Hi, my name is Tyler Armstrong, and I'm a junior transfer student. I was born and raised in Ithaca, leaving only for 2 years to attend junior college in Buffalo. My major is communications, and I hope to pursue a career in the mass media field, more specifically sports broadcasting.
I am willing to admit that I am a Facebook addict; not only do I find it entertaining, but who doesn't love getting a new wall post or friend request from that good looking girl you just met on Saturday night? As a fan of the infamous social networking site, I find it alarming that some people feel such a substantial sense of attachment and ownership towards it. Anytime a change is made or a new feature added, thousands and thousands of users are uproarious in protest. The first example that comes to mind is the News Feed. When Facebook first introduced it I was actually a fan. I didn't mind allowing my friends to see the things I had done to my profile, because I figured that was the point of Facebook; to keep your friends and family updated on your life. Not 12 hours had passed since the addition however, when seemingly hundreds of groups formed boycotting the new feature, with users threatening to delete their accounts if things weren't restored to how they "used to be." Little did these people know however, that the mob mentality they were feeding into was simply fueling the money machine that is Facebook.
As is the case with most media enterprises, any publicity is good publicity. Blogs and websites all over the Internet picked up on the frenzy that News Feed (and its sidekick mini feed) had created, and began reporting on it and adding their two cents to the debate. The extra attention that Facebook was garnering only added to the popularity of the site, as people who had never used the site in the past - whether uninterested or unaware - became intrigued or curious, causing a Facebook fever pitch. The increased awareness of the site brought more possibilities for the Mark Zuckerberg camp. With the demand for his product at an all time high, he opened the site to any and all users. This created an even larger outcry, as college students everywhere felt "betrayed" and no longer "elite." What many people were forgetting however, is that Facebook is a business. With more users, comes more money. Ad revenue and potential sale values have simply skyrocketed, and Facebook is as popular as ever.
I think that it's only natural for many users to feel an attachment to the site, as countless hours are spent surfing it. I feel it's important however for many members to realize that Facebook is a business first, and a service second. We ourselves pay no money to use the site (unless buying a 1.00 gift *coughripoffcough*), rightfully leaving us with limited-to-no say in its business operations. The number of users has increased exponentially since the introduction of the News Feed, so while some may have deleted their accounts in protest, their decision was pointless (and I'm willing to bet they re-activated within days).
Facebook is a conglomerate of almost every aspect of the internet. It provides a Search engine to navigate through a sea of resources and possibilities, it has its own e-mail feature (Messages), and the Groups and Wall entities allow for both asynchronous and synchronous discussions. The new Applications programs act somewhat as MUDs and metaworlds, sometimes adding visual effects, video, music, sounds and games to users' profiles.
Facebook is an internet giant and somewhat of an anomaly. It encompasses so many different areas of communication, it is an entity unto itself.
Comment 1
Comment 2
I am willing to admit that I am a Facebook addict; not only do I find it entertaining, but who doesn't love getting a new wall post or friend request from that good looking girl you just met on Saturday night? As a fan of the infamous social networking site, I find it alarming that some people feel such a substantial sense of attachment and ownership towards it. Anytime a change is made or a new feature added, thousands and thousands of users are uproarious in protest. The first example that comes to mind is the News Feed. When Facebook first introduced it I was actually a fan. I didn't mind allowing my friends to see the things I had done to my profile, because I figured that was the point of Facebook; to keep your friends and family updated on your life. Not 12 hours had passed since the addition however, when seemingly hundreds of groups formed boycotting the new feature, with users threatening to delete their accounts if things weren't restored to how they "used to be." Little did these people know however, that the mob mentality they were feeding into was simply fueling the money machine that is Facebook.
As is the case with most media enterprises, any publicity is good publicity. Blogs and websites all over the Internet picked up on the frenzy that News Feed (and its sidekick mini feed) had created, and began reporting on it and adding their two cents to the debate. The extra attention that Facebook was garnering only added to the popularity of the site, as people who had never used the site in the past - whether uninterested or unaware - became intrigued or curious, causing a Facebook fever pitch. The increased awareness of the site brought more possibilities for the Mark Zuckerberg camp. With the demand for his product at an all time high, he opened the site to any and all users. This created an even larger outcry, as college students everywhere felt "betrayed" and no longer "elite." What many people were forgetting however, is that Facebook is a business. With more users, comes more money. Ad revenue and potential sale values have simply skyrocketed, and Facebook is as popular as ever.
