When Facebook was Fun(bellm.org)
bellm.org
When Facebook was Fun
http://bellm.org/blog/2012/12/02/when-facebook-was-fun/
72 comments
I remember the pleasure of hopping on BITNET and communicating around the world. Communication was somewhat ephemeral (socially, as much or more so than technically) and often effectively anonymous.
And I remember the pleasure of sitting down at a cafeteria table with whatever collection of good friends had agglomerated there that evening. Maybe with one of their friends whom I did not yet know well.
Different axes. Different contexts. I enjoyed both, but generally didn't try to glue them together. (Though our centralized computing did lead to early, local social use of email, TALK, and whatnot -- amongst friends.)
Complex societies -- like complex programs, as it happens -- rely on multiple contexts, scopes, sets, etc.
This universal, "social" web can run contrary to the fundamental building blocks of our society(/ies).
After the initial rush of a dramatic expansion of some of these axes, I think people start to figure this out for themselves, even when absent from a broader discussion on the topic.
And I remember the pleasure of sitting down at a cafeteria table with whatever collection of good friends had agglomerated there that evening. Maybe with one of their friends whom I did not yet know well.
Different axes. Different contexts. I enjoyed both, but generally didn't try to glue them together. (Though our centralized computing did lead to early, local social use of email, TALK, and whatnot -- amongst friends.)
Complex societies -- like complex programs, as it happens -- rely on multiple contexts, scopes, sets, etc.
This universal, "social" web can run contrary to the fundamental building blocks of our society(/ies).
After the initial rush of a dramatic expansion of some of these axes, I think people start to figure this out for themselves, even when absent from a broader discussion on the topic.
> Maybe the best we can do is subreddits. God save us.
Sub reddits are just Usenet on the web but worse, rather than anything social.
Maybe if Reddit added a profile page with some social stuff (for paying users?) they could destroy Facebook.
Sub reddits are just Usenet on the web but worse, rather than anything social.
Maybe if Reddit added a profile page with some social stuff (for paying users?) they could destroy Facebook.
Part of what makes Reddit so good at what it does is that it doesn't try to be more social. By assigning very few pixels to users and making signup easy, the focus stays on the content of the discussion.
The idea of subreddits applies more generally. One piece of software, one account, many communities with different foci and norms. A more social forum could do the same thing.
The idea of subreddits applies more generally. One piece of software, one account, many communities with different foci and norms. A more social forum could do the same thing.
Exactly. Reddit could fit real life profiles and anon pseudonyms equally and powerfully.
In general, social networks tend to settle at establishing a norm of either pseudonymity or verinymity. The two don't mix very well; users either feel cloistered or overexposed based on the normative behavior they observe.
Quora allows very public profiles and very private Anon User identifiers equally and powerfully..
Sub reddits are just Usenet on the web but worse, rather than anything social.
This may be why you are being downvoted, but:
Maybe if Reddit added a profile page with some social stuff (for paying users?) they could destroy Facebook.
Is of course very interesting, and probably much discussed at Reddit. Anonymity issues/pseudonyms is probably a determinant factor.
This may be why you are being downvoted, but:
Maybe if Reddit added a profile page with some social stuff (for paying users?) they could destroy Facebook.
Is of course very interesting, and probably much discussed at Reddit. Anonymity issues/pseudonyms is probably a determinant factor.
It wouldn't destroy Facebook, it would destroy Reddit.
Eh, I feel like most people on reddit like being anonymous on reddit.
Well, those people wouldn't be affected. Even those people with a profile could still create throwaway accounts for those other subreddits.
There are a few sub reddits where people are sharing real life information, so maybe confirmed profiles would be beneficial for them. I don't know if that just adds a bunch of cost and not much revenue.
There are a few sub reddits where people are sharing real life information, so maybe confirmed profiles would be beneficial for them. I don't know if that just adds a bunch of cost and not much revenue.
I really think it would just ruin the simple, anonymous beauty of reddit to start involving identities. Leave that for IAmA :)
People go to reddit to get away from reality.
People go to reddit to get away from reality.
The tradeoff 'niche appeal vs. universal acceptance' is a feature, not a bug.
