Social networking: over-capacitated, over-rated?
Jancy Nightingale
Issue date: 10/22/09 Section: Opinion
Everyone has a Facebook. Well, at least 300 million people in the world comment on their friends' statuses and maybe even "like" a quiz result. As of June 2009, 7 million people added to Twitter's capacity, providing blurbs of their lives occasionally complemented with links to articles, videos and photos in 140 characters or less.
Each of these sites began with a useful purpose. Facebook, founded in February 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, was originally intended for Harvard students, then all the other colleges wanted in. In 2005, high school students were so done with MySpace, and thanks to their emo self-portraits, Facebook added the infamous photo album feature. In March of 2006, Twitter hatched from a privately funded side project, based out of San Francisco, Calif. Its "About Us" page provides this accurate summary of Twitter's use:
"In countries all around the world, people follow the sources most relevant to them and access information via Twitter as it happens-from breaking world news to updates from friends."
While some prominent people and artists update followers on upcoming projects, others waste their 140 characters with uninformative and relatively bland statements. Trending Topics, a list of the top newsworthy topics in updates, had potential until self-exhibitionists saw another opportunity to clog the feed by cramming ALL of the topics in one update in hopes of getting noticed. The following is an example of an obnoxious update that does not inform but only irritates those who have to read it:
"#IGottaCrushOn A-Rod & Yankees #beatcaner for Halloween Know God and Paranormal Activity with Magic Mouse & Justin Bieber."
Facebook notifications are also a huge letdown most of the time. You see "6 notifications," and excitedly click only to see that Joe-I-Friend-Everyone got the same quiz result as you.
It's not the social sites themselves that give them the over-rated feel. It's obnoxious users who acquire a username and unleash their dead-end self-exhibitionism on other users, using these networks the way God intended. Or at least the way Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter co-founder Biz Stone intended.
Most of this campus has Facebook, so there's no need to defend its use, since few have logged off permanently. Twitter is not as popular. People often dismiss the site as overrated since many tweets are just downright mundane. As a Twitter user, I use mine for networking purposes, following breaking news from select media and following people in professions I am interested in.
In the end, stances on the topic of social networks are all relative. I "like" the idea of having instant connections with childhood friends and keeping in touch with acquaintances around the world. At the same time, I like to follow people currently holding careers I hope to have after college. That is why I Twitter and keep a Facebook. Maintaining connections is never overrated, but excessive self-exhibition is a status I will always dislike.
Each of these sites began with a useful purpose. Facebook, founded in February 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, was originally intended for Harvard students, then all the other colleges wanted in. In 2005, high school students were so done with MySpace, and thanks to their emo self-portraits, Facebook added the infamous photo album feature. In March of 2006, Twitter hatched from a privately funded side project, based out of San Francisco, Calif. Its "About Us" page provides this accurate summary of Twitter's use:
"In countries all around the world, people follow the sources most relevant to them and access information via Twitter as it happens-from breaking world news to updates from friends."
While some prominent people and artists update followers on upcoming projects, others waste their 140 characters with uninformative and relatively bland statements. Trending Topics, a list of the top newsworthy topics in updates, had potential until self-exhibitionists saw another opportunity to clog the feed by cramming ALL of the topics in one update in hopes of getting noticed. The following is an example of an obnoxious update that does not inform but only irritates those who have to read it:
"#IGottaCrushOn A-Rod & Yankees #beatcaner for Halloween Know God and Paranormal Activity with Magic Mouse & Justin Bieber."
Facebook notifications are also a huge letdown most of the time. You see "6 notifications," and excitedly click only to see that Joe-I-Friend-Everyone got the same quiz result as you.
It's not the social sites themselves that give them the over-rated feel. It's obnoxious users who acquire a username and unleash their dead-end self-exhibitionism on other users, using these networks the way God intended. Or at least the way Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter co-founder Biz Stone intended.
Most of this campus has Facebook, so there's no need to defend its use, since few have logged off permanently. Twitter is not as popular. People often dismiss the site as overrated since many tweets are just downright mundane. As a Twitter user, I use mine for networking purposes, following breaking news from select media and following people in professions I am interested in.
In the end, stances on the topic of social networks are all relative. I "like" the idea of having instant connections with childhood friends and keeping in touch with acquaintances around the world. At the same time, I like to follow people currently holding careers I hope to have after college. That is why I Twitter and keep a Facebook. Maintaining connections is never overrated, but excessive self-exhibition is a status I will always dislike.
Be the first to comment on this story