Damn you social networkers, DAMN YOU ALL!

[winkio]

http://www.winkio.com/

Of the millions of types of websites that there are on the web, I despise social networking sites the most.  They are basically a way to say "hey, instead of using your computer to interact with your friends in a multitude of ways, why don't you use our site, which has very limited functionality, and tons of problems, so that you can make us money and be 'with it'".  And now, it's ironic that a new site is using a domain with my name, which I specifically came up with so that it would be obscure enough that no mainstream organization would use it. 

[Sase]

Protip: Indian Ocean domain

www.wink.io

e: damn

[winkio]

Lol, I just looked through the site some more, and it has exactly 28 members XD.  Hopefully it will die soon.

Seriously though, Blizzard gets to share a name with a game studio.  If this site ever gets popular, I'm going to have to change my alias.

[Lethal-Yarn]

Glad that my screen name is obscure enough

[Kett Shee]

I'm an asshole because my alias is unoriginal.

[tSwitch]

Social networking isn't a bad thing.
Facebook is quite good for what it does, keep you in contact and allow quick and easy discussion with your friends.

[winkio]

No, it is not good at what it does.  It is horrible at what it does.  It creates a closed-content, open-access network, which is quite possibly the stupidest thing the could have done. 

What social networking sites should provide is an open-content closed-access network.  By open-content, I mean that you can upload/integrate any digital content you want.  By closed-access, I mean you have control over which individuals have access to what.  With an open-content closed-access network, you could integrate your email, website, music page, favorite videos, relevant news, etc. without limits, and show it to certain groups.  Share the pictures from the party with your close friends, but not your boss.  Share your thesis draft with your editing group, but nobody else.  Share your WoW info with your guild, not your parents. 

Gmail is a much more effective tool that Facebook in terms of keeping you in contact and allowing quick and easy discussion with your friends.
Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace are horrible at what they do.  They limit social interaction to mostly the mundane and unimportant.  This is why I hate them. 

And the worst thing is that because those sites are so big, it is very hard for a new, better site to actually get used.  For example, Google Wave had the potential to completely revolutionize social networking and make it into a great open-content closed-access system, but nobody uses it, because they already have a gmail, facebook, and myspace.

In summary, Capitalism can go suck a dick, and stay off the internet, before it completely blockades the stream of wonderful new things being produced.

[WhiteRose]

No, it is not good at what it does.  It is horrible at what it does.  It creates a closed-content, open-access network, which is quite possibly the stupidest thing the could have done. 

What social networking sites should provide is an open-content closed-access network.  By open-content, I mean that you can upload/integrate any digital content you want.  By closed-access, I mean you have control over which individuals have access to what.  With an open-content closed-access network, you could integrate your email, website, music page, favorite videos, relevant news, etc. without limits, and show it to certain groups.  Share the pictures from the party with your close friends, but not your boss.  Share your thesis draft with your editing group, but nobody else.  Share your WoW info with your guild, not your parents. 

Gmail is a much more effective tool that Facebook in terms of keeping you in contact and allowing quick and easy discussion with your friends.
Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace are horrible at what they do.  They limit social interaction to mostly the mundane and unimportant.  This is why I hate them. 

And the worst thing is that because those sites are so big, it is very hard for a new, better site to actually get used.  For example, Google Wave had the potential to completely revolutionize social networking and make it into a great open-content closed-access system, but nobody uses it, because they already have a gmail, facebook, and myspace.

In summary, Capitalism can go suck a dick, and stay off the internet, before it completely blockades the stream of wonderful new things being produced.

<3
Exactly the reasons I don't have a Facebook, despite pestering by some people *coughDiocough* to create one.

[Blizzard]

<3 <3 <3

Facebook sucks ass. For me it's nothing more than an extension of my phone number list. I occasionally put up a status just for the heck of it because I can.

[SBR*]

In Holland we've got a site just like Facebook: 'Hyves'. For some reason, all the men in Holland only care about soccer, and all the wemen in Holland only care about Hyves... Conclusion: Bananas > Facebook. I've only got an Hyves account so that people don't ask me: "Why don't you have Hyves". I can just say: "I have it, but I don't used it." Then they're quiet .

