longer forced to write 3 blog posts a week. While I feel some sense of relief, I also miss it! So at the request of my fans, er, fan I will continue to post although maybe not as often.<br /><br />LONG LIVE SNR!Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-58646439274597928132009-04-27T13:04:00.001-04:002009-04-27T13:06:23.567-04:00Must Read!Thought I'd share a great <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/missconduct/2009/04/facebook_dissen.html">article</a> from a fellow SNR...here's a teaser:<br /><br />"It's the end of civilized human interaction as we know it and I just can't support that?" "Because...let's face it: we all have better things we could do with our time?"Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-6274488879150714932009-04-26T09:46:00.007-04:002009-04-26T11:23:51.609-04:00Ashton Kutcher is a Twit<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1QRyNWLZZmo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1QRyNWLZZmo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Unless you've been living under a rock, I'm sure you've heard about the Twitter battle royale between <a href="http://twitter.com/cnnbrk">CNN</a> and <a href="http://twitter.com/aplusk">Ashton Kutcher</a> to see who would be the first to have 1 million followers. Disappointingly, Kutcher was crowned King Twit as he reached the million mark on April 17 at 2:13 a.m. EST. CNN reached the milestone just thirty minutes later.<br /><br />This ridiculous challenge began when Kutcher threw down the gauntlet and challenged CNN and its founder, Ted Turner, to the race. If he won, Kutcher promised to "ding-dong-ditch" (ring doorbell, run away) Turner's Atlanta mansion.<br /><br />So why exactly should we care about this odd coupling? Is Kutcher even worthy of competing with the likes of CNN? Kutcher commented via YouTube post:<br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;">"[It will make] a huge statement about social media. For one person to actually have the ability to broadcast to as many people as a major media network. I think sort of signifies the turning of the tide from traditional news outlets to social media outlets."<br /><br />Who knew <a href="http://that70sshow.wikia.com/wiki/Michael_Kelso">Kelso</a> was so smart?<br /></div>Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-15523294545233149852009-04-24T19:02:00.006-04:002009-04-26T09:45:42.081-04:00Low Turnout for Facebook Vote<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://ktar.net/blogs/crummey/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/time-young-voters.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 529px;" src="http://ktar.net/blogs/crummey/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/time-young-voters.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Facebook</span> users were <a href="http://socialnetworkreject.blogspot.com/2009/02/facebook-revolt.html">up in arms</a> a few months back when <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Facebook</span> sneakily changed its Terms of Use (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">TOS</span>) to allow for ownership of all uploaded content, even from members who had closed their accounts. In response, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Facebook</span> opened up the rewritten <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">TOS</span> to a vote. Disappointingly, not many people showed up to to the virtual polls. Just over 650,000 people voted, with 74 percent choosing the new terms over the old ones. This is just 3% of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Facebook's</span> 200-million plus community. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Facebook</span> seemed disappointed as well and said so on its <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=79146552130">blog</a>:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span> <span style="font-style: italic;">We'd hoped to have a bigger turnout for this inaugural vote, but it is important to keep in mind that this vote was a first for users just like it was a first for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Facebook</span>. We are hopeful that there will be greater participation in future votes.<br /><br /></span>This low turnout just doesn't make sense given the initial outrage <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Facebook</span> experienced<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9"></span>. The debate was quite public and forced <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Facebook</span> <a href="http://ipoopexcellence.com/images/DoucheBagmotivator.jpg">CEO Mark <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Zuckerberg</span></a> to almost immediately retract the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">TOS</span>. So why the low voter turnout? Is it possible that these 650,000 voters were responsible for all the ruckus? Or did people simply lose interest once <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Facebook</span> did the right thing and opened the decision up to the voters?<br /><br />I'm not quite sure of the answer but I think this phenomenon of lack of youth engagement is an interesting one. Obama mobilized a nation and was able to lure swarms of young people out from their Playstation, Mountain Dew-fueled dens and into the voting booths. But now that they've cast their vote, what's next? This engagement level seems to have gone from 100 to zero overnight.<br /><br />So if Facebook's initial wrongdoing was able to mobilize this youthful community, why weren't they able to carry this energy over into the voting process? That's the question Facebook execs are now being faced with (pun intended) and one they even attempted to address on their blog:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">We made significant efforts to make voting easy and to give everyone the opportunity to vote — including by translating the documents and voting application into several of the most popular languages on the site, showing a message about the vote on users' home pages, and running advertisements and videos across Facebook promoting the vote.