4 ms·
FB for me (and it seems, for many) is an inherently private thing. I don't want groups outside of my real-life friends. That's the fundamental break here - I'm
by richardw 15y ago
FB for me (and it seems, for many) is an inherently private thing. I don't want groups outside of my real-life friends. That's the fundamental break here - I'm being followed (and following) much more widely, similar to Twitter. What Google has done is made Twitter for people who don't get why 140 characters is a feature.
So: FB for my friends, G+ for the digerati and my real interest groups. Frankly, the latter has a better chance of improving search for me than my friendship groups, which is (or should be) the real goal. I've never seen a useful Facebook ad. I've seen many useful Google ones.
Edit: The question is: can FB change the culture of how users use FB faster than G+ can capture "those who matter". Make it more public? There's a lot of resistance to making our profiles more public.
- discodave 15y agoIn response to making our profiles public or not... I think a killer move from facebook would be a 'SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS' button for each post. It would be effectively like tweeting (individual posts) and would have critical mass pretty quickly due to fb's scale. Maybe it would be a nightmare building another twitter overnight or they would be pilloried for copying so blatantly. Additionally, it's occuring to me right now that a big issue would be deciding how to integrate those shouts into the newsfeed... oh wait by following people.
- mattdeboard 15y agoEvery post on FB is a "shout it from the rooftops" post, that's the whole point of Google+. Unless you meant 100% publicly available posts? That's the opposite of something Facebook ever would (or should) do. FB is a walled garden.
- richardw 15y agoYou'd need that button plus a change in the relationship model so non-friends could subscribe