[tSwitch]

No, it is not good at what it does.  It is horrible at what it does.  It creates a closed-content, open-access network, which is quite possibly the stupidest thing the could have done. 

What social networking sites should provide is an open-content closed-access network.  By open-content, I mean that you can upload/integrate any digital content you want.  By closed-access, I mean you have control over which individuals have access to what.  With an open-content closed-access network, you could integrate your email, website, music page, favorite videos, relevant news, etc. without limits, and show it to certain groups.  Share the pictures from the party with your close friends, but not your boss.  Share your thesis draft with your editing group, but nobody else.  Share your WoW info with your guild, not your parents. 

Gmail is a much more effective tool that Facebook in terms of keeping you in contact and allowing quick and easy discussion with your friends.
Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace are horrible at what they do.  They limit social interaction to mostly the mundane and unimportant.  This is why I hate them. 

And the worst thing is that because those sites are so big, it is very hard for a new, better site to actually get used.  For example, Google Wave had the potential to completely revolutionize social networking and make it into a great open-content closed-access system, but nobody uses it, because they already have a gmail, facebook, and myspace.

True, though on Facebook you -can- limit who sees what on your profile, as well as being able to limit who can/can't see your latest status update, though I don't know if that extends to media.

What would be the point of integrating your email?  If people want to talk to you, they post on your wall, or send you a PM.

I fail to see how you can't display important things to you on your profile.  Videos can be posted to your status (though I'm not sure if uploaded or not), as can photos (which can be uploaded).  Sites you want to show off can be linked on your profile (if they were completely integrated, then it's not Facebook anymore, is it?).

Just playing Devil's Advocate here really, I have a Facebook and only use it to talk to my friends because it's easier to use than email and has some things that email does not, such as the ability to create groups and schedule functions together.

In summary, Capitalism can go suck a dick, and stay off the internet, before it completely blockades the stream of wonderful new things being produced.

Capitalism creates competition which is what you want.  If there was no competition either we'd have one gigantic site, or a bunch of little ones and nobody would use social networking as nobody would want to have 50 sites bookmarked to check up on different friends.

[Fallen Angel X]

Anyone want to raid winkio.com?

And I prefer going out and talking to people as opposed to social networking sites. If it's a friend and for whatever reason, stuck at home, e-mail works just fine for me. But to people who use social networking sites, kudos to you, it ain't my thing unless it's a forum. The sites aren't terrible, they're just not that good xD

[winkio]

I have a Facebook and only use it to talk to my friends because it's easier to use than email and has some things that email does not, such as the ability to create groups and schedule functions together.

Err, I was doing both of those things on my gmail 4 years ago.

Seriously, very few people who advocate for "competition: the magical system" understand what it is.  No, I don't want competition, very few people in the world want competition.  I want creativity.  Competition produces the least expensive and most profitable product.  Creativity produces the most inventive and most useful product.  The core of the internet is driven by creativity, which is good.

@FAX: lol, we could easily double their userbase.  And then spam it up: "50% of the world is doing your mom."  XD

[tSwitch]

That's a pessimistic view of capitalism that only applies in the real world.  

On the internet, competition cannot create the least expensive and most profitable project as most people expect things like Social Networking to be Free, therefore they want the BEST and MOST USER-FRIENDLY product, meaning that competition on the internet brings out better products.

Or are you completely ignoring all of the progress websites have had over the past 10 years regarding user friendliness and usefulness?

Also, I, particularly, find email clunky when all I want to do is tell all of my friends simultaneously "I'm going to [restaurant] who wants to come?", when I can just put up a Facebook status in a few seconds and they'd all get an alert on their phones telling them HEY NEW STATUS and it is just as easy for them to respond.

Regardless, my opinion is that sites like Facebook make keeping in touch easier and more efficient than email.
Your arguments sound more to me like a stubborn tantrum than anything really solid.

[winkio]

Hey look, I can type in a message and have all my friends get it instantly and reply instantly on gmail or a text on my cell phone.  And oh wait!  Both of those existed before facebook :O

Competition has the exact same structure and consequences on the internet as in real life.  Social networking sites are not free.  They trade something other than money, which is people.  It's a competition for who can get the most people active the longest amount of time using the least expensive resources.  (they need people on for the longest time so that they can get the most ad revenue PROFIT).

