Facebook is Getting Old(dailydot.com)
dailydot.com
Facebook is Getting Old
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/facebook-older-trend-twitter-tumblr/
20 comments
As the Kevin in question I would like to point out this article was written by someone who is very much not me.
Apparently the article in question was written by a fellow named Tim Sampson.
http://www.dailydot.com/authors/tim-sampson/
http://www.dailydot.com/authors/tim-sampson/
The PRISM/NSA blowout was the last straw to break this camel's back. I've been growing dissatisfied with the constant urge to check Facebook/Twitter/G+ all the time, I've also been irked by how my very personal information, posts, and communications were being used to make money for Facebook.
There were many things I've said to people through Facebook that I actually wouldn't like to have data-mined (no matter who's doing it, Facebook, AdAgencyX, or the NSA).
While my Google searches, email, and other "free" services are still used in a similar capacity - I'm also working to switch off of those.
Leaving Facebook has been the best thing I've done so far. I feel lighter and less heavy with the urge to check it ALL the time.
There were many things I've said to people through Facebook that I actually wouldn't like to have data-mined (no matter who's doing it, Facebook, AdAgencyX, or the NSA).
While my Google searches, email, and other "free" services are still used in a similar capacity - I'm also working to switch off of those.
Leaving Facebook has been the best thing I've done so far. I feel lighter and less heavy with the urge to check it ALL the time.
I feel the same way - lighter, unencumbered. I left Facebook almost a year ago and haven't been back. My main reason was privacy concerns, but I also felt empty after checking it many times a day. It was a great decision, and more people in my social circle have left since.
I think this is a bit misleading. We're drawing the conclusion from age based metrics that if a lot of young people use a service, relative to older adults, it must be "hip" or "new."
Consider Disney.com. Nothing new or hip about it. I'd bet >80% of the users are under 30.
I think this is a fairly incorrect assumption, and it feels like it's being used to justify an opinion about Facebook here by undermining how "cool" and "hip" it is.
Just come out and say what you want to say. Facebook sucks, and there's definitely nothing new about it anymore. I'll do you a favor and not try to trick you into agreeing with my opinion by making misleading correlations between it and objective data. If you disagree with me, awesome, you've found something of value in Facebook. That's great for you. I hate it. We're different! :)
Consider Disney.com. Nothing new or hip about it. I'd bet >80% of the users are under 30.
I think this is a fairly incorrect assumption, and it feels like it's being used to justify an opinion about Facebook here by undermining how "cool" and "hip" it is.
Just come out and say what you want to say. Facebook sucks, and there's definitely nothing new about it anymore. I'll do you a favor and not try to trick you into agreeing with my opinion by making misleading correlations between it and objective data. If you disagree with me, awesome, you've found something of value in Facebook. That's great for you. I hate it. We're different! :)
The main difference between, say, Disney and Facebook is that the former is engrained in culture from a very young age, whereas the latter officially is targeting those aged 13 and upwards.
Four year old children aren't signing up for Facebook accounts - they are, however, watching Disney on TV. Because the core Disney brand (versus the Disney conglomerate) is so heavily focused around childhood it engenders goodwill across most ages. People in their twenties and thirties respond to Disney because it reminds them of their own childhoods.
But Facebook doesn't have this luxury. Tweens and teenagers are typically brand sensitive, and coolness does matter. Your brand can be old (Nike, Apple, Adidas, etc), but it must have credibility with its target audience.
What I'm trying to say is that Disney doesn't need to be cool, because the brand is indoctrinated at an age where coolness doesn't matter. Facebook, on the other hand, targets brand and culture-aware tweens/teens. It's all about cool.
Four year old children aren't signing up for Facebook accounts - they are, however, watching Disney on TV. Because the core Disney brand (versus the Disney conglomerate) is so heavily focused around childhood it engenders goodwill across most ages. People in their twenties and thirties respond to Disney because it reminds them of their own childhoods.
But Facebook doesn't have this luxury. Tweens and teenagers are typically brand sensitive, and coolness does matter. Your brand can be old (Nike, Apple, Adidas, etc), but it must have credibility with its target audience.
What I'm trying to say is that Disney doesn't need to be cool, because the brand is indoctrinated at an age where coolness doesn't matter. Facebook, on the other hand, targets brand and culture-aware tweens/teens. It's all about cool.
I think cool and hip is 16-25 year olds, not 10 year olds.
Potentially. So we agree there's nothing hip about Disney.com? I was trying to provide a counter example to the general thesis of the article.
