Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Claim Facebook Is 'Dead and Buried' To Many Young Users
JoeyRox writes "The recent decline in Facebook's popularity with teenagers appears to be worsening. A Global Social Media Impact study of 16 to 18 year olds found that many considered the site 'uncool' and keep their profiles alive only to keep in touch with older relatives, for whom the site remains popular. Researches say teens have switched to using WhatsApp, Snapchat, and Twitter in place of Facebook."
People actually still use Facebook and Twitter? Facebook's problems are well know, and Twitter is too wordy.
#sittingonporch
#sippinglemonade
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded.
And trust me, it's not because it's "uncool", its because the little shits are afraid of getting caught.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I hate it when those damn kids start playing on my lawn.
All I've ever seen contributed by teens is slang and whining and posts of crap they claim is music.
Now get off my lawn!
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I'm old :(
I read about this in the newspaper.
Personally I find that Facebook has too many features. It sort of reminds me of Microsoft Office with this endless parade of new tiny and mostly useless features.
I think that this is where the snapchats and twitters do so very well. With a very simple core feature set it is not hard to keep focused on what works. But with facebook it almost seems like they don't want to leave anything out just in case some competitor comes along and eats their lunch.
I think it all boils down to the question: what is Facebook? With the highly successful recent upstarts that is an easy thing to answer. But with facebook the question is actually quite complex. It is very difficult for facebook to be so much to so many.
To sum it up they have lost their 30 second elevator pitch. But maybe with this information Facebook will realize that their core audience aren't teenyboppers but adults and thus will focus their feature set in that direction.
Only old people use Facebook.
I ignored it... and it's going away.
Back to MySpace we go.
Follow the money. Check to make sure the study was not funded by hedge funds who are short FB. Get back to us. No, I'm not saying that's what's going on. I don't know one way or the other. Somebody fact-check it for us. I don't trust these journalists to track down the source of funding for us. It's not my job. It's theirs. Did they do it? That's all I'm asking.
Whenever you see studies, you gotta follow the money. How do we know this isn't like a "diesel particulates are good for what ails ya'" study paid for by oil companies?
I've always considered Facebook to be a little "transient", short, not for real conversation. But WhatsApp, Snapchat, and Twitter? Is this an indication that kids today have lost the ability to have meaningful communication? If it can't be said in 140 chars or less it's not worth communicating? There is a discussion at Balloon Juice about the current way of raising kids: Apparently face-to-face social interaction is passe* with the kids these days, and school shootings are up.
*According to Google, the use of the word "passe" was really big in 1800 and again in 1900, but has steadily decreased since then.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
What the heck do these WhatsApp and Snapchat chatter programs have to do with social networking, anyways?
Fungible: The source doesn't matter, only the price. In this case the price is that of ads, and a reliable interface, and social cost, and etc.
Just the other day, I heard an 18-year-old tell his mother that she spends too much time on Facebook.
I about fell off my chair. Maybe it gets better, after all! :)
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
I was one of the first adopters of Facebook. And also one of the few first to leave it.
Why? Here's why:
1) Gazillion stupid apps that tells me that my so called friends are posting cute images of some virtual pet in their image gallery.
2) Gazillion equally stupid ads that doesn't even relate to me in any way.
3) Constant need to filter out the new ways the apps have found to circumvent the filtering.
4) Do we really need to know when an ex-coworker you had 5 years ago, is AFK to go to the bathroom?
5) Do we really need to know that little-princess 4 months old have just learned to walk, in a family we don't even remotely know?
6) Do we really need to connect with one or several of our high school bullies that has the narcissistic need to connect with you to cover his/her past?
7) Do we really need to be "FRIENDS" with our boss (who's only mission is to monitor our every move)?
8) Do we really need....arh...you get the point.
Facebook - DELETED!
Obviously teens and older people have different interests and different views, so they need different forms of expression. It is good that the separation occured by natural selection and not by advertising.
Facefuck ... twatter ... watsap ... snapcrap ... man, it's so hard to keep track of all these fads I'm ignoring.