</span>Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-64337451737102100832009-04-23T13:49:00.005-04:002009-04-24T18:58:08.102-04:00Social Dysfunction<div><script src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=dom&vid=/video/health/2009/04/23/cohen.facebook.addiction.cnn" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Embedded video from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video">CNN Video</a></noscript><br />According to a recent <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/23/ep.facebook.addict/">CNN article</a>, therapists say they're seeing more and more people suffering from Facebook addiction. These people are ignoring their children, their jobs, their "real" life, in favor of the social networking site. Therapists say that the site is not the problem, the diconnection from real life is the true culprit. These "addicts" note how wonderful this virtual world can be and how people tend to put their best face forward. "Facebook is a fun, pleasant, happy, beautiful world. People only present the crème de la crème of their lives on Facebook. And these people want to be your friends! It's very seductive" notes one addict.<br /><br />CNN provide a checklist of symptoms that may indicate whether YOU are a Facebook addict:<br /><p> <b>1. You lose sleep over Facebook</b></p><p> <b>2. You spend more than an hour a day on Facebook</b></p><p> <b>3. You become obsessed with old loves</b></p><!--endclickprintexclude--><p> <b>4. You ignore work in favor of Facebook</b></p><p> <b>5. The thought of getting off Facebook leaves you in a cold sweat</b></p>I can honestly say no to all of the above. However, I'm worried that I may have a slight addiction to "Social Network Reject." Why do you ask? Here are five signs that you may be an anti-facebook addict:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. You stick your finger down your throat and pretend to vomit everytime someone mentions Facebook<br /><br />2. You have a secret Facebook account in order to spy and make fun of all your frenemies<br /><br />3. You make fun of all your friends who are Facebook addicts and call them losers repeatedly<br /><br />4. Your mom has a Facebook account and you don't<br /><br />5. You write a blog dedicated to propogating anti-facebook sentiment<br /></span><br /></div>Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-13763233516060556612009-04-22T16:24:00.005-04:002009-04-23T11:41:41.452-04:00Google Sells Out<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglpjlXFGUsKRZqqP3AsKi_bgifabCKmsQvusi2LbS0lKK2sLJ2AqIfO0KlAxNcvFTYZ35zd9NIhZQqFYoYdT4NZO5JjXWVTDTdHQuanpKG5YOcMO8lww8Qw9fdOJMg_dSXaF22jY3yxI-N/s1600-h/google-profiles.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327668870669653346" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: pointer; HEIGHT: 287px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglpjlXFGUsKRZqqP3AsKi_bgifabCKmsQvusi2LbS0lKK2sLJ2AqIfO0KlAxNcvFTYZ35zd9NIhZQqFYoYdT4NZO5JjXWVTDTdHQuanpKG5YOcMO8lww8Qw9fdOJMg_dSXaF22jY3yxI-N/s400/google-profiles.jpg" border="0" /></a>Google went <a href="http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/12/google-profiles.html">public</a> this week with their year-old application <a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/">Google Profiles</a>- an online tool that seems to combine the social networking capability of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Facebook</span> with the professional networking of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">LinkedIn</span> and the simplicity of Twitter. So what is it exactly? Well according to Google it's "<span style="font-size:+0;">simply how you present yourself on Google products to other Google users. It allows you to control how you appear on Google and tell others a bit more about who you are. With a Google profile, you can easily share your web content on one central location."</span><br /><br />Design-wise it looks a lot like a virtual business card and I think that's the point. I have to admit though, I'm still a little unclear on the advantages of this application. Nonetheless I of course had to set up <a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/millanna">my own profile</a>. Along with the standard "personality" questions such as interests, they also asked things like "something I can't find using google"and "my super power." Slightly random non sequiturs. <em></em>So now if you Google me, here's what you'll see at the very bottom of the page. I'm not the only Anna Miller? How disappointing....<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpNCaVIhv0j7tfSYpLvfks42CPFh3cwRz8ltatZT36D-od829dc7DOG353qOgVA2hiEczEwKFwYrYKvi4LuTriaFMQ89NExVK782dMQWYNtKc_xIoCbzWalRQUf_qFGNCWQP7Y_pqFBaEq/s1600-h/Picture+1.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327666063480544610" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 439px; CURSOR: pointer; HEIGHT: 105px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpNCaVIhv0j7tfSYpLvfks42CPFh3cwRz8ltatZT36D-od829dc7DOG353qOgVA2hiEczEwKFwYrYKvi4LuTriaFMQ89NExVK782dMQWYNtKc_xIoCbzWalRQUf_qFGNCWQP7Y_pqFBaEq/s400/Picture+1.png" border="0" /></a>Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-22836986580496191062009-04-19T21:34:00.001-04:002009-04-19T21:36:02.865-04:00What the F is This??<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEid_JlXW2PwpDwWvFRMU8_6kRGfINcQ46d4hv9rUVYM7gCUxD4dF1kve_gfhJOw5VA3NR78KGaE5BzvlZZUe6LaA-T3lAOL70O3VG5aU-R2gVDXdxU8L7ip6LYoJY0O6qvo_XahMlj2aZRh/s1600-h/Picture+1.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 284px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEid_JlXW2PwpDwWvFRMU8_6kRGfINcQ46d4hv9rUVYM7gCUxD4dF1kve_gfhJOw5VA3NR78KGaE5BzvlZZUe6LaA-T3lAOL70O3VG5aU-R2gVDXdxU8L7ip6LYoJY0O6qvo_XahMlj2aZRh/s400/Picture+1.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5326581321859494818" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3GoBMP0u5_Xwh3Qvvrs3NZq8rh386oXuwz_wESZGNtZe1WRZdgKGFzFGgVqorALyIIXWjr_ITXTcLwgeX4NVUwrzdSXIoOVRK221HMdCuSWIfvzTUQ3tnMa0qnlmaV4LUmFD0F2ZpyHbg/s1600-h/Picture+1.png"><br /></a>Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-90453832522903235892009-04-18T10:07:00.003-04:002009-04-18T11:00:03.744-04:00Facebook Code of Honor<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.switched.com/media/2008/07/drunken-facebook-425.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 425px; height: 319px;" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.switched.com/media/2008/07/drunken-facebook-425.