New Facebook - A Step Too Far?

[If you enjoy this post, please check out my main blog for more updates and news on social media]

Ever since Facebook launched its new design, there have been a number of complaints from its users. Of course, these are the same people that complain every time a change is made, yet they still stick with it.

However, is their anger and frustration justified this time? After all, these weren't just minor tweaks to the layout, or a new look to the chat feature. Facebook has undergone a big makeover. A makeover that has once again made the experience feel too 'intimate'.

I'll start with the 'live feed' or 'ticker' that sits on the top right-hand side. It allows users to see exactly what their friends are doing every single moment, whether that’s commenting on a picture, on their status, becoming friends with someone else. Put simply, it’s a dream world for stalkers. You don't even have to click onto somebody’s profile to see exactly what they're doing. The only way to avoid this is to alter the settings for every single friend that you have. Now for some of us, that won't take too long, but for some people, we'd be talking about thousands of friends, who must have a 'ticker' updating at enormous speeds to keep up with the updates. I suppose it might teach them a lesson.

But maybe this is a good thing; maybe it will make people now question whether they really should add someone as a friend, maybe Facebook should in fact become a more personal experience, so that you can feel more comfortable in sharing your personal interactions in front of all your 'friends'.

Now onto the new layout. We know longer have two feeds to choose from, it's just one big feed that we can gradually 'perfect' by informing Facebook of who want to know about. This seems like a pointless addition, especially now that we have to scroll down just to see what the latest relevant updates are. This seems like a pointless change, simply placed there to give the design a slightly cleaner, sleeker look. Perhaps in the long run it will prove a success, but right now it just looks a bit messy. Which I’m guessing isn't the intention.

Also, if facebook knows we have preferences to who we want to read about, then why have a live feed where we can see what everybody’s doing? It should be obvious to them that we simply don't care.

I understand Facebook's desire to evolve as a social network, especially with competition such as Twitter. Also, Google+ is now slowly starting to grow. However, some of these changes feel like they are trying to compete by taking ideas from Twitter and Google+ but slightly tweaking them. Now this could easily not be true, but on the surface, I feel like I can get a much better service on somewhere like Twitter. A place that isn't too complex, and gives me exactly what I want from it. I get simple updates from the people I want to get updates from. If I don't want to see them on my feed, I can simply unfollow. But if I still want updates, I can alternatively put them into a 'list' and just see they're tweets when I want. And if you only want certain people to see your tweets, you can simply set your profile to private. It's very basic, simple and does what you want from it. Something that Facebook has gradually distanced itself from, with more and more features being added, and complicated privacy settings (which are now even more complicated if that was ever possible).

Read More

The Power of Facebook - Part 1

Last month I asked my followers to tweet my some random facts. One that really caught my attention came from @TomCallan. He said that 'if Facebook was a country it would be the 3rd biggest in the world.'

Now this really fascinated me. It's a lot of people. Lets put it into perspective.
China has over 1.3 Billion people, making it the highest populated country in the world. In second place is India which is the home of over 1.2 Billion people. The 3rd biggest country is The United States more than 311 Million.(and just for those interested the UK is 22nd with around 62 Million).

Facebook has over 500 million active users. Which confirms that the fact is correct, it actually has close to double the amount of America's citizens, which is pretty big. It becomes easy to understand when you consider the vast amount of users across a number of countries, including a large chunk of America itself. And yet, around 70% of Facebook users live outside of the US. This also means that thier are over 70 different translations.
If Facebook was a country, it would be a very multi-cultural one.

The Facebook logo has become regonisable wolrdwide, and it is ranked 2nd in the global Alexa rankings(only coming behind Google).

Making 'The United Nations of Facebook'
I think a UNF name for the country would make the most sense, as it would be filled with a number of nations uniting.
I suppose the basics of a 'Facebook Country' aren't too complex, such as the FB logo would be the flag.

The trickier stuff comes when deciding details such as the form of government. It would be easy to say a democracy, because of Facebook being very much reliant on the people. We've also seen in the social networks history that a lot of decisions made by those that run the website have not been well recieved. Although, those decisions often work out in the end, or we simply adapt to the changes. I would personally suggest a Republic.

A country of Facebook users would also mean that anybody could be found and accessed through the website, privacy could easily become a thing of the past. Although, i feel like an impression is getting created that everybody would know everyone, but that obviously wouldnt be the case with over 500 Million people populating it.

It certainly would be an interesting prospect, and thier would be a lot more to consider when looking at how Facebook has transferred into something that has taken hold of the world. But i'll leave that for another blog.

I'll just leave you with an image that was released by Facebook not too long ago, and shows exactly how widespread it has become.

Facebooks world of users

A picture that really does some it all up. Courtesy of Facebook.

Read More

The Social Network

I immensly enjoyed this film, it wasn't full of action, but it was certainly full of drama. The plot progressed so smoothly that i never found myself bored. The subtlety of the humour was charming in a way.

The star of the show had to be Jesse Eisenberg who did a very good job in the lead role as Facebook founder Mark Zucerberg. Having seen him in Adventureland, i was very unimpressed and was hoping that he would perform better in The Social Network, and it was a pleasant surprise. His acting wa spot on and I found him to be a very enjoyable character. He became a very different person.

The plot was based somewhat on real events during the creation of Facebook, and that adds some extra depth and interest into the film.

The thrill is very much in the dialogue, it is a very tight script whcih is carried out superbly by director David Fincher. Fincher has shown his ability of disciplined film making numerous times with films such as Zodiac and the Game. He doesn't have to pack that 'final thrill' unlike Steven Spielberg. I suppose that's one of the joys of Fincher. Some find it frustrating when a film doesnt have many moments that 'satisfy' you as an audience, but it's that discipline that can occasionally make a film so great. Also the complete focus on the dialogue and telling the story, instead of violence and action can create a much more intense atmosphere.

Certainly a film that stands as tall as the creation it is based on. A joy to watch, but just perhaps not repeatedly.

7/10

Read More