4 ms·

It's a clean Friendster and MySpace that is now copying Twitter. I would not call that innovative! It's strength is everyone, including your mom is on Facebo

It's a clean Friendster and MySpace that is now copying Twitter. I would not call that innovative! It's strength is everyone, including your mom is on Facebook. From grade school, to high school, to family & friends, etc .... MySpace never provided that!

koepked 17y ago
I sometimes think and feel like the fact that everyone is on there is a weakness of the site. Turning down friend requests from work acquaintances and family members is a bad move socially, but accepting those requests has forced me to censor a lot of my posting to the site in the last year.
- Jakob 17y ago
  I think that’s assuring the quality (not that it is very high). People start to realize that you shouldn’t do/say something on the web that shouldn’t be public. If every public forum was with real names we wouldn’t read so much rubbish.
zck 17y ago
Facebook was incredibly popular, and had a lot of buzz even when you could only register if you had an email at a college they'd added by hand. So Facebook isn't popular just because everyone's on there. Of course, that helps. One could argue that its strength in that time was having everyone at your college on Facebook.
nocman 17y ago
I know it isn't what you meant, but I'll take the opportunity here to say this anyway. "Everyone" is not on Facebook (nor MySpace, Friendster, nor any of the other social networks). I know there are a great number of folks who have zero interest in those sites. And I'm not referring to technology-challenged people either. I'm talking about people who know computers, live and breathe the stuff. I personally am not interested in having a page on any of those sites. I just don't see it as a valuable use of my time (which is a very precious commodity in my life). If I wanted to share something with the world (or a limited group of friends/family), I'd put it up on a blog or a personal web site. The social sites wouldn't add anything to the content that I care about. Perhaps I'm weird (and I've been accused of that before :-D), but the whole concept just has zero appeal to me.

koepked 17y ago

I sometimes think and feel like the fact that everyone is on there is a weakness of the site. Turning down friend requests from work acquaintances and family members is a bad move socially, but accepting those requests has forced me to censor a lot of my posting to the site in the last year.

Jakob 17y ago
I think that’s assuring the quality (not that it is very high). People start to realize that you shouldn’t do/say something on the web that shouldn’t be public. If every public forum was with real names we wouldn’t read so much rubbish.

zck 17y ago

Facebook was incredibly popular, and had a lot of buzz even when you could only register if you had an email at a college they'd added by hand. So Facebook isn't popular just because everyone's on there. Of course, that helps. One could argue that its strength in that time was having everyone at your college on Facebook.

nocman 17y ago

I know it isn't what you meant, but I'll take the opportunity here to say this anyway. "Everyone" is not on Facebook (nor MySpace, Friendster, nor any of the other social networks). I know there are a great number of folks who have zero interest in those sites. And I'm not referring to technology-challenged people either. I'm talking about people who know computers, live and breathe the stuff. I personally am not interested in having a page on any of those sites. I just don't see it as a valuable use of my time (which is a very precious commodity in my life). If I wanted to share something with the world (or a limited group of friends/family), I'd put it up on a blog or a personal web site. The social sites wouldn't add anything to the content that I care about. Perhaps I'm weird (and I've been accused of that before :-D), but the whole concept just has zero appeal to me.