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />As a follow-up to my <a href="http://socialnetworkreject.blogspot.com/2009/04/old-fart.html">last post</a>, I discovered a post about <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Facebook%20Ethics">Facebook Ethics</a> on Urban Dictionary. It reads:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Facebook Ethics is a major branch of philosophy, encompassing right conduct and good life over the electronic medium Facebook. The guiding principle of Facebook ethics is that of exercising sound judgement and morality when establishing relationships, networking, or simply keeping in touch with old friends.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Examples of breaching Facebook ethics include:</span><br /><ul><li><span style="font-style: italic;">Posting inappropriate pictures of either yourself or friends engaged in raucous behavior, binge drinking, or doing illegal drugs.</span></li><li><span style="font-style: italic;">Posting nasty comments about ex boyfriends new girlfriends at an attempt to invoke jealousy, cause pain, insult the other party</span></li><li><span style="font-style: italic;">Incessantly posting on people's walls thereby shielding other people's comments and creating a monopoly on said person's wall</span></li><li><span style="font-style: italic;">Discussing insensitive topics that could be read by other people- examples include religion, politics, and racism/sexism</span></li><li><span style="font-style: italic;">Tagging friends in pictures that are less than flattering. </span></li></ul><br />This is in fact a layman's reiteration of <a href="http://www.facebook.com/codeofconduct.php">Facebook's code of conduct</a>:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">While we believe users should be able to express themselves and their point of view, certain kinds of speech simply do not belong in a community like Facebook. Therefore, you may not post or share Content that: </span><ul style="font-style: italic;"><li>is obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit</li><li>depicts graphic or gratuitous violence</li><li>makes threats of any kind or that intimidates, harasses, or bullies anyone</li><li>is derogatory, demeaning, malicious, defamatory, abusive, offensive or hateful</li></ul>Although most teens don't seem to be abiding by these common sensical rules, it makes this old fart feel better to know that a code of conduct does in fact exist. I'm concerned about how it's being enforced though. I'm sure there are a lot more pictures of underage drinking than Facebook employees are able to police.<br /><br />And while I don't necessarily have a problem with underage drinking, I do have a problem with a lack of discretion. Growing up watching nothing but reality television has encouraged a generation of exhibitionists. Part of the fun of behaving badly is the that it's secretive and private. By exposing this behavior, you're in a sense opening yourself up to scrutiny that could have repercussions into adulthood (i.e. college admissions, job placement, etc.). This is especially true if Facebook has its way under its proposed <a href="http://socialnetworkreject.blogspot.com/2009/02/facebook-revolt.html">Terms of Service</a> and is able to own your content even after you close your account. A word of advice to all the kids out there- Keep your shit private!Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-74522263080161072542009-04-16T17:59:00.005-04:002009-04-18T10:03:01.245-04:00Old Fart<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3dksEdyZTDeaGLHPwe5dcStlhZkc1NSzWbWJ1rSenoE3_T-82ZokApsCWEhsdIsSV4n1qOTobgzI4Z5eRP5HHoK_QEDMi8WflkEzVkoWwUM-x_mxSHU9XBGo3rC9kdyeSzfCMw0RFFznL/s1600-h/cabbage2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3dksEdyZTDeaGLHPwe5dcStlhZkc1NSzWbWJ1rSenoE3_T-82ZokApsCWEhsdIsSV4n1qOTobgzI4Z5eRP5HHoK_QEDMi8WflkEzVkoWwUM-x_mxSHU9XBGo3rC9kdyeSzfCMw0RFFznL/s320/cabbage2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5325415091702320178" border="0" /></a><br />Yup that's me.<br /><br />A few years ago I tattled on my little cousin for posting drinking pictures to her Facebook page. At the time she was just 14 years old and I was shocked to see pictures of her completely wasted for all the world to see with comments from her friends referencing other activities they had participated in that evening (use your imagination). I mean, maybe I'm just an old fart. but back in my day you tried and hide that type of incriminating evidence.<br /><br />Nowadays, kids are so haphazard. It's like they have no filter. I understand that she thought she was just sharing the photos with her friends, but didn't it occur to her that I was also her "friend" and would see them and would perhaps tell my mother who would perhaps tell her mother and ban her from Facebook? I know, I'm an evil evil cousin.<br /><br />The situation I'm describing is all too common for the<a href="http://www.generationme.org/aboutbook.html"> ME generation</a> of kids who have grown up with social media as a part of their daily diet. The level of comfort they experience online allows them to say and post things they might otherwise do in real life.<br /><br />My suggestion to deal with this issue is a new service called "Two-Facedbook" (patent pending).<br /><br />What if kids had the option of being able to manage two profiles- one for family and other adult authority figures and another version strictly for friends. On the "clean" version they could post pictures of themselves helping the homeless, feeding squirrels, making their beds. On the other version they could freely post pictures of themselves shooting heroin, having random sex, and other fun yet explicit activities. I'd like to think I'm original but I have a feeling a service like this may already exist.<br /><br />One other option would be to give kids lessons is digital privacy. That may be more effective in the long term but what do I know, I'm just an old fart.Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-38955484538193353532009-04-13T23:04:00.007-04:002009-04-13T23:52:44.244-04:00Return on Investment? It's About Time!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://ndn3.newsweek.com/media/25/71014_MoneyHappiness_vl-vertical.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 300px; height: 403px;" src="http://ndn3.newsweek.com/media/25/71014_MoneyHappiness_vl-vertical.