Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Facebook Obsession

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the even-my-three-year-old-knows dept.

Facebook 265

rabidmuskrat writes "Are we too obsessed with Facebook? With 500 million users and a CNBC story about it, the answer would seem to be yes. PostRandomonium notes the media's obsession with Facebook, and how it impacts their news coverage — in particular, that of CNN. One out of every 13 Earthlings and three out of four Americans is on Facebook, and one out of 26 signs into Facebook on a daily basis."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Missed an important stat (4, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35720956)

1 (or more) in 10 articles posted to the front page by CmdrTaco are related to facebook. Is the world obsessed with facebook? Probably not. Is CmdrTaco obsessed with facebook? Quite probable.

Re:Missed an important stat (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721022)

Slashdot: News for teenage girls, the stuff that matters.

Re:Missed an important stat (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721326)

Why do we not have an icon for Justin Bieber yet?

Re:Missed an important stat (4, Funny)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721502)

OMG!!!! PONIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Re:Missed an important stat (1)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721064)

But only 1 in 40 articles about Facebook on / are ever read.

Re:Missed an important stat (2)

Netnerd865 (1954642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721124)

Isn't there a statistic that 89% of statistics are made up on the spot? Or is it 87%? Either way, I'm pretty sure there is some statistic or at the very least a common saying that says "x percent of statistics are made up on the spot".

Re:Missed an important stat (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721364)

True, but only 40% of people know that.

Re:Missed an important stat (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721156)

But only 1 in 40 articles about Facebook on / are ever read.

So then this is your 1 out of 40? Considering the rate which CmdrTaco posts facebook articles here, if you skip the next 39 it means you'll be reading another one approximately Thursday afternoon.

Re:Missed an important stat (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721224)

That's probably higher than the proportion of general /. articles. However, that doesn't stop at least 100 of us reflexively clicking on any Facebook link to tell the rest of you that we're not on Facebook...

Re:Missed an important stat (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721332)

I'm not on facebook. At least not right now.

What's *really* worrying me... (5, Funny)

MoxFulder (159829) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721600)

... is our obsession with our obsession with Facebook. Are the media writing too many articles about how they're writing too many articles about facebook? Are we being too public about our desire for privacy, or too private about our attention-whoring publicity?

Re:Missed an important stat (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721744)

That's exactly what I was thinking. No one I know is obsessed with Facebook; we use it, yes, but it's just one of a great many things we do with our time.

Slashdot on the other hand does seem to post an inordinate number of stories about it...

And it's killed smalltalk with friends. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35720960)

Seriously, you can't have a conversation that starts with, "Hey, haven't seen you for a while, what've you been up to?" Because you ALREADY KNOW. And if you don't know, you're an insensitive clod who's not reading their facebook posts.

Smalltalk is not dead (4, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721094)

Smalltalk is not dead. Part of it lives on as part of Objective-C, used to make Mac and iOS applications, including the Facebook apps for iPhone and iPad.

Re:Smalltalk is not dead (2)

Josh04 (1596071) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721286)

It's killed Smalltalk with Friends, which I assume is some sort of web framework.

Re:And it's killed smalltalk with friends. (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721394)

Seriously, you can't have a conversation that starts with, "Hey, haven't seen you for a while, what've you been up to?" Because you ALREADY KNOW. And if you don't know, you're an insensitive clod who's not reading their facebook posts.

Since Facebook is "news for you and your 300 closest friends" you should either be a better friend with more to talk about than that, or it at least gives you some topics to talk about with people who'd otherwise be almost strangers. Unless they're the kind who has to put every fart they do up on Facebook, if they both do that and get annoyed you haven't read it maybe you should revise who your friends are.

A lot! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35720962)

One out of every 13 Earthlings and three out of four Americans is on Facebook, and one out of 26 signs into Facebook on a daily basis."

Wow, there's a lot of losers!

Re:A lot! (1)

gordguide (307383) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721632)

One out of every 13 Earthlings and three out of four Americans is on Facebook, and one out of 26 signs into Facebook on a daily basis."

Wow, there's a lot of losers!

