Posted on 09/27/2011 12:51:47 PM PDT by Kaslin
By Michael van der Galien
Facebook is supposed to be one of the most innovative social networking websites on the Net. It is, at the very least, the biggest — by far.
But for how long will Mark Zuckerberg’s Harvard project remain number one? It’s a fair question to ask now that the changes Facebook announced Thursday at its f8 conference are being criticized by virtually everybody — except for Zuckerberg himself, that is.
When Google+, the new social network of Google, was launched, many were critical. The criticism disappeared at the very moment people starting using it, however: all its new users fell in love with it immediately. This wasn’t just a “social network,” it was truly a new home on the Internet, especially for those who had grown tired of Facebook’s clutter and arrogance.
Facebook knew it had to strike back. First came video chat, which is a partnership with Skype. Then, this week, other innovations were rolled out: the biggest changes were a new news stream and the possibility to subscribe to users’ public posts. Then, Thursday, other changes were introduced that, Zuckerberg announced, would truly revolutionize your Internet experience.
But are these changes in the best interest of Facebook’s 800 million users? No. Not even almost.
8. The News Stream: Forcing Non-News Down Your Throat
Facebook changed the news stream to supposedly make it more interesting. You now see the most important and interesting posts first. The idea is wonderful. After all, it’s a bit time-consuming to go through all the updates from your friends — this especially goes for those of us who have hundreds or even thousands of them.
Sadly, however, the algorithm used by Facebook is anything but effective. Users immediately complained (link to Dutch website) that the recommended posts weren’t interesting at all. The nice thing about algorithms is that they can be more efficient than curation by humans. The bad thing is that they can be absolutely horrendous when they aren’t perfect. Facebook can do many things well, but curation isn’t one of them.
What’s more, even if the algorithm worked perfectly, social media users want to be the ones to decide what they will and won’t read. As one angry user put it:
I don’t like the way they decide for me what’s important or interesting, I’m the only one that can make these decisions. I want to decide if I want to see all, most or important updates of friends, which is set by default on “most.” What are the criteria to declare something a top story? Yesterday a story of a Serbian friend (in Serbian, with Serbian comments) was declared a top story. I can’t read that, does FB translate everything that is posted?
It’s rather ironic, but Facebook doesn’t quite get the meaning of social. Users want to be in charge; they want to choose how and what they share — and what they read. Facebook’s new news stream makes that more, not less, difficult.
7) The Subscribe Button Is Anti-Facebook
Facebook’s new subscribe button lets you subscribe to a person’s public posts, even if you aren’t his friend. The thinking behind this new feature is undoubtedly that this is what Twitter and Google+ are doing, that it’s a much appreciated feature there, and that, therefore, Facebook’s users will also love it.
It’s once again proof that Zuckerberg doesn’t know what his own website is all about. Ask yourself these questions: What do users expect from Facebook? Why do they log in? To read what people they don’t know have to say, or to catch up with friends and family members? The answer, of course, is the latter. If they want to enable non-friends (or: outsiders) to read their updates, they’ll post to Twitter or Google+.
Facebook wants to change that, however. If you activate the subscribe button, those who don’t know you can read your public messages. Although this feature isn’t shoved down your throat — you can choose not to allow it — Facebook obviously encourages it.
Additionally, many users worry that those who do activate this feature will start using Facebook like a second Twitter: quick, short updates that are meant to market and promote themselves (or their products), rather than personal messages aimed at their real-life friends. Of course you can simply defriend such people, but that isn’t what you want to do. After all, you came to Facebook to connect to them. That’s why you are spending hours a week talking to them, reading their status updates, and looking at their photos.
He is a self-professed atheist as well. Tool of the devil. I can’t imagine Google+ is any better. Satan is getting good at recruiting geniuses for his evil causes.
you really cannot close your fb account. I deleted everything on my account and closed it. When I came back FB and signed in it chirpily asked me whether I wanted everything back that I had deleted.
It takes FB at least two weeks to delete your account.
After you delete it, DO NOT log in again for several weeks.
BFL
It's worse than that. They're using facial recognition software to assist with the photo tagging process. So, if your photo shows up on somebody else's facebook page, voila, they cross-reference with the facial recognition software.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.