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-weight: normal;font-size:100%;" >According to today's article in <a href="http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=135940">Ad Age, </a></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">marketers have achieved the impossible. They have finally managed to measure the return on investment of social networking and have therefore validated it as an effective form of advertising. </span></span><br /><br />The debate around this issue is one I've been following with some interest. While there's no doubt that social networking leads to conversation the question is whether this conversation ever leads to sales. But according to research performed jointly by ComScore, MySpace and Dunnhumby, a 28% ROI was able to be measured for an unnamed package-goods brand's $1 million social media campaign.<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" ></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span>Marketers were able to accomplish this astonishing feet by combining an internet usage database with customer loyalty panels. According to Ad Age, this single-source database allowed for a "definitive look at how internet ads affect offline purchases."<span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>I'm not quite sure I buy it but as advertisers feel more comfortable spending online, this may be just the <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc20090326_604141.htm">financial boost</a> Facebook has been hunting for. <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span>Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-83298115685459637442009-04-13T23:02:00.004-04:002009-04-18T13:38:19.154-04:00Dear Abby...<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://sinope.redjupiter.com/images/paulboutin/paul2021002.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 157px; height: 214px;" src="http://sinope.redjupiter.com/images/paulboutin/paul2021002.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>As part of its "Gadgetwise" blog, the New York Times online now has a new <a href="http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/on-facebook-no-unfriending-goes-unnoticed/">advice columnist</a> by the name of <a href="http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/whos-who-at-gadgetwise/">Paul Boutin</a> (Is it just me or does this guy look like a jewish Bono?) A graduate of MIT, Boutin is now spewing advice on all matters related to social networking:<br /><!-- By line --> <p style="font-style: italic; text-align: justify;">Got a question about social networking? E-mail me at <a href="mailto:paul.boutin@nytimes.com">paul.boutin@nytimes.com</a>, or contact me via <a href="http://paulboutin.socialtoo.com/">Facebook</a> or <a href="http://twitter.com/paulboutin">Twitter</a>. I’ll answer technical questions ("Can I use Twitter on my Nokia?”) and social issues (”How do I deal with a divorce on Facebook?”) The thornier, the better. All names and other personal details will be kept confidential.</p><div style="text-align: justify;">Despite my anti-Facebook sentiment this guy seems to be giving some pretty good advice. The first question he received asked how to "silence" noisy Facebook friends so you don't have to bear witness to their incessant updates on daily tedium. In a very clear and step-by-step fashion, Boutin suggested several options for "quieting" these people without having to unfriend them.<br /><br />In an age where tech advice columnists are replacing the likes of etiquette (Ann Landers) and sex (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Savage">Dan Savage</a>) advice columnists, I'm sure we'll soon begin to see more questions like this appear in the local paper and I'm glad there is someone equipped to answer.</div>Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-70291046329064227792009-04-12T18:57:00.007-04:002009-04-12T19:50:39.644-04:00Happy Easter! Tweet! Tweet!<object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QuyD0DkwpuI&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QuyD0DkwpuI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></embed></object><br /><br />Send out the hypocrite police cause I'm about to make a confession...<br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-size:180%;" ><br />I LOVE TWITTER!!!!</span><br /><br />Yes, I must admit, after listening to <a href="http://twitter.com/sternshow">Howard Stern's</a> Twitter travails on Thursday's show, I decided to explore the most recent trend in social networking for myself. I had created an <a href="http://twitter.com/millanna">account</a> months ago but never took the time to look around. Well on Thursday afternoon I logged in and haven't been able to tear myself away since. I love it. And in an attempt to justify this hypocrisy to myself and my fellow SNRs, here's my list of reasons why Twitter is better than Facebook:<br /><br />1) Twitter is more honest. For the most part, is a one way dialogue. People can follow you and you can follow others and although commenting is allowed, interaction is not an essential ingredient of this social network. Therefore in some ways it's easier for you to be yourself and share your thoughts without worrying about what others will say. As opposed to Facebook, which is more about connecting with old friends and trying to prove how successful you are, Twitter seems inherently more real.<br /><br />2) Brevity (see previous <a href="http://socialnetworkreject.blogspot.com/2009/03/twitter-literature.html">post</a>). There's nothing I hate more than verbosity. There are too many people out there who use an abundance of unnecessary words. Simplicity is key in communications. Twitter gives you 140 characters to say what you need to say. If you're clever, you can manage to say a lot in that small space.