# Not with a bang but a whimper.....



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Monday 24th August 2015, 1 Billion people logged on to facebook......


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Shaver said:


> Monday 24th August 2015, 1 Billion people logged on to facebook......


Thankfully I'm not one of them.
Though we seem to be the only household round here who doesn't partake.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Nor am I, I am proud to say. We all face a rather seminal choice to be made regarding this issue. Do we spend our lives actually living them or do we spend our time, so tethered to our electronic playthings, that we must fabricate facts to fill in the blanks that not surprisingly occur because we are spending too little time living and too much of our time telling others 'of our most glorious efforts to do so!'


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Nor am I, I am proud to say. We all face a rather seminal choice to be made regarding this issue. Do we spend our lives actually living them or do we spend our time, so tethered to our electronic playthings, that we must fabricate facts to fill in the blanks that not surprisingly occur because we are spending too little time living and too much of our time telling others 'of our most glorious efforts to do so!'


Well, OK, but to be fair most of the people I know who use Facebook don't spend more than a minute or two a day catching up with things.

Personally, I check my page at least once a month.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

I am embarrassed to say that I have such a ghastly account and I have it solely as a means to communicate with younger acquaintances most of whom take me to the woodshed for not checking it when we speak on that outdated device known as a telephone. I dislike the dreaded page because its main purpose seems to be a "look at me" bulletin board for mostly self absorbed folks. I freely admit I am not that interesting.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The question is what exactly does "logged on" mean?

Many people have a Facebook app running in the background on their portable device. They are technically logged on. 

Everyone I know, and in particular the demographic that FB cares about, 20's and 30's, who has a FB account, rarely if ever goes on it because it is so filled with junk. They've moved on to other mediums and ways of staying connected.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

"Facebook doesn't waste time; people do."

As with any technology, Facebook is as good or bad as how it's used.

I find it immensely useful as a personal contact manager. Friends and family are so far-flung that frequent personal interaction is difficult (Atlanta, GA, USA to Auckland, NZ is quite a haul, for example); we also maintain a family "genealogy group" on FB where a couple of family genealogists post findings, records, old photos, etc. which can be quite interesting (I never knew so much family history as I have in the past 3-4 years on account of FB aggregating everything!)

I use the "Events" functionality quite often as well to organize brunches, game nights, etc, and quite a few friends of mine maintain ongoing groups for regular-interval events (such as my friend Doug's Tuesday boardgame night, which is usually a bunch of biologists).

What I do NOT do is play "social games", worry about cats, or try to use it as a blogging medium for the discussion of topical issues.

I haven't bothered with things like Instagram, Pinterest, etc., but I can see how they'd be useful (Pinterest especially, as an archival and curation tool).

As for being filled with junk, again, FB is as good as your friends. My FB friends are all people I actually know, and for the most part mature, professional folks. I do get the odd political rants, a few cutesy things from aunts, and the occasional mindless polemic from one friend who's a 19 year old Marine (son of a friend), but on the whole my "newsfeed" is interesting book and article recommendations, queries about placed to get the best coffee beans or where to stay in Berlin (or wherever), film opinion, etc. It's mostly (80+%) useful information, because _I have useful friends._

Final word on the value of crowdsourcing: it works. When I pose a question to my list such as "can anyone recommend a good housekeeping service?" or "is there a Cambodian restaurant in Atlanta?", I get (good) answers. That alone is worth managing the FB tool.

DH


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^Mere nuance and, if you will permit me, seemingly delivered with a dash of piety?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

For me, it's primarily a means of keeping up with fellow musicians and distributing my (non-clothing) blogs. 

I use it although I do spend too much time on it - - probably about 30 to 45 minutes a day.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

I am impressed at how Zuckerberg was able to create - and maintain - such a colossal business at such a young age. Nevertheless it's not for me.I did have an account once but I deactivated it some years ago. I must say It's a bit scary how much personal information people put on social media sites


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> I am impressed at how Zuckerberg was able to create - and maintain - such a colossal business at such a young age. Nevertheless it's not for me.I did have an account once but I deactivated it some years ago. I must say It's a bit scary how much personal information people put on social media sites


Impressed at sheer dumb luck? Now there's a perplexing notion........


