I love the concept of an alternate reality. As an American, I'm a big fan of choice and having the volition to exercise my free will or not. Video games have been an outlet for me to indulge myself in that concept. I look at it as interacting "outside the box", experiencing outside the confines of our given reality. Of course, anyone can lose themselves in a reality they have more power over, it causes some people to actually lose their grip on the real world. We hear the sensationalist news stories of kids shooting up their schools and neighborhoods and their attorneys file suits on video game developers who allegedly influence them to commit these crimes. I can understand regulating the amount of exposure to adult situations to kids who frequently play video games but to completely shift the blame other than the parent or the child is a blatant abdication of responsibility. Alternate realities aren't deliberately made to be harmful to people. If a person can't distinguish between the realm they exist in and the other realm they interact through then there is something intrinsically wrong with them. This is solely my opinion.
Virtual realities have their pros and they are certainly worth their weight in platinum. For the sake of this argument I will now specify virtual realities as "video games". All video games were developed to entertain, some toward a specific market, others to the masses. Just like any other type of game, there's at least one objective and certain procedures and parameters to the game. One gains the reward of accomplishment when they complete the objective inside these parameters. Those who do it outside those parameters are called "cheaters" or "hackers"; they are usually frowned upon or ostracized for their unfair play or unsportsmanlike conduct. However, most video games now have eased up on parameters giving the gamer more creative possibilities to achieve the goal. These scenarios improve problem-solving and critical thinking skills significantly in the real world. Most close-minded people would scoff at the idea of video games being anything more than a recreational, childish waste of time. Well, that's what they said about tanks, submarines, and planes, and look at what we did with that. I've read a CNN report (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/28/sl.autism.irpt/index.html#cnnSTCText) about how people with autistic disorders use "Second Life" to counter their obstacles. "Naughty Auties", a virtual research centers with those for different types of Autism, including Asperger's syndrome, can interact with other people via their Second Life avatars without having to so much bear a "real-life" social situation.
Regarding the future of virtual worlds, I think in due time it will be frequent to visit one "reality" from another. Alternate forms of reality will be created for anyone to experience a new realm with all of their senses stimulated simultaneously as in the realm we live in now. People can customize their version of what they want reality to be and can immerse themselves in for as long as they like. Question is, would they ever want to go back to their original reality?
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
About Twitter
I made a Twitter account long ago before it became as popular and ubiquitous as it is now. I understand the use of it as a requirement for the class but honestly: I hate Twitter. It's basically just Facebook's status messaging to me and while it does serve its purpose for some people I certainly have no personal use for it. Also, communicating on Twitter is horrible. I like to put in as much detail as I can when dropping a comment; if I wanted to be short and concise I'd switch to an IM client. Following Twitter could be as useful as having an RSS feed if the site is compatible with Twitter and updates regularly while being Johnny-on-the-spot with the tweets. I did read the article about a professor using Twitter as an alternative communication for an entire classroom. I totally like the idea but using Twitter for that is limiting, especially when you can only type in a max of 140 characters each tweet. What if you were in a 3000+ class and you wanted to make a point that had a lot detail or technical jargon? You couldn't do that with Twitter it'd be impractical, you'd have students tweeting "(part 2 of 4), continued on next tweet, etc." before or after every tweet. With a forum discussion (i.e. Blackboard) you can make your point however you want. Of course, an in-class discussion has the one dynamic no other technology can and will ever possess: the human dynamic. Bottom line: If you update Facebook statuses every 15 minutes with the minutia of your life, go with Twitter. If you want to have a full length discussion about a certain topic, go with a forum. If you want to have a network of students who can readily access vital information with a personal identity, go with Facebook. And if you want a discussion in real-time, where every participant is on their toes to prove themselves, nothing beats a fac-to-face debate.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
"The Social Network"
***WARNING: SPOILER ALERTS! READ AT YOUR OWN RISK!***
On the last few posts I've mentioned and referred to the recently new film that's come out in theaters called "The Social Network". For those of you who have no remote interest in short-lived fad culture "The Social Network" is the new, "rave" movie of the month to see according to corporately-funded product placement and the precise targeting tactics of a well-paid marketing team. "The Social Network" tells the story of the early Harvard days of Mark Zuckerberg, Co-founder and CEO of Facebook, and how the creation and rise of Facebook came to be the behemoth of social networks it is today. Jesse Eisenberg ("Zombieland") depicted the character of Zuckerberg as a gifted, yet deeply aloof Harvard undergrad who is obsessed with trying to "distinguish himself" in an institution of the best and brightest America has to offer. The movie starts off with Mark eventually getting dumped by his girlfriend after he vents his frustrations through backhanded compliments and borderline narcissistic juxtapositions that would make Donald Trump blush. So now Mark's drunk, depressed, and worst of all dumped. Is he so different that he'd actually go home, sleep on it, and move on with the rest of his life? Not at all.