<br /><br />3) Related to #1, voyeurism is a key component of Twitter. At <a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/17753477383021209275">Kim's</a> suggestion, I tried following a few celebrities. I'm especially fond of posts from comedians <a href="http://twitter.com/michaelianblack">Michael Ian Black</a> and <a href="http://twitter.com/mshowalter">Michael Showalter</a>. This comedic duo love to torment each other via <a href="http://twitter.com/mshowalter/status/1483284748">hilarious Twitter posts</a> often accompanied by equally hilarious pics. As a self-admitted voyeur, it's fun to get an inside glimpse into the lives of celebrities whose work I've admired for years. But at the same time, you can see this "realness" getting commercialized by celebrities like <a href="http://twitter.com/RyanSeacrest">Ryan Seacrest</a> who obviously have teams of publicists tweeting on their behalf. I began following Seacrest but had to delete him after the endless amount of self-promotion I received.<br /><br />4) Twitter is easy. There's no profile to set-up, no annoying questions to answer. You post a pic, and a short bio and boom....you're Tweeting. I don't have to spend hours I don't have agonizing over my profile or my list of friends. If I want to give an update, I can do it right through my cell phone. It's a perfect social networking application for someone with a life.<br /><br />So those are the reasons I've thought of so far to ease my Twitter-loving guilt. Maybe social networking isn't all bad, especially as we figure out new uses for it (i.e. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/europe/08moldova.html?hp">Moldova Prostests</a>).<br /><br />See, I can admit when I'm wrong.Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-10716342646129458632009-04-08T22:37:00.002-04:002009-04-08T23:05:44.997-04:00LinkedIn: Social Network or Other?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://theletter.co.uk/images/lc/facebook_v_linkedin.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 260px; height: 260px;" src="http://theletter.co.uk/images/lc/facebook_v_linkedin.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>So someone recently asked me how I (as a Social Network Reject) felt about <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/">LinkedIn</a>. And even though I am a <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/286/85b">member</a>, I'm not quite sure why or what to feel about it. The idea of it occupies a void in my mind. I mean what is it really? Is it a social network or a professional network or both? According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LinkedIn">Wikipedia</a>, it is a business-oriented social network. Is it just me or are those two things contradictory? That's like saying you're a rural urbanite. It doesn't make sense. Business is one thing and social is quite another.<br /><br />I had no problem joining the site when I was under the impression that it was strictly for professional networking. Makes sense as a potential resource for career opportunities. Good idea. Again according to Wikipedia, the purpose of the site is to allow users to maintain a list of contact details of people they know and trust in business. But if that's the case, then why did I start getting requests from friends who were neither business colleagues nor in my field? I accepted so as not to be rude but in truth I didn't understand why they were requesting I add them as <span style="font-style: italic;">connections</span>. I mean, isn't that what Facebook is for?<br /><br />I guess some could argue that any type of networking, be it social or professional, is good for your career which is why LinkedIn is able to ride that fine line. But as a Social Network Reject, I still find myself torn on the issue. And while I do have a LinkedIn account, I neither use it nor maintain it. It just sort of exists in cyberspace in case someone should ever want to offer me a job with a $1 million starting salary.Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-54308584473263664272009-04-07T12:36:00.001-04:002009-04-07T12:38:05.428-04:00Love it...Cover story of this week's New York Magazine. Click <a href="http://nymag.com/news/features/55878/">here</a> to read full article.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja-2H7Jp2UVdyiE8lFt5tIQSCY45rhTE3el0Q9Fy3RgI6DKkh3Ok-zNeEPzo0cvccZudhndNqDn48v1TXkgF_hyphenhyphenWokrmJwYE2N0_MTi9oRy1xixfqhgCUB_Lc3R5IcWSrUvx6I5_tZDOl3/s1600-h/090413_facebook.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 299px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja-2H7Jp2UVdyiE8lFt5tIQSCY45rhTE3el0Q9Fy3RgI6DKkh3Ok-zNeEPzo0cvccZudhndNqDn48v1TXkgF_hyphenhyphenWokrmJwYE2N0_MTi9oRy1xixfqhgCUB_Lc3R5IcWSrUvx6I5_tZDOl3/s400/090413_facebook.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5321989310857240482" border="0" /></a>Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-27317919931848535652009-04-06T16:55:00.004-04:002009-04-07T17:21:25.625-04:00I Heart Zac Efron<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2WjxBW1hAHTRdI28fGv4lOOULkSC9kj0L5wL9xPm4pOVoHXUZGMZBDNW3_yPjeuN43sXSxP4_jTJpOglMMJ4xYfVqCi1GhOV-tiNkKwC6z0LvkDFjdZ2fkhQTq_ucd9JgGKRtTlBNJGvA/s1600-h/wenn23153482__oPt.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 213px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2WjxBW1hAHTRdI28fGv4lOOULkSC9kj0L5wL9xPm4pOVoHXUZGMZBDNW3_yPjeuN43sXSxP4_jTJpOglMMJ4xYfVqCi1GhOV-tiNkKwC6z0LvkDFjdZ2fkhQTq_ucd9JgGKRtTlBNJGvA/s320/wenn23153482__oPt.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5322060952020095538" border="0" /></a>New SNR crush of the week alert....Zac Efron!<br /><br /><div> </div>At a press junket for his latest film, <a href="http://17againmovie.com/">Seventeen Again</a>, High School Musical hottie Zac Efron proclaimed his social network reject status:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I don't have a Twitter, a MySpace or a Facebook or anything like that. I kind of value in people not knowing where I am or what I'm doing.</span><br /><br />Efron even went on to demonstrate how ridic some "tweets" can be:<br /><div><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I’m on the toilet. Still on the toilet. Guys, dot-dot-dot, out of TP. Still on the toilet.</span><br /><br />It's nice to see this guy has a sense of humor. You don't know what to expect with someone as pretty as him. But he just got a new fan from his public display of distaste for social networking.<br /></div>Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-65429471030524993622009-04-03T11:36:00.003-04:002009-04-07T17:43:29.395-04:00'Getting to Work' on Facebook<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7dK35O8Iig0tIV1y7NdTdJlsfa_Gz6KZTh_5tjrV2IBSxQ4Zn37ATavf6bsM1rZCY0aDDGan04ePFk9oTVwK-E7HuthdurozHnf76hQiOqA2-LyghjwUd5zb7eLtPEgoC5XmG3b-_rTbI/s1600-h/kermit_get_to_work.