The reason it really doesn't hold at all, in general, is because many websites (and particularly their contents, not necessarily the sites themselves) cater to different interests, and it's really not a surprise that people in different age groups have different interests. It's also certainly not surprising that Reddit caters to the interests of younger people more than Facebook does.
The reason it really doesn't hold at all, in general, is because many websites (and particularly their contents, not necessarily the sites themselves) cater to different interests, and it's really not a surprise that people in different age groups have different interests. It's also certainly not surprising that Reddit caters to the interests of younger people more than Facebook does.
I think the point is that younger people tend to be early adopters of a new platform. It's probably easier to get middle aged people to start using a platform popular with 20somethings than the other way around.
So if one wanted to create something to rival facebook, create a place that suits the needs of the younger generation better than facebook does, the rest will eventually follow.
Even reddit seems to have a healthy following amongst "older" people.
So if one wanted to create something to rival facebook, create a place that suits the needs of the younger generation better than facebook does, the rest will eventually follow.
Even reddit seems to have a healthy following amongst "older" people.
Teens are still using Facebook. It's become a utility to stay in contact. It might be 'cool' to say you're not using it, but the reality (read: data) shows that they use it more than ever.
Hmm. The more interesting point is that nearly half of the Hacker News community is under 24.
I don't think that is correct. I'm not even sure how they would go about determining that since hacker news profiles do not include age information and the site does not use any form of analytics.
According to the latest poll, most people are between 21 and 35. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5536734
According to the latest poll, most people are between 21 and 35. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5536734
I'm surprised to see how young deviantART users are considering the quality of its content. Since 2006, this site has been my goto location for anything graphic-related: drawings, web designs, pictures, Photoshop brushes and actions... Maybe 0-24 years old is the period when you're the most creative?
About Facebook: it's a website where you build your network, especially with family and close friends. Although I don't visit it anymore, I know my friends and family use it solely to follow each other's lives ('What have you been up to?'), while sharing theirs as well. It's not a one-time visit. You follow the evolution of your relations' lives, especially the major events of a lifetime: marriage and children. Facebook is the network where people go to develop and share their real identity (whether it's a good decision or not). The more you use it, the more you feel connected to it (and compelled to make a contribution). That's why most Facebook users who joined it at the age of 25-35 are now in their mid-life, because Facebook is the only online network they're part of.
About Facebook: it's a website where you build your network, especially with family and close friends. Although I don't visit it anymore, I know my friends and family use it solely to follow each other's lives ('What have you been up to?'), while sharing theirs as well. It's not a one-time visit. You follow the evolution of your relations' lives, especially the major events of a lifetime: marriage and children. Facebook is the network where people go to develop and share their real identity (whether it's a good decision or not). The more you use it, the more you feel connected to it (and compelled to make a contribution). That's why most Facebook users who joined it at the age of 25-35 are now in their mid-life, because Facebook is the only online network they're part of.
That's just counting signups. Not necessarily who the active/popular users are. There's a lot of spam,junk and stolen work on deviantart, the site just makes efforts to showcase the good stuff.
If you weighted it based on artist popularity you might get a different picture.
If you weighted it based on artist popularity you might get a different picture.
Their "real" identity, or their "Christmas-card" identity?
Another possibility is that people ages 0-24 haven't realized they can and/or need to get paid for being creative.
While I agree that it's old now, and not as trendy as other things, Facebook has become so widely used that being old isn't an issue. For me it's become a social tool, just like email has become a communications tool. It's not going away, nor do I need it to be replaced by something trendy.
The Problem with Facebook right now, at least for me is that it is getting very boring. Nothing seems happens on it. Only very few posts appear and I think it is because they only show you your "closest friends" or people you have stalked etc or I don't know what parameters they use. Even if I sort by "more recent" only very few posts appear. I have over 950 friends. I used to wake up in the morning and login into facebook just to see what my FB friends did over the night or what happened with my friends in other continents. Now it takes me 5 minutes to be up to date. Besides, everytime I login I have to read again the same old posts (Even from the they day before). I don't know why facebook judges that I have too see that same post again and again everytime I login. WTF Facebook.
Click on Sort->Most Recent;
Top right corner of newsfeed.
What's the point of this article? Sometimes it isn't about being cool, it's about being really useful to a ton of people. Driving a car isn't "hip" or "cool" (unless you're driving a Tesla) but it sure as hell eases the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
Facebook's mission isn't to be a "cool hangout" place, it's to make the world more open and connected. If they developed their product in such a way that it was only used by younger folk then they'd be excluding 75% of the population which is not connecting the world.