In shallow spite he creates a website called "Facemash", which is compiled of pictures of Harvard women posted on the directory (dubbed "facebooks") of each Harvard house and displyed as a attractiveness contest similar to www.hotornot.com (Note: This is after he publicly blogs about the comparison of women to farm animals. LOL!). As he goes through each houses' website Mark narrates the methods of his data mining in detail using the technical jargon that 99% of a usual audience wouldn't even bother to learn let alone understand. This happens to be one of my favorite part of the movie, not because of the character's expression of inner sexual frustration, but because I knew enough of what he was saying to have a genuinely nonchalant expression and respond to rest of that scene with thoughts like "Easy enough", "There's a faster way to do that", "I did that when I was 10" (/brag). Anyway his site garners enough web traffic to overloads Harvard's server database in what was presumably thought to be a denial-of-service attack. Soon after, Zuckerberg creates "Thefacebook" the original predecessor of "Facebook". From this project Zuckerberg has an epiphany of how the structure of today's society is followed with students joining exclusive clubs, guys having to go through courting and "the game" to fulfill their sexual desires, and how this incorporates with the survival of the individual human being (...or maybe it's just me)
I'm going to stop the detail here because the rest of the movie follows the lawsuits of his (ex-)business partners, post-pubescent drama following the entrance of Sean Parker (co-founder of Napster, portrayed by Justin Timberlake) and the obvious legal and technical stuff that you can all read on Wikipedia (seriously, it's all there, you don't need to pay $12 to know the story).
And now we have Facebook, that seemingly addicting website that you can't just log off of, that you can't leave for one day without getting the itch to check on what your friends are doing this very minute, that you need to change your password and have someone hold the account until you finish studying for that big midterm next Monday. What's interesting about this movie is all the hoo-hah about making the real Mark Zuckerberg look like the greedy, self-centered, narcissistic asshole that Eisenberg's character portrays pretty decently with regards to his previous movie credits. The movie's poster shows the caption "You don't get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies" superimposed on Eisenberg's stoic countenance. Technically, the script is based on author Ben Mezrich's "The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook, A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius, and Betrayal", which was consultant primarily by Eduardo Saverin, who was portrayed in "The Social Network" by actor Andrew Garfield and currently holds 5% share of Facebook's stock. So what does this all mean? Should we think of Mark Zuckerberg as the quintessential overnight billionaire who sacrifices his humanity for personal wealth? Is it fair to justify this impression based upon a movie? How about a book that tells the same story with the input from a Facebook business partner? What about the fact that Zuckerberg donated $100 billion to Newark public schools prior to the national debut of "The Social Network", despite his honest attempts to keep the two events separate from each other? Did he try to save face or was he being a philanthropist?
These are questions I had raised for myself before, during, and after the movie. All I can say is: I don't know. All I know is Mark Zuckerberg created a "monster", a monster we all love to hate, hate to love, and, for most people, quick to use on a daily basis. Honestly, it's inspiring me to create something, something I can share with the world one day that'll benefit me and the rest of mankind. Someday I'll look back at this and laugh and wonder "If I was so cool, why didn't I do that when I was 10?".
On the last few posts I've mentioned and referred to the recently new film that's come out in theaters called "The Social Network". For those of you who have no remote interest in short-lived fad culture "The Social Network" is the new, "rave" movie of the month to see according to corporately-funded product placement and the precise targeting tactics of a well-paid marketing team. "The Social Network" tells the story of the early Harvard days of Mark Zuckerberg, Co-founder and CEO of Facebook, and how the creation and rise of Facebook came to be the behemoth of social networks it is today. Jesse Eisenberg ("Zombieland") depicted the character of Zuckerberg as a gifted, yet deeply aloof Harvard undergrad who is obsessed with trying to "distinguish himself" in an institution of the best and brightest America has to offer. The movie starts off with Mark eventually getting dumped by his girlfriend after he vents his frustrations through backhanded compliments and borderline narcissistic juxtapositions that would make Donald Trump blush. So now Mark's drunk, depressed, and worst of all dumped. Is he so different that he'd actually go home, sleep on it, and move on with the rest of his life? Not at all.
