Is it more gay to have a page on Facebook or a myspace page? My wife has a facebook one, but that is how she keeps in touch with classmates. I didn't think I needed one (still don't), but it is a good way to look up old classmates. If that's what you're into. Have you looked at myspace recently? Damn it's so busy with a whole lotta crap going on. Seizure inducing.

I realize that I would probably be older than 98% of the deviants that have these pages. That tastes like sadness.

Just an arbitrary post, because Rocha said lurkers should post more.

MySpace is the Vegas of the internet. Too much blink'n and flash'n going on. It's visual vomit.

I Facebook, but I was still living in the dorms when it took hold. That's where everyone I know is. I've noticed a lot of people older than I am (from church, etc) are getting Facebook pages.

The key to keeping your Facebook page classy is refusing some of the crazy applications. I have a select few. The rest get blanket "ignores". I don't care if someone wants to write on a FunWall for me and just because my friend added me to her Disney Princess entourage doesn't mean I need one too.

They're both fairly retarded.

Myspace was good for a while in the post-friendster era, again for keeping in touch, but then all the blinking crap started showing up, and pages started playing someone else's shitty taste in music despite you setting "do not play music" as the default, and it became full exclusively of spammers and idiots. There's nothing to do on it, and it's fairly pointless.

Facebook took hold then. They had a rule that you couldn't customize pages, in part because myspace became so retarded. This was a detriment, though, as allowing us to change colors isn't a big deal, right? We came across so homogenous, but it was functional.
Then the applications hit. Suddenly there were things to do on Facebook, as you could play scrabble or draw a picture comment. Then people realized you could make money on applications. Suddenly all the spam apps hit - ones that do nothing aside from apply a simple photoshop filter to one of your pictures then forces you to send an invitation to install the downloard to all your friends. These applications were worms. Every 30 seconds you were invited to be a vampire or vampire hunter or vampire hunter hunter. People's pages became full of complete and utter flashing crap allowing you to buy them a virtual drink or feed their virtual hermit crab.
Facebook is bound to fall soon, just like myspace before it, just like friendster before that, just like makeoutclub before that.
Yet idiots like Time keep writing articles asking if the future of the internet belongs to google, yahoo, microsoft or facebook. As if the facebook users aren't so fickle that they'll jump onto the next big thing, and as if most people I know aren't horrifically bored of facebook by now.


For the record, my myspace is either the most tasteful or most annoying you'll ever see (it's just a flash rectangle with a few links that show a few icons of a few things I like), and my facebook is just the standard facebook with the drawing wall on the right side and two small galleries on the left - one of albums and one of books. Nothing flashing, just short and sweet. Since the galleries are on the left they take up empty space, balance the page, and make it no longer than the default.

And if anyone wonders why I seem to know so much or have thought so much about this crap just look at how much fractions of ownership of these sites sell for, or how often the New York Times or Washington Post writes about them as if they're some valid form of entertainment with lasting power.

Neither one is worth my time. If I want old classmates to contact me then they already have either my phone # or my AIM. If they don't have it then they can leave me the hell alone!

I hope you realize that Facebook gets more hits in just the morning than the NY Times and Washington Post combined get all day. The news industry has been trying to figure out a way to grasp onto the concept because more often than not news spreads virally through things like Facebook and Twitter and MySpace and RSS feeds and whatever else than it does through people just going to news Web sites these days.

I'm well aware how many hits it gets. That doesn't mean it has any lasting power. It doesn't mean it's a new juggernaut. Those hits belong mostly to people under 20. When they age they won't keep with facebook. And the next group will look for something new.

Facebook is the fourth big powerhouse networking site. It ruined myspace. Myspace ruined friendster. Friendster ruined makeoutclub. See a pattern there?

As for news going through it, that's not really true. Well, not important news. If Mary Kate Olsen has a baby it'll fly through facebook. If Pakistan nukes Afghanistan facebook will remain gleefully unaware.

Also - the same people proclaiming facebook to be the next google are the same ones who, 5 years ago, proclaimed Amazon to be dead.

