++discobeta: an adam stewart blog++

Entries in facebook (6)

Monday

May242010

On Facebook, Privacy and Sharing

Monday, May 24, 2010 at 12:31PM

There has been a bit of a flurry around Facebook privacy lately. I'm guessing if you have been online for more than an hour over the past two weeks, you may have heard about it. Comments (current and past) from Facebook's CEO haven't exactly quelled the flames (although this statement at least concedes an effort to change).

To me, the bigger issue is not privacy, but why there is such dependence on Facebook to provide it. Some elements of privacy, of course, are no brainers. Anything required to be a member of Facebook (i.e. email) should be protected. There a ton of privacy settings on photos and location. Other settings let you keep your content behind a wall, accessible by only the people you want (i.e. lists). Granted, the settings change often, but it's not that difficult to stay on top of them.

So, I guess I'm wondering when Facebook became a babysitter for your content. Let's assume instead of a social network, Facebook was a t-shirt you owned. Would you wear a t-shirt mentioning your DUI, a controversial political view, a rambling status update, your relationship status? If the answer is no, then the chances are pretty good that you shouldn't have that information appear on Facebook.

I understand it's a bit extreme of a view, but choosing to share is a choice, and Facebook cannot be responsible for the choices that you make within their platform. Facebook (or any other social network) cannot and shouldn't have to save you from sharing something that may later prove to be embarassing or inappropriate, whether it is a family member, co-worker or friend that ends up reading it.

This may be the most obvious blog post I've ever written. It has been my reaction during this whole privacy debate, but for some reason, Facebook seems to be shouldering the blame for a privacy failure that ultimate falls on its users.

Note: It's been a bit quiet here lately, unless you count the minidisco, my Posterous blog that is now feeding live into the DISCOBETA feed. Sorry for the quiet and thanks for sticking with me.

adam stewart |

How Would You Improve LinkedIn?

Monday, July 27, 2009 at 2:34PM

After bursting onto the scene to become the most popular professional networking site, LinkedIn seems to have gone the way of Delicious, making few updates to their platform and user experience, even as new technologies and user behaviors have changed. Meanwhile, Facebook is consistently making improvements that move in on LinkedIn's territory.

Don't get me wrong -- LinkedIn is great. But it could be a lot better. Here are a few ways they could do it:

Improve (HTML) formatting options: Most resumes exist in bullet form, so why doesn't LinkedIn give users the option of creating HTML formats in the job descriptions? Seems like an easy addition that will lead to cleaner, more organized descriptions of users' work experience.

Choose which connections receive updates: Facebook has privacy options for which friends see which updates. LinkedIn should have the same. The most obvious reason would be during a job search while still employed. Broadcasting to your network is often a better option than messaging your connections individually, but the problem with the current setup is that ALL your connections see the broadcasts, including your current colleagues. Maybe this is solved with an "I'm looking" indicator that is only seen by the people you want to be able to view it.

Non-recruiter job postings: I constantly hear about jobs via word of mouth, yet LinkedIn doesn't make it easy to share these jobs on their site. People are on LinkedIn for a reason -- to network. And the best people to have in your network are the ones sharing jobs not just at their own company, but at other organizations. Sure, recruiters and HR people can post jobs, but why not create an aggregator for jobs posted by people in your network that lives separately from the more formal "Jobs" section populated by recruiters and HR? You may not be able to apply directly, but at least you know who in your network can connect you to the right people.

Social links: Currently, there is a max of three links that can be part of a user profile, and a lot of people use at least one of those to link to their presence on another social networks. With social networks like twitter and FriendFeed playing a larger role in how people market themselves, LinkedIn should provide an easy way for users to display their online presences.

That's where I would start. What would you do to improve the LinkedIn experience?

adam stewart |

5 Comments |

tagged

user experience in

Wednesday

Jan282009

Facebook: One Social Network to Rule Them All

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 at 3:04PM

The social media community is constantly talking about what's next. Brian Solis wrote earlier this week about FriendFeed becoming the next great conversation platform. There are countless conversations about twitter as a must-have for marketers and businesses, and as Mashable points out, it has seen massive growth in the past year.

You know who else has seen massive growth? Facebook, which now has two times as many unique visitors as MySpace. At this point, I barely know anyone under the age of 35 not on Facebook, and I am regularly being added by friends' parents and relatives I haven't heard from in years.

Facebook still rules as the top conversation platform, and here's why.

People value their friends on Facebook more than on any other social network. And the reason is because it is more personal. Most Facebook users know every single one of the people they are friends with -- from high school, from college, from working together. And in that time they interacted, they shared enough personal interaction that they trust those friends to be in their network.

Facebook, not twitter, is the biggest microblogging platform in the world. It may not be the most active, but the Facebook news feed, then the brilliant addition of comments on that feed, makes every user a microblogger.

Facebook is more interesting. Most people would rather read and watch what their friends are posting on Facebook than digest a heavier conversation happening elsewhere. It's the same reason I read the Google Shared items from my friends before I read any other feeds. I want to know what my friends are up to before delving into the rest of the noise out there.

