mfioretti: facebook* + social networks*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

128 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting / - Bookmarks from other users for this tag

  1. Young Americans no longer use Facebook

    The over 55 crowd are lining up to go to Facebook, which means its the death bell for Facebook ever remaining relevant to advertizers as its usage will decrease YOY in pretty large amounts here in North America. There’s no point in targeting users on the advertising platform if they don’t even sign in, right?

    Facebook is thus built on a big lie, that’s it’s actually still relevant.

    “Facebook is for old people” is a mantra that invariably is only going to get worse as the Newsfeed becomes irrelevant there for brands and marketers.

    Even back in 2015, only 14% Of teens said Facebook was the most important social network.

    What’s more, usage among 18–24 year-olds is predicted to fall, as well, by 5.8%.

    It really does not matter how many “users” Facebook has globally, the penetration among key demographics in North America is what really matters. If Twitter is an actual barometer on real-time events and collective sentiment, Facebook is that place you go to meet your grandmother who lives in another country.

    With actual peer circles and with streaks, Snapchat is a much more persuasive app for teens than Instagram, that is better known for celebrities.
    Over 55s flock to Facebook as teenagers leave in droves for Snapchat

    With consumers more careful of smartphone addiction and notification spam and algorithms in feeds manipulating us, 2018 might be the year consumers kill Facebook. Facebook pivoting away from the Newsfeed is an ugly sign that the era of “likes” and personal sharing is nearly dead.

    Have you considered a digital detox from social media apps in 2018?
    https://medium.com/@Michael_Spencer/t...xodus-of-youth-continues-db8c146cb5ca
    Voting 0
  2. I contenuti di Facebook – dicono i due esperti – non sono indicizzati dai motori di ricerca, quindi qualsiasi discussione rilevante che avviene da quelle parti rimarrà confinata agli iscritti. Linkare simili contenuti da fuori è quasi impossibile, specie se non possiedi un profilo Facebook.

    E cosa accadrebbe domani se Facebook dovesse chiudere? Le nostre parole scivolerebbero via come lacrime nella pioggia, l’esatto opposto di quello che Internet ha da sempre immaginato. Già oggi Facebook vieta all’Internet Archive, l’anima documentale di Internet, di salvare schermate rilevanti da archiviare per i posteri.

    Alcuni anni fa la Biblioteca del Congresso varò un progetto per archiviare tutti i tweet prodotti al mondo. Erano forse i bibliotecari americani interessati alle sciocchezze irrilevanti che scriviamo dal divano mentre guardiamo la partita? Ovviamente no. Avevano semplicemente capito che la memoria storica oggi viaggia nascosta nei piccoli frammenti delle comunicazioni di rete. È per questo che il peccato di superbia di Facebook è oggi un tema pubblico di dimensioni gigantesche.
    http://www.pagina99.it/2017/06/08/fac...-chiude-indicizzazione-oblio-internet
    Voting 0
  3. A former Facebook executive has said he feels “tremendous guilt” over his work on “tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works”, joining a growing chorus of critics of the social media giant.

    Chamath Palihapitiya, who was vice-president for user growth at Facebook before he left the company in 2011, said: “The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works. No civil discourse, no cooperation, misinformation, mistruth.”

    The remarks, which were made at a Stanford Business School event in November, were just surfaced by tech website the Verge on Monday.

    “This is not about Russian ads,” he added. “This is a global problem. It is eroding the core foundations of how people behave by and between each other.”
    Ex-Facebook president Sean Parker: site made to exploit human 'vulnerability'
    Read more

    Palihapitiya’s comments last month were made a day after Facebook’s founding president, Sean Parker, criticized the way that the company “exploit s » a vulnerability in human psychology” by creating a “social-validation feedback loop” during an interview at an Axios event.

    Parker had said that he was “something of a conscientious objector” to using social media, a stance echoed by Palihapitiya who said that he was now hoping to use the money he made at Facebook to do good in the world.

    “I can’t control them,” Palihapitiya said of his former employer. “I can control my decision, which is that I don’t use that shit. I can control my kids’ decisions, which is that they’re not allowed to use that shit.”

    He also called on his audience to “soul-search” about their own relationship to social media. “Your behaviors, you don’t realize it, but you are being programmed,” he said. “It was unintentional, but now you gotta decide how much you’re going to give up, how much of your intellectual independence.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/technolog...ormer-executive-ripping-society-apart
    Tags: , , by M. Fioretti (2017-12-16)
    Voting 0
  4. What about the actual functioning of the application: What tweets are displayed to whom in what order? Every major social-networking service uses opaque algorithms to shape what data people see. Why does Facebook show you this story and not that one? No one knows, possibly not even the company’s engineers. Outsiders know basically nothing about the specific choices these algorithms make. Journalists and scholars have built up some inferences about the general features of these systems, but our understanding is severely limited. So, even if the LOC has the database of tweets, they still wouldn’t have Twitter.