It's kind of funny, though. Colleges are already complaining that reunions were their top fundraising events. Now, thanks to facebook, they're seeing reunion attendance starting to fall. Only slightly, but the expect more. No one needs to take time off from work to judge their success against their peers - they simply log on to facebook and myspace from home.

Hell, I should have had a 10 year HS reunion this spring, but it didn't happen. Someone just two weeks ago started a facebook group for my graduating class to try to drum up some interest. End result? Most people joined the group, looked around, then realized that they were still in regular contact with the only people they'd have any interest in seeing. It actually dampened interest in a reunion.

Facebook's trend in traffic has remarkably stayed the same each year.
A year ago, the traffic tailed off in the early months of the year. Everyone proclaimed that it was dead. Then the traffic rebounded and took off even higher.
This year it happened again. Traffic tailed off early in the year. People wondered if it would rebound or not, thinking that the facebook power would eventually fade. And guess what, the traffic rebounded again.

So far, facebook has had lasting power. And it's not all teenagers under 20. I wish I could tell you numbers, but just anecdotally it's obvious to me that it's not all kids under 20.

The reasons people like facebook in comparison to other sites are many, but a giant reason is that information is much more protected on there than it is on other sites. Only your "friends" can see your information. So if you let anyone friend you, you're the one being the idiot. It's not like with MySpace where you have to go in and make your profile private.



Funny since ABC News and Facebook teamed up to do a campaign thing on there, and it has gotten quite a bit of attention. You can follow reporters who are on the campaign trail. And it's not like no one looks at those pages.

Oops, I meant to say under 30, not under 20. Obviously it isn't just kids under 20 as I don't know anyone under 20.

But no, facebook will die. Social sites always die. Always. There's a long-littered trail of them. Perhaps the technology dies, like it died with the old telnet messageboards. Perhaps they simply don't grow with the world around them, like AOL. Or perhaps they simply become too common and the hipsters flee for something else, eventually passing on the notion that it's outdated and something else is cooler, like friendster and myspace.

And I still say no one gets actual news from Facebook. ABC News paired up with it. Why not, everyone is desperate to get attention from Facebook? All of which will simply further damn it. The final nail for myspace, when everyone started fleeing, was when Rupert Murdoch bought it. Would ads show up? Would Fox News show up?
The more corporate these social sites get, the less thrilled people are with them.

Facebook will not be #1 five years from now.

I'd venture a guess that Facebook is used by mostly under 30 somethings because it has it's root in college students over the last few years....of course, that could be wildly off base as well.

True. And those under-30s are one of the most sought-after demographics, particularly college kids, who currently have tons of disposible income.

But being tied to one generation's youth is a double-edged sword. Yes, it's great for now. But those college kids will outgrow it. And the younger kids won't see it as an institution, they'll see it as a fad. Rather than latch onto the fad of those older than them they'll look for something new, something to call their own and something to distinguish themselves.

Also, it's mostly the under-30 crowd wasting their time online.

Those of you in an office, look around. There's definitely a line somewhere in the 30s where those above spend their breaks out smoking or looking for someone to talk to and those below spend it on messageboards or networking sites.

Exactly. And I only signed up when I was in grad school.

And I would venture to guess that the Facebook people will evolve with the times and grow. It's not like they're just sitting on their hands not doing anything. They look at what others did and where they failed and are trying to not make those same mistakes.

And as for the "getting your news" from Facebook, the way people get their news today has changed dramatically. Obviously if, god forbid, another terrorist attack happens, everyone is going to find out through something other than Facebook. But people talk about things that happen in the news through a lot of different channels. And Facebook is one of those things. And the thing about how people feel about their news today -- especially the younger generation -- is that they want to interact with the news. They want to be a part of the news. And that's what social networking and citizen journalism and crowd sourcing does. It's a trend. And people kept saying it has to die at some point. It's not dead yet. And it keeps growing.

I would say that I'm more likely to find out about major breaking news from a message board (of course, I'm on them all day long, so....) than I am any other source.

I think it depends on the application.

For bands, comedians, actors, entertainers, and other artisans, Myspace is better, IMO, because of it's functionality. Even though my old band is pretty much dead, our myspace page still draw bookers, people interested in our stuff, etc. That said, I only use it now as my own personal page to stay in touch with people.