If you're saying it's a good thing that you can't have both, I'd agree. But if you believe PG that Startup = Growth http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html then "solving" it might involve simply not being so startup or growth obsessed in general.
I could be wrong, but it seems it's only recently that the idea of a business that goes from zero to hero in six months has been taken seriously.
Google search doesn't seem to have this problem.
I'd hesitate to call Google search entertainment or community-building (social) though. Those are the two characteristics where universal appeal is difficult that I meant to highlight.
Google is really good at universal systems that produce quantitatively better results when the user input is minimal and the output is easily optimized.
You could argue my restaurant example is an input-output problem. Good ingredients in. Solid, repeatable kitchen process. Good food out. Unfortunately, food preparation is a manual process involving high levels of individual skill and has an inherently large variance. That's why running a restaurant is a people problem. The tricky output is the ambiance. Food is important but restaurants are also social entertainment. Combine those two and that's why niche restaurants are almost always better than chains (imo of course.)
Google is really good at universal systems that produce quantitatively better results when the user input is minimal and the output is easily optimized.
You could argue my restaurant example is an input-output problem. Good ingredients in. Solid, repeatable kitchen process. Good food out. Unfortunately, food preparation is a manual process involving high levels of individual skill and has an inherently large variance. That's why running a restaurant is a people problem. The tricky output is the ambiance. Food is important but restaurants are also social entertainment. Combine those two and that's why niche restaurants are almost always better than chains (imo of course.)
Sure they do. Think about all the other search engines people use. With only a few exceptions (Bing, DuckDuckGo), they are niche. If I want to look up a restaurant, I might use Yelp but I'll use a different search engine for a different niche. It's the same pattern, just in a different form.
Google are facing a giant backlash about this with their personalized search results. Google can provide universally-relevant results to all of us easily, but they were (rightly?) afraid of being out-competed in the "niche-of-1" market. For now, their personalized results are stuck in the uncanny valley, just like advertisements are.
Can you explain how the uncanny valley applies in this context?
The uncanny valley refers to the point where something feels almost-but-not-100% realistic, and that evokes a sense of discomfort in people.
Google's search results are now almost-but-not-100% personalized, and that evokes a sense of annoyance in people.
[Disclaimer: Not the OP]
Google's search results are now almost-but-not-100% personalized, and that evokes a sense of annoyance in people.
[Disclaimer: Not the OP]
[Also not the OP]
One of the ways you can see this in action is with re-targeting. If you visit somewhere like SEOMOZ or www.shoesofprey.com (with cookies enabled) you will start seeing advertisements for them pop up everywhere. It feels strange (especially since I am a long way from teh target market for something like Shoes of Prey -- checking them out as an interesting Australian startup does not mean that I want to buy a custom-built pair of high heels)
Maybe they mean "Not quite convincing"?
>their personalized results are stuck in the uncanny valley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
I'm not entirely sure what you meant to say in that last sentence, but I know you didn't mean to say "uncanny valley". Stuck in limbo, perhaps? (whatever that would mean)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
I'm not entirely sure what you meant to say in that last sentence, but I know you didn't mean to say "uncanny valley". Stuck in limbo, perhaps? (whatever that would mean)
Maybe "creepy" - I search for an item, and Google shows me ads for that item for the next month; I keep searching for that item, and Google learns to tailor its results to what I want.
Some people find this useful. Other people find it creepy.
Some people find this useful. Other people find it creepy.
I find the creepiest search ads are ones that direct me right back to the context of a site I was already surfing on a few minutes earlier. E.g. I was looking at the Amazon Sci Fi book section for example. Then, via google adsense on some other blog page I'll now see an adsense ad for Sci Fi books on Amazon. This has happened to me a couple of times now.
Pardon the tangent, but what is the name of the steakhouse? (In case I find myself in Tokyo.)
It's called Gyu An and it's in Ginza. It will set you back about $100 for a kobe steak multi course meal but if you've never had real kobe wagyu, it's worth it at least once. It's the most affordable place to get real kobe in Tokyo and it's a very cool little family run place. The owner is from Kobe and gets the beef from his neighbor's (I think?) ranch. If you have unlimited money, Dons de la nature is apparently the best place for steak in Tokyo but it costs multiple hundreds for a steak.
Here's the tripadvisor for Gyu An: http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g1066444-d1677235...
Here's the tripadvisor for Gyu An: http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g1066444-d1677235...
Thank you very much. I will definitely check it out.
The endless tiny bars, restaurants, shops in Japanese cities made me realise how vibrant huge cities can be. I wish my city Melbourne was more like that. For sure in the case of Japan it is to do with limited space and dense population, but zoning rules, cost of rent, cost of liquor licensing etc. surely all influence the viability of such tiny businesses...
Melbourne does alright but could be better. The way liquor licenses are designed skews the market towards fewer, much larger bars.
EDIT: I wasn't really thinking about your larger point when I wrote this - but I agree with my sibling - the tradeoff is a feature, not a bug. I think Tokyo and Kyoto are remarkable cities because they are not winner-take-all markets: the amount of niches the cities support is incredible.
Melbourne does alright but could be better. The way liquor licenses are designed skews the market towards fewer, much larger bars.
EDIT: I wasn't really thinking about your larger point when I wrote this - but I agree with my sibling - the tradeoff is a feature, not a bug. I think Tokyo and Kyoto are remarkable cities because they are not winner-take-all markets: the amount of niches the cities support is incredible.
> I wish my city Melbourne was more like that
In contrast to SF, Melbourne is way more interesting in terms of great small bars and restaurants to find. I tell people that Melbourne is one of my favourite cities in the world to eat for the variety and authenticity.
In contrast to SF, Melbourne is way more interesting in terms of great small bars and restaurants to find. I tell people that Melbourne is one of my favourite cities in the world to eat for the variety and authenticity.
>>I think we've lost track of that in the USA and particularly Silicon Valley (or maybe we never had it.)
I think you're right about SV being focused on scaling ideas at the cost of losing the quirkiness of something small. But, rather ironically, I find that most of the smaller restaurants in SF seem to lack that special quality that can make mom-n-pop shops so great. Unlike the little udon shops you mentioned from Japan, these small businesses in SF seem to be focused purely on scraping by; I rarely find a place that seems like a hidden gem. (Maybe I'm spoiled; used to live in NY and the food options there are drastically better. Often I would stumble upon tiny restaurants that would be fantastic.)
I don't even know if I have a point to all of this, I guess I'm just saying that restaurants in San Francisco do charge high-end prices, but often offer middle-of-the-road quality.
I think you're right about SV being focused on scaling ideas at the cost of losing the quirkiness of something small. But, rather ironically, I find that most of the smaller restaurants in SF seem to lack that special quality that can make mom-n-pop shops so great. Unlike the little udon shops you mentioned from Japan, these small businesses in SF seem to be focused purely on scraping by; I rarely find a place that seems like a hidden gem. (Maybe I'm spoiled; used to live in NY and the food options there are drastically better. Often I would stumble upon tiny restaurants that would be fantastic.)
I don't even know if I have a point to all of this, I guess I'm just saying that restaurants in San Francisco do charge high-end prices, but often offer middle-of-the-road quality.
Maybe we should come back to technologies that are not branded. Like email but with votes, short messages, groups etc. Like Wave but without Google.
I was a freshman at NYU in 2004 when Facebook launched there. I really miss Facebook in those days. It was so minimalistic but that was part of its charm. If Facebook looked and acted like it did today in the early days there is NO way it would have caught on. In fact, I may be in the minority, but I barely use Facebook at all these days.
One of the core ideas that I think really made it great was there were only two privacy options (if I remember correctly). Make your profile visible to just your friends, or just people in your network (nyu.edu email in my case). You could see pictures and names of other people, and you could see a limited profile if they sent YOU a friend request, but that was it.
Another thing is it was really easy to find people with common interests. For example if you listed a certain movie or book you liked, you could click on it in your profile and it would show you everyone else who also liked it (ordered by your friends first, then people in your network ordered by friends in common, then locked profiles of people outside your network).
It's a shame that they have gotten so far away from what they once stood for.