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Impressed at sheer dumb luck? Now there's a perplexing notion........


"Sheer dumb luck"? hardly. Facebook wasn't a giant diamond which fell from the heavens, only to land at Zuckerberg's feet (who, as it happens, was on the way to visit his jeweler-friend!)

Facebook, fortuitous? Yes. Of course, all things are.

It's a bit misleading, though, to think of Facebook as having been "created" by Zuckerberg - he had others working with him, and of course was plugged into a larger network of similar efforts; that's a feature of computer-related technologies and industries in general (Isaacson's "The Innovators" is a canny "bio" of this feature of the development of computing from Babbage on.)

If any one person is "responsible" for FB's ascendency - let's call them an "agent of fortune" rather than "lucky" - it would be Sean Parker. He was the liaison between FB and venture money like Thiel and Accell, and had good instincts for what could work in the WWW - bear in mind that FB was just one of many early social-media contenders for venture money (I've forgotten most of them... "Friendster" and "Bebo" come to mind.)

So "sheer luck" is probably a stretch. "Fortunate within the context of good connections and guiding the product in the right way at the right time" is more accurate", but much the same can be said for any successful venture.

DH


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^

Heh.

One thing I have always enjoyed is the disparity between the outlook of the fellow who has enjoyed immeasurable success (always a result of his keen business acumen, backbreaking hard work and unadulterated talent) and the fellow who is an abject failure (always the result of a string of bad breaks, untrustworthy or crooked partners and unhappily conspiring circumstance). 

Still, we must keep the illusion of Capitalism afloat, eh?


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Shaver said:


> ^
> 
> Heh.
> 
> ...


As I say, one must differentiate between "lucky" and "fortuitous".

Fortune is *always* a factor in extremum cases of success, starting with conditions of birth (it's generally harder to get ahead when one happens to be born into a Congolese village than in, say, the Upper East Side of NYC), but there IS something to be said about seeking exposure to opportunities.

It's harder to get lucky when one doesn't go pound some pavement or knock on some doors (metaphorically speaking.)

You can't make ALL your luck, but you can make some of it; likewise, you can mitigate downturns in luck (amazing how the people who bought insurance can weather a storm more easily than those who've never bothered.)

That applies equally well to individuals or corporations; it's hardly essentialist capitalism to seek one's fortune.

DH

(It _is _fair to say that it's not possible for FB to have been invented in a remote Congolese village - so yes, there are inequities in the statistical tails of human distribution. Finite worlds and such.)


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ The notion that Zuckerberg planned (or contributed in any material fashion) to the unprecedented runaway success of Facebook is simply risible. Right place right time is all.

We can but wish that the wretched entity withers à la MySpace.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Shaver said:


> ^ The notion that Zuckerberg planned (or contributed in any material fashion) to the unprecedented runaway success of Facebook is simply risible. Right place right time is all.
> 
> We can but wish that the wretched entity withers à la MySpace.


There has never been a "planned runaway success", at least not since the apparently very reliable Delphic oracles (thumbs up from Themistocles!) went the way of history.

When FB vanishes, it will only be because it has been replaced by a much better (ie. less avoidable, more intrusive) aggregator of social media data.

Social media is here to stay, forever and ever (or at least until the last power station fails), and it's going to get more and more integrated into AI, analytics, marketing, etc. etc (the very words we type here are analyzed by the chilly AI overlords of Google, packaged, and sold as "keyword" data to marketers). As satellite and drone mapping become more detailed, accurate, and common, even the remotest mountain man, cabin or cave, beard and hewn-staff, will be available for analysis ("more birch staves this year!")

Better to learn it as it evolves!

DH

(I'm actually involved as a consultant in the theory stage of a social media project examining the "gamefication" of every aspect of life - simply make everyday life part of a trackable "game" which can continuously aggregate data 24/7, providing a complete data image of someone's life. Working title is "The Inescapable Game". Spooky stuff!)