Well, 25 of 26 don't sign into Facebook daily. 4% losers ... sounds about right, Facebook or no Facebook.

Re:A lot! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721814)

Well, the other 96% sign in nightly.

Statistics all wrong. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35720972)

Yes, lots of people are on Facebook.

But a large percentage of the "user accounts" are fake accounts.

Re:Statistics all wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721750)

True, I know people have lots of fake accounts for Mafia Wars alone. I had about 10 myself, guess I still do but luckily dont want to play that game anymore.

The media moved on to Twitter already (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721006)

Facebook is old news. The hip thing now is to obsess over tweets.

Re:The media moved on to Twitter already (3, Funny)

Atriqus (826899) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721090)

Can we tell these social network scenes to slow down a bit? I haven't even caught up to friendster yet!

Re:The media moved on to Twitter already (1)

Xelios (822510) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721236)

I'm not so sure, I think we should head over to our correspondent Some Fucking Guy to find out what the Internet thinks about this, Some?

Re:The media moved on to Twitter already (1)

Mr. DOS (1276020) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721254)

I think Twitter is an interesting case because it's already been hugely popular once before, and is now bucking off the traditional social trend of being popular, fading, and dying by adding at least one more wave” of success between the fading and dying stages.

Re:The media moved on to Twitter already (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721268)

Actually, all of the cool kids are on fljarn now. Only total loses haven't heard of it and are still using Twitter or Facebook.

Re:The media moved on to Twitter already (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721864)

Where have you been? fljarn is so last week! All the really cool kids are using fnord now!

P.S. Don't tell anybody! Especially those losers on slashdot!

Re:The media moved on to Twitter already (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721764)

At least Facebook and Twitter are legitimately used by people, unlike the weird media spectacle that was Second Life.

Where is the story? (4, Insightful)

Moderator (189749) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721018)

When you use the word "obsessed," I was expecting a story about people losing sleep and productivity over Facebook. Or statistics showing the amount of time spent by people using Facebook. Instead, we get an article from CNN that compares Facebook to having a bellybutton, a story from CNBC that doesn't load, and some guy's personal blog. Where is the story?

Re:Where is the story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721110)

There is no story.

Nathan

Re:Where is the story? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721232)

compares Facebook to having a bellybutton

What, that they both enable naval-gazing?

Re:Where is the story? (3, Funny)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721308)

What, that they both enable naval-gazing?

They stare at warships? Wouldn't Jane's Compendium be better for that?

Re:Where is the story? (0)

Tink2000 (524407) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721396)

Swing and a miss.
You reached too far.

Re:Where is the story? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721840)

No, they are both vestigial artifacts of your close attachment to your momma...

Inflated Membership Numbers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721032)

The 500 million users stat always seems inflated to me. I used to work for a site that promoted itself as having 200 million users, when internally we knew that there were only about 80 million active users. The rest were either multiple accounts or long-unused accounts. Why does the media trust Facebook's numbers so blindly?

Re:Inflated Membership Numbers (1)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721092)

The statistics are misleading about the 1 in 26 people who sign in every day. It's actually the SAME 26 people you can't stand who sign in everyday.

Re:Inflated Membership Numbers (1)

Things_falling_apart (856111) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721100)

Because the media leaves their parents basement once in a while and notices in every direction in a reasonably populated area that there is either:
a) multiple conversations that the word facebook comes up every 3rd sentence
b) sees someone using their internet connected device (ie - smartphone, Ipad, DSi, netbook, etc) on facebook.

My suggestion is leave the house once in a while.

I'm on Facebook twice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721058)

I have two accounts, I don't use either.

I'm sure there are many others who also have more than one account. Also, many others who don't use Facebook at all.

(I also used fake names for both my accounts. On account of I really dislike them. Privacy!)

Re:I'm on Facebook twice (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721280)

I have 500 accounts, but that's because I work for the DoD.

Signs in? (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721080)

One out of every 13 Earthlings and three out of four Americans is on Facebook, and one out of 26 signs into Facebook on a daily basis."

