Tagged with twitter

The week that Twitter got serious

Twitter

Been a quiet week hasn’t it?

Well, actually it hasn’t. This was the week that has proved Twitter is not just a new social media fad. In the matter of a few days we’ve had the Trafigura scandal and we had yesterday’s unbelievable and appalling article by Jan Moir about the tragic death of Stephen Gately. Because of it, people using it to spread the word about Trafigura, the blocked information became public. Because of it, the Daily Mail has lost advertisers on their website. I joined Twitter in 2007 in its embryonic phases and even I didn’t expect that it would get this big and this valuable to news.

What’s perhaps worrying for organisations like Carter-Ruck and the Daily Mail is that the momentum is not going to go away. Twitter is no so powerful that it could pretty much create news at any given moments. A world without it would mean that both Trafigura and the Jan Noir article would not have been news. There is also an added legal benefit. As Martin Moore says in his blog yesterday, to stop the people tweeting away is an impossible task:

They (or rather ‘we’, since I twitter and was twittering on Tuesday morning) are mostly individuals, not institutions or outlets. To stop twitterers Carter Ruck would have to take on thousands of individuals – many of whom are tweeting pseudonymously. To use a military analogy, it’s like an army fighting a guerilla rather than a conventional war.

People must stop underestimating this invaluable tool. People who think that incidents like this are examples of a ‘heavily orchestrated internet campaign’ – something than Jan Moir believed the furore was in her forced and non-heartfelt ‘apology’ – are obviously deluded and will never ‘get’ the idea in the first place and will suffer for it. Just like the Daily Mail.

PS – If you haven’t yet, read Charlie Brooker’s utter destroying of the Moir article.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Will social networking eat itself?

LOLbook

Social networking. If anything has become big in terms of mass global success in the later half of this decade it is social networking. Whether you’re trying to de-tag yourself from painfully embarrassing photos from a night out, blogging about your emo woes, or telling the world what you think in 140 characters or less there are now several ways that people can organise their own lives online. The power of these services are certainly similar to that of a great destroyer – websites like Friends Reunited are declining in popularity due to the fact that people could get the same service for free on Facebook rather than having to pay.

But in the last three years something interesting has happened. In 2007, a year after the entire world went crazy for MySpace, Facebook was starting to make waves with the status updates, cleaner interface and much more in the way of actual networking. As a result, MySpace had to react and they instead copied everything that made Facebook really good. Facebook was on a roll until early this year when Twitter exploded thanks to a certain Stephen Fry and recently Facebook had to retaliate to keep people using it. How? By copying Twitter entirely. Soon, MySpace will copy those features that are now to be found on Facebook. Basically, social networks have become a chain where once something new and exciting pops up, the old services that were once the same thing will copy them.

Basically, what I’m trying to say is that social networking is eating itself. It’s difficult to predict the future in the world of technology where every second will see something new develop. However, one can’t help but imagine what new social networking trend will emerge next and, perhaps more importantly, how other social networking services will try to make the most of it. There is a great skit on the brilliant The Day Today where they run through fake TV listings and mention an off-the-wall documentary that follows a family in their daily lives via cameras inserted right into the face of each family member. I think someday in the near future we will have that reality and what’s more, in keeping with the Web 2.0 theme, it will be a social networking site. Think YouTube but live streamed – just think of the number of things you could sneakily watch! If someone is reading this and wants to make it work, get in touch so that we can talk about finance…

Tagged , , , , , ,

Why the new Facebook is terrible in three bullet points

Facebook

1. First and foremost, it is trying to be the newest social networking fad – Twitter. There’s just one problem though – social networking websites can’t rip off other ones without having design compromises. For Facebook, the new homepage design is terrible by all accounts as useful links like Events and Groups have all but disappeared (or just had less space than before) in favour of a centralised live feed and a ‘highlights’ column which is absolutely pointless.

2. Clutter. The last version of Facebook wasn’t without its flaws but it wasn’t as messed up as this one. The homepage is now a complete and utter headscramble of  status updates mixed up with big, shouty application updates on the ones that you don’t even use (I don’t bother with the applications – they’re just pointless and even more so when the last design update just pushed them all aside onto a graveyard page).

3. On the profile pages you now have a choice of showing stuff from – and this is assuming that Person A is a hypothetical person of me – Person A + Friends, Just Person A, and Just Friends. What’s the bloody point?

Facebook, as a social networking site, is useful for me in the sense that I can catchup with friends from sixth form and university effectively. Because of this, I have to endure a terrible, clumsily designed website. If I had no ‘friends’, there is nothing on this God-forsaken planet that would make me sign up.

Tagged , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.