In my opinion, this article is very poorly researched and reported. Focusing only on how annoying the site can be, the author mocks those who haven't joined yet ("I don't gettttt it, they say. What does it dooooo?"), makes blanket statements on how users want Facebook to stop changing their privacy settings (without any explanation of actual policy or details) and makes vague remarks about how our relationships have changed. There is no mention of how businesses or non-profits are using facebook, how other social media is working differently, or what the author really wants to happen. Does this really belong on the front page of the post?
Posts
How to watch Dallas Mavericks vs. Sacramento Kings online
-
Live stream Dallas Mavericks vs. Sacramento Kings in the NBA from anywhere
in the world.
1 hour ago
1 comment:
In my opinion, Facebook needs to do some PR for itself. If the Washington Post and other traditional media are not going to present readers with a complete picture of how Facebook can help businesses grow, then I believe Facebook needs to take control. How this should be done remains unclear to me. They can start by getting businesses that use Facebook services and products to write reviews. They can also engage bloggers to carry such content, which should spill over to the mainstream media. Or maybe I should not refer to them as mainstream media, but rather, 'traditional media.' We have seen proof about the power of the blogosphere in shaping not just the social but also the economic and political agenda in the world today (take the Shirley Sherrod case). What happens online doesn't remain online anymore. So if the traditional media will not come to Facebook, then by all means, Facebook should go to them, if they still have that much power over how the public views Facebook.
I also don't think the 'Facebook Movie' will help profile Facebook as a viable tool for business growth and expansion. Not if it only focuses on the controversies surrounding the creation and creators of Facebook.
Post a Comment