I Think I'm In Love...Part III

Here is the third and final installment of my interview with Paul La Monica, editor at large for CNNMoney.com and author of the brilliant article "Why I Hate Facebook." In this section we get into the nitty gritty of Facebook's ify future. Enjoy!

Me: Someone once said to me that Facebook isn't for anyone born in 1978 or before. Being that I was born that year, I tend to concur. Do you agree that these sites are in some ways generational? And now that more and more parents are joining Facebook, is it just a matter of time before kids find a new trend? Do you foresee any viable alternatives?

PL: To a certain extent, social networking sites are general in the sense that for many younger people, they won't know a word without Facebook, Twitter, etc. However, I don't think the generational gap is that much of a hindrance. My brother was also born in 1978. I'm older than him. So is my wife. And most of my friends that are on Facebook were all born in the late 1960s to early-mid 1970s.

But you raise a great point about parents joining Facebook. I do fear that from a business perspective, the challenge social networking sites will face is staying relevant. I do think that there is a certain degree of fickleness and that there probably is a site right now that's just getting started that will become the hot new site for younger Web users in 2010...which means it will become the media darling of 2011.

Me: Your article mentions Google's monetizing capabilities. Can the same be said of orkut- their venture into the social networking world? In your opinion, has any social network site come close to finding a solution to the monetary issue?

PL: Google has not really made that much money off of orkut. And even YouTube, which you can argue is much about social networking and user-generated content as it is video from "traditional" media companies, is not generating major profits yet for Google. MySpace has been somewhat of a success for News Corp., partly due to the ad agreement it has with Google. But it still seems that social networks are still searching for the way to justify the massive amounts of hype, not to mention venture capital money plowed into them.

Me: Do you think people would ever be willing to pay for a social networking subscription?

PL: It's possible. And it may not have to charge a big fee in order to generate meaningful revenue. The problem though is that if Facebook, for example, started to charge a subscription, you'd immediately have a flood of new companies cropping up offering free services that would try to steal away users.

Just to make my point clear, my reasons for "hating" Facebook, and the reasons I wrote the column, were to simply point out two things. For me personally, I don't want to spend the time updating a social network page...mainly because I don't see a need to share so much information with others. But more importantly, I still don't see how Facebook can get from being a cool, extremely hyped company to one that actually can generate enough revenue and profits to survive for the long-term. I don't have any horror stories about or axes to grind against Facebook or any other social networking sites.


A big shout out to Mr. La Monica for taking the time to speak with me and for sharing his insights with us Social Network Rejects. Thank you!

I Think I'm In Love...Part II

My interview with Paul La Monica, editor at large for CNNMoney.com, continues as we discuss the Good and Bad of Facebook:

Me: As a journalist, do you see any ways in which Facebook could be beneficial in tracking a leed or gathering information?

PL: Yes. Despite my professed dislike of the site, I am not naïve enough to think that it doesn't have a good use for many other people. And anything that attracts as many users as Facebook does could be something that is helpful to reporters to gather information. Many media companies, CNN included, are using Facebook and other social networking sites like Twitter to quickly gather information and get a sense from readers/listeners/viewers about what they think about topics in the news. This is good. One of the best things about "new media" is the instantaneous feedback.

Me: You may have heard about the controversy a few weeks ago surrounding the change to Facebook's terms of service- a change that gave Facebook ownership of anything uploaded to their site- even after you canceled your account. After an online revolt (similar to the Beacon insurgency), Zuckerberg was forced to reverse the policy. What do you think was behind this policy change? How would owning pictures of Tiffany wasted at Halloween help Facebook make money?

PL: I honestly don't think Facebook was trying to become some sort of Orwellian Big Brother figure. But I do think that the company was trying to prove to advertisers that it has this valuable database of information, even if it involves former members. I understand why the company quickly switched gears. The backlash was fast and, dare I say it, furious. But the controversy just further underscores in my mind why it may be difficult for Facebook to ever be a viable business. Users don't view Facebook as a profit-making entity. They see it as a cool site that has the best technology and interface to allow them to share information easily with their friends, family, etc. Anytime Facebook makes an overt move to try and "monetize" the users, they could run into privacy concerns.

Stay tuned to the third and final segment of my interview with Mr. La Monica in which we discuss the future of Facebook...

I Think I'm In Love...