Facebook is more for social/interpersonal stuff, although at times it's just as cheesy.

I hate people. A lot. So, yeah, these are both stupid.

Catbook? Catspace?

Well, actually, my one cat is a degenerate gambler, so he spends a lot of time in AC. He's not really on the intarweb a lot. He's in a little trouble with some people for writing bad checks, too.

www.icanhazfriends.com

Myspace thought they were changing with the times.
AOL definitely thought so and had significantly more money to do it with.
It's not that mistakes are made, although AOL certainly made plenty, it's just that people move on. Especially with the internet. For the most part, when something becomes cool and popular with "regular" people it ceases to be with the hardcore internet people. Who move on. And the "regular" people eventually follow.

There isn't much "talk" on facebook, though. So I don't see news going through. There's personal news, but for the most part Facebook is self-promotion. People change their status and spread personal news that way (from the important "I just had a baby" to the pandering "I'm fighting with my boyfriend for the fifth time this past hour, throw me attention!")

And yes, news companies are more desperate than ever to attract young people. Not only are advertising dollars for older people lower than ever (which is why so many television shows and channels once happy appealing to older people now try desperately to skew themselves at people in their 20s,) and the nightly news shows are dropping viewers like flies. Katie Couric is sucking, yes, but they're all losing viewers with every broadcast. Most go to the internet. The 20s and 30s I know almost all get their news from their homepage, be it yahoo, msn or google. Where it's free and unobtrusive. Hell, cable news is hurting badly, too, which is why CNN went 24/7 Anna Nicole's death last year and ignored Iraq - gotta compete with E! for those younger viewers, even if you're just enforcing to them that ignorance is bliss!


It terrifies me. Not only is America getting dumber but things I love, most notably newspapers and magazines, are taking big hits.
But Facebook isn't a solution, it's a desperate reach out being done mostly by people that don't understand the medium and don't realize that trying to tap into it will simply be what pushes people away from it.

So, uhm..ah...can I "friend" you?

First off, AOL is still very popular and still considered a "destination" job.

Secondly, do you know why the huge reason why the nightly network newscasts ratings have dropped off? Ask yourself this: What time do most people get home from work? What time is the news on? People don't watch because they're either not home or just gotten home.

The morning network news shows still do very well. And I'm sure many people here do what the trend is for those shows. You turn it on to have it on in the background. When something pops up you want to watch or something strikes your interest, you watch.

These two things have been proven through research and studies done by PEW over the last few years. It's not like I'm just pulling it out of the air.

Oh and the cable news networks? Despite what people think, the last I knew they weren't quite outdoing the network news programs as much as people want to think otherwise. They never captured quite as many viewers at one time except in rare occasions.

AOL may be popular as a job, but as a company and service? God no. If it was Steve Case wouldn't have been forced out. If it was Time Warner wouldn't be wearing it like an albatross and desperately trying to unload it to anyone willing to give them even a fraction of its (incredibly low) value.

You think the network news dropped because people work late? That's definitely part of it, but if that was it would networks be in as much of a panic? Wouldn't they simply move it? I mean, so much of the prime time block is failing lately, couldn't the news go there? But even prime time news shows are becoming extinct as we move to mostly reality TV. Who Wants to Date the Stars is way cheaper to produce and gets that all-important 18-24 demographic!

News is dying and dwindling. Will it recover? Hopefully. But right now it isn't what people want. Which is terrifying. It says a ton about our country.
Then again, I'd never watch the news. I've said it here before, again to your annoyance: I won't watch video. News very, very rarely needs to be shown. Some things absolutely do. But, for the most part, it's better read. I get it quicker, I get it more thoroughly, and I don't need a talking head being paid $25 million a year for it.

As for local news... ug. The last thing I want is the phony grins, idiotic banter and constant scare tactics. I know what the fuck in my fridge might kill me, and I know that "might" is pretty much never going to happen, so no way am I going to tune in to your very final segment to see it, no matter how deadly you want me to think olive oil may be.

Ew. You've made certain I don't go to a 'Canes game with you this season!