They could start using Google+, no parents there, just Google employees.
The end of Facebook is Generation Nothingness, whom are now looking for the next big thing. And we move on (well, we do but your data, if you've participated, is permanently written in stone and available to be inspected by security forces along with a few thousand twenty-something recent college grads with marketing degrees -- consume, obey, enjoy).
After spending all their money on cell phones, kids cannot afford to buy products advertised to them on Facebook.
The fact that Facebook's customer base is morphng into older folks only helps its business model of selling ads.
Perhaps they'll "get out of the door and out on the street all alone". The fresh air may kill them.
Teenagers want and need to find a place of their own, to form their own subculture. A new technology comes along, they jump on board because they are highly adaptable, their parents less, often much less, so. But after five years the teenagers are getting out of their teens and those entering the teens once again need to find their own space. Therefore, there can be no permanent place for teens unless it puts off older people joining or staying. Anyway, someone needs to beta test the new communications paradigms.
Bitter and proud of it.
I doubt the reliability of Facebook's privacy settings but I accept friend request from my relatives but I use the post settings to keep them from seeing most of my posts. Then again, I'm 22 so maybe I'm just too old to have left Facebook.
1 on 1 chat for people who want to f--k around. At least with facebook there is a little bit of accountability.
My wife and I have set down some simple but effective rules.
1) They get 1 hr per day to use the computer for playing World of Warcraft or other various on-line games.
2) If they have homework that requires internet research, which seems to be all they get from their teachers these days, one of us must be around.
3) They are not allowed to have any email, facebook, twitter, etc. If they want to communicate or hang out with friends and family they can use the phone or ride their bikes over to the other person's house.
They actually get out of the house and socialize with their peers and learn how to interact and communicate.
We have our moments where they try to be sneaky and create an account. We catch them and then sit down and actually talk to them and ask why they needed to do such actions in the first place, and after the conversation every time we find a solution without having to create any on-line identity for our children.
They do not even have their own cell phone/smart phone/tablet. But main reason is they don't need it, whenever they go out of house they have either my cell phone or my wife's cell phone. And I have the phones set up where all you can do is use the text messenger or phone dialer unless you enter specific override password.
Will there come a day when they must have an account? The answer is yes. We already know my son will have to setup an e-mail account next year for a few of his high school classes but that is next year. But even then we will have restrictions and will be monitoring it like we do now.
But the only reason this works for us is because we take the time and effort to raise our children.
So teens have 140 character and 10 second attention spans. Who would have guessed.
They'll either use Facebook as they grow up and start actually having social networks (in the sociology sense, not the "websites for chatting with friends sense), or there will be a market for a replacement method of finding people's contact info. More than anything, Facebook has become my address book for so many people that I don't have other means to contact.
The concept of "everyone" meaning just a small circle of people is in evidence here. What about the so-called "third world" where modem dial-ups in a dingy cafe still common? Sometimes in these circles, Facebook IS the Internet and is still growing rapidly. Of course, "our youths" don't chat with this rest of the world who don't count in the coolness-factor of the survey above and discussions here.
After hiding those who consistently (long-term) wouldn't participate on my posts, may it be in terms of comments or thumbs-up, I've proceeded to also hide friends who only "share" links such as those from 9gag or Youtube or Facebook pages. Problem now is that my Newsfeed looks nearly static for 24-36 hours! Facebook is indeed dead to me but that's after removing the selfish/narcissists and true time-wasters.
I'm now wondering why I even joined Facebook. It used to be ok and then one day the Newsfeed was changed to default to "Most popular" posts rather than chronological. So much for not putting a view-count on your Profile page or under your photos because somehow management didn't want Facebook to be some MySpace popularity contest sh***y website. That new Newsfeed is a true contradiction to that ancient moto.
There was never an abundance of teenagers on Facebook. It was initially for college students, and it branched out to older users. It has never been a good tool for young people living with their parents (for obvious reasons).