I think that it's only natural for many users to feel an attachment to the site, as countless hours are spent surfing it. I feel it's important however for many members to realize that Facebook is a business first, and a service second. We ourselves pay no money to use the site (unless buying a 1.00 gift *coughripoffcough*), rightfully leaving us with limited-to-no say in its business operations. The number of users has increased exponentially since the introduction of the News Feed, so while some may have deleted their accounts in protest, their decision was pointless (and I'm willing to bet they re-activated within days).
Facebook is a conglomerate of almost every aspect of the internet. It provides a Search engine to navigate through a sea of resources and possibilities, it has its own e-mail feature (Messages), and the Groups and Wall entities allow for both asynchronous and synchronous discussions. The new Applications programs act somewhat as MUDs and metaworlds, sometimes adding visual effects, video, music, sounds and games to users' profiles.
Facebook is an internet giant and somewhat of an anomaly. It encompasses so many different areas of communication, it is an entity unto itself.
Comment 1
Comment 2
4 comments:
You bring up an excellent point, Tyler. What some of those “People against Facebook News Feed” don’t realize is that they willingly registered with Facebook. Facebook does not have to listen to user ultimatums because we’re not paying them to be on the website, so it’s not like they are losing any money. Like you said, they actually profited from all the hype they got for adding that one application – which is quite possibly Zuckerberg’s reason for adding additional, optional applications to the Facebook menu.
However, I do admit that I was also unsure about News Feed when it first appeared on Facebook. It felt as if someone was stalking me, spying on me and documenting my every move. Nevertheless, eventually Facebook listened to user feedback and now you can set privacy controls on your account, limiting what will show up on your profile. So now, people are using Facebook with more vigor than ever because they can check friends’ updates as they logon. I guess it wasn’t a bad idea after all.
I couldn't help but smile as I read your post because I know exactly what you are talking about. When newsfeed first was created, so many of my friends were so angry and thought facebook was going way too far. Yet, at the same time they were using the "status" feature saying "_____ is thinking that facebook has gone too far with newsfeed and this status tool" when they are using to convey their feelings. It seems just a little ironic!
It's interesting to reflect back now at what I thought about newsfeed and how I thought at first it was so stalker like to use and that it would never catch on. Now, it's just another feature on facebook that I actually find very useful when checking to see if friends updated pictures, wall posts, status, etc.
Great post, it really got me thinking about how facebook has changed so much!
Tyler, your entry brings up a few great points for discussion about Facebook and the Internet in general; some of which you may not have intended, and some I’m going to disagree with.
After reading your first (main) paragraph, I thought you were going to discuss the absurdity behind users demanding more privacy for the information they themselves were responsible for making available. I think the amount of personal information that people are willing to post on the Internet is astounding and is a topic worth discussion, but you went another direction with it. The idea of who actually is in charge of social networking sites like Facebook is a bit hairy. While I agree that the publicity that the news feed caused for Facebook was good for business, I don’t believe that the uproar was seen as a good thing by the developers behind Facebook, nor was it responsible for making Facebook more successful. The developers went into panic mode when the uproar started and worked day and night to implement security features that would satisfy their visitors and we have no way of knowing what the fate of Facebook would have been had they not done so. The users threatening to boycott might have gone through with it and the company might have been far less successful than it is now.
I believe that users have a lot more control over the sites they visit than you argue here. Being an administrator of a somewhat sizable website, I can attest to the fact that without visitors there is no ad revenue or sale value at all. So while Facebook does not charge a subscription fee, the members can still be considered customers, which gives them a certain degree of power whether they deserve it or not.
Tyler, I found your blog to be very interesting! Remembering that facebook is a business is most definitively something that almost all users forget. Just recently Newsweek published an article on Mark Zuckerberg and how he expanded his “business.” Not only was it the cover story but also several pages in the issue. I picked up the magazine and at first thought, “How much can actually be written on friend requests and ‘the wall'?” I soon realized the article was not on actual facebook features but instead the expanding enterprise. Your post definitely made me think about this more as I have always wondering why the news feed feature remained despite opposition.
Post a Comment