This post is no more worthy of praise than the tweets it quotes.
Every once in a while I also like to bitch.
Another important consideration is that in order to write lots of blog posts (some of which you have enjoyed) I have to write a lot. Some will be hits, others misses. But I can't only write the good ones, I have to write to practice and to keep the flow.
They can't complain, they aren't paying for it. ;-)
Why are you allowed to complain about other people's free content? You weren't paying for the content they provided where they complained about outages, surely?
Or was a mild irony an intended part of the article?
In addition, if they are being "used", shouldn't they vote with their feet to be "used" by another site (read: evil boyfriend) that treats them better and gives them shinier things? The first step in that is voicing their discontent so other suitors get the hint.
For what it's worth, I also much prefer your less negative articles-- more hit than miss usually. But, well... I can't complain.
Are you suggesting he is not allowed?
If time is money, then time spent using a service is still an investment made in that service regardless of any currency changing hands. Plus, making a free service doesn't make you immune from criticism.
You misunderstand-- that line comes from shifting the original author's opinion back at his own complaint. The devil's advocate I channeled doesn't really have an opinion of its own.
The point is that it's somewhat worth noting that complaining about someone else's complaints hints at self-contradiction.
[Aside: I guess sometimes other people use the "devil's advocate" voice for their own opinions? Not in my circles-- it's always used for giving a view that may be contrary (or different) from your own for logical discussions and/or debate.]
Certainly I personally have no opinion/say on what he's allowed to talk about. Though I do admit a preference for positive or neutral topics over negative ones.
> I guess sometimes other people use the "devil's advocate" voice
> for their own opinions?
Just like in WarGames the only sensible strategy is to not participate.
I guess the fault lies with whoever voted it up.
I'm sick of the social media explosion and will be glad when most of this crap dies and we're left with a few players that allow me to have meaningful exchanges or keep up with people, etc.
That's not to say I post anything. I doubt you care about my opinion of Katie Price.
Read again the examples you quote in your post. What does exactly make you think those people feel entitled to a perfect service for free? They are just not happy about the service being down. That's pretty normal.
Perhaps I'm outside of the norm in my use of Facebook, but I don't think I'm that unusual. I use FB to keep in touch with my family, all of whom live several thousands of miles away. I also have a six week old daughter. So yes, FB is very important to me and I'm quite annoyed when I find a spare ten minutes to share some photos and it happens to be down.
What's my paid alternative, which all of my family can join for free (I'll pay, but I can't expect them to as well) and which has at least say five-nines uptime?
Good job you're not wasting your time on any of these "favourite waste of time sites" to see our rantings, then.
"You are the ingredients in their Soylent Green. Shouting about that isn't something to be proud of."
Although I wasn't too upset about it, really - services sometimes go down, it's a part of life. No reason to complain about it!
Admittedly, most of the people using these services probably haven't considered it very deeply, and more peeved that the shiny has gone...
What I'm trying to say is if you want see such things as a "waste of time" then shouldn't go out with friends or to the cinema instead you should work or learn something.
Everyone should be free to choose what is a waste of time for himself.
(sorry for my bad (!!) english. I hope you got the idea)
EDIT: fixed some grammar errors (I bet there are tons of left)
And, you may remember, Foursquare was down pretty much all day Monday. It was an extra thing for the event that I did after hours, a bit reluctant to be spending precious weekend time building it, but I figured it would be worth it. It wasn't.
Obviously, we should have used more than just Foursquare, aggregating checkins across multiple services — I mean, the event was about social media — but unfortunately there wasn't anymore time to do so.
I suppose the truth of the matter is that you shouldn't rely on any third-party service (especially free ones... Facebook and your ever-changing API, I'm looking at you).
Now if we could just get our clients to understand that.
It's not unreasonable for people who are giving companies all this free labor to expect to get benefits for that labor -- like constantly having access.
People aren't giving "free labor", the sites are tricking people into working for free with no claim to earnings. I think this is a very important distinction.
You are correct that the sites would be worthless without the users time investment, but you should also be aware that the users have NO claim to profits, earnings, compensation, etc., other than in the "privilege" of continuing to donate their time for free.
even though it was submitted earlier and basicly states the same thing?
Ha ha, what? I tried to convert this into a coherent sane syllogism, but failed. You need some bizarre premises like 'paid services can instantly solve their problems if you just call them' or 'ad-supported services spend downtime lounging around and laughing at the users'.
(for a laugh: http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/http://downforeveryoneorj...)
As much as I don't like facebook or most addictive 'free' services, there's many friends out there who treat it like the new email.
1. You should have automatically disregarded all of those tweets/status/whatever-s.
2. If you have written a full post about this then you care.
Umm.... a two part strange loop