Gizmodo: “I will grant you this: Facebook, much like Twitter, has a lot that sucks about it. A tremendous amount. You’re exposed to inane human behavior on a scope and volume unprecedented in the history of mankind. And yes, there are privacy eyebrow-raises that are warranted—it’s a little weird that people I barely know anymore see where I work, where I live, and who I’m talking to. And there’s plenty of crap. Pokes from creepy people. Photos of idiots. Moronic comments. Racism. All the worst parts about our species, sandwiched between poorly-targeted banner ads.”
I have Facebook for one reason. My family is on Facebook. I’ve taken to posting links to political commentary, that should chase a few folks off, but by and large I use it to push links to with weblog. My weblog is where my real online identity lies and it’s where I write. Facebook is just another distribution mechanism for me.
I think of Facebook as a distribution mechanism second, and an engagement or communication mechanism first.
I can distribute easily in other ways, and do, but Facebook is the main Farmer’s Market where the people I want to engage with go to share, and I go to observe. Twitter, secondarily so.
I think most people have this view. It’s what blogging was supposed to be, but Facebook was able to pull it off because you have a central jumping off point. It’s a bit of a walled garden in that respect, or can be.
Blogs are a loosely coupled version of this tied together via RSS and blog rolls.
I’ve had a weblog since 2001 so Facebook isn’t nearly as attractive to me. On the other hand, the “normal” folks could care less about a weblog or the power it affords. They just want to post about how drunk they are and share pictures of their cats, all in one controlled UI.
Smart.