I'm really sick of these articles.
Facebook's mission isn't to be a "cool hangout" place, it's to make the world more open and connected. If they developed their product in such a way that it was only used by younger folk then they'd be excluding 75% of the population which is not connecting the world.
I'm really sick of these articles.
The point is that Facebook originally gained it's popularity because it was a "cool hangout". Like the author, I was in college when Facebook first came out. Being restricted to college kids, it wasn't about "being really useful to a ton of people". They developed their product in exactly the way you say they shouldn't.
Of course, that was a long time ago, so this article is obviously far too late. That all changed the day they allowed non-college-students in.
Of course, that was a long time ago, so this article is obviously far too late. That all changed the day they allowed non-college-students in.
I don't think anybody would have heard of them today if they hadn't developed their product that way.
That's exactly the point - sometimes it is about being cool and not about being really useful to a ton of people, evidenced by Facebook's early days.
Reminds me of that old saying, "Every empire carries within it the seeds of its own destruction."
People usually refer to network effects as positive, but eventually it becomes negative. Facebook, Eternal September, etc.
People usually refer to network effects as positive, but eventually it becomes negative. Facebook, Eternal September, etc.
I think mixing of people from different social circle is going to happen to any social network which aims to be the default communication tool for the whole of earth. What I am pissed off more about Facebook is the loads of advertisements which keep showing up in my feed. That I find to be unacceptable. There have got to be other business models.
I think there is something to the idea of generational mixing on Facebook causing a loss of value. A friend today posted a picture of a cat with its tail in the air where the "view" looked like Jesus. His mother then promptly commented how not funny it was. Facebook with your parents on it is a different world than it used to be.
Most people I know wouldn't add their parents or older relatives. Personally I've only added a few family members (mostly so I can use Facebook Messages with them), added them to a list, and only explicitly publish to that list. Most of my content is published to friends except family.
Ive used facebook about 6 months after launch...and in the beginning it was an cool...but now its boring. Its like there was a party and all the cool people went home, and the only people still around are old people, families, and marketers...and the weird kid from high school
>the only people still around are old people, families, and marketers...and the weird kid from high school //
Which one are you? ;0)
Which one are you? ;0)
Wrong title. Facebook IS old. For a lot of us. Teens are still on there heavily, but the transition to mobile is bigger than ever. Teens are heavily on mobile, rarely on a browser.
FB is also full of maybe 200M+ fake accounts (if we're saying 1.1B total) - I created a few accounts for testing purposes, research, etc. and added well over 100 users per account = 99% fake.
What's strange is how FB is still the premier social network when the life cycle of these things is usually shorter... They have a big user base so that helps, but something is just around the corner. They'll still be around, but teens, kids, etc. will transition. Such as the state of the Internets
FB is also full of maybe 200M+ fake accounts (if we're saying 1.1B total) - I created a few accounts for testing purposes, research, etc. and added well over 100 users per account = 99% fake.
What's strange is how FB is still the premier social network when the life cycle of these things is usually shorter... They have a big user base so that helps, but something is just around the corner. They'll still be around, but teens, kids, etc. will transition. Such as the state of the Internets
>> "FB is also full of maybe 200M+ fake accounts"
Source?
Source?
Official source: FB's SEC Form 10-Q (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/0001193125123...)
Double or triple that number for reality, plus add a year since that report. Also common sense when you have 10 accounts with 100 users each, all fake :)
Edit: It's closer to 12-18% of all accounts (incl. 5-6% duplicate accounts)
Double or triple that number for reality, plus add a year since that report. Also common sense when you have 10 accounts with 100 users each, all fake :)
Edit: It's closer to 12-18% of all accounts (incl. 5-6% duplicate accounts)
[deleted]
I think Bob Lefsetz already wrote this article.
He did: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2013/06/02/f...
He's worth following, particularly if you're interested in Things Media, and you like his stream-of-consciousness style.
He's worth following, particularly if you're interested in Things Media, and you like his stream-of-consciousness style.
Would love to know the methodology used to gather and verify the data for each site?
facebook has gotten old.
http://www.dailydot.com/authors/kevin-morris/
And the problem with that graph/article is that it fails to consider the size of the user bases. Facebook is so huge that its demographic breakdown mirrors that of the real world. Whilst all the other sites have a fraction of the user base so obviously their graph will skew more towards the type of site they have.
Maybe there should be a graph of how many 0-20 year olds there are on Facebook versus the other sites.