    In a new paper, “Stewardship in the ‘Age of Algorithms,’” Clifford Lynch, the director of the Coalition for Networked Information, argues that the paradigm for preserving digital artifacts is not up to the challenge of preserving what happens on social networks.

    Over the last 40 years, archivists have begun to gather more digital objects—web pages, PDFs, databases, kinds of software. There is more data about more people than ever before, however, the cultural institutions dedicated to preserving the memory of what it was to be alive in our time, including our hours on the internet, may actually be capturing less usable information than in previous eras.

    “We always used to think for historians working 100 years from now: We need to preserve the bits (the files) and emulate the computing environment to show what people saw a hundred years ago,” said Dan Cohen, a professor at Northeastern University and the former head of the Digital Public Library of America. “Save the HTML and save what a browser was and what Windows 98 was and what an Intel chip was. That was the model for preservation for a decade or more.”

    Which makes sense: If you want to understand how WordPerfect, an old word processor, functioned, then you just need that software and some way of running it.

    But if you want to document the experience of using Facebook five years ago or even two weeks ago ... how do you do it?

    The truth is, right now, you can’t. No one (outside Facebook, at least) has preserved the functioning of the application. And worse, there is no thing that can be squirreled away for future historians to figure out. “The existing models and conceptual frameworks of preserving some kind of ‘canonical’ digital artifacts are increasingly inapplicable in a world of pervasive, unique, personalized, non-repeatable performances,” Lynch writes.

    Nick Seaver of Tufts University, a researcher in the emerging field of “algorithm studies,” wrote a broader summary of the issues with trying to figure out what is happening on the internet. He ticks off the problems of trying to pin down—or in our case, archive—how these web services work. One, they’re always testing out new versions. So there isn’t one Google or one Bing, but “10 million different permutations of Bing.” Two, as a result of that testing and their own internal decision-making, “You can’t log into the same Facebook twice.” It’s constantly changing in big and small ways. Three, the number of inputs and complex interactions between them simply makes these large-scale systems very difficult to understand, even if we have access to outputs and some knowledge of inputs.

    “What we recognize or ‘discover’ when critically approaching algorithms from the outside is often partial, temporary, and contingent,” Seaver concludes.

    The world as we experience it seems to be growing more opaque. More of life now takes place on digital platforms that are different for everyone, closed to inspection, and massively technically complex. What we don't know now about our current experience will resound through time in historians of the future knowing less, too. Maybe this era will be a new dark age, as resistant to analysis then as it has become now.

    If we do want our era to be legible to future generations, our “memory organizations” as Lynch calls them, must take radical steps to probe and document social networks like Facebook. Lynch suggests creating persistent, socially embedded bots that exist to capture a realistic and demographically broad set of experiences on these platforms. Or, alternatively, archivists could go out and recruit actual humans to opt in to having their experiences recorded, as ProPublica has done with political advertising on Facebook.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...ans-to-understand-our-internet/547463
    Voting 0
  5. I do believe that this time is different, the beginning of a massive shift, and I believe it’s the fault of these social networks.

    One of the problems is that these platforms act, in many ways, like drugs. Facebook, and every other social-media outlet, knows that all too well. Your phone vibrates a dozen times an hour with alerts about likes and comments and retweets and faves. The combined effect is one of just trying to suck you back in, so their numbers look better for their next quarterly earnings report. Sean Parker, one of Facebook’s earliest investors and the company’s first president, came right out and said what we all know: the whole intention of Facebook is to act like a drug, by “ giving » you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever.” That, Parker said, was by design. These companies are “exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.” Former Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya has echoed this, too. “Do I feel guilty?” he asked rhetorically on CNN about the role Facebook is playing in society. “Absolutely I feel guilt.”

    And then, there’s the biggest reason why people are abandoning the platforms: the promise of connection has turned out to be a reality of division. We’ve all watched the way Donald J. Trump used social media to drive a wedge between us all, the way he tweets his sad and pathetic insecurities out to the world, without a care for how calling an equally insecure rogue leader a childish name might put us all on the brink of nuclear war. There’s a point that watching it all happen in real time makes you question what you’re doing with your life. As for conversing with our fellow Americans, we’ve all tried, unsuccessfully, to have a conversation on these platforms, which has so quickly devolved into a shouting match, or pile-on from perfect strangers because your belief isn’t the same as theirs. Years ago, a Facebook executive told me that the biggest reason people unfriend each other is because they disagree on an issue. The executive jokingly said, “Who knows, if this keeps up, maybe we’ll end up with people only having a few friends on Facebook.” Perhaps, worse of all, we’ve all watched as Russia has taken these platforms and used them against us in ways no one could have comprehended a decade ago.
    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/...-social-era-twitter-facebook-snapchat
    Voting 0
  6. The bubble filter demonstrates the internet as shifting from a tool of global connectivity to individual disconnect; personal opinion becomes fossilised while public discourse withers away. Without meaningful public discourse, the internet exposes us to competing opinions only through (often anonymous) trolling. This is dangerous. With little to no space for productive debate, ideological conflicts are carried out institutionally – as evinced by the onslaught of fake news accusations that characterised the final American presidential debate.