Almost everyone you know is on Facebook, and only a few of them are on twitter or FriendFeed. Try posting your twitter name in your Facebook status and invite people to follow you. Your friends that are on twitter are already following you, and the rest haven't figured out the point of twitter.

Conversations on Facebook are real and genuine. And it is because the real people-to-marketer ratio is still appropriately intact. The walls that Facebook has put up to protect their users, although often lamented by advocates for an open web, have gone a long way to protect users from the "look at me" marketers on twitter.

So what does this mean? Facebook may not be as sexy as it used to be and it may not be where the early adopters are playing. But it is where the most active and genuine conversations are occurring with people that the users trust most -- their friends. Marketing with social media is about trust and conversation, and Facebook still has the most of both.

adam stewart |

7 Comments |

tagged

twitter in

social,

twitter

Tuesday

Jan202009

Change Has Come

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 at 5:41PM

It was only fitting that the most digitally-savvy President in U.S. history would be seen taking the oath of office through a blend of traditional and digital media. He's bringing a welcome political and philosophical change, but he's also changing the way that politicians utilize digital media to communicate with constituents. Just take a look at the squeaky-clean, newly-launched WhiteHouse.gov, complete with blog, weekly video address and email updates.

I watched the inauguration on Current TV, featuring their live feed of tweets streaming along with the ceremony, and online at CNN Live with Facebook. I did this simultaneously, which was a bit overstimulating, but I wanted to try out both experiences. The social aspect of both brought an enhanced viewing experience, for different reasons.

Current TV

Current was displaying tweets in (almost) real-time to coincide with the event. Their broadcast felt a lot like VH1's Pop Up Video, and I mean that in the best way possible. Tweets provided commentary and factual nuggets that added a lot of value for the viewer. And the stream of ecstatic tweets from people from all over the world, including @wonderasiwander tweeting from Kenya with the tribe of Obama's father, added to the bigness of the event. I was proud to watch it, and intrigued by what people were saying.

CNN Live with Facebook

C.C. Chapman called it early on -- this was a game changer. As he mentioned, CNN, Facebook and Cisco created a better experience than watching on TV, thanks to a very smooth feed that experienced remarkably few hiccups despite the huge amount of traffic it was receiving. And, unlike Current's experience, it was uber-social. Every status was posted, comments could be made on every status, and most importantly, Facebook flexed it's muscle as a micro-blogging platform. Everyone still has more friends on Facebook than twitter, and they are more comfortable conversing there.

For the experience that I liked better, I would have to go with CNN and Facebook -- it was more social and all my friends were already there. But I enjoyed watching the Current broadcast as well, and it will be interesting to see if other stations try something for a major event like the Oscars or Super Bowl.

This is an exciting time, both politically and in the realm of new media. It is fitting that these two happened to converge on the same day.

adam stewart |

Techniques on saving and sharing

Monday, April 7, 2008 at 9:02AM

On a daily basis, I'm being fed information from the following sources (listed in order of volume):

Google Reader
Twitter
Inter-office
Facebook
Other: GTalk, Digg, StumbleUpon, FriendFeed, personal email

So I've read or received a compelling piece of content and I want to share it. There is no shortage of ways to do this, and I often pause for a second, wondering how best to share, and who I want to read it. Here is the methodology I seem to have fallen into.

Share on Google Reader This is probably one of the most common ways I share information. But I'm also catering to the audience I know is reading my shared feed. I have a few friends who aren't interested in the majority of the social media information I read, but they might care about a cool map, tech review, sports story or music post. I also have a "shared" feed on this blog, so I consider this to be the most public and professional of my sharing options.

Save to Delicious I don't consider delicious to be an especially social tool, so anything I save there falls mostly into the "personal reference" category, like a cool fashion retailer, online tool or list of running trails. Admittedly, my delicious page is a tagging disaster (which is why I can't wait for delicious 2.0) and I use it mostly for information storage.

Digg it I generally Digg current events, such as a recently-published article of interest in the New Yorker, a tabloidy story or something I just generally want to spread the word on to a wide audience.

Share on Twitter If I'm dropping it on Twitter, it's either an immediately breaking story I hadn't seen from anyone else on Twitter yet (which is rare), a new tool/technology that will appeal to my Twitter followers or a video that has been making the rounds.

Share on Facebook Reserved for items I find amusing, timely or relating specifically to friends (i.e. a project they are part of). If I get a viral video or funny story, it's probably making it on here.

Stumble it StumbleUpon is probably the least-utilized of this group -- for me, anyway. I think of StumbleUpon as a receptacle of interesting photos, videos, tools and content, but not necessarily a resource to find information. There is probably a little overlap with delicious here, but there is pretty much zero chance I'm stumbling a really informative blog post or article.

And finally...email You're getting an email from me if you were foolish enough to include me on any group email list and I know you won't come across the content through any of the other methods I share information. And, obviously, since email is the least public means of sharing information, I'm sharing information just for one person, or sending something that may be deemed a bit too inappropriate to be shared to a larger forum.

So, how do you share information?

adam stewart |