I would be pretty freaked out to see people's faces. Some people have not been blessed in that way and I prefer them on their phone looking away so I can keep my lunch down. I think there are a few genres of social sites based on how a user can use them: user to user or user to group direct communication (akin to talking face to face), broadcast networking (more like terrestrial radio, you send info out and people may tune in), and stalking (whether familial research or otherwise, like a background check that you can do for free on persons of interest based on how and what they have made available) I don't know/care how most people will/do accomplish this, but for me, Google's product line covers all needs, but no one app cuts it.
i support the right to offend.
Sorry.
Not all the "older folks" use Facebook.
I for one, don't.
Yes, I do have a FB account. I signed on to FB when it was brand new (just like I sign on to /. when it was brand new) but I do not like what people do there --- they TELL EVERYBODY EVERYTHING ABOUT THEMSELVES.
I am not interested to know who eat what at where, nor interested to tell anyone what I do at what place in what time either.
I logged on to my FB account for 2 times since I signed on. Yes, exactly two times, and no more.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Comment removed based on user account deletion
..despite the hype, facebook needs you far more than the average user needs facebook.
I'm looking for the research and see.....none. The credentials of the researchers is impressive at first glance, but there is no research. This whole thing looks like a hypothesis without any real research. The entire premise is very interesting, and some of their ideas are worth PROVING. I can't wait to see the results.
Personally I find that Facebook has too many features. It sort of reminds me of Microsoft Office with this endless parade of new tiny and mostly useless features.
It's not that Facebook is complicated. It's that most of the new features involve either advertising or collecting data about you. They have value for Facebook, not the user. Facebook is pulling a Myspace. Worse, they're doing it in the phone era, where ads are more annoying due to the limited screen real estate.
Snapchat is still in the "no ads, no revenue" phase, when it's fun to use. Originally, Google didn't have ads. Originally, Facebook didn't have ads. Until recently, Twitter did not have ads. Once the ads appear, the downward spiral begins.
It would be amusing, and perhaps useful, to create a social network system that looks to the user like Twitter/Snapchat/WhatsApp, but uses XMPP/email/IRC/SMS for transport and doesn't need servers of its own. Sell the app once for $5 or so. No ads. Phone providers usually give you a mail account and an SMS number. That's all you really need. WhatsApp comes close, but they have servers and an overreaching EULA, like everybody else. The trick is to make it spam-free, which probably means you have a friends list and only they, and maybe friends once removed, can reach you.
the fact that the average common denominator for intelligent discussion dropped markedly and measurably in the mentioned span of time.
Now you have to WORK to find a good, intelligent circle, and then work doubly hard to protect it from casuals..
This has to do with the fact that before, only academics and at least computer enthusiasts and hardcore geeks used the internet.
Now, Biff "uses" it too.
I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
Good, maybe people are realizing it might not be such a good idea to tell a faceless company who sees you as their product everything about themselves from what they eat to who they know.
Guess what, that will always be the case. MySpace died a grizly death as soon as Moms everywhere started dropping friend requests. Facebook is pretty much just the lazy person's way of sending email/IM. It's cool to be able to see what people are up to, but I find myself using it less and less as time goes on.
The old Facebook dismissal is that if you want share something with your real friends, you pick up the phone. I think that's the slightly wrong way to look at it, but it has a point. It's a bit of signaling, actually, that is accomplished by using the phone or any more involved means of contact.
This is exactly what google+ excels at. Having circles of friends is much closer to the way we live . Of course, the circles are very small, since no one else uses google+. :(
Hmm, this is also closer to real life too
For those interested in photography though, check it out. It is worth it.
Google is an ad broker, selling you, your privacy, as a product to the highest bidder. For this they employ a small army of lobbyists and finance politicians, so that we don't get better privacy laws. In return, they look the other way while providing the NSA access to all your data, all of it. Google is evil. It is not an alternative social network. Unless you are a complete and utter moron who is going to post all of your private live to an evil whore of an ad broker that pisses on your rights.
It is. I have account there. Been there like 2 years ago for the last time.
Initially Zuckerberg stole data of these college students and put them online without their consent nor knowledge. Imagine your data are uploaded to a social media website just because the owner wants to.