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ OK then, you concede (Pythian stoner rambling aside) that fb success was in fact sheer dumb luck. We got there in the end.

Yet you Sir, now have the temerity to vaunt that you are membered amongst those minions of the Adversary, gleefully contributing to the degradation of Human experience, unleashing these vile gewgaws designed to corrode integrity, deify trivia, and perish the immortal soul. For shame.

"Fun apps for real world rewards", designed by bastards, sponsored by Mammon.

Social media is here to stay? We shall see. The Carrington Event of 1859 possessed the power to obliterate all electrical technology, another event of similar scale narrowly missed the Earth in 2012. We are but one mass coronal ejection away from regaining our dignity.

.
.

.
.
.
.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Yet you Sir, now have the temerity to vaunt that you are membered amongst those minions of the Adversary, gleefully contributing to the degradation of Human experience, unleashing these vile gewgaws designed to corrode integrity, deify trivia, and perish the immortal soul. For shame.
> .
> .
> .
> .


With 7500+ forum postings in 3 1/2 years, I'm not sure you're the determined foe of social media you think you are! :cofee:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Dhaller said:


> With 7500+ forum postings in 3 1/2 years, I'm not sure you're the determined foe of social media you think you are! :cofee:


Oh! Mr D, I beseech you - do not throw in the towel quite so readily.

You will require a measure of tenacity if you are to achieve your nefarious ambitions and game-ify every aspect of all our lives.

Consider me as a crypto-demographic and assemble a focus group, apply de Bono, brainstorm, blue sky thinking, speculate: why might I participate here?
.
.
.
.
.

.

.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Oh! Mr D, I beseech you - do not throw in the towel quite so readily.
> 
> You will require a measure of tenacity if you are to achieve your nefarious ambitions and game-ify every aspect of all our lives.
> 
> ...


Actually, dressing _is _a game. Or rather, dressing _correctly _is.

Imagine this scene from the near future: it's morning, and you are dressing at home. As you look in a mirror, tying a necktie, a smooth voice (or whatever sort of voice you might like - it could be raspy and sinister if you prefer) gently mentions that Mr. Moneybags, with whom you have a business lunch appointment later in the day, is wearing _exactly the same tie. _What you do with this information, of course, is up to you. (It might even mention Mr. Moneybags' favorite color, or provide analytics for the tie colors of the last 50 meetings he attended which resulted in project fundings, or whatever.) _You could even allow your AI to dress you, based on matching rules of dress with behavioral analytics to optimize meeting/dating/whatever results! - _call it "Mommy", perhaps.

That's social data in action.

OR - for gamefication - perhaps you're awarded points when passersby look approvingly on your getup; your personal 365-sensing drone (hovering always at a discreet distance) tracks eye movements and expressions of passersby as you stroll through town, matching expressions to incidents of observation (an eye cast toward your perfectly-executed half-windsor and the slight smile which results, or the imperceptible nod) - correcting for demographic observables (bonus points for every smirking teenage punk!) Your personal AI packages this data for sale to designers, managing deposits to your Bitcoin cloud account (or whatever), _so you can make a living just looking good and walking! _Or, conferring "points" to be used at your favorite shops/forums/etc.

_Life as a game.

_Admittedly, the prospect (to me, at least) at once delights and repulses, which I strongly suspect is a hallmark of strong technological transitions (I'm sure the Industrial Revolution was a scene of moral carnage at its inception.)

DH


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

_"Human decisions are removed. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug."_

I believe that, all things being even, I shall continue to exercise the right to choose my own clothes of a morning rather than yield to the implacable dominion of algorithms.