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 194px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7dK35O8Iig0tIV1y7NdTdJlsfa_Gz6KZTh_5tjrV2IBSxQ4Zn37ATavf6bsM1rZCY0aDDGan04ePFk9oTVwK-E7HuthdurozHnf76hQiOqA2-LyghjwUd5zb7eLtPEgoC5XmG3b-_rTbI/s200/kermit_get_to_work.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5322068111757090578" border="0" /></a>I've decided to take a (small) break from my anti-social media rhetoric and tout some of the more positive aspects of social networking. In this tough economy, a new Facebook group has come together to provide some much needed shelter from the financial storm. <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=137042490575">Getting to Work</a> is uniting the collective expertise of freelance, independent contractors, underemployed and unemployed New Yorkers. Through pro bono projects with non-profits, Getting to Work members are attempting to give back to their community while also building professional experience that will hopefully lead to full time employment.<br /><div><br />Just goes to show that social networks can be more than an utter waste of time. They can also sometimes (albeit rarely) be a great tool to help empower people to make a difference in their community as well as in their professional lives. The group, which was founded by fellow <a href="http://www.ce.columbia.edu/masters/?PID=2">Strat Commer</a>, <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=37775162&goback=.vpf_17235593_1_nPMI_name_Kim_Warner">Cheryl Metzger</a>, is currently working with several non-profits including a new organization using classical music to promote international dialogue.<br /><br />If you have an organization that is in need of some pro-bono communications consultancy from Columbia students or if you are interested in participating, <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=137042490575">sign up</a> today. You'll be glad you did.<br /></div>Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-37531272588946178752009-04-01T12:59:00.004-04:002009-04-02T23:04:24.462-04:00Facebook Slackers<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.lushtshirts.co.uk/images/products/facebook-fun.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 351px; height: 313px;" src="http://www.lushtshirts.co.uk/images/products/facebook-fun.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a> <span style="font-size:100%;">At work today I had to post a job opening online. In the description I was tempted to write "Candidate must be motivated, able to work independently and not be on Facebook all day!" I didn't write this but nowadays I think it's neccessary to mention to all new employees. In my experience it seems like most people, particularly those under that age of 25, find it acceptable to be slacking on the job as long as they're using this time to update their Facebook status. The last three interns we had were literally on Facebook every time I passed by their computer.<br /><br /></span><div class="mxb">Could this unacceptable work attitude be the result of reinforced behavior by schools and universities?<br /></div> <!-- S BO --> <!-- S IIMA --><!-- E IIMA --> <!-- S SF --><p class="first"> <span style="font-size:100%;">According to the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7976107.stm">BBC</a>, </span><span style="font-size:100%;">Bournemouth University</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> students are complaining they cannot get enough work done because fellow students are hogging computers to use Facebook and Twitter.</span> But get this, according to the article, university officials say social networking sites are also sometimes used for legitimate academic reasons and they are therefore unable to block the sites. </p> <!-- E SF --> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">"I come into university at 0900 to work on my dissertation thinking I've beaten the crowd to the computers, and I still can't get on them because people are on Facebook," said </span><span style="font-size:100%;">Miguel Dias.<br /></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">In my opinion, sites like Facebook and Twitter, should be blocked on all school and work computers. But unfortunately, the reality is that Facebook is often used as a means of sharing course-related material. I've actually been forced to use it on occassion for work-related assigments.</span></p><p>And don't get me wrong. I do my fair share of internet cruising while at work. A <a href="http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2009/04/reuters_us_work_internet_tech_life">new study</a> by the University of Melbourne even confirmed people who use the Internet for personal reasons at work are about 9 percent more productive that those who do not. All I'm saying is that people should show some discretion and self-control while on the job, at school or in a public area where demand for computers is high. Be respectful!<br /></p><p><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></p><p class="first"> </p>Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-1573811218461718652009-04-01T12:56:00.005-04:002009-04-02T22:25:05.725-04:00PhD in FacebookI have to come clean. This blog is actually an assignment for my <a href="http://www.ce.columbia.edu/masters/courses.cfm?PID=2&Content=Descriptions#392">digital communications</a> class and I need 42 posts before the end of the semester in order to earn an A. Although I find posting three times a week a bit tedious, I do see the value in being able to navigate and contribute to the blogosphere. Plus I get a real kick out of coming up first on a "social network reject" <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=%22social+network+reject%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=pmY&start=0&sa=N">Google search</a> (not like anyone is actually searching for that).<br /><br />But this class is one of many that I need in order to earn a well-rounded Master's degree in <a href="http://www.ce.columbia.edu/masters/?PID=2">Strategic Communications</a>. And although I'm enjoying the class very much, I think one semester is more than enough time to navigate the world of social and online media. But those at Birmingham City University seem to disagree. They have begun an entire <a href="http://www.bcu.ac.uk/courses/media/socialmedia">Master's program</a> in social media.