This is 'success' in America: starts with a crime, continues as immoral, ends as a great loss to everyone except the owner. Just like their banks, microsoft and almost all other companies.
Facebook is creepy.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
now looking for the next big thing. And we move on (well, we do but your data, if you've participated, is permanently written in stone and available
It's such a damn shame innit? They start crazy fights for privacy rights but aren't winin' it. Keep on moving on, getting inspected, not a single elder respected -- Like the old coulda told anything about info set management or social net arrangement; Not like we're the ones inventing the tech they keep renting: token ring, cold war dialling, social engineering, or any such thing.
I recall the good ol' days, a BBS on my relays, on my own damn machine, bought by car, truck and van washing. My crew and I were the ones who invaded, berated, and sysoperated, ruling every line on your dime one at a time. We ATA'd every call since we had it all: From hiphop to funk, cyberpunk and phreaking, cracking, hacking, dumpster leaking, from robotics to erotics, sharewares and GIF scares and ANSI scrolls so thick they make your third eye sick. Through trace busting out-dials we'd drop hot fresh files, and leave notes scrawled on boards we crawled -- that's a "wall" for yall not the age to breed, or maybe "feed". Kermit and XModem had the fiends' heads explodin' from phat noise-free downloadin'. Your game's No-CD crack has chiptunes and whack splash screens thanks to zero-day smack boasting knack for Demoscenes.
That TXT speak is weak; For fast finger walking prose we had Crosstalk macros. Web clients? I ain't buyin' it. How about No Fear to Peer-to-Peer, and our homebrew free as in beer? Ours had real crypto -- symmetric; You got SSL and wrecked it: Security went down the chutes since you trust bad actors as roots. References? Romance? What's the Hong Kong Post to you? Why: Preferences, Advanced, Certificates and View. To key shit we left you HTTP-Auth; You treat it like a scruffy nerf herder on Hoth. You got images and kerned text full of bot scrimmages and defects. Let me tell you, we got viewers too, with more features than yours do; No terminals hung playing Kung to this senior's Fu. Cindy Crawford wasn't so fine coming down that line in a 16 color swimsuit, but if you think that hot dithered mess hasn't seen progress take an app dirt-nap and reboot.
The pigs don't have a clue where all that data got off to. Bit rot got mold, disk platters went cold, forgave our digital sin: ASCII pages of old never to be scrolled or softly trolled ever again... You never forgive, never forget? You're caught in the Web, not the Internet. Before shit was Y2K compliant any machine was a server or client -- Now you pay the man his business plan just to show off your furry friends or pets: From your system you can't list 'em 'less holes get cut in your nets. Forget any of that or encrypted chat, if you're found at any 3rd party site: Folks at the Hong Kong Post can just as simply roast your connection's toast with state sponsored thermite.
Your browser skids marks like hand writ perjury: You got a "Referer" Header; It's not rocket surgery. Net ended up routing out behind NAT, buffer bloated pouting and all that; You kids can flunk Hogwarts but not forward ports. Not all of yall ignored the call of the tech wild, just enough it's rough to get inbound data dialed. I tried to STUN the sense back in your fool head; Nowhere to TURN symmetric NAT left you dead.
Half the world flushed IP6 down the commode, at least back in the day I had a unique dial code. Rolled out regulators instead of mounting up switches, and ASIC instead of firmware? Keep fucking up, bitches.
Look under the hood of your wireless modem, a separate OS: To the fire let's hold 'em.
Secure like DOS show the specs, programming, namers: Oh yeah, AT commands! Stay flaming, Lamers!
B-b-but!
This line noise hero's signal ain't stopped:
+++
ATH0
CARRIER DROPPED
Researchers Claim Researchers Claiming Facebook Is 'Dead and Buried' To Many Young Users Is Smoke Crack
A Global Social Media Impact study of 16 to 18 year olds
These are people whose social network consists of persons they see just about every day of their life, i.e., their classmates and family. It's not surprising they don't find facebook useful. What is surprising is that they find any other online social network particularly useful. I imagine twitter has more to do with keeping up with celebrities/bands and snapchat/whatsapp is really not a social network so much as it is an improved texting interface which probably works well for intercommunication between small high school cliques.