One of the core ideas that I think really made it great was there were only two privacy options (if I remember correctly). Make your profile visible to just your friends, or just people in your network (nyu.edu email in my case). You could see pictures and names of other people, and you could see a limited profile if they sent YOU a friend request, but that was it.
Another thing is it was really easy to find people with common interests. For example if you listed a certain movie or book you liked, you could click on it in your profile and it would show you everyone else who also liked it (ordered by your friends first, then people in your network ordered by friends in common, then locked profiles of people outside your network).
It's a shame that they have gotten so far away from what they once stood for.
>Another thing is it was really easy to find people with common interests. For example if you listed a certain movie or book you liked, you could click on it in your profile and it would show you everyone else who also liked it (ordered by your friends first, then people in your network ordered by friends in common, then locked profiles of people outside your network).
I was surprised by the claim that it was more private in those days, for just that reason. It was much easier to search for complete strangers (within your university) based on quite specific criteria.
I was surprised by the claim that it was more private in those days, for just that reason. It was much easier to search for complete strangers (within your university) based on quite specific criteria.
Ah, I remember those days - or the days right after those days (I was at NYU and got Facebook in late '04). It was so much fun to friend someone you met, see where they were from, all their interests (some real, some comical), what crazy comments happened to be on their wall, and what "groups" they belonged to.
The Facebook of today is still valuable, but in an entirely different way. Facebook in 2004 had nothing to do with sharing content, it was just a database of people that you'd met in college that was exceptionally fun to browse. That database of people aspect is almost entirely hidden now in favor of the feed (useful but different), and what you "like" (the pages where you clicked "like" to get a $2 coupon).
I recall reading somewhere PG saying there may be an opportunity now for a "Facebook for college students", which I'd imagine as a realization of the early value of Facebook. I've batted around the idea of setting up oldfacebook.com, just as a copy of that early version. Heck, you could even let people sign up by connecting with Facebook.
The Facebook of today is still valuable, but in an entirely different way. Facebook in 2004 had nothing to do with sharing content, it was just a database of people that you'd met in college that was exceptionally fun to browse. That database of people aspect is almost entirely hidden now in favor of the feed (useful but different), and what you "like" (the pages where you clicked "like" to get a $2 coupon).
I recall reading somewhere PG saying there may be an opportunity now for a "Facebook for college students", which I'd imagine as a realization of the early value of Facebook. I've batted around the idea of setting up oldfacebook.com, just as a copy of that early version. Heck, you could even let people sign up by connecting with Facebook.
> I've batted around the idea of setting up oldfacebook.com
I wouldn't recommend using that domain name.
I wouldn't recommend using that domain name.
I would join.
I honestly think that Facebook has gone backwards pretty quickly over the last few years. I'm not sure what their internal metrics look like, but I would hazard a guess and say that long term users tend to spend far less time on the site as the years pass.
Anecdotally, most of the people I know are looking for an excuse to stop using Facebook because they no longer enjoy browsing the site, but they are locked in because people use it for event planning and they have a fear of missing out.
I think the site can continue to rely on these kinds of network effects to keep users active and signing in, but whether it keeps the company insulated from competition or profitable with users spending enough minutes on the site is another question entirely.
Anecdotally, most of the people I know are looking for an excuse to stop using Facebook because they no longer enjoy browsing the site, but they are locked in because people use it for event planning and they have a fear of missing out.
I think the site can continue to rely on these kinds of network effects to keep users active and signing in, but whether it keeps the company insulated from competition or profitable with users spending enough minutes on the site is another question entirely.
I agree with your sentiments. It's actually completely broken for my uses now. The only use it has for me is looking at things my friends have been up to - photos, updates, that sort of thing.
But now the weird algorithm they have gets it completely wrong. I get treated to an endless feed list of stupid cat photos from someone I haven't spoken to since high school, and yet a close friend posts a picture of them with the kids at the beach and it never shows up, probably because they only post once per month.
I try and click 'most recent' for my feed and then the dates get inverted and I end up seeing something posted a month ago.
Notwithstanding all the inserted sponsored stories (whatever, I get that they need to pay the bills), the fact that the newsfeed isn't any longer a newsfeed, but an algorithmically curated list of what it thinks I might like means that it has become useless and unreliable. Sure I can probably tweak settings to get it to work again, but why not just have it the way it was?