    When we live in bubbles, we forget how to engage and disagree in a civil manner.

    As a product of the neoliberal project, the bubble filter caters to our perceived demands for constant personalised stimulation and to the commodification of the digital experience. We find ourselves further removed from neighbours to whom we occupy distant ideological worlds; we cease to understand each other as we increasingly lack basic exposure to each other. When we live in bubbles, we forget how to engage and disagree in a civil manner. This situation has the potential to normalise extreme polarity and reactionary populism. Left without public forums to negotiate competing worldviews and engage with each other, we should not be surprised if ideological conflicts start to increasingly escalate in violent ways.
    https://www.opendemocracy.net/digital...erm=0_717bc5d86d-5aca16cdcc-407399415
    Voting 0
  7. Can outside sources verify what God believes to be holy? Can anyone verify God’s existence? Can anyone think of more hypothetical questions like this to underscore the point?

    As religious leaders expressed their concerns to The Literalist, The Literalist in turn became increasingly worried about Facebook deciding what is “fake” and “real” news. So The Literalist sent a short note to Facebook headquarters reading, “Now, don’t take this literally, but The Literalist encourages you to let users use reason when it comes to fake news. Satire included.”
    http://religionnews.com/2016/11/29/fa...ws-crackdown-threatens-religious-news
    Voting 0
  8. At some point, there will be more dead Facebook users than living ones – and for those left behind, it is transforming how we experience the death of those around us.

    There she is, the person you love – you’re talking to her, squeezing her hand, thanking her for being there for you, watching the green zigzag move slower and slower – and then she’s not there anymore.

    Another machine, meanwhile, was keeping her alive: some distant computer server that holds her thoughts, memories and relationships.

    While it’s obvious that people don’t outlive their bodies on digital technology, they do endure in one sense. People’s experience of you as a seemingly living person can and does continue online.

    How is our continuing presence in digital space changing the way we die? And what does it mean for those who would mourn us after we are gone?

    As I’ve told my mother, my grandchildren may be able to learn about her by studying her Facebook profile. Assuming the social network doesn’t fold, they won’t just learn about the kinds of major life events that would make it into my mom’s authorised biography. They’ll learn, rather, the tiny, insignificant details of her day to day life: memes that made her laugh, viral photos she shared, which restaurants she and my father liked to eat at, the lame church jokes she was too fond of. And of course, they’ll have plenty of pictures to go with it. By studying this information, my grandchildren will come to know about their great grandmother.
    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160...unstoppable-rise-of-the-facebook-dead
    Voting 0
  9. Original sharing of personal stories -- rather than posts about public information like news articles -- dropped 21 percent year over year as of mid-2015, The Information, a tech news site, reported Wednesday. Facebook said in a statement that "the overall level of sharing has remained not only strong, but similar to levels in prior years."
    http://www.sott.net/article/316056-Fa...g-more-news-less-personal-information
    Voting 0
  10. the social Web: a glorious dystopia where everybody works for likes — as in, “for free” — while a handful of tech tycoons profit.

    Never has this been clearer than in the past month, as Reddit — a private company that recently accepted $50 million in venture funding — quelled an uprising among the volunteers who actually run the site: its moderators.

    What will happen to the Internet if Reddit shuts down? »

    But insomuch as Reddit relies on digital work to run its business, it is not alone. In fact, that’s basically the elevator pitch of every major Internet institution, from Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to Wikipedia. Even when these sites don’t openly rely on “consumers” to create the content that keeps venture capital, ad revenue or donations pouring in, they’re mining them for other sorts of resources that can be monetized.

    Can something truly be called exploitative, or even labor, if the exploited parties enjoy it? That’s a difficult question and one that theorists haven’t conclusively answered yet.

    And still, there’s plenty to suggest that different sorts of labor arrangements would be really good for users and the sites they work on. When people aren’t paid for their work, for instance, the only people who can contribute are the ones who (a) have money from other sources or (b) are overwhelmingly compelled by motivations like power, popularity or revenge. (The writer and tech theorist David Banks has implied this is one of the reasons that Reddit skews so heavily young and male.)
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...t-youre-working-for-facebook-for-free
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 13 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: facebook + social networks

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle