5 ms·

I think you're wrong in that department. It's become a fundamental in online identity, especially for younger people. I watch my younger siblings (teenagers)

by ohashi 15y ago

I think you're wrong in that department. It's become a fundamental in online identity, especially for younger people. I watch my younger siblings (teenagers) who depends on that for their social lives. Sure, they wouldn't die without it, but it's an essential part of being a part of their community. I could say the same for myself, I don't like Facebook and what they do, but if I wasn't on it during college and especially grad school - I would have missed out on a lot of the experiences with my colleagues. I have no idea on how you live, how old you are and who you keep as company, but I think you're going to be in the minority or already are) soon enough. It's a social organizer that everyone has opted into which means breaking from it makes it infinitely harder to remain social.

vu3rdd 15y ago
It is definitely possible to live without a Facebook account and also have a social life. If that is not the case, there is something seriously wrong with the society you are in.
- ohashi 15y ago
  You're probably not a member of a community which has fully adopted it. I also wouldn't impart your judgement so easily without considering what it would be like to enter into a community that had 100% adoption of a service and how you would behave in that instance. I am not saying it's impossible to live without it, but it certainly makes it more difficult and adds friction to your life that could easily be removed by just joining.
hosh 15y ago
That's more or less saying: "Let's do this because everyone else is doing this." There's some merit in your argument. I've argued elsewhere that 500,000 daily Android activations means that the kids growing up now form their first impression of a "computer" to mean "smartphone" and not a desktop. This world-view is totally different, and as people who create products, we have to stop and think, are the things we are doing now relavent in an age where "computer = smartphone"? Applying this with Facebook, we have kids growing up and learning how to socialize through Facebook. It suggests that that, unless I dive deep into Facebook, I will remain on the other side of this generation gap. As a product creator, I would make products suited for the older generation -- already obsolete. It extends outside of making products. We've already seen policy makers make bone-headed moves, attempting to restrict internet access for its citizens. That's like grounding a teenager from using Facebook. Grounding a teenager and making sure they can't use Facebook? Really? However, on deeper reflection, this points to a huge flaw. It comes back to, "let's do this because everyone else is doing it." I've written about this as an answer on Quora. We used to have rites of passage conducted by elders and parents. Now these rites of passage form from peer interaction. That's not such a good thing. http://www.quora.com/Teenagers-Teenage-Years/My-classmates-see-me-as-stuck-up-because-I-dont-drink-Were-aged-13%E2%80%9315-Is-this-typical-and-what-can-I-do-to-get-along-with-my-classmates-without-drinking/answer/Ho-Sheng-Hsiao http://www.quora.com/Teenagers-Teenage-Years/My-classmates-s... So yes. Stepping away from Facebook means missing out on being social. Something that's broken right now. Hmmm.
- toadstone 15y ago
  By definition, being social means doing things other people are doing.
  - hosh 15y ago
    You can be mindful or mindless in "doing things other people are doing." Many people choose to mindlessly "do things other people are doing." Leaders take a step in a direction, and the crowd may or may not follow them. If they do, it's because people tend to follow, rather than to lead. Which is interesting, considering that many of us are here because we want to take some risk as entrepreneurs, to step out and do what people are not doing. Does that mean entrepreneurs are not social?
- ohashi 15y ago
  You're trying to describe network effects without using that term it seems. It's a pretty well documented area and the fundamental idea is the more users, the more value generated (with some sort of exponential benefit). I don't think there is a flaw in the logic that the value of the service is immense when every single person in your community is on it. If you do, could you please explain further? It might be sad or disappointing in your mind that people behave like this, but that's not a flaw in the logic of the behavior, just an opinion on how people tend to behave.
  - hosh 15y ago
    I've never framed it that way. Analyzing this as "network effect" is an interesting thought. But no, network effect is not the key insight I'm attempting to communicate. I'm talking about a generation of kids growing up with technology. This isn't about the value of the network increasing as people use it. It's about a fundamental shift in one's worldview by encountering the technology during formative years. I'm basing much of this on Clotaire Rapaille's work, as described in his book, The Culture Code (http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Code-Ingenious-Understand-People/dp/0767920562 http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Code-Ingenious-Understand-Peop...). Rapaille conducted a study for Nestle. Nestle wanted to open up the Japanese market for hot chocolate. Using his research methods, Rapaille found that adult Japanese never formed early childhood impressions of chocolate, and so introducing chocolate products to Japan would fail miserably. As a result of the study, Nestle shifted its marketing strategy towards introducing chocolate to Japanese children, with the idea that twenty years down the road, they can sell chocolate products when they become adults. Half a million daily Android activations means that a generation of children grows up encountering a personal computer in the form factor of a smartphone. Having come from the older generation, I still picture a desktop computer in my mind when I see the word "computer", despite working primarily with web technologies and cloud servers. To make sure my products do not become obsolete, I have to step into the shoes of someone who grew up picturing "smartphone" when someone says "computer". It means that any web/cloud application I make must be delivered on a smartphone first, with the desktop experience being an after-thought. I can live with that. That will mean twenty years from now, software development will mean keyboard-less IDEs, but I can still live with that. I apply the same frame to these Facebook announcement. What is it like growing up where your first impressions of social dynamics is Facebook? I can separate my online identity because I entered my teenage years in the era of text-based MUDs and email. I had access to the internet when most of my friends do not know what it is. I could and did interact with adults. But a pre-teen or a teenager growing up now, knows that you can't separate the social identity like that. What, are you crazy? What would a society with the unexamined assumption of "Facebook = Social" look like? One that accelerates the general trend for the past several generation: further isolation from the deep wisdom of previous generations; rites of passages conducted by clueless peers that end up in tragedy; a new life stage to describe young adults in their 20s to describe an extended childhood, much the way "teenage" was invented to describe the emergence of an extended childhood. I do not like what I see in this thought-experiment. So while I might embrace the future when it comes with mobile devices, to this ... travesty ... called Facebook = Social, I say, "bah humbug." (And next thing you know, I'll be walking out my front door with a cane, shaking a fist, "Dang kids! Get off my lawn!")

by ohashi 15y ago

vu3rdd 15y ago

It is definitely possible to live without a Facebook account and also have a social life. If that is not the case, there is something seriously wrong with the society you are in.

ohashi 15y ago
You're probably not a member of a community which has fully adopted it. I also wouldn't impart your judgement so easily without considering what it would be like to enter into a community that had 100% adoption of a service and how you would behave in that instance. I am not saying it's impossible to live without it, but it certainly makes it more difficult and adds friction to your life that could easily be removed by just joining.

hosh 15y ago

That's more or less saying: "Let's do this because everyone else is doing this." There's some merit in your argument. I've argued elsewhere that 500,000 daily Android activations means that the kids growing up now form their first impression of a "computer" to mean "smartphone" and not a desktop. This world-view is totally different, and as people who create products, we have to stop and think, are the things we are doing now relavent in an age where "computer = smartphone"? Applying this with Facebook, we have kids growing up and learning how to socialize through Facebook. It suggests that that, unless I dive deep into Facebook, I will remain on the other side of this generation gap. As a product creator, I would make products suited for the older generation -- already obsolete. It extends outside of making products. We've already seen policy makers make bone-headed moves, attempting to restrict internet access for its citizens. That's like grounding a teenager from using Facebook. Grounding a teenager and making sure they can't use Facebook? Really? However, on deeper reflection, this points to a huge flaw. It comes back to, "let's do this because everyone else is doing it." I've written about this as an answer on Quora. We used to have rites of passage conducted by elders and parents. Now these rites of passage form from peer interaction. That's not such a good thing. http://www.quora.com/Teenagers-Teenage-Years/My-classmates-see-me-as-stuck-up-because-I-dont-drink-Were-aged-13%E2%80%9315-Is-this-typical-and-what-can-I-do-to-get-along-with-my-classmates-without-drinking/answer/Ho-Sheng-Hsiao http://www.quora.com/Teenagers-Teenage-Years/My-classmates-s... So yes. Stepping away from Facebook means missing out on being social. Something that's broken right now. Hmmm.

toadstone 15y ago
By definition, being social means doing things other people are doing.
- hosh 15y ago
  You can be mindful or mindless in "doing things other people are doing." Many people choose to mindlessly "do things other people are doing." Leaders take a step in a direction, and the crowd may or may not follow them. If they do, it's because people tend to follow, rather than to lead. Which is interesting, considering that many of us are here because we want to take some risk as entrepreneurs, to step out and do what people are not doing. Does that mean entrepreneurs are not social?
ohashi 15y ago
You're trying to describe network effects without using that term it seems. It's a pretty well documented area and the fundamental idea is the more users, the more value generated (with some sort of exponential benefit). I don't think there is a flaw in the logic that the value of the service is immense when every single person in your community is on it. If you do, could you please explain further? It might be sad or disappointing in your mind that people behave like this, but that's not a flaw in the logic of the behavior, just an opinion on how people tend to behave.
- hosh 15y ago
  I've never framed it that way. Analyzing this as "network effect" is an interesting thought. But no, network effect is not the key insight I'm attempting to communicate. I'm talking about a generation of kids growing up with technology. This isn't about the value of the network increasing as people use it. It's about a fundamental shift in one's worldview by encountering the technology during formative years. I'm basing much of this on Clotaire Rapaille's work, as described in his book, The Culture Code (http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Code-Ingenious-Understand-People/dp/0767920562 http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Code-Ingenious-Understand-Peop...). Rapaille conducted a study for Nestle. Nestle wanted to open up the Japanese market for hot chocolate. Using his research methods, Rapaille found that adult Japanese never formed early childhood impressions of chocolate, and so introducing chocolate products to Japan would fail miserably. As a result of the study, Nestle shifted its marketing strategy towards introducing chocolate to Japanese children, with the idea that twenty years down the road, they can sell chocolate products when they become adults. Half a million daily Android activations means that a generation of children grows up encountering a personal computer in the form factor of a smartphone. Having come from the older generation, I still picture a desktop computer in my mind when I see the word "computer", despite working primarily with web technologies and cloud servers. To make sure my products do not become obsolete, I have to step into the shoes of someone who grew up picturing "smartphone" when someone says "computer". It means that any web/cloud application I make must be delivered on a smartphone first, with the desktop experience being an after-thought. I can live with that. That will mean twenty years from now, software development will mean keyboard-less IDEs, but I can still live with that. I apply the same frame to these Facebook announcement. What is it like growing up where your first impressions of social dynamics is Facebook? I can separate my online identity because I entered my teenage years in the era of text-based MUDs and email. I had access to the internet when most of my friends do not know what it is. I could and did interact with adults. But a pre-teen or a teenager growing up now, knows that you can't separate the social identity like that. What, are you crazy? What would a society with the unexamined assumption of "Facebook = Social" look like? One that accelerates the general trend for the past several generation: further isolation from the deep wisdom of previous generations; rites of passages conducted by clueless peers that end up in tragedy; a new life stage to describe young adults in their 20s to describe an extended childhood, much the way "teenage" was invented to describe the emergence of an extended childhood. I do not like what I see in this thought-experiment. So while I might embrace the future when it comes with mobile devices, to this ... travesty ... called Facebook = Social, I say, "bah humbug." (And next thing you know, I'll be walking out my front door with a cane, shaking a fist, "Dang kids! Get off my lawn!")