"Content creators can and do evolve to make articles, videos, photos and podcasts more distracting and attention-grabbing.
But your family and friends on Facebook aren't getting any better at making their status updates more attention-grabbing. And so social networking is being outrun by a universe of professional attention-grabbers. The attention economy is a Darwinian, survival-of-the-fittest contest, and your Aunt Mildred with her cat photos and Uncle Fester with his political rants just can't keep up.
Social networking still exists, but companies out to monetize social networking are reaching the limits of news feed algorithm tweaks that can make social networking attention-grabbing.
Now the websites formerly known as "social networks" are developing and exploring and evolving attention-grabbing activities that are not social networking. This process will continue until hardly anyone is doing social networking anymore."
I actually totally agree with this. I used to use Twitter to interact with people and have conversations, but I rarely do that anymore. I use Twitter to try and surface articles and other interesting posts that are out there, it's news-gathering, not social. LinkedIn has become overrun with company messaging as well, as companies try and get their employees to share updates. Again, it's nice for news-gathering, but there's not much that is social over there. Facebook is completely overrun with what I see as "social signals", sharing ideas not because you've thought them out, or sharing articles you haven't even read, because you want to be seen as the kind of person who would think and share those things. Of course, those things are professionally created just to take advantage of that reaction, so they're not truly social.
There's very little social behavior going on. There's still some of it on Facebook for me, and it is worth the effort to find, but Facebook continually makes it harder to find in it's ongoing search for it's own business model. Aunt Mildred's photos don't generate money for the platform, getting you to go look for Aunt Mildred's photos in the midst of ads, and "promoted" content, does. So it will continue to be that way.
That's why I keep blogging. It may not garner much attention, but if you really want to read the things I personally find interesting, or want to follow my travels through my photography, you can, without fear of it getting lost in any social network, because while I certainly have outlets to share those things on social networks, they are also always right out here for you to wander over to, or subscribe directly to.
"The trending news section is run by people in their 20s and early 30s, most of whom graduated from Ivy League and private East Coast schools like Columbia University and NYU. They’ve previously worked at outlets like the New York Daily News, Bloomberg, MSNBC, and the Guardian. Some former curators have left Facebook for jobs at organizations including the New Yorker, Mashable, and Sky Sports.
According to former team members interviewed by Gizmodo, this small group has the power to choose what stories make it onto the trending bar and, more importantly, what news sites each topic links out to. “We choose what’s trending,” said one. “There was no real standard for measuring what qualified as news and what didn’t. It was up to the news curator to decide.”"
Please remember this when you decide to use Facebook, or any social media platform for your news reading. No one knows for sure how they decide something is "trending", and there is nothing preventing them from drawing your attention to things they want you to know, while not promoting things they would prefer you not know.
This situation tonight is something that shows the real danger of hacking. We all know what kind of havoc can be created when someone steals your personal information, but here it's not just someone gaining access to information about this kid, it's someone getting into the account and planting information.
That's the real danger in hacking, that anyone, anytime, can make public what used to be private, or create wholly new "data" from nothing, and have it accepted as truth.
Laremy Tunsil may have, at some point, smoked from a bong. It may have been years ago, as he claims, or not, we don't really know. What we do know is that video came out at exactly the right time to cost him millions of dollars. That was no accident. Someone meant for that to happen.
That is a hacker targeting an individual in order to ruin them. There are so many insecure databases out there where a hacker could do the same thing to any of us. It's only going to get worse, I'm afraid.
With 90% of children under 10 going online, and 86% of children aged between seven and 11 using some form of online communication, the risk is there from an early age.<br /><br />The more you know about the kind of social networking sites your child belongs to and what information they like to share, the more likely you’ll be able to keep them safe.
But it does require you to know about the technology that kids are using. It might be funny to joke about how the kids can use these new-fangled devices that we don't even understand, but if you expect to keep an eye on what those kids are doing, it's going to require some familiarity of your own. Social networks and online gaming might not be your cup of tea, but your kids are using them, so you should be too.
This article is about lawyers and law firms, but honestly, the first two ways firms are using technology, social networks and blogs, apply to anyone who is seeking to stand out in their field.
What better way to make a name for yourself that being an informational resource on social media and blogging about important topics?