In shallow spite he creates a website called "Facemash", which is compiled of pictures of Harvard women posted on the directory (dubbed "facebooks") of each Harvard house and displyed as a attractiveness contest similar to www.hotornot.com (Note: This is after he publicly blogs about the comparison of women to farm animals. LOL!). As he goes through each houses' website Mark narrates the methods of his data mining in detail using the technical jargon that 99% of a usual audience wouldn't even bother to learn let alone understand. This happens to be one of my favorite part of the movie, not because of the character's expression of inner sexual frustration, but because I knew enough of what he was saying to have a genuinely nonchalant expression and respond to rest of that scene with thoughts like "Easy enough", "There's a faster way to do that", "I did that when I was 10" (/brag). Anyway his site garners enough web traffic to overloads Harvard's server database in what was presumably thought to be a denial-of-service attack. Soon after, Zuckerberg creates "Thefacebook" the original predecessor of "Facebook". From this project Zuckerberg has an epiphany of how the structure of today's society is followed with students joining exclusive clubs, guys having to go through courting and "the game" to fulfill their sexual desires, and how this incorporates with the survival of the individual human being (...or maybe it's just me)
I'm going to stop the detail here because the rest of the movie follows the lawsuits of his (ex-)business partners, post-pubescent drama following the entrance of Sean Parker (co-founder of Napster, portrayed by Justin Timberlake) and the obvious legal and technical stuff that you can all read on Wikipedia (seriously, it's all there, you don't need to pay $12 to know the story).
And now we have Facebook, that seemingly addicting website that you can't just log off of, that you can't leave for one day without getting the itch to check on what your friends are doing this very minute, that you need to change your password and have someone hold the account until you finish studying for that big midterm next Monday. What's interesting about this movie is all the hoo-hah about making the real Mark Zuckerberg look like the greedy, self-centered, narcissistic asshole that Eisenberg's character portrays pretty decently with regards to his previous movie credits. The movie's poster shows the caption "You don't get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies" superimposed on Eisenberg's stoic countenance. Technically, the script is based on author Ben Mezrich's "The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook, A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius, and Betrayal", which was consultant primarily by Eduardo Saverin, who was portrayed in "The Social Network" by actor Andrew Garfield and currently holds 5% share of Facebook's stock. So what does this all mean? Should we think of Mark Zuckerberg as the quintessential overnight billionaire who sacrifices his humanity for personal wealth? Is it fair to justify this impression based upon a movie? How about a book that tells the same story with the input from a Facebook business partner? What about the fact that Zuckerberg donated $100 billion to Newark public schools prior to the national debut of "The Social Network", despite his honest attempts to keep the two events separate from each other? Did he try to save face or was he being a philanthropist?
These are questions I had raised for myself before, during, and after the movie. All I can say is: I don't know. All I know is Mark Zuckerberg created a "monster", a monster we all love to hate, hate to love, and, for most people, quick to use on a daily basis. Honestly, it's inspiring me to create something, something I can share with the world one day that'll benefit me and the rest of mankind. Someday I'll look back at this and laugh and wonder "If I was so cool, why didn't I do that when I was 10?".
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
The Power of the Social Network (cont'd) - Pros and Cons
Now that I've described to few of many social networks that are out there and described their own unique purposes let's explore the overall utilization of this concept. There are pros and cons to anything - plain and simple - to everything; everything has a trade-off, one thing for the other. In the economics part of academia there is one famous saying that most econ students learn in their first year: "There is no such thing as a free lunch". But where does this all lead to?
Social Networking has no doubt change the world. Whether for the better or worse is subjective to the individual. It has brought new wealth to corporations that fiend for any type of en masse method to get their message or brand across. It has created new businesses that thrive solely on the mass popularity of a/the social network to sustain itself. People from anywhere can connect their own representation of cyberspace (i.e. profile) with another person anywhere in the world - even from Iceland to New Zealand - as long as both computers have access to the network from the Internet. "The Internet has flatten the world" is a budding new maxim in our generation. I agree with it (figuratively, of course) and it has made my life a litte more convenient.