Signs in on a daily basis? I don't even log out!

gross (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721084)

Are people going K-RAYZY for SOCIALIZING?
What is to be done about this HUMAN COMMUNICATION EPIDEMIC?
Is the fundamental act of constructing a shared reality HARMING OUR CHILDREN?

"Journalists" should have their fingers taped until they can pass a series of tests proving they can write something other than moronic pandering garbage for CNN.

Flee the ZuckerBeast! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721088)

http://boycottfacebookblog.blogspot.com/

Twitter is better (1)

chrisj_0 (825246) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721126)

Facebook is for whiny wimps and grandma who want pictures of little joey. Real men use twitter.

Re:Twitter is better (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721340)

Facebook is for whiny wimps and grandma who want pictures of little joey. Real men use twitter.

No, real men supposedly play sports and shoot things. Not that I'm one of them, but even *I* won't use Twitter.

Re:Twitter is better (2)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721808)

Real men never have any sentiment that requires more than 140 characters to express!

Re:Twitter is better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721874)

Chuck Norris still use's Myspace , he don't change for nuthin.

No Facebook (0)

tsa (15680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721128)

I am one of the many people who don't have Facebook. None of my friends have it so there's no reason to subscribe.

Re:No Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721170)

None of your "friends" have it.....

Re:No Facebook (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721384)

I am one of the many people who don't have Facebook. None of my friends have it so there's no reason to subscribe.

Get out of your cave much? If you don't Tweet, you don't exist.

Re:No Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721452)

I am one of the many people who don't have Facebook. None of my friends have it so there's no reason to subscribe.

Thanks for letting us know how cool you are.

Re:No Facebook (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721800)

Fortunately your mom has a Facebook account, so you can just go upstairs and use hers...

we're not obsessed with facebook (1, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721132)

we're obsessed with socializing

facebook is just the tool which makes the most sense to manage your social network now. will that be the case in 10 years? if you say definitely "yes" (or definitely "no") you definitely don't know what you are talking about. maybe it will be, it could be, it has the network effect on its side, that's for sure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect [wikipedia.org]

ps: i don't have a facebook account and i never will. egads, the tedium

Re:we're not obsessed with facebook (0)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721206)

I don't know about you but I hate socializing. I'm not a fan of people, and well really I find this whole 'web 2.0' thing inane bordering on the point of narcissism, and the rest of the time, people just dive right in.

Re:we're not obsessed with facebook (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721570)

...he said, socializing on a web 2.0 style ajax site

you're a giant hypocrite

Re:we're not obsessed with facebook (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721774)

we're obsessed with socializing

For millions of years people have been obsessed with socializing, because socializing leads to getting laid, which leads to descendants that are even more obsessed with socializing. And what happens to the people that aren't obsessed with socializing?

Re:we're not obsessed with facebook (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721876)

they go extinct. however, plenty of species are strictly asocial, and they make time to get laid, so its not that big of a deal to socialize to procreate... unless of course, you are a member of homo sapiens

that which makes homo sapiens compelling is not our gray matter, its our voicebox. a genius with an amazing idea and no way to communicate it is useless: his idea is future skull dust. meanwhile, an average intelligence person who communicates his idea well changes the world. socializing, socializing more than intellect, is the most important thing about our species. alone, we mean nothing. in an organized group, we are gods. civilization is the product of millions socializing, not a few isolated geniuses, no matter how much we celebrate the cult of the iq, iq is actually not that big of a deal, just a fetish

oh yeah, not just voicebox: fine motor control, handwriting. then mechanical printing. then radio. television

and now, in our generation, the internet

The reason (4, Insightful)

Exitar (809068) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721136)

People is ossessed by FB because media tell them that everyone else is.

Re:The reason (1)

necro81 (917438) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721654)

precisely. This isn't a story with our obsession with Facebook. It's a story about our obsession with our supposed obsession with Facebook. Move on.

Not that anyone reads the article anyway... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721148)

But anyone else notice that the among the three links, two of them link to empty pages with ads, and the third has no more information than in the slashdot headline?
 
Just a guess, I think twitter and facebook are much higher quality news sources making traditional news media irrelevant, which judging from each was a very low bar to overcome.