People do not care about the particulars of the social networking site they use.  All they care about is if all of their friends are on it.  The only reason that people like to use Facebook better is because of the very thing that makes it profitable: it wastes time.  You can waste time checking out your recommended friends list, playing games, checking every single bit of information on every single one of your friends.  That is the main feature that other similar technologies don't have: they don't waste your time.

By the way, your arguments sound like iPad arguments ("it revolutionizes it!").  It's easier?  How?  Because it does the exact same thing as technology that predates it by half a decade? 

[Blizzard]

I have to agree with winkio. Facebook incorporates things have have been existing for quite some time now (just like Apple incorporates 5-10 years old technology, it's just a gigantic marketing experiment IMO). I personally use e-mail with all my friends that actually know how to use technology and those friends either don't check their Facebook frequently (as in a few times a week) or don't even have one as they realize how useless it is compared to other technology. I use Facebook for everybody else.

And yes, you can set up your e-mail provider to send you an SMS when you get a mail. Now how is that inferior to a Facebook status?

EDIT: How can you call a site that changes its interface every 2 months call user-friendly?! They rename functions, they move stuff around and they completely change the concepts of how the site works! Once I wanted to remove a page from my profile and after spending 5 minutes looking around for the "Remove me from fans" button, I got so sick of it that I started googling. Then I found out they moved the button somewhere on the bottom of the page. It was always on top. Yesterday I wanted to do the same thing again and started looking at the bottom of the page immediately. This time I spent 15 minutes looking for it. Yet again I had to google for it. And then I found out that the function has been renamed to "Unlike". Yeah, very user-friendly. It makes so much sense.
The truth is Facebook DOESN'T WANT us to remove pages from our profiles. They change the interface to make all the things harder that they don't want us to do.

[Diokatsu]

My comment was apparently not relevant to SPAM.

[tSwitch]

end all be all: it's easiest to go where everyone already is.

Also I can't get SMS to my phone because we don't get texts.
And as far as email to a group of people goes, it's easier for me to just type one sentence than have to type that sentence and fill in every last email I want it to go to.

I also like how if I become a fan of a franchise I like  or a band I like, I get updates from them in a simple form, rather than having to keep an eye on my email and have to browse through each individual email, I can just scroll down a page and see "[band] has new album coming out!", "[game] has contest, join propoganda contest!" etc... without having to click all over the place and navigate (honestly what I feel to be) somewhat clunky interfaces in order to do so.

inb4 facebook interface is clunkier: I disagree.  The information I want is presented to me immediately upon being logged in, I don't have to sift through stuff I don't care to see to get to what I want to see.

edit: also I totally love how the idea of talking to your friends, and checking out possible groups or things they like, and playing games is considered 'wasting time', yet we're on an RPG Maker forum.

I was posting my opinion, I don't claim to be some kind of judge of the internet.

tl;dr - nothing wrong with email, nothing wrong with social networks either.

[Blizzard]

If the interface was good, they wouldn't change it so often. :/
Though, I agree that it's a lot easier to join groups, etc., but I personally find it pointless since my friends already know what I'm into.

Facebook does allow you to waste time, but who said that all waste of time is bad? If I have an appointment in 30 minutes and I'm bored out of my mind, some mindless just-here-click-there game might be just right to kill those 30 minutes. Not that it happens often (I actually completely gave up on Facebook games, most are just crap), but it's good to have that option.

[tSwitch]

About groups, when I was doing a capstone project for college, we created a team Facebook group, with our own message board and everything.  Each member posted updates on the wall, as well as links to files there, and we kept important revision and version info in the message board, and used the calendar to schedule deadlines.

It worked a lot better than straight email would have for us, because the information was instantly accessible to everyone in one central location and such. 

Changing the interface, eh, idk why they change it so often, but the basic design is what I'm talking about.  You log in and the status/news updates are right there in the middle, chats with your friends pop up at the bottom above things you're doing and you can minimize them if you want, there's a link to photos and apps and whatever you want to do right to the left of the status updates, the latest version, at least, feels rather streamlined and accessible.