The reason they use facebook to keep in touch with older relatives is because older relatives are the only people they have developed significant relationships with who are not immediately accessible. When these same students go out-of-state to various colleges, Facebook is going to be a much better way to keep track of each others lives, interact casually with new people (i.e. facebook can be very passive, it doesn't require as much direct activity as a chat program, can just go ahead and friend that guy/girl you maybe like), and keep track of clubs and related events.
But I have seen some die off in facebook popularity. People still check it but they don't post nearly as much. I personally blame privacy issues and the 'like' feature. The latter because it's makes it a popularity contest. Some people are secure enough to not care, others are going to be put off when certain friends post and get 100 likes and they get 2, or even if they do get enough likes stress about keeping it up, or whatever. Best just not to post and avoid the stress of whether your post will be well-received by the community. Any contest is ultimately only going to be participated in by people who do well at the contest, assuming there is any choice in participating.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
16 to 18 year olds don't need Facebook because they have high school. They directly interact with pretty much everyone in their limited social circle in real life five days a week. I'd be willing to bet that the same high school kids who are "shunning" Facebook now will start using it more as soon as they go off to college, and even more after that. As they progress through their 20s, their casual social circle will continue to grow, while their free time to directly interact with this circle will diminish, causing Facebook to steadily become more and more attractive.
The linked article seems to contradict itself as well. It tries to make a point by saying the supposed drop off in high school users is the opposite of Facebook's heyday when it was aimed at college age users. How does that even make sense? I think a better explanation is that Facebook was never made for high school kids in the first place, so of course they're not going to use it much or think it's "cool".
Also, Facebook is never going to be replaced by apps like Snapchat and WhatsApp, as the article seems to imply. Facebook and instant messaging are two completely different types of tools. Facebook's strength is its ability to let you passively, and relatively effortlessly keep tabs on and share information with everyone in your casual social circle that you either don't have the time for or the desire to interact with actively. Instant messaging is for directly communicating with select individuals that sit much higher in your social circle. It's like claiming billboards are obsolete because the telephone was invented.
Other social networking sites and apps, such as Twitter and Tumblr will potentially draw away users from Facebook, but it won't be because of the opinions of high school kids. If Twitter and Tumblr hurt Facebook, it will be because they provide better passive social tools than Facebook for the 20s, 30s, and 40s crowd.
3
I'm positive about generation Z. Can't be worse than Y. Already they seem like a nicer bunch and actually seem to be more like generation X.
What did I just type. 0_o
I'm still optimistic!
SIX seconds? Are you kidding me? I've forgotten what I was doing after 3. A hundred and 40 chars? Get real. The next twitter will be 30 chars or less or just a weird sonar-like animal noise.
Teenagers are sheep. They have to follow whatever fad is cool this year. Facebook is so last year.
How ever down trend you see, because of volume it has, it cant die to easily.
Thanks
http://www.nextgenideas.com
(OP here). I was snarking, but VCS choice is subject to network effects. Today, GitHub is where most devs live, not only because it's a good way to host their projects, but because it provides visibility to one's peers. Having a public commit history there doesn't just look good on your resume/CV, it is your CV/resume. (Same way as your LinkedIn profile is your resume if you're a headhunter or salesweasel.) Switching VCSes is harder than switching from Myspace to Facebook, but in the end, you go to where your friends go, and you use the tools your friends are using. Anyone still using SCCS instead of RCS?
Twitter is a souped up alternative to an XML feed.
It used to be useful to keep track of interesting people and organisations. That is better done in Google Plus now.
It is no use for sharing photographs unless you have accounts in othersystems - like facebook or even Flickr.
I still have an account and it's useful for following some organisations that still use it only, They will either catch up or "go under".