<br /><br />According to <a href="http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?/article/want_a_masters_degree_in_facebook_or_twitter_0331200900122/">College News</a>, the British university’s one-year program will teach students how to set up blogs, publish podcasts and build up their social network using Facebook, Twitter and Bebo. All of which are so basic, they could be self-taught.<br /><p>Jon Hickman is the genius who created this program and the man trying to milk students for a year's worth of tuition. And not surprisingly he's gotten some negative feedback: “We’ve had one below for more info on this idiotic program.<br /></p><p>For some reason this reminds me a lot of the Lil Kim course taught at Syracuse University. Sounded like a lot of fun but if you're paying $2000/credit do you really want to waste it analyzing the lyrics to Queen Bitch? Or in this case, learning the best techniques on how to fill out a "<a href="http://socialnetworkreject.blogspot.com/2009/02/chain-letter-20.html">25 Random Things You Didn't Know About Me</a>" list?</p><p><object height="300" width="400"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=3664385&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1"><embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=3664385&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="300" width="400"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://vimeo.com/3664385">Jon Hickman: MA in Social Media</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/kasperbs">Kasper Sorensen</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.<br /></p>Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-45224382048094965512009-03-31T20:14:00.010-04:002009-04-02T18:44:12.183-04:00Facebook Movie??<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje5mgEYlMJatQMf7JCMIQwCcgpONp7zQ9kirtPhpoulLmWFMD9WkroCirecw056n7UZl0j0tJl1F94rWLvpNsFhqvsbaQKv4IRAEMGHeJX4KYGD5kwoxfNqIAm6gwsb8WeCFRFQBYBgRqm/s1600-h/mc_4a_54-cera.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 154px; height: 161px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje5mgEYlMJatQMf7JCMIQwCcgpONp7zQ9kirtPhpoulLmWFMD9WkroCirecw056n7UZl0j0tJl1F94rWLvpNsFhqvsbaQKv4IRAEMGHeJX4KYGD5kwoxfNqIAm6gwsb8WeCFRFQBYBgRqm/s320/mc_4a_54-cera.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5319525295694917186" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.wired.com/images/article/magazine/1510/ff_facebook2_580.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 127px; height: 163px;" src="http://www.wired.com/images/article/magazine/1510/ff_facebook2_580.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><img src="file:///Users/millanna/Desktop/mc_4a_54-cera.jpg" alt="" /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Okay so this is the first I'm hearing of the Facebook movie. What the f*ck??? At first I thought it was a joke but apparently it's all too real and I'm just waaaayyyy behind.<br /><br />In fact, it's already been acquired by Sony Pictures Entertainment with Scott Rubin as producer. According to his<a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33807262256"> Facebook</a> page, West Wing creator <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0815070/">Aaron Sorkin</a> has confirmed his involvement in the project:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I've just agreed to write a movie for Sony and producer Scott Rudin about how Facebook was invented. I figured a good first step in my preparation would be finding out what Facebook is, so I've started this page. (Actually it was started by my researcher, Ian Reichbach, because my grandmother has more Internet savvy than I do and she's been dead for 33 years.)</span><br /><br />Apparently Facebook has no involvement and is being very tight-lipped about the matter even going as far as <a href="http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/siliconalley/big-tech/facebook_warns_ex_employees_not_to_talk_to_moviemakers_2009_3.html">warning</a> employees not to talk to Sorkin. This may be because Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg (pictured above right), will more than likely not be portrayed in the best light.<br /><br />According to <a href="http://valleywag.gawker.com/5043469/facebook-movie-to-be-based-on-ben-mezrichs-controversial-tell+all">Gawker</a>, the movie is to be based on Ben Mezrich's soon to be released memoir about how Facebook was founded. In the book's proposal Mezrich claims that Zuckerberg created the social network site <a href="http://gawker.com/392575/tell+all-book-zuckerberg-set-up-facebook-to-get-laid">to get laid</a>. But isn't that common knowledge?<br /><br />Here are more plot details from <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10028915-36.html">CNET</a>:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">With a working title of </span><i style="font-style: italic;">Face Off</i><span style="font-style: italic;">, the plot concerns Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's soured relationship with early Facebook executive Eduardo Saverin, who appears to have been in close contact with Mezrich for the book, while they were both undergraduates at Harvard. The proposal described Zuckerberg and Saverin getting caught up in Silicon Valley excess, partying like celebrities all over the world, until a showdown between them turned ugly.</span><br /><br />As much as I hate Facebook, I will have to see this train wreck. How are they going to make a dramatic movie about two anti-social nerds at Harvard? For some reason I keep thinking of the episode of Family Matters where Urkel drinks "Cool Juice" and turns into <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuILDBM8YJQ">Stefan Urquelle</a>. Except money would be the "Cool Juice" in this metaphor.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/gallery_Napoleon_Dynamite_1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 165px; height: 171px;" src="http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/gallery_Napoleon_Dynamite_1.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />As far as cast goes, the blogosphere is postulating that Jason Cera (pictured above left) would be a natural fit. I'm gonna go with Jon Heder aka Napoleon Dynamite. He wouldn't even need to change character! And it's not like there would even need to be a love interest....just a bottle of lotion and some tissues.