3 ms·

I really like FriendFeed for the fact that it doesn't try to suck people in. It is efficient. Unlike Facebook (which seems like it's trying to re-invent ever

I really like FriendFeed for the fact that it doesn't try to suck people in. It is efficient. Unlike Facebook (which seems like it's trying to re-invent everything on the Internet inside it's little bubble o'beacon-tracking), FriendFeed unobtrusively allows each one of its services to showcase a core competency: e.g. flickr for photos, twitter for nonsensical tidbits, youtube for video, rss for blogs, SU for those random and great finds, etc. By not nudging users into any one specific direction, it effectively aggrandizes collective genius. Now, it just needs an option for HN posts. . .

unalone 18y ago
I like being contrary, so I'll take the side of Facebook advocacy: by "showcasing," as you say, Friendfeed makes their service far less efficient, and to some degree less valuable. It adds nothing but a place to visit everything at once, which means that it hurts the communal aspects of those other sites and reduces the visual efficiency of each. Facebook, on the other hand, centralizes everything, which means that as a user you can use it and only it and have everything you need. I have relatives who use Facebook because it's so easy to understand. Also, what does it mean to effectively aggrandize collective genius?