Its IM is less useful than even Facebooks. I am obviously because I consider email to be an even more useful tool.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
FB has volume and some unique features...so, it can still survive untill some one comes up with a stunning Next Generation Idea
Teenagers don't want their narcissistic selfies exposed (pun intended) for all time. I should start-up a social media company called Stupid Teenage/Twenty-something Girls. If I claimed to delete the images after seXonds (120-1200) but stored them in a non-publicly-accessible archive forever, I could lure millions of stupid girls into posting photographs of themselves. How to monetize? How to monetize?
When I just wake up and read something that provokes me I really should get more awake before I post something snarky, but here goes... As far as my own experience on FB goes, if the kids leave, then fine. They don't have anything to say that interests me and in many cases they outright offend. It really makes me scared for the future of the human race sometimes. And as for FB itself and their revenues, what is the buying power of teenagers versus the buying power of their parents? That's right, not much (though they do spend what they have more freely). Now get off my lawn.
Totally agree. Most of the under-20ish people I know use Facebook primaraly for games. The 20-40ish crowd may have accounts, but find themselves too busy nowadays to really use it.
I find that the thing that really seems to have killed Facebook is the "share" feature - especially on photos and videos. Now all Facebook is is people sharing comics, 6-month-old newsstories, virus hoaxes, etc. I wish there was a way to block all "shared" content - but more than that, I wish Facebook would just remove the feature. At least, if a person wants to share a website, they need to copy and paste the URL - do away with the ability to share someone else's posts and pictures.
Maybe then, Facebook may actually get back to being useful.
I have actually been thinking of jumping the Facebook ship myself, mainly because of everything I have mentioned. The only reason I haven't yet is because there really is no good alternative. At least, not in the English-speaking world. I just want to know what my friends are up to, if they are in a relationship, and see pictures and videos of their kids (and maybe vacation photos). I don't care if you joined a new team in such-and-such game, I don't need 20 of my friends to share Uncle George's picture of the day, and I don't want to see inspirational posts unless I am on an imspirational page.
Truthfully, I find Instagram to be much closer to what I am looking for in a social-networking site.
Facebook is turning off older users, and younger users don't have a need for it, and everyone in between just doesn't have time to sort through all the crap that is on Facebook now. As soon as a viable alternative comes up, people will jump ship. It happened to MySpace, which was thought to be unsinkable. It will happen to Facebook.
And some would argue marketing is prostitution. Seen Mad Men?
But then Farcebork has been dead to me since its inception. Stillborn. Kaputski.
That millions of people can be duped into giving up their private information and be tracked and mass-marketed to death is still amazing to me. Then, I think about why we have the government we do in the US, and it all makes sense.
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
Internet seems to have a popular app life of about 5 years. Then something else comes along and steals peoples interest, takes a few years to get real popular (as in the media), explode with mass users, only to start declining a few years later and the youngsters & hipsters move on to the next "big app"
And I say app, because in reality, that is all the webpages really are that become popular now.
And when it comes down to it, the kids wants there own things, they don't want us older folks and parents hanging out, dampening their style. I know when I was a kid I wanted to be as far from my parents as possible in everything I did.
Be seeing you...
Exactly. I think the kids are tired of having every conversation being tracked and having to face consequences for any little message. Snapchat provides an illusion of privacy and freedom from a parent or school official sniffing on their kid's device to find messages and finding stuff.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, no. It is different. It isn't always the student's choice: Some EULAs (Facebook is one example) lock people out from the corporate end. Age, citizenship, listings with various government public shaming enterprises, and so forth. It's despicable of the EULAs, but attempts to force them to change have not yet worked their way through the courts (probably won't succeed anyway... terrorists and children, y'know.)
Better than flickr? How? Aside from the fact that Google's history is rife with services they've set up and then discontinued, and the whole Real Name thing...
flickr's got some shortcomings too -- inability to really curate groups or favorites, and the limits of galleries, for instance -- but I've not yet heard of anyone really addressing those issues elsewhere. Perhaps Google+ has?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
That's one I've been hearing for years - that young people don't use email anymore. That it's not cool. That it's just something older people use. But it hasn't had any effect on the daily flood in my inbox. People don't use email to be cool, they use it because it's a really useful tool that lots of people depend on every day.