I recall reading somewhere that this is starting to backfire on the networks - the coveted 18-35 demographic is overrated in terms of it's true spending power, and people with real money (35+) are the hot new unexplored market.

I wouldn't be surprised. None of my late-20s friends have any real spending power. Those of us that are single sort of do, but we spend a lot on clothes and going out. Those that aren't single have houses, or worse, infants. No spending power. Most everything goes to necessities, be it providing for the family or seeking someone to risk making a family with.

I bought far more useless crap in college than I have since. Although I fully expect to be buying more later in life.

I also think most of my late-20s friends are pretty disenchanted with advertisements. We haven't given up on consumerism, but we tend to place it in areas that advertisements can't necessarily reach. Which, of course, is why advertisers keep trying to get us but those almost always backfire, be it product placements that bug us or redneck comedians "pausing" our syndicated TV shows to tell us about their own crappy new family show.

To be honest, I think the only demo with spending power is 18-21 - I have coworkers that age who still live with Mommy and Daddy and thus spend all their money on crap. But 18-35? By the time you're 25, the fun days are over and you're expected to, you know, actually work for a living as opposed to stay home, play games, and jack off for hours a day.

I think the real demo is men/women 35-40 who are single...they're the ones who have cash but no commitments other than rent/mortgage. Plus, they're making way more than the 18 year olds.

I really hate when people say this. The news industry is not "dying." Nor is it even "dwindling." It has become different and has diversified and that is what freaks everyone out. They can't figure out how it's changed because the people who are in charge are not the type of news consumer today. They don't want to admit that anyone can be a journalist. They're cemented in the old ways. And when it comes to things on the Internet, they don't know how to make any money because they don't really want to invest in looking for the best way. Again, they're cemented in the old ways of setting one price. Or having an ad be worth how many clicks it has. Never mind that just seeing something on a page can have just as much of an impact if not more than if someone clicks on it.

So anyway, this is a great time for journalism because so much is changing, evolving. It's like around the turn of the century when things went crazy. The news industry was turned on its head and everyone went nuts for awhile. It happens every few decades. Just because the industry is crazy doesn't mean it's dying. It's just trying to figure out where it's supposed to fit in today's world with everything that has changed.

Not everyone can be a journalist. Just because you pay for hosting and have a blog does not mean you're a journalist. It means you're an asshole with a self-inflated opinion and likely a lot of confused fact. And, most importantly, no accountability.

By "the news is dying and dwindling," I mean the traditional news. Which is to say the accurate news. And the news that concentrates on what's important.

What gets more hits on the internet? Any actual news or Britney Spears, Angelina Jolie and Jeffrey Starr? We're a country about celebrity, not news.

As for making money on the internet, well, it's virtually impossible for news companies. What one site charges for another happily provides for free. The only way to make money is via advertising, but then you end up with massive distrust as companies you are reporting on have ads on your page. Look how that, and the scandal behind it, ended up crippling C-Net late last year.
But it's a better option than charging. The New York Times learned that charging was a bad thing. It doesn't matter what you have, people don't want to pay for it because it's free elsewhere. Even if the Times started hiring amazing editorialists and putting them behind charged barriers it wouldn't bring in much money. ESPN tries to do it, but does anyone here know anyone that pays for ESPN? Most people I know found other sources for sports commentary. Free sources.

Most of the news websites that sprung up in the early part of the decade, be them music, gaming, or general news, have since died. People had no interest in paying, and ads weren't really covering costs. It's hitting magazines, too. Sure, magazine ad revenues are up, but many magazines had to start giving themselves away for free fairly constantly to get there. And many magazines are long since gone. Monthly magazines were outpaced by the internet, often bringing news 3 to 5 weeks late. The ones that survive are the last magazines standing of their genre, or ones covering things (or such a variety of things) that it would be too costly for an upstart to give for free on the internet.


For all the greatness of the internet, it's certainly serving to make us dumber. Maybe I should say ignorant. Willfully ignorant.