As to your description of gameification, relentlessly stalked, diagnosed and categorised by the tulpa and golem of personal sensing drones and the whatnot, I have pondered and mused, and the inescapable dread vision which coalesces in my imagination is this:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

2017 update: 2 billion active facebook users.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

For the life of me, I still don't understand how FB is able to generate revenue or even valued at what it is.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> For the life of me, I still don't understand how FB is able to generate revenue or even valued at what it is.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

I only use Facebook to communicate with my sister and brother... period.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Wait, we're talking about this guy:

https://www.businessinsider.com/emb...confirmed-by-zuckerberg-the-new-yorker-2010-9

The emoter in chief?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)




----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^+1. The perfect explanation for why I eschew virtually all social media and instread, try as I might to walk outdoors and embrace life...for real! :hi:


----------



## Hockey Tom (Aug 10, 2016)

SG_67 said:


> For the life of me, I still don't understand how FB is able to generate revenue or even valued at what it is.


2 billion active users and you don't understand?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Hockey Tom said:


> 2 billion active users and you don't understand?


It's not like they charge for an account.


----------



## Hockey Tom (Aug 10, 2016)

SG_67 said:


> It's not like they charge for an account.


No they don't-- but access to nearly one third of the world's population (and that third is heavily biased towards the wealthiest) is an advertisers dream.

Don't think of internet users as customers-- advertisers and marketing agencies are customers, users are just the product being sold!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Only if people actually buy stuff from those advertisers. 

Every millienial I know has moved on from FB. It's what grandma uses. They're onto instagram and Snapchat. 

Every person I know whom I've asked says the same thing; the ads are annoying. 

Whether FB sells your data or "shares" it is a different matter. But that assumes that users that actually matter are using it actively. I know people that create phony FB accounts so that can spy on other users. Others, their accounts are dormant for months, some years. 

It sounds like they're going to be moving into content which is a pretty crowded. 

At least Amazon sells stuff. They're actually of some use. 

Oh well, what do I know.


----------



## Hockey Tom (Aug 10, 2016)

SG_67 said:


> Only if people actually buy stuff from those advertisers.


Most ads are pay per click or pay per view. Facebook tends to shy away from conversion based ad revenue.


SG_67 said:


> Every millienial I know has moved on from FB. It's what grandma uses. They're onto instagram and Snapchat.


Looks like Facebook's move to buy Instagram was a good one then.


> Every person I know whom I've asked says the same thing; the ads are annoying.


Yes they are.


> Whether FB sells your data or "shares" it is a different matter. But that assumes that users that actually matter are using it actively. I know people that create phony FB accounts so that can spy on other users. Others, their accounts are dormant for months, some years.


2 billion monthly active users filters out those dormant accounts you reference. Q2 2017 had 1.3 billion *daily* active users.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/26/facebook-earnings-q2-2017/

I can fully appreciate why someone wouldn't like Facebook. But the numbers don't lie, it has a massive user base and consistently increasing profits.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I have no idea how FB works to be honest. I do know this, someone has to pay the bills. If not the users, then the advertisers. Advertisers expect some kind of ROI, and something tells me just clicking on something doesn't translate to money in the pockets of the advertiser. 

They can buy Instagram, or whatever other new platform comes out, but if the people using said platforms don't spend money with the advertisers, I'm not sure how they can continue to do this. 

I'm not negative on FB. I'm pretty much apathetic to it. It's a social media platform, to some extent like this. Advertisers are free to continue paying FB but I would think at some point they will likely start seeing that the money spent outpaces the money brought in. But hey, they're making money now and I guess that's all that really matters.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Look at TV and radio advertising (commercials). They pay the TV and radio stations. Newspapers and magazines, too. If companies and businesses don't advertise how many people (customers) know they exist? Advertising let's thousands, millions and even billions of people know about the retail. Good question. How much does each click cost?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Who knows? And who really cares? 

FB is not exactly groundbreaking or innovative. For me, it's not transformative in the way that Microsoft and Apple are. These are companies that have literally changed the world.


----------



## Cassadine (Aug 22, 2017)

Millennials do like Snapchat; their Late Model Baby Boomer Parents do not. I'm nipping that one in the bud. Instantly deleted post? I don't think so.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Cassadine said:


> Instantly deleted post? I don't think so.


You can do that now?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Sean Parker, the first president of Facebook, concedes that designers of the infamous social media platform intended it to be addictive and exploit “a vulnerability in human psychology”.


----------