Facebook either will or won't survive in exactly the same way. If it's a valuable tool, people will keep using it and coolness will be irrelevant. If they decide other tools meet their needs better, they'll abandon it. Being cool is, at best, a short term way to bootstrap a service. It's not what matters long term.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
is a classmates.com v2.0
I keep telling people millenials might be the generation to save us all.
looks like it. This generation has more taste than mine
Just wait for College to start. Of the social media tools available, there's nothing better for calendar and social event management.
How do you quickly invite tens, dozens, hundreds of people to a party, rally, debate, play, show, election orsports event and keep them in the loop for time, location, theme updates? What tool do you use to maintain membership to a dozen groups, academic, social, or otherwise?
There's a lot of fluff to Facebook, but for certain use cases, it is untouched.
Has no one noticed in this thread that the revenue model of WhatsApp is to charge after the first year of use? It's not surprising that it would be popular while it is free, especially with no advertising. How many of these young users will start to pay after the first year of use?
We are bored of FB especially generation X etc FB became a spam a lot annoying website with what's this!? Invasion of privacy the list goes on! So riddle me this? You don't get your pictures back!? Nice one FB the Younger Generation just don't get! Stay off our turf you punks.
It took some backtracking, but I think what the Telegraph article was referring to was this: http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/social-networking/2013/11/24/what-will-we-learn-from-the-fall-of-facebook/
For starters, unless I'm mistaken about which article they're talking about, the study wasn't conducted in 8 countries, but one: namely, the UK.
I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the small bubble where I live, my friends and I still regularly use Facebook as a means of interaction (I'm currently 16). Sure, we also use Instagram and Tumblr and Snapchat - those are all there (but for the life of me I have yet to figure out why Snapchat is as popular as it is...). But Facebook is still the primary method of chatting, sharing information, posting pictures, whatever. And yeah, we have Twitter accounts, but Twitter is more for public broadcasting, whereas Facebook has the ability for targeted posting... kind of. In any case, I wouldn't say Facebook is DEAD. My friends all across the country (US) do say that they use Facebook more than other methods of communication out of sheer ease of use.
Whether you like it or not. most of the public Internet is about marketing. Love these posters comparing marketing to used car salesmen and lawyers. How, I wonder, did they decide to drive X brand of car, or drink Z brand of soda pop, or choose one computer over another... They consumed marketing. To those who believe that all business is inherently evil, please don't reply.
The most coveted demographic is not teenagers - it's people in their early twenties. At that point in their lives, they are making brand decisions that will remain unchanged for most of their lives. Yes, there are exceptions, but for the most part once people develop brand affinity in their early twenties they don't switch horses.
Given the proliferation of aggressive endless marketing techniques when they were growing up, most of these folks are completely immune to traditional advertising. They Tivo/DVR. They listen to downloaded/streaming music on their mobile devices, not FM radio. When they surf the web, 60% of them are mobile, and they ignore the ads at the bottom of the screen, hardly noticing them. So if you're selling ANYTHING how do you reach these people? Any way you can, that's how.
To those of us that make a living building this stuff, Twitter offers nothing, Tumblr will keep a slicer busy for a week but that's it, Instagram and pInterest are simple API's, similar to Twitter just a little more buggy and unstable... Whereas Facebook is a fairly decent platform to build apps on (after years of instability and an utter lack of Q/A) - and it offers remarkable demographics on the participants compared to everyone else.
So once again we read the story about the death of Facebook, and laugh. Because the clients who write the checks keep spending money there. And the contests, given a halfway decent acquisition strategy, return large numbers of engaged brand fans who stay engaged after the contest is over. Conversions (that's sales to you non Digital Interactive Folks) can be measured from Facebook outbound click traffic and married with the customer's key demographics. That's golden, nobody else has that.
Murphy was an optimist
The problem is that it takes two to tango. If I email anyone, ooh, under the age of 25, I rarely get a reply because their communication is concentrated on social media. Or if I email someone who only accesses the Internet on their mobile telephone, I get a response which is no longer than a text message and equally abbreviated. The proportion of people able to communicate effectively via email has become alarmingly low.