This is the problem with the old school journalists. They can't think that anyone can be a journalist. You can't be a journalist unless you're trained. Rather than looking at the acts of journalism that the person is doing. I know plenty of untrained people who do acts of journalism all the time. I worked with them. Phenomenal people. Doesn't make them lesser than me because they're untrained.

People have to be aware of their sources, though. yes, there's a lot of crap but there's a lot of good too. people don't realize that they have to be good consumers of news now.



Why? Because you personally don't watch the news every night? Because circulation is down? People get their news from a lot of sources outside of the mainstream media or on the Internet from the mainstream media. And a lot of those non-traditional sources rely on the MSM to base their reports. Just because it's not MSM doesn't mean it's all the sudden shit. I worked for an independent news agency for two years. We had tons of untrained people working for us. We won awards. From a professional organization. So because we're not MSM we're not legitimate? I beg to differ.

Like I said, the news industry has diversified.



A lot of stories other than celebrity stories get hit. In fact, the A-Rod story this week didn't do as well as some of our other stories. Granted, a lot of those stories have to do with crime and death. But those types of stories have always done well in any medium. Those stories did well in the 1920s.



Um, you realize that newspapers have been running ads from people they cover and risking alienating advertisers for a long, long time? This isn't anything new and newspapers survived for centuries with that system.



Yet the Wall Street Journal can charge and makes a boatload of money for charging for its Web site. Murdoch considered opening it up, but then he saw that it made no sense financially. Can every news agency do this? No. But some agencies can and do and have been successful at it.

Perhaps I should have said that anyone can be a journalist, true, but not every venue can be one for journalism.


Are you denying that the focus on celebrities is higher now than ever? We have entire industries dedicated to what a celebrity has for breakfast. That's never been around before.

And yes, newspapers have advertisements. In areas reserved for advertisements. You don't open the front page and get a full banner flashing ad for the product being reviewed. You don't go to the classified and get an ad for a local dealer laying on top of 25% of the page until you click it away.


And yes, the WSJ can charge. But look at who they cater to: white collar businessmen. Many of whom have their subscriptions paid for by their business. Many of whom rely upon it for their job.
BusinessWeek thought they were the same thing. BusinessWeek found out they were wrong. Their paid online subscriptions didn't last all that long.

I came to this thread for a simple discussion about social networking websites, and find Beamer and Checky immersed in a highly-philosophical back-and-forth about the importance or lack thereof of said websites. I'm going back to the threads where I don't have to think so much.

The only thing disposable about this will be Beamers job when the county finds out he spends his entire afternoons on the internet.

I use two: Classmates.com. where I've reconnected with the small handful of people I went to high school with whom I actually give a shit about, and the Marine Corps Together We Served website, which is restricted for former and active duty Marines and their immediate families.

I've gotten "invitations" from various friends and acquaintances about seven or eight other social networking sites, but none of the interest me in the least.

Psht, as if I'm the only one here.

Normally I only get here for brief bursts during the day, but this week my judge is out on vacation. When she's out we have no cases, obviously. So, after Monday, I've had about 30 minutes of work a day.

I never said every venue is for journalism. It doesn't mean other people can't be journalists. There are a lot of independent, UNTRAINED journalists out there. Many of them thriving. They shouldn't be dismissed as schmucks.

And many times people start out as being a joke and eventually learn and catch on to the game. They evolve and do very well.

Secondly, I never said there isn't a focus on celebrity news these days. It drives me insane. And I think it drives many journalists insane. After the Anna Nichole Smith stuff, everyone was saying how pitiful it was.

Thirdly, check out the front page of many newspapers. What's on the bottom? An advertisement. There are advertisements crowding all over the newspaper. In some newspapers there is an equal amount of ad space and newshole. And look at the sports section of the herald and record and what's being advertised. My friends in the sports dept. and I used to laugh about it all the time.

Fourth, I said in my last post that there are some publications that can get away with charging. Not everyone can. WSJ has a niche market. And it's not always white collar businessmen who read it. I can't read the WSJ every day, but I really enjoy reading it because it's so well-written and they cover the media industry quite well. I certain congressman I used to cover said the people who read the WSJ actually know what's going on while the people who read the NY Times think they know what's going on. It's true in many ways, and I am a NY Times fan.