Re:Not that anyone reads the article anyway... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721310)

Do you have javascript turned off? The pages work for me...

E-mail (3, Insightful)

Rizimar (1986164) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721150)

You need an e-mail address to get a Facebook account, but not everyone who has an e-mail address uses Facebook. So the real question should be, Are we obsessed with E-mail?

Huh? (1)

SeNtM (965176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721184)

What is this Facebook thing?

Re:Huh? (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721636)

What is this Facebook thing?

It's the internet replacement for soap operas.

Email (1)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721188)

So how many people check email on a daily basis? And why isn't that front page news?

Re:Email (3, Insightful)

mccalli (323026) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721246)

So how many people check email on a daily basis? And why isn't that front page news?

There was a time when that was front page news, yes. I remember getting email for the first time ('89, so it had already been going for what - 20 years?) and being astounded. Then discovered newsgroups, saw the web get built etc..

All this stuff was news, but it's happened. The Facebook thing is new, so it's news today.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Email (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721730)

There was a time when that was front page news, yes. I remember getting email for the first time ('89, so it had already been going for what - 20 years?) and being astounded. Then discovered newsgroups, saw the web get built etc..

And then you discovered free internet porn, and your productivity really took a hit. Then, of course, you discovered slashdot, and now you get nothing at all accomplished at work.

Re:Email (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721822)

Facebook is getting a little long in the tooth as well. I was facebook stalkin' before people I knew had actually registered.

You people forget the real reason that facebook is constantly mentioned. It's an advertising platform. They wrote the story because they know it gets clicks. They hope after you read that you will visit facebook and like their page, engage with other viewers/readers etc. and then create a personal connection to their "brand". It's not about being social, it's about selling more crap.

I care so little about facebook (0)

gosand (234100) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721216)

I care so little about it that I didn't read the article. I'm so sick of hearing ABOUT it. I joined it, under an alias, and maybe log in once a month. I have a friend in China, and it would be nice to keep in touch with him.. but I honestly don't care what he ate for breakfast, or some random picture that he took. So I'd rather just lose touch. Same goes for family/friends across the country. There's certainly a good argument for the concept of facebook, but so far I've only seen it used to document the most banal, annoying, unimportant things in life. People like to post comments about what they're following on twitter.

In all honesty, facebook is the most annoying piece of technology to have been created in my lifetime (and I was born in the 60s)

Re:I care so little about facebook (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721702)

You care so little about this article that you just wasted 10 minutes of your life posting a reply to it to explain just how little you care about it???

I was born in the 60s

So was I; but at least that explains the "Darn kids, get offa my lawn!" attitude.

OMG! (1)

Mister Fright (1559681) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721226)

Good question! I think I'll post this link to my Facebook profile and make a poll on Facebook to ask my friends.

Re:OMG! (1)

SeNtM (965176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721276)

Ponies!

Peak Facebook (3, Interesting)

llZENll (545605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721234)

I could give two shits about facebook, its about easily seeing what friends and family are up to and communicating, not about facebook itself. Its like a very easy to use forum and blog for your life. If another website came out tomorrow that was better everyone would use it instead. Its akin the old crazes and obsessions of writing and journals, video diaries, the internet and blogs, remember how obsessed people were over those! OMG society almost didn't make it through those crazy times! The fad will fade as all do, you sign up, connect with lots of old friends, post a ton for a while, then after a while realize its all pretty meaningless and the people around you are the ones who matter most anyways, and you don't need facebook to talk with them. It will never go away though because its still great to see what distant friends are doing every once and while. Peak Facebook is coming soon though...

Useful tool for some (2)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721242)

I had the same disdain for social networking as most of the /. crowd until a very close friend who had moved far away lost her husband and requested that her friends join Facebook so she could correspond with us. I gladly created an account and was able to "be there" for her even though I couldn't actually be there. What I found after joining was that people I had lost touch with and had tried to find using every other method I could think of were there as well. I quickly reconnected and renewed relationships that had been lost for years. I still think most of it is of questionable value but its social aspect is very much real.

Whoa. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721346)

I hope she finds him. Are they seting up a search party? I am truley sory for her lots.