In my case I can organize my friends' info into a streamlined database that automatically handles new information as it comes. Now I don't have the convenient excuse of forgetting anyone's birthday because Facebook punctually reminds me everyday of who's birthday that us, subconsciously drilling into my guilt-ridden soul that I should take the minute amount of time to go to their wall and type in "Happy Birthday" to whoever. However, in all seriousness, Facebook had brought me closer to my family in Italy than I can be without physically being there. My grandmother just turned 89 in August and I talked to her over Facebook. With the help of my uncle (who at 58 has a profile and admittedly is above most people his age when it comes to being tech-savvy) I was able to communicate to my grandmother in my broken Neapolitan dialect of Italian to wish her Happy Birthday, tell her about how my life is going here in New York, and ask how she's doing. I could have done this as easily over the phone but there's just a sort of inspiring moment I had when my grandmother, who still drinks wine with her "blended" mush of food and still works the farm on a blue moon, can still have the ability to message me through a device she has only seen in her golden years. Forget businesses and keeping with your old classmates, just being a witness and a participant to that is nothing short of the magnanimous power of the social network.
Now on to the dark side, the tradeoffs. If you honestly think that having a profile on the Internet that contains all of your submitted information is safe from anyone who has any malicious intent against you, I'd suggest never going on the Internet until you learn the world is not, and never will be, perfect. The moment you click that submit button and transfer packets of data that are eventually converted to text, pics, videos, etc., is the moment Facebook, or whatever social network your on, co-owns your property. That's right, Facebook has rights to those suggestive photos of last night's party or your candid shot of aliens in the night sky in the middle of your neighborhood desert. They own every piece of information you put up on your profile and every other profile and they enforce that ownership seriously. Not only that, speaking of that party last night, let's assume you did some things you'd rather not remember let alone let the world know. Well, maybe some of your not-so-honest friends would and, in fact, intend to show the world what happened. Before you even brush your teeth on your way to work/school and you check your email to find an album of pics dedicated to your (dis)honor. What now? You can't take it back; the damage has already been done. Research conducted by Alessandro Acquisti, a Carnegie Mellon University professor of public policy and management has found that individuals' perceptions of privacy are flexible depending on the context of an interaction. In a recent "Information Best Security Practices" conference at the Wharton School at UPenn, Acquisti states that "people [say] privacy [is] important to them, yet they engage in behaviors that indicate a remarkable lack of concern". Your privacy on the Internet is at significant stake no matter what you do or don't. As long as you have a reasonably visible identity on the Internet you are liable for your actions and the actions of others potentially against you. The only way to avoid any and all of these pitfalls is to not participate in any online social system. But...can you resist? Kinda reminds me of the abstinence stance :).
Social Networking has no doubt change the world. Whether for the better or worse is subjective to the individual. It has brought new wealth to corporations that fiend for any type of en masse method to get their message or brand across. It has created new businesses that thrive solely on the mass popularity of a/the social network to sustain itself. People from anywhere can connect their own representation of cyberspace (i.e. profile) with another person anywhere in the world - even from Iceland to New Zealand - as long as both computers have access to the network from the Internet. "The Internet has flatten the world" is a budding new maxim in our generation. I agree with it (figuratively, of course) and it has made my life a litte more convenient.
In my case I can organize my friends' info into a streamlined database that automatically handles new information as it comes. Now I don't have the convenient excuse of forgetting anyone's birthday because Facebook punctually reminds me everyday of who's birthday that us, subconsciously drilling into my guilt-ridden soul that I should take the minute amount of time to go to their wall and type in "Happy Birthday" to whoever. However, in all seriousness, Facebook had brought me closer to my family in Italy than I can be without physically being there. My grandmother just turned 89 in August and I talked to her over Facebook. With the help of my uncle (who at 58 has a profile and admittedly is above most people his age when it comes to being tech-savvy) I was able to communicate to my grandmother in my broken Neapolitan dialect of Italian to wish her Happy Birthday, tell her about how my life is going here in New York, and ask how she's doing. I could have done this as easily over the phone but there's just a sort of inspiring moment I had when my grandmother, who still drinks wine with her "blended" mush of food and still works the farm on a blue moon, can still have the ability to message me through a device she has only seen in her golden years. Forget businesses and keeping with your old classmates, just being a witness and a participant to that is nothing short of the magnanimous power of the social network.