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-15842133704414374872009-03-29T23:26:00.001-04:002009-03-29T23:27:58.461-04:00The New Facebook Blows!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBnRerFb1mwZkKWo_oHqQ4kw5l2bol_4SyEA8zCmf50VEXeTty1FSfSo7bkXLQHdWZAC0L684FmENbG6PiMoo0jo9V3pKcQmYm5StkmCln05vMJ-Myqm78LSEkW2v30cIQE0B0v91x61Ci/s1600-h/Picture+1.png"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 436px; height: 220px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBnRerFb1mwZkKWo_oHqQ4kw5l2bol_4SyEA8zCmf50VEXeTty1FSfSo7bkXLQHdWZAC0L684FmENbG6PiMoo0jo9V3pKcQmYm5StkmCln05vMJ-Myqm78LSEkW2v30cIQE0B0v91x61Ci/s400/Picture+1.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5318811009447185506" border="0" /></a><div> A few weeks ago I heard my boyfriend shout from the office: "What the fuck is this??!" And so begins Facebook's third and final blunder before users pack up their photos and move on.<br /><br />In an effort to compete with Twitter, Facebook redesigned its homepage by putting a greater emphasis on status updates. And as I'm sure everyone's heard by now, users have been very vocal about how much they HATE it (see below).<br /><br />Placating their annoyed audience, Facebook is allowing users to <a href="http://apps.facebook.com/layoutvote/">vote</a> on the new layout- only AFTER launching it on March 11. As of today, the voting is overwhelmingly conclusive- 94% of the over 1.7M voters dislike the new layout.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNnc-NggNSFscab7nECx6TZb_kUKAqRiUVxLzGqHNh1JHVxO-uHJ2Pp-_Ons2SupfaG7-EIRMl4H4h2dlKf4R8QB-JqSmRbaqMquVVoo6RD6AlYtXpauK7roWuNJHX2Iwnvsi0R6yrvugJ/s1600-h/Picture+2.png"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 452px; height: 265px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNnc-NggNSFscab7nECx6TZb_kUKAqRiUVxLzGqHNh1JHVxO-uHJ2Pp-_Ons2SupfaG7-EIRMl4H4h2dlKf4R8QB-JqSmRbaqMquVVoo6RD6AlYtXpauK7roWuNJHX2Iwnvsi0R6yrvugJ/s400/Picture+2.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5318812153668461410" border="0" /></a>I think it's great that Facebook is joining the conversation albeit a little late. But according to a post last week on <a href="http://gawker.com/5177341/the-roots-of-facebooks-redesign-crisis">Valleywag</a>, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg sent an email to his staff reacting to the layout criticism. Supposedly the email said something to the effect that 'the most disruptive companies don't listen to their customers.'<br /><br />Didn't Marky Mark learn his lesson last month? Reacting to a groundswell of negativity over <a href="http://socialnetworkreject.blogspot.com/2009/02/facebook-revolt.html">Facebook's terms of service</a>, Zuckerberg stuck his tail between his legs and reverted back to the original terms of service and even initiated a Facebook Bill of Rights. And now he's saying that listening to his customers complaints about the redesign would be a stupid move? Is this guy schizo? Three strikes and you're out buddy....<br /></div><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4X8UyTZd_o0&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4X8UyTZd_o0&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></embed></object>Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2717760802937763355.post-58286308393853664972009-03-27T15:19:00.007-04:002009-05-23T19:47:22.817-04:00Facebook Photo Stalker<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.morethings.com/fan/bewitched/bewitched102-205.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 493px; height: 328px;" src="http://www.morethings.com/fan/bewitched/bewitched102-205.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>I've said it before and I'll say it again- a picture tells a thousand words. And nothing can be more true than on Facebook. Being able to get a glimpse into an old friend or frenemy's life without any actual interaction provides a thrill like no other. Maybe it's the voyeur in me but this is actually the ill-fated reason I joined Facebook in the first place.<br /><br />Learning that Michelle- the girl from high school who had cheetos stuck in her braces everyday after lunch- was married with twins was surreal. Seeing that Julie married someone other than her high school sweetheart and that Melissa was her maid of honor (I can't believe they're still friends!) was astonishing. A photo of John with his new husband helped explain a lot. But in order to see anything more than a profile pic, you actually have to "friend" these people- something my ego would never allow me to do.<br /><br />My sister has no problem with this concept and is constantly friending people she hated in high school just so she can gain access to their inner sanctum and scrutinize their most precious memories displayed for all their "friends" to see. My boyfriend is on the opposite end of the spectrum where he doesn't care enough to look at other people's photos.<br /><br />Well neither of these two options satisfied my morbid curiosity. That is until now. Facebook recently launched <a href="http://apps.facebook.com/josh_owns">Photo Stalker</a>, a new application that allows you to see the photos of users who have left their photo album security on the default setting of "everyone." Most people unknowingly leave their photos open to "everyone" assuming that everyone means all their friends when in fact in means the entire Facebook population. The Photo Stalker software is the only way to pull up photos that are posted to "everyone."<br /><br />Apparently there are a lot of prideful Voyeurs out there. So far Photo Stalker has attracted about 2,000 users since it was introduced in February.<br /><br />To access photos of people not on your "friend" list, all you need to do is enter their name, Facebook ID # or url into the application and bam- you're in! Now I can see pics of my 4th grade ex-best friend's husband or my college ex-boyfriend's wife. The entertainment is endless! And each picture will cause me to feel increasingly nauseous as I compare my life and achievements to that of people I haven't seen or spoken to in years. But isn't the the sadomasocistic point of Facebook?<br /></div><div> </div>Anna Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17272501959836871803noreply@blogger.com4