Re:Useful tool for some (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721620)

I quickly reconnected and renewed relationships that had been lost for years.

The question I'm asking is: Why were the relationships lost in the first place? Is Facebook that much more convenient than e-mail, IRC, SMS, IM, or a telephone call?

I was also reluctant. However, about 5 associates of mine sent e-mails (imagine that) requesting I join FB. I did. Found some people I hadn't heard from in 25+ years. You know what? We lost touch for a reason. Their interests don't align with mine. All they do is post a sentence or two per day about the most trivial crap. Where they are shopping, what they had for breakfast, etc. ad nauseum. And don't forget the pictures of the kids. I deleted my account after about 2 months of that nonsense.

But hey, to each their own.

Re:Useful tool for some (4, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721674)

Wow, I really feel sorry for her... it's terrible that she doesn't have a phone or a skype account or an email account or a mailbox that you could use to "be there" for her!

At least facebook has content (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721282)

It's the media's obsession with twitter that bothers me the most. If you follow the "live coverage" of a war nowadays, you see "x tweets ..." mixed in with coverage of the actual shooting. My print newspaper never used to put "some guy down the pub thought ..." in the middle of its stories.

Re:At least facebook has content (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721656)

My print newspaper never used to put "some guy down the pub thought ..." in the middle of its stories.

They just didn't attribute it. The stereotype of the hard drinking reporter didn't come out of thin air.

500 Million Accounts 500 Million Users (1)

funkyjunkman (721687) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721324)

Just saying. I've no doubt there are an abundance of false identities and corporate logins, but what about dead people, people who created accounts and abandoned them, etc?

Holy cow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721350)

"... a CNBC story about it... "

There's a CNBC story about it? Well, dang. I thought that having half a billion users was pretty good, but really, that's just a flash in the pan.

Now that the real media has done a story on it, I guess this Facebook thingamajigger is here to stay.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Oh, wait... turns out that CNBC only has 390 million viewers worldwide [wikipedia.org] .

I guess I'll have to wait for Facebook to do a story on them before CNBC has any sort of legitimacy.

Re:Holy cow! (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721650)

I'd say both the Facebook and CNBC customer numbers are greatly exaggerated.

Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721378)

Seriously, this is news? The site is popular. It let's us talk to each other. The way traditional news outlets have presented the news is out dated and most people no longer buy into their crap since we have faster methods to get the same information without sitting through commercials and filler stories.
 
Move on.

The most annoying thing about Facebook... (2)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721420)

The most annoying thing about Facebook isn't that everybody expects you to have one, but that everybody and businesses are expected to have one (as well as a Twitter). What ever happened to Good Ol' RSS/Atom? My feed reader is infinitely better than using Twitter or Facebook for news, so why should I only be given the options of Twitter and Facebook to follow a company or website? Every store you walk in to, every product that you buy almost, somewhere in there is that stupid little Facebook/Twitter logo with the text "Find us on Facebook/Twitter!" Never a feed. Never. To find a good feed I have to search for it specifically and it often takes a while to find (thankfully Netflix and most modern blogs have a feed option). It's backwards, it's illogical, it's annoying, and it's centralized! When every single business in the world (pretty much) and every single person that you meet expects you to have a Facebook or Twitter and be willing to share your personal information with them, it's impossible to find peace without complying. I use Wordpress and Identica/StatusNet exclusively for my blogging needs, and my Twitter/FB accounts are merely mirrors of both solely because the general population refuses to switch to a much more secure, more flexible, and more decentralized social network.

Now get off my lawn!

Re:The most annoying thing about Facebook... (2)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721494)

What ever happened to Good Ol' RSS/Atom?

It never really caught on among non-technical people.

I hope that wasn't a rhetorical question.

Re:The most annoying thing about Facebook... (3)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721724)

What ever happened to Good Ol' RSS/Atom?

It never really caught on among non-technical people.

I hope that wasn't a rhetorical question.