Now on to the dark side, the tradeoffs. If you honestly think that having a profile on the Internet that contains all of your submitted information is safe from anyone who has any malicious intent against you, I'd suggest never going on the Internet until you learn the world is not, and never will be, perfect. The moment you click that submit button and transfer packets of data that are eventually converted to text, pics, videos, etc., is the moment Facebook, or whatever social network your on, co-owns your property. That's right, Facebook has rights to those suggestive photos of last night's party or your candid shot of aliens in the night sky in the middle of your neighborhood desert. They own every piece of information you put up on your profile and every other profile and they enforce that ownership seriously. Not only that, speaking of that party last night, let's assume you did some things you'd rather not remember let alone let the world know. Well, maybe some of your not-so-honest friends would and, in fact, intend to show the world what happened. Before you even brush your teeth on your way to work/school and you check your email to find an album of pics dedicated to your (dis)honor. What now? You can't take it back; the damage has already been done. Research conducted by Alessandro Acquisti, a Carnegie Mellon University professor of public policy and management has found that individuals' perceptions of privacy are flexible depending on the context of an interaction. In a recent "Information Best Security Practices" conference at the Wharton School at UPenn, Acquisti states that "people [say] privacy [is] important to them, yet they engage in behaviors that indicate a remarkable lack of concern". Your privacy on the Internet is at significant stake no matter what you do or don't. As long as you have a reasonably visible identity on the Internet you are liable for your actions and the actions of others potentially against you. The only way to avoid any and all of these pitfalls is to not participate in any online social system. But...can you resist? Kinda reminds me of the abstinence stance :).
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Power of the Social Network
The power of the social network in this day and age is colossal. The concept of a person's contacts, whether it be friends, family, acquaintances, co-workers, etc., being easily accessible to that person is invaluable where and when the Internet is the super-platform of communication. Businesses, especially advertisers and marketers, see the digital "word-of-mouth" as gold mine to spread the word to as many people as possible in a cost-effective setting. Social network giants like Facebook, MySpace, and Friendster have been repeatedly tempted to sell their accounts at a price much like dating websites do. However, the most successful ones have kept it free of charge because of the potential velocity at which the entire network can grow. Since the popularity of social networking began there are many competitive social networking companies vying for the potential user to create and maintain an account on the network. As a college student that has grown up with the change form Web 1.0 to 2.0 I reminisce of earlier times where MySpace and Sconex were the sites to be on, subconsciously sizing up real-life friends to how many friends they have on this social network, or whether or not you kept Tom as a friend or not. Hell, I remember a time when AOL was the "social network" back in the day. It wasn't as free financially or conceptually as today's social networks are but it had fulfilled its purpose well for its time. I recently saw the movie "The Social Connection", which is (loosely) based on Mark Zuckerberg and his rise to power in creating Facebook and more on the book "The Accidental Billionaires" by Ben Mezrich. It was entertaining to say the least if the movie, which I suspect, doesn't exactly cover the origins of Facebook truthfully.
My Facebook profile is used more for leisure and social network (e.g. finding out about parties, keeping tabs on friends, use as an alternative communication tool). However, LinkedIn is strictly business for me. I use LinkedIn as a digital addendum to my resume and keep connections solely on the basis of the chance that I may further my career, which will be fully decided by the time I graduate. The layouts between Facebook and LinkedIn are distinguishly by most aspects. Facebook's profile formatting displays the person's name in bold, picture, date of birth, relationship status, gender of romantic interest, and political and religious views. It also shows your networks which primarily consist of high schools and colleges that the person is or has been a student of. These networks separate student bodies en masse in order to make finding friends from your local area easier. There is also space to add activities, hobbies, favorites that include, music, books, television shows, and movies, and a favorite quotes section. There is also room for photo albums, which can contain anything from your trip to Europe or last weekend's party, videos, and applications that range from games to other social knick-knacks. Photos arguably have the most versatility on Facebook since they can be "tagged" to a profile (for example: a picture that has you and two friends that both have a Facebook profile can be linked to their respective profiles without their consent. Of course, they have the option of "de-tagging"). All of these features are provided to the user in order to obtain the perfect (or less than perfect depending on opinion) digitalized social experience.
MySpace is what I would consider the predecessor to Facebook in terms of rank of popularity. MySpace was the site that initially caught my interest into social networking. Back in the day, MySpace used to be like Facebook, with the profile picture, age, hometown, and the other personal information. The big difference with MySpace and Facebook is that MySpace was almost completely HTML and XML based and that customizing a profile was not only considered easy, it was ubiquitous. MySpace's system was so easily accessible anyone would have been hard-pressed to find a decent profile without any background, music playing in the background, or any silly applications that gave the "kiddie", yet fun personal touch.