"The Brussels bombings left cellphone networks strained, causing officials to advise the public to use social networks to communicate with friends and loved ones. They also advised against streaming audio or video to avoid overloading the local Internet."
I was in London the morning this happened, with a class consisting of folks from a few places around Europe. They were using Facebook's Safety Check to look for notifications that folks they knew in Belgium were safe before we started class. Thankfully, they were and we went on with the day. Not everyone was so lucky.
This does, however, show the power of social networks, being able to get a message out to family and friends through the network instead of trying to reach each individual on a saturated network. It works that way in an emergency, and it works that way just to keep in touch. You don't have to like everything about it, but you can't deny that benefit.
To be honest, I've not paid much attention to the upcoming availability of Facebook's Instant Articles for all publishers. I know the big "plus" seems to revolve around advertising revenue, and since I don't have ads at all, that doesn't appeal to me.
I am somewhat curious about whether Instant Articles could grow an audience more than having a Facebook page for the blog where I share posts as they are published. So while, I will probably at some point test it out with a few articles, it's not a high priority.
What about you? Are you looking forward to using Instant Articles on Facebook? Why should I be more, or less, interested?
""I interviewed a young person last week who was very clear about the need for multiple profiles," boyd continues. "She used Tumblr to share all sorts of political feminist images with people who cared about that, Instagram to share photos with her classmates, Facebook to interact with everyone she's ever met, and texting to talk with her closest friends and family."
"Different sites, different audiences, different purposes." she says. "Very simple.""
Clearly, this goes on all the time. As someone with 4 blogs, 3 Twitter handles and numerous Facebook pages, this is no surprise to me. For me, it's different topics, different audiences, so why would I only have one persona to try and deal with all those different groups?
It's pretty simple, and despite Google and Facebook's desire to have one person and know as much about them as possible for targeting advertising purposes, real people tend to only share segments of themselves in certain channels.
That started long before the internet.
"The problem stems from each of the company’s revenue streams, which ultimately diminish the business value of using the service.
Whether it’s being paid to promote content, focusing on sales and recruitment over other professions, or interruptive advertising, these streams incentivise poor behaviour by individual users on the site.
In other words, LinkedIn’s business model inhibits the growth of the network; and the network growth is ultimately what its business model is reliant upon."
LinkedIn is not alone on this, it's just the network where it's most acute because we've gotten a bit used to advertising on other networks. You could make the same statement about Facebook and Twitter. The more they try and cash in on advertising revenue streams, the less usable the service becomes for their own users who are just trying to connect with other people.
For example, since Twitter and Facebook started putting ads in the news feeds, they have absolutely become slightly less useful. The connection that we signed up for is being interrupted by advertising. In order to grow their profits, they will have to continue to do that more and more. How do you continue to grow your revenue without driving users away? There's only so much advertising you can push at them, where does the revenue that shareholders demand come from?
"We are living in a world in which a handful of high-tech companies, sometimes working hand-in-hand with governments, are not only monitoring much of our activity, but are also invisibly controlling more and more of what we think, feel, do and say. The technology that now surrounds us is not just a harmless toy; it has also made possible undetectable and untraceable manipulations of entire populations – manipulations that have no precedent in human history and that are currently well beyond the scope of existing regulations and laws. The new hidden persuaders are bigger, bolder and badder than anything Vance Packard ever envisioned. If we choose to ignore this, we do so at our peril."
This is a lengthy article, but they cite some really interesting experiments and examples where we've already seen Facebook and Google creating massive influence over people's behaviors and opinions, without any of us really being able to detect that it's happening. Go read it, and keep it in mind as you look at search engine results or newsfeeds that are based on algorithms we can't see, and information they are tracking about us.
Facebook hasn't had 24 hours from the rollout of reactions, and already people are complaining about them? Really? I guess it's true, no matter what Facebook does, someone will complain.
To be fair, it's entirely possible that this article is right. I haven't had enough time with reactions to have an opinion, and it's possible that I will never use any more than the "Like" button anyway. But I will at least spend some time noticing how it changes, or doesn't, my own behavior before I jump to write about it. ;-)
How are you "liking" Facebook's new reactions?