And that's the problem... RSS/Atom and just feeds in general are a million times more useful than adding a 140-character-limited feed on Twitter where it's mixed in with everything else (in this respect Facebook isn't as bad due to having less character restrictions). Adding a feed is just as simple as subscribing to any other type of social presence, but it's so much more useful. You don't even need an account on a centralized website to subscribe to a feed. Why has the uptake been so slow? Browsers and email clients and feed readers and feed websites are all over the place, ready to be used, yet their use pales in comparison to the obviously inferior Facebook/Twitter.

Re:The most annoying thing about Facebook... (1)

ChinggisK (1133009) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721542)

Article says it all- there are 500 million people on FB. I don't have any hard numbers but I'd be money that that's way, waayyy more than the number of people who know what an RSS feed is, much less actually have a reader set up that they use regularly. Businesses care about getting seen by lots of people.

Re:The most annoying thing about Facebook... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721820)

I have relatives that have 2-3-4 Facebook accounts because of Farmville, Cityville and WhateverElseVille.....

I doubt very much the 500 million are unique at all.

Re:The most annoying thing about Facebook... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721796)

> What ever happened to Good Ol' RSS

But you know the answer before even asking, don't you? Nobody (well almost nobody) even know what RSS is. Everybody knows what Facebook is.

It's gotten bad though that even applying for some jobs now requires you use Facebook.

Jumped the shark this weekend (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721444)

I was already pretty disgusted with how everyone has gone so nuts for Facebook, but this weekend I saw a car commercial (Chevrolet?) where the car is somehow able to read your Facebook posts out loud. Of course the one that gets read for the commercial is "GREAT FIRST DATE!" Seriously, WTF? Do we really need this? Get over it, you don't need Facebook every second of the day.

Other Obsessions (3, Funny)

BryanL (93656) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721546)

I think we obsess too much over other things as well. I surveyed the last three weeks and 37% of Slashdot articles were about the Internet. Worse, 87% of were actually sent over the internet.

Definition: Obsession-That thing that most other people like that you hate.

Fake accounts (4, Insightful)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721548)

I wouldn't be so bold as to say Facebook hasn't grown like wildfire, or that huge numbers of the population aren't using it, but 3/4 of Americans on Facebook? Seems like there are large portions of the population who that's simply not possible for, due to age, economic status, work constraints, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if there are 2 fake Facebook accounts for every real one.

Re:Fake accounts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721612)

I wouldn't be surprised if there are 2 fake Facebook accounts for every real one.

People create fake accounts on the web? Say it ain't so!

A source of inaccuracy (1)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721582)

I don't think they're making any estimate of the number of trolling accounts there are on Facebook, and eliminating them from their statistics. I'd say they're off by at least 50%.

Compare texting (4, Interesting)

librarybob (1043806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721594)

And yet phone text is used far more often. I don't have the sources at hand, but a 2010 Facebook stat showed 60 million status updates per day. A 2009 stat on texting showed 5 billion sent per day. Admittedly, a lot of FB use would be messaging or chat rather than status updates. Still, news coverage tends to go to the new and hot (not to mention speculation on FB's market value). The fact that a *lot* of "social networking" happens via text seems to lie completely under the radar.

500 million users? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721628)

How many unique users are they? What incentive does Facebook have to make sure a user has only one account, versus the powerful incentives users have to create multiple accounts (e.g. to game the social games)? I'm sure it looks good in Facebook's advertising to claim "500 million users", but that doesn't mean 500 million people are actually using Facebook. Disclaimer: I still don't have a Facebook account. but my daughter does, and my dog is currently considering signing up.

Re:500 million users? (1)

turkeyfeathers (843622) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721748)

My dog already has one. The 500 million users number is crock.

Allways connected (1)

Halifax Samuels (1124719) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721698)

I'm technically signed in to Facebook 24 hours a day - I connect to FB chat via Pidgin.

The most important quote (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721736)

and one out of 26 signs into Facebook on a daily basis.

Or rephrased, roughly 96% of the "users" sign in less than daily. The graph would be interesting to see. My wife checks FB at maximum interval of a couple hours. Everyone knows someone like that, but that doesn't mean they're a statistically relevant population.

That Open Source Project? (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721854)

What's up with the open-source privacy-oriented project that was touted so fervently here awhile back? Are they producing anything useful?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?