LinkedIn has a more refined, minimalist display, which professional job-seekers create and market their digital representation to a potential employer. Appropriately, most of the profile is in a resume format, with additional "skills", "summary", and "recommendations" sections. It also shows "connections" to other profiles instead of "friends". LinkedIn also has a news feed, but has less coverage compared to Facebook's. LinkedIn's privacy policies and application recommendations are tailored to the benefit of the professional as opposed to the casual social network user. LinkedIn is a social network that attracts a specific target market of the user instead of the all-around, something-for-everyone, market that Facebook currently dominates.
I use both Facebook and Linkedin religiously, digitally separating business and pleasure. There are no links from my Facebook to my LinkedIn account and vice versa solely for that reason. LinkedIn provides me with an accessible, reliable history of my school and work stints. Facebook is my platform to get in touch with all my friends and sync their information to whatever device that needs the collaborative information (e.g. my cell phone's address book). Facebook and LinkedIn have their merits to their specific service and they provide their respective services wonderfully. Most of the executives who run such successful websites are usually linked to each other in some way, shape, or form. For example, the Founder of LinkedIn, Reid Hoffman, has funded Facebook during a part of its inception into the social network market. Sean Parker, co-founder of Napster along with Shawn Fanning, was President of Facebook and was portrayed in "The Social Network" by Justin Timberlake. Needless to say, even the social network executives find their own product addicting.
My Facebook profile is used more for leisure and social network (e.g. finding out about parties, keeping tabs on friends, use as an alternative communication tool). However, LinkedIn is strictly business for me. I use LinkedIn as a digital addendum to my resume and keep connections solely on the basis of the chance that I may further my career, which will be fully decided by the time I graduate. The layouts between Facebook and LinkedIn are distinguishly by most aspects. Facebook's profile formatting displays the person's name in bold, picture, date of birth, relationship status, gender of romantic interest, and political and religious views. It also shows your networks which primarily consist of high schools and colleges that the person is or has been a student of. These networks separate student bodies en masse in order to make finding friends from your local area easier. There is also space to add activities, hobbies, favorites that include, music, books, television shows, and movies, and a favorite quotes section. There is also room for photo albums, which can contain anything from your trip to Europe or last weekend's party, videos, and applications that range from games to other social knick-knacks. Photos arguably have the most versatility on Facebook since they can be "tagged" to a profile (for example: a picture that has you and two friends that both have a Facebook profile can be linked to their respective profiles without their consent. Of course, they have the option of "de-tagging"). All of these features are provided to the user in order to obtain the perfect (or less than perfect depending on opinion) digitalized social experience.
MySpace is what I would consider the predecessor to Facebook in terms of rank of popularity. MySpace was the site that initially caught my interest into social networking. Back in the day, MySpace used to be like Facebook, with the profile picture, age, hometown, and the other personal information. The big difference with MySpace and Facebook is that MySpace was almost completely HTML and XML based and that customizing a profile was not only considered easy, it was ubiquitous. MySpace's system was so easily accessible anyone would have been hard-pressed to find a decent profile without any background, music playing in the background, or any silly applications that gave the "kiddie", yet fun personal touch.
LinkedIn has a more refined, minimalist display, which professional job-seekers create and market their digital representation to a potential employer. Appropriately, most of the profile is in a resume format, with additional "skills", "summary", and "recommendations" sections. It also shows "connections" to other profiles instead of "friends". LinkedIn also has a news feed, but has less coverage compared to Facebook's. LinkedIn's privacy policies and application recommendations are tailored to the benefit of the professional as opposed to the casual social network user. LinkedIn is a social network that attracts a specific target market of the user instead of the all-around, something-for-everyone, market that Facebook currently dominates.
I use both Facebook and Linkedin religiously, digitally separating business and pleasure. There are no links from my Facebook to my LinkedIn account and vice versa solely for that reason. LinkedIn provides me with an accessible, reliable history of my school and work stints. Facebook is my platform to get in touch with all my friends and sync their information to whatever device that needs the collaborative information (e.g. my cell phone's address book). Facebook and LinkedIn have their merits to their specific service and they provide their respective services wonderfully. Most of the executives who run such successful websites are usually linked to each other in some way, shape, or form. For example, the Founder of LinkedIn, Reid Hoffman, has funded Facebook during a part of its inception into the social network market. Sean Parker, co-founder of Napster along with Shawn Fanning, was President of Facebook and was portrayed in "The Social Network" by Justin Timberlake. Needless to say, even the social network executives find their own product addicting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)