Facebook changed their strategy, though, which is why it doesn't ring quite so true today.
The key issue Cory picked up on is that FB2008 had no concept of delineation of social circles -- between actual close friends, family, people who happen to know you, folks who used to be friends ages ago, "frenemies", and people you want to keep tabs on (and vice versa). Nor did it have any concept of different social roles -- e.g. Cory's teacher example. FB2012 is still pretty crap at managing all those aspects of multivalent identity, but at least they've made a few gestures in that direction.
Meanwhile, FB2009-FB2012 picked up users on a wave of network externalities; if everyone is on FB and using it for messaging, you can't ignore it.
I have an FB account. I hate and loathe FB, but my publishers' marketing folks insist I have an FB account. "But I've got a blog that gets 10-15 thousand daily visitors!" I tell them. "But everyone's on facebook," they chant. So I also have an FB author page with about 2K folks following it (and less than half of them actively reading it), and it forces me to waste time maintaining it and tweaking my privacy settings every time FB create a new privacy leak. This annoys me, and I'm pretty sure it annoys Cory as well, because we both have public personas and the relationship someone with a public persona has with FB is somewhat different to that of J. Random Member of Public. Whether it's truly as bad for everyone else ... shrug.
Also, 2008 should definitely be in the title.
But everybody has adapted. To my eye, it looks like a combination of better features on Facebook's part (hiding users, quiet unfriending, friend lists to control content distribution, auto-filtering of feeds to people it thinks you care about, etc); more skillful users; wider uptake of good social network etiquette; and people just getting used to the fact that everybody is on Facebook.
I look forward to the day that somebody will find a way to challenge Facebook, but I don't believe this is any longer a route.
From Wikipedia: "The measure of a text influences legibility. Long lines are hard to read, short lines are more easily read. 45–75 characters per line are regarded as the ideal range for the measure. For multiple column setups, 40–50 characters are often preferred. 66 is sometimes considered ideal for one column setups. Generally, if the measure is wide, the leading of a text should be increased—if the measure is short, it is can safely be decreased. Reverse text, i.e. white text on black also requires more leading."( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(typography) )
Recently I made something on Internet and got a little famous, got a little press from TV or newspapers and I received invitations from all the people I had known in my life, including my biggest enemies on school like this guy or the girl that ignored me.
Some of them send me things like "I have changed, we could become friends now". Super creepy ones I tell you.
Why can't be just ignore each other ? Now that we live hundreds of miles away.
> It’s socially awkward to refuse to add someone to your friends list—but removing someone from your friends list is practically a declaration of war.
It really isn't that bad as he makes it out to be. End of discussion.
PersonYouDontCareAbout (PYDCA) adds you, you accept, he enjoys the add, a few days pass, you remove him. Because PYDCA wasn't really paying attention to you (his feed is full of other people's activity, supposedly more relevant to his interests), he doesn't notice. A few months pass, he forgets everything about you. Even if he remembers, he'll just think he never added you in the end. Even if he remembers and knows he's added you, you simply don't bump into each other so much that he might care.
What is really, really awkward is when he adds you, you do this dance, and then FB keeps reminding him every day that he should add you. FB should have a button "this guy doesn't care" and stop trying to make me look awkward.
The same awkwardness applies to unfollowing people you know on Twitter, especially because they could be using a service that lets them know. Except since I have to play that game, I just play it and don't worry about it. Can't say how most others play, though.
You say that as though you'd definitively disproved the premise, instead of just saying "nuh-uh."
He raises an hypothesis without any evidence. As Hitchens said: Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Citations are only needed when you cannot directly observe some reality for yourself. Here we can: it was a prediction, it never came off, _thus_ it was wrong. End of story.
There's a lot of FB support in these comments, that FB has somehow solved these problems. I suppose I disagree. This article rang true to me, and it's exactly why I stopped using it, in 2012.
I can't speak for others' situations, but when I started using FB I had decided I was going to use it to maintain relationships with a select few close friends. As time went on, a few acquaintances slipped in, but I was generally turning away most friend requests.
However, I was forced to see some of these people in real life. And even though I had decided how and why I personally wanted to use FB, I don't get to personally decide how society does. And, apparently, society has decided that you add all kinds of people to FB. So I was forced to meet with people who thought, "I'm good enough to talk to in real life, but you can't add me as a friend on some software?" There's a social awkwardness that I didn't want to deal with.
However, social trends are largely about perception. Imagine this: a popular musician says publicly, "Facebook is evil and lame, I'm leaving." Lots of teens say, "hey, yeah, me too. I'm a nonconformist. Facebook is lame. I'm leaving." Suddenly leaving Facebook is a cool thing to do, and the network effect is working against them.
Eventually it's like AOL or MySpace: having an active account is definitely uncool.
They can't keep that up forever though, people will move on. But I disagree with the idea of another site in the same mold (Friendster, MySpace, Facebook) that will move in and conveniently replace it. I think people are starting to realize those things are just a pain in the ass and will move to semi-anonymous networks like Twitter or Reddit for more stress-free entertainment.
For me Facebook is for old friends or solid newer friends, and family members. Work folks have the abomination that is LinkedIn to connect to me on, others can use Twitter.
Saying no is okay. Try it occasionally.
>> Eudora for composing, reading, filtering, archiving,
>> and searching.
These words hit the mark with me. I've never found a polite way to word it so I just bite my tongue and avoid being the negative nelly but whenever someone shows me some cool new tool or website, odds on bet its missing a ton of basic functionality that I already had in the boring old pre-web 2.0 version of whatever the tool is.
We're very forgiving of this in general as consumers but it does suck a fair bit.
I'm in my early 20s so I was on social networks well before those of my parent's generation. Just try dodging your parents' friend requests, that never goes well...
If the general population median is mid-30s or 40s then any service that gains users in the overall society will end up with a same-ish median.