I check it less and less and I will probably drop off altogether in the next year or so. The network effect can work in reverse - if none of your friends are using it any longer, there is less incentive to use it yourself.
I much prefer Twitter as it is right now - it just shows your feed and it's up to you to add/remove people who contribute to your feed. Add some simple innovations to Twitter like an easy way to make a group of followers private for tweets, and the ability to load albums rather than single photos for tweets, and it would completely replace Facebook for my personal use.
The other problem Facebook faces is like that of any fashion label, movie franchise or performer - becoming old hat. There will become a point where Facebook is something that your parents use, and therefore to be avoided at all costs. But when the parents feel like using it less, and the kids won't go there, I can see lots of trouble heading down the pike.
But now the weird algorithm they have gets it completely wrong. I get treated to an endless feed list of stupid cat photos from someone I haven't spoken to since high school, and yet a close friend posts a picture of them with the kids at the beach and it never shows up, probably because they only post once per month.
I try and click 'most recent' for my feed and then the dates get inverted and I end up seeing something posted a month ago.
Notwithstanding all the inserted sponsored stories (whatever, I get that they need to pay the bills), the fact that the newsfeed isn't any longer a newsfeed, but an algorithmically curated list of what it thinks I might like means that it has become useless and unreliable. Sure I can probably tweak settings to get it to work again, but why not just have it the way it was?
I check it less and less and I will probably drop off altogether in the next year or so. The network effect can work in reverse - if none of your friends are using it any longer, there is less incentive to use it yourself.
I much prefer Twitter as it is right now - it just shows your feed and it's up to you to add/remove people who contribute to your feed. Add some simple innovations to Twitter like an easy way to make a group of followers private for tweets, and the ability to load albums rather than single photos for tweets, and it would completely replace Facebook for my personal use.
The other problem Facebook faces is like that of any fashion label, movie franchise or performer - becoming old hat. There will become a point where Facebook is something that your parents use, and therefore to be avoided at all costs. But when the parents feel like using it less, and the kids won't go there, I can see lots of trouble heading down the pike.
You know that there exists a manual override -- see less/more/no updates from a certain user, right?
To quote Mark Zuckerberg 'what we found is that users hate making lists'.
The problem is not that one person posts too much spam - it's that I don't ever get to see other peoples posts at all. I don't want to have to make a list of my 'important friends'. I want to see it all, I can easily work the scroll bar to get past the bits I don't want to see.
The problem is not that one person posts too much spam - it's that I don't ever get to see other peoples posts at all. I don't want to have to make a list of my 'important friends'. I want to see it all, I can easily work the scroll bar to get past the bits I don't want to see.
In 2000-2002 I was a member of LunarStorm, a (now defunct) Swedish community where at one time 90 percent of Sweden's high school students were members. What I liked about it was that it gave you much more opportunities to interact with - and get to know - new people; Facebook mostly keeps the interaction to people you know, and you can't really start talking to anyone who seems interesting, or reading what they write and commenting on it without officially becoming "friends" first. But following the writing of interesting people and commenting on it was how I made friends on LunarStorm, many of which I still know ten years later. I miss that. And I don't think you can easily recreate it in the panopticon that is Facebook; having every conversation broadcast to everyone you know doesn't make for a relaxing atmosphere.
(I haven't tried Google+, so I don't know how it works in that respect.)
(I haven't tried Google+, so I don't know how it works in that respect.)
Joining groups could be a solution.
Hipster HN-er liked Facebook before my grandma got on.
Maybe what you miss is not old facebook but the time in your life when you happened to start using it. Consider the amount of time you spent there versus slashdot; then compare that to the time you spend on facebook now and how much more of your life network, not just social, is reflected there today.
I found one of the articles this one links to to be very insightful - http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/19/facemash-creato...
> Mark E. Zuckerberg ’06 said he was accused of breaching security, violating copyrights and violating individual privacy by creating the website
> The charges were based on a complaint from the computer services department over his unauthorized use of on-line facebook photographs, he said.
> “Issues about violating people’s privacy don’t seem to be surmountable,” he wrote at that point. “I’m not willing to risk insulting anyone.”
> Mark E. Zuckerberg ’06 said he was accused of breaching security, violating copyrights and violating individual privacy by creating the website
> The charges were based on a complaint from the computer services department over his unauthorized use of on-line facebook photographs, he said.
> “Issues about violating people’s privacy don’t seem to be surmountable,” he wrote at that point. “I’m not willing to risk insulting anyone.”
"Part of Facebook’s appeal in those first days was that it was clean, protected space very different from the all-too-public hurly-burly of MySpace [10]." That's it, really. It was an elite college kid social network. Now, anything but.
At least you still can't add custom HTML to your profile. That was, beyond a doubt, the worst part of MySpace.
I have a theory that perception of anonymity is directly related to long-term enjoyability; as social networks become larger and more people you know join, you feel less anonymous, and less likely to post original content or espouse the controversial views that lead to interesting discussion.
On the other hand, you have much more anonymous (remember, I'm talking about how anonymous users feel) venues like reddit, 4chan, or IRC, which have a rather large niche that is relatively stable and full of engaged users.
On the other hand, you have much more anonymous (remember, I'm talking about how anonymous users feel) venues like reddit, 4chan, or IRC, which have a rather large niche that is relatively stable and full of engaged users.
No one seems to notice the obvious... that his life and his friends lives were certainly more exciting when he was a Junior at Harvard.
This reminds me of a study that found that many East Germans were nostalgic about East Germany before the wall came down, but the researchers concluded that it was because it was because the interviewed people had been in there 20s at that time, not because of any particular aspect of the East German society.
This reminds me of a study that found that many East Germans were nostalgic about East Germany before the wall came down, but the researchers concluded that it was because it was because the interviewed people had been in there 20s at that time, not because of any particular aspect of the East German society.
> a hidden record of who you aspired to be, as you became who you are now instead.
Substitute "public" for "hidden", and that line could describe most social media these days.
Substitute "public" for "hidden", and that line could describe most social media these days.
Nobody goes there anymore, it's way too crowded. -Berra
I love how people act like MySpace never even existed now. Watching "The Social Network" you'd think that Mark invented the entire concept.
[deleted]
If you think about it, the fact that facebook has so many users makes it quite cool. Practically everyone I know is on facebook. Though I do see the appeal of a private university network it would eventually end because the people running it would want to make more money. Also adoption to a new more exclusive network wouldn't be as fast since we already have facebook.
> Also adoption to a new more exclusive network wouldn't be as fast since we already have facebook.
We also had "everyone" on MySpace. And before Friendfeed. And in times when most did not know what "internet" is, geocities.
Its not a rocket science to realize that to your users its all about cost of adoption versus reward they will get. Said that, if there is some new cool feature that Facebook does not have, and that feature is so awesome that is worth me spending my time on creating just another account, then I will do so. If that new website and new cool feature keep me away from Facebook, then Facebook will be in trouble. But so far, noone has come, just yet, with some universal cool feature that would be much cooler than socializing online with people I know offline via site that has mostly everyone signed in.
But rest assured internet will evolved because at the end of the day, its run by humans and their behavior offline/online evolves too. The "new Facebook", whatever it will be, will have nothing to do with whether current Facebook succeed or not (it did), as it made plenty of people millionaires, gave thousands jobs, and served it purpose of "connecting everyone in the world together".
We also had "everyone" on MySpace. And before Friendfeed. And in times when most did not know what "internet" is, geocities.
Its not a rocket science to realize that to your users its all about cost of adoption versus reward they will get. Said that, if there is some new cool feature that Facebook does not have, and that feature is so awesome that is worth me spending my time on creating just another account, then I will do so. If that new website and new cool feature keep me away from Facebook, then Facebook will be in trouble. But so far, noone has come, just yet, with some universal cool feature that would be much cooler than socializing online with people I know offline via site that has mostly everyone signed in.
But rest assured internet will evolved because at the end of the day, its run by humans and their behavior offline/online evolves too. The "new Facebook", whatever it will be, will have nothing to do with whether current Facebook succeed or not (it did), as it made plenty of people millionaires, gave thousands jobs, and served it purpose of "connecting everyone in the world together".
> We also had "everyone" on MySpace. And before Friendfeed. And in times when most did not know what "internet" is, geocities.
I understand where you're coming from, but people forget about scale when they make comparisons like this. Myspace at its peak had around 100 million users, mostly teens and young adults. Your parents and aunts and uncles and grandma were never on Myspace, but for many people, all of the above are on Facebook, which has a billion users. Far more people are on the internet in general, as well as a broader and more representative sample of the population, compared to the days of GeoCities. “Everyone” was not on GeoCities or Myspace to nearly the extent that “everyone” is on Facebook today. It's not at all impossible that Facebook will be replaced, but the task is a much harder one because compared to Myspace at its peak, Facebook's reach is an order of magnitude greater.
I understand where you're coming from, but people forget about scale when they make comparisons like this. Myspace at its peak had around 100 million users, mostly teens and young adults. Your parents and aunts and uncles and grandma were never on Myspace, but for many people, all of the above are on Facebook, which has a billion users. Far more people are on the internet in general, as well as a broader and more representative sample of the population, compared to the days of GeoCities. “Everyone” was not on GeoCities or Myspace to nearly the extent that “everyone” is on Facebook today. It's not at all impossible that Facebook will be replaced, but the task is a much harder one because compared to Myspace at its peak, Facebook's reach is an order of magnitude greater.
ok, I didnt make myself clear. By "everyone" I meant everyone that knew what Internet is.
In terms of penetration and reach-wise, there is no difference between MySpace and Facebook. While there may be 100MM on MySpace and 800MM on Faceook, the difference is that back then much fewer people were aware that internet exists.
If anything, I dont find "facebook killer" to be harder to achieve just because FB reach is so great. Things go viral nowadays; if something cooler comes along, then it will be spread across FB. I rather find it hard to find something that users would value more than hanging out with friends online.
In terms of penetration and reach-wise, there is no difference between MySpace and Facebook. While there may be 100MM on MySpace and 800MM on Faceook, the difference is that back then much fewer people were aware that internet exists.
If anything, I dont find "facebook killer" to be harder to achieve just because FB reach is so great. Things go viral nowadays; if something cooler comes along, then it will be spread across FB. I rather find it hard to find something that users would value more than hanging out with friends online.
> the difference is that back then much fewer people were aware that internet exists
That's pretty much the point. In the time that Facebook got big, hundreds of millions of people were beginning to use the internet to socialize for the first time. They didn't have to unlearn how Friendfeed worked, or abandon their contacts on Myspace, because they had never used these services. It was all new and Facebook snapped them up.
There aren't hundreds of millions more for the next social network to snap up. In the developed world, the internet is done growing. Every North American or European who is ever going to use the internet already does. Everyone who would be interested in using a social network is already on Facebook.
Not literally everyone (we all know a few people who aren't on Facebook), but close enough that the trick they pulled off can't be repeated.
That's pretty much the point. In the time that Facebook got big, hundreds of millions of people were beginning to use the internet to socialize for the first time. They didn't have to unlearn how Friendfeed worked, or abandon their contacts on Myspace, because they had never used these services. It was all new and Facebook snapped them up.
There aren't hundreds of millions more for the next social network to snap up. In the developed world, the internet is done growing. Every North American or European who is ever going to use the internet already does. Everyone who would be interested in using a social network is already on Facebook.
Not literally everyone (we all know a few people who aren't on Facebook), but close enough that the trick they pulled off can't be repeated.
> We also had "everyone" on MySpace. And before Friendfeed. And in times when most did not know what "internet" is, geocities.
This is an absurd generalization. I've always grown up with computers and was the only one in my circle of friends to ever use BBSes. Five years ago, it blew me away to see random strangers logged on to Facebook...it was bizarre to see an online network as something normal people used...before that, adoption was rare, even in college through the 00s. Facebook has a dominance of the consciousness that no other network prior to it came close to having...there is simply no parallel
This is an absurd generalization. I've always grown up with computers and was the only one in my circle of friends to ever use BBSes. Five years ago, it blew me away to see random strangers logged on to Facebook...it was bizarre to see an online network as something normal people used...before that, adoption was rare, even in college through the 00s. Facebook has a dominance of the consciousness that no other network prior to it came close to having...there is simply no parallel
MySpace had a very significant mindshare among a similar population segment. IIRC it wasn't obvious until ~2006-07 that they would be overtaken or that the relatively superior UX of Facebook would matter so much. Looking back now, having been on both, MySpace had an uneducated feel to it that was somewhere a little bit higher than Youtube comments but not by much -- chain letters, trolls, fake profiles, random friend requests and ultimately a lot of spam -- these were things that all made FB shine by comparison as a college-only network (it came to Berkeley ~2004-05)
But certainly by that time, "ordinary" people were already primed for online social networking. I agree that this doesn't quite extend to GeoCities though.
But certainly by that time, "ordinary" people were already primed for online social networking. I agree that this doesn't quite extend to GeoCities though.
ICQ, Yahoo and MSN messenger were the "social networks" of the late 90s early 2000s. And IRC for the nerds.
Just think about this: every time you are on a bar, most of the people (if not all except yourself (maybe)) is on Facebook. Try to make that generalization about anything else.
This was true of MySpace if you were 20-30 in the early 00s and went to popular bars (not dives)
I understand from your comment that times are changing, and I agree on that. Is it that Facebook is popular, or it is the Internet itself?
In any case, I keep on my previous statement. It usually blows my mind, and is something I would have thought impossible 10 years ago.
In any case, I keep on my previous statement. It usually blows my mind, and is something I would have thought impossible 10 years ago.
Facebook gets a lot of criticism, and while there are issues, overall I think the folks there have done quite well. Changes bother me for a bit, just like they do everyone, but over the years I've found that I've had to think less and less about what I want to see.
In fact, now I can just go to Facebook, scroll down and skim a few hundred stories in a few seconds. Facebook isn't mean to be fun - it's meant to be a tool to enhance our daily lives; I think it's done just that.
In fact, now I can just go to Facebook, scroll down and skim a few hundred stories in a few seconds. Facebook isn't mean to be fun - it's meant to be a tool to enhance our daily lives; I think it's done just that.
I signed up five years ago and yes it was more fun back then.
But was it because of the stupid boxes on your profile (e.g "Which dictator are you"), because it was new, because my parents weren't on it, or because every next show or communication of my favorite band didn't appeared on my home page back then ? I don't know.
But was it because of the stupid boxes on your profile (e.g "Which dictator are you"), because it was new, because my parents weren't on it, or because every next show or communication of my favorite band didn't appeared on my home page back then ? I don't know.
I agree, today my facebook feed is a collection of bad jokes, pictures containing bad jokes written in comic sans and stupid polls and question in desperate need for likes and comments ("like of you remember this guy!").
[deleted]
Honestly, it's a lot more useful to me now. It's not as novel, naturally, but would I be happier if it was still just limited to people I knew from college and I still had to visit their profiles individually to see their updates? I don't think so.
If it hadn't evolved I bet it would've been "killed" already—for instance, if FB didn't have the news feed, Twitter would become a lot more attractive to me.
If it hadn't evolved I bet it would've been "killed" already—for instance, if FB didn't have the news feed, Twitter would become a lot more attractive to me.
That's what this article highlighted the most to me. It's hard to make something that feels small and personal and quirky yet appeals to everyone. If you make something beautiful and targeted inevitably someone says "Hey! You should expand!"
I had this conversation with the owner of a tiny Japanese steakhouse in Tokyo where I had the best steak of my life. There were only like 8 tables and I was there alone so he sat down with me and we talked for a half hour. He told me how many times he had been approached to expand to other cities or the US over the 30 years they'd been open. But he didn't want the stress and he didn't think he could deliver the quality of meal if he did. Sushi and ramen places are like this in Japan too. They may be the best but they often stay small.
I think we've lost track of that in the USA and particularly Silicon Valley (or maybe we never had it.) Would we be happier if Facebook had stayed elite university only and there were 100 social sharing websites for different niches? I dunno. Probably not. But I think we're also learning that one size fits all social is not as interesting on a massive scale as we thought it would be. Path isn't doing that well either though. Maybe the best we can do is subreddits. God save us.