There are quite a few differences between the EULA of Matlab and the EULA of Twitter. Firstly, I assume that the EULA for a piece of software is static. Whereas, the EULA for use of a website may be subject to constant revision. Who knows what will appear or disappear from the EULA of a website seeking revenue? Although it is possible to terminate a Twitter account, that could change in the future.
Secondly, using Matlab doesn't require the disclosure of any personal information. Nor is it likely that typing anything offensive into Matlab will result in arrest and/or loss of employment.
Finally, I don't know of anyone who has been abused through a copy of Matlab. Maybe they've been abused for using Matlab but they haven't been abused via Matlab.
What happened to the Facebook phone? It should have been out by now.
Well put. And why does the conversation lead to the profitability of some business? Who cares? If Social Media is a Marketing tool and what people use it for is incidental for marketers to spy on them as the business model for the corporations, Google, Facebook, etc. etc. in the business. then why should we care that that business model succeeds? I argue that it would be good for it to fail and the lot of them to go out of business. The reason is that to get that Big data application they have crippled communication and stiefled conversation in favor of shallow ephemera and fads. And I hardly care that marketers need fads, what they need is push back and criticism and to be challenged for being stupid and fallaceous, so does the whole industry.
Nothing will discredit tech more than this, because when the 80% of people see that their livelihoods have been threatened by a digital revolution whose visibility to them is fraud by banks allowed to speculate in markets, and marketing fraud in social media, they will begin to doubt the idea that tech was meant to benefit everyone, and they will begin to seek restrictions on the applications computers are being used for. If they will simply not use or will boycott abusive technology or seek direct remedies in the courts against companies, I do not know, but I think that the reputations of tech companies and tech people is now tarnished in a way that we have never seen before.
Twitter is dead to 70x more sixteen to eighteen-year olds than Facebook where every account-holder is an actual human being because it's not a Ponzi Scheme.
OMFG! Can't believe it!
Can you imagine?
The times when the internet was ours, when all the stuff was nerdy and interesting, when we used mailing lists, IRC and newsgroups....
I think I'm going to install Xirc right now! And script the fuck out of it!!!
%F YEAH MATES!!!! %F
-- 29A the number of the Beast
The article wasn't written by Daniel Miller, rather a journalist that rewrote it to make it seem more interesting. If you want to see what he really wrote, and his thoughts about the whole thing, here: http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/social-networking/2013/12/30/scholarship-integrity-and-going-viral/
One simple reason: Facebook hires no Americans, only coding coolie scabs. So they know nothing about American kids.
Facebook greatly helped scientific research and scientists in better communicating each other. We have formed a team of over 900 scientists in interacting over the Latest Physics Discoveries in 2013 in X-ray Physics, Nuclear Physics, Atomic Spectroscopy, Solar Physics and Special Theory of Relativity etc. And the strength of our team is rapidly growing because of encouragement from Facebook team. Google's Page Rank is 9 for M.A.Padmanabha Rao's Six Fundamental Physics - Facebook Path: /BharatRadiation/timeline
http://www.webstatschecker.net/stats/keyword/six_fundamental_physics_discoveries
On searching for "Physics Dscoveries" in Google Search Window, Facebook also projects the following in first 10-20:
M.A.Padmanabha Rao's Six Fundamental Physics Discoveries ...
https://www.facebook.com/BharatRadiation
M.A.Padmanabha Rao's Six Fundamental Physics Discoveries. 42 likes. Two more emissions from radioisotopes and XRF sources reported in 2010 ..
Facebook project the following pages:
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002083039913
https://www.facebook.com/NewSolarEmission?ref=hl
https://www.facebook.com/SuperluminaVvelocities?ref=hl
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Research-Papers-on-Physics-Discoveries-by-MA-Padmanabha-Rao/397232083690288?ref=hl
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Latest-Indian-Physics-Discoveries-Press-Reports/490532954303217?ref=hl
M.A.Padmanabha Rao, PhD (AIIMS)