...and his name is Paul R. La Monica, CNNMoney.com editor at large.

In a recent article entitled "Why I Hate Facebook," La Monica indulges us in good dose of anti-Facebook rhetoric. Here is one of my favorite lines from the article:

My brother recently harassed me over the phone about why I wasn't on Facebook. My response was, "You want my status update? I'm about to hang up on you."

Sigh...a man after my own heart. Besides from an all too brief anti-Facebook rant, Mr. La Monica puts his money where his mouth is and legitimizes his claim that “Facebook or any social network can never truly be a major generator of ad revenue.”

I recently had the pleasure of speaking with Mr. La Monica further during an in-depth interview. Enjoy Part 1!

Me: As much as I proclaim to be an anti-Facebook advocate, I still couldn't resist the temptation to try it out. I quickly confirmed my suspicions and canceled my account after realizing it wasn't for me. But I needed that proof. As a tech savvy guy with a wife and brother on Facebook, how have you managed to avoid succumbing to the peer pressure and curiosity?

PL: Truth be told, my wife will show me things on her Facebook page that I'd find interesting, such as photos/videos of our friends' kids and messages from my brother. But I'm happy to let it all go through her. I still don't feel the need to set up my own page.

Me: The fact that my boyfriend needs to check Facebook on his iPhone every 2 seconds is grounds for a break-up. Do you and your wife's differing views on the subject ever result in an argument or tension?

PL: Ha! That is an amusing question. We haven't had any arguments about Facebook per se. Sometimes I have to nudge her on a Saturday morning to stop playing Lexulous when I want to do more practical stuff like go grocery shopping. But honestly, it's not a big issue. Plus, I'm sure I wind up wasting enough time on the computer looking at "important" things like checking out fantasy baseball stats and scouring for Lost spoilers. So it would be hypocritical for me to be too concerned about her time on Facebook.

Me: Have you had experiences with any other social networking sites like Friendster, MySpace, Twitter, etc? Good? Bad? Indifferent?

PL: The only social networking site I am a member of LinkedIn. And even there, I rarely use it. I don't think I've ever invited someone to my network. I simply respond when people invite me. But I haven't had any bad experiences with social networking sites per se. In fact, I enjoy checking out MySpace for music recommendations. My brother has a band so I visit his page frequently. All that said, I see no need to set up my own page.


In Part II we get into the bad AND the good of Facebook...to be posted shortly...

Suicide Note 2.0

Ok- sorry for the flip headline, but this is actually really sad. Sexy model/actor, Paul Zolezzi, committed suicide on Friday in Mount Prospect Park, Brooklyn. Police found his body hanging from the monkey bars of the playground in the early morning hours. Apparently Zolezzi, 30, left what appears to be a suicide note by way of Facebook status update:

"born in San Francisco, became a shooting star over everywhere, and ended his life in Brooklyn . . . And couldn't have asked for more."

Zolezzi had been struggling with a heroin addiction and a lack of stardom. When Zolezzi was 8, his father threw himself off the Golden Gate Bridge, his mother told the NY Post yesterday. So tragic.

Zolezzi's other updates suggest that he wasn't happy and looking for an escape:

"Paul is wondering, what unspeakable act did I do in a previous life to deserve this one?"

"Paul is going to be the first person ever to hang himself on the way out of Portland! Everything here sucks!"

RIP Paul.

Social Networking Causes Cancer

Just another reason to cancel your Facebook and MySpace accounts.

According to psychologist Dr. Aric Sigman (see totally creepy pic to the left), spending too much time on social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace and less time interacting face to face might leave you with a greater risk of developing serious health issues like cancer and dementia. (And no I didn't pay him to say that!)

According to Sigman, increased isolation results in a decrease of the "cuddle chemical" known as oxytocin. Oxytocin has been
found to prevent heart disease and may explain the relationship between social contact and reduced cardiovascular disease.

Although I love what Sigman is spewing, I think that the press may have picked up this story and ran with it. Sigman's homepage is notes the following:

NOTE: This paper has been misrepresented by many news reports as claiming that social networking causes cancer or disease. This is not true. The paper addresses the extent to which time online may be displacing face-to-face contact, and that lack of social connection is associated with physiological changes, increased incidence of illness and higher premature mortality.

Hmm....it seems as if the press may have the same agenda as me....