This is big news for anyone who runs an organization's Instagram account as well as having a personal one.
It'll also be nice for all those teens who have one account their parents know about and one they don't, which I hear is a thing. ;-)
This is interesting. I've published a few items on LinkedIn out of curiosity, and I could see some benefit in terms of getting likes/comments and potential getting your LinkedIn profile in front of some secondary connections based on those. On the other hand, I have seen a lot, and I mean a lot, of people "publishing" nothing more than marketing pieces on LinkedIn. That really does create a platform that doesn't prove anything about your level of expertise. If someone wants to know about my level of expertise, I would much rather they come check out what I write on my own site, rather than seeing my stuff mixed in with 100s of other peoples marketing messages.
What has your experience with publishing on LinkedIn been?
"Years from now, when telling my future grandchildren about 2015, I will speak at length about the treachery, fibs, toxic scoops, deceits, tall tales, viral hoaxes, half-truths, tomfoolery, unverified junk and fake news."
Sadly, I've seen most of the fake stories listed in this article shared over and over again by people on Facebook and Twitter. People who should know better, but just don't think. How many of them have you seen?
"I don’t think Twitter can convince bloggers to pay for sharing data directly. But what if Twitter announces – and I’m telling you right now to expect this – that sharing counts are only available on the Twitter Analytics dashboard? In truth, the data available there is already pretty sweet, and if Twitter put sharing data exclusively in that dashboard, what will happen? A LOT MORE people will log on to that dashboard, slavishly scanning the numbers for their daily dose of social proof."
This wouldn't surprise me either. I'm not thrilled that Twitter eliminated share counts on my own, and other, sites, but I also understand that Twitter will do what's best for Twitter, not necessarily me.
Getting more people to their site, and viewing their ads, is in their interest, but they will have to weight that against ticking of their own user base. I don't think this will impact that much though. Most of the Twitter users I know don't really care that much, it's website owners who care, and it's not like we're going to stop using Twitter over it.
"Although some people share company news and social media posts on their own, most do not. LinkedIn did a recent study and concluded that only 2 perecent of employees post company messages and campaigns on social media. Which leaves a staggering number of employees who are not posting.
Choir, a new social media tool, is tackling this issue by providing employers with the ability to post on your behalf on social networks like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. Employees need to give their permission first through a permission request email, but once that is done, your company could post from your accounts at will."
Yeah, no. I don't think so. The problem is not so much that I don't ever want to promote the organization I work for on my social network profiles, because I've shared many an article and announcement on my profiles that I think the people who follow me would be interested in, but that' the thing. Those followers are my audience as an individual, and I want to be able to actually decide on a case by case basis whether to post anything put out by my company, not have them decide for me.
"Networking is of course important when you are looking to expand your career horizons. Shaking hands, putting your foot in doors and making contacts are great ways to make sure that potential employers already know who you are before you send in that all-important job application.
However, in 2015, an avenue of networking that is becoming more and more important in the professional strata is that of the social sort. Whilst it’s true that many people see social networks as a source of frivolous timewasting, more and more employers are looking to them to suss out or to head-hunt potential new employees.
This is not to say that online activity is set to replace the traditional methods of searching for employment, rather that it can be used as a way to complement the more tried and tested avenues.
If you want to be taken seriously as a professional person then you need to find ways of leveraging social media to your advantage. And there is definitely a right and a wrong way to do it.
We have decided therefore, out of the goodness of our hearts, to provide you with our guide on how to compliment your career using social media."
Not anything earth-shattering here to those of us who have viewed social networks as a way to show your value to potential employers for years, but if you haven't spent much time thinking about how to put your best foot forward using social media, this is a good place to start!
Some interesting thoughts on how to thank people for sharing your blog posts or other content without sounding trite. I may have to start coming up with more creative ways to thank the people who share things I write.
What's the best "thank you" you've gotten from social media?
"Over the last ten years, social media has become part of the fabric of our lives. The use of social network sites has become as routine as using a cell phone or email. Social media is used in all aspects of our lives, whether in communications or information seeking, on personal or business affairs."
Wow, we really have reached a point where not using any social media just makes you out of touch with society. If that's what you're looking for, OK, but don't pretend it's just a fad, even if some individual social networks might be.