Viewing entries tagged
Social Media

I used to think Facebook trending topics were clearly better than Twitter, but the World Cup has changed my mind

When Facebook decided to copy Twitter and launch its own version of trending topics, I was all whatever about it. Then I noticed the brief but absolutely helpful context Facebook offered in its version. It reminded me of the short-lived Twitter client Brizzly which I used mostly because it explained what the fuck people on Twitter were talking about. Just take a look at Twitter's trending topic (left) list vs. Facebook (right) to see why this is helpful.

But then the World Cup (like it did for vuvuzelas) changed everything. Without a doubt the Twitter mobile experience of the World Cup is superior to what Facebook offers through a full browser.

Facebook basically gives you non-prioritized feed of crap related to the current match, which is something Twitter used to be known for -- feeds of crap. Facebook also offers recent match results and a countdown timer to upcoming matches. The latter is useful and interesting, but doesn't come close to what Twitter provides. Here's the Facebook World Cup page:

Facebook's inferior curation of World Cup-related Facebook content leaves much to be desired. 

Meanwhile, unlike the noisy and confusing generic trending topics list, Twitter has bothered to organize your experience of the World Cup on mobile. The main screen says "Get instant updates and all the behind-the-scenes action from World Cup 2014," then offers three tabs: Tweets, Photos, and Matches.

When you go to Matches, like Facebook you see the score of any current match, and you see the upcoming time for the next three matches. Most interesting, you can click on a match and just look at Tweets and Photos for that match. Bonus offer is the "People" tab under a single match which shows and gives you the option to follow accounts related to either team. Here's what that People tab looks like. 

Twitter shows you how it's done when offering deep social coverage of a live event series.

The World Cup really drives home the differences in what Facebook and Twitter offer. For a surface level understanding of a trending topic list, Facebook wins hands down. With Twitter, you're left wondering, "WTF is #5SOSTheAlbum, and why should I care?" Facebook solves it with a caption, and if you click on a single topic, you get actual news stories that are relevant and not just a bunch of Blieber wannabes declaring their love.

But when it comes to depth of coverage for a live event, at least one on the order of a World Cup, Twitter shows you that it can truly help you make sense of that event and bring you closer to it by bringing you the images and people involved. 

Now I just have a few demands of both companies:

  • Twitter, please copy the Facebook/Brizzly model of offering a 60-100 character explanation of what the fuck is going on in your left column from a trending topic perspective.
  • Facebook, please copy the investment Twitter has made in the World Cup. You've got too many users across the planet to not help them all make more sense of what's happening. Do a better job of integrating, packaging, and segmenting all the bits. You'd be much better if you simply copied the Twitter build, but given your size and relationships, you could integrate media (especially video) and my friend network in more interesting ways. Just at "see which of your friends gives a shit about the World Cup" would be valuable and might lead to some un-friending of folks who can't be bothered with the greatest event series in world history.
  • Twitter, please don't limit your organization of the chaos to the World Cup. I would love to see this model applied to other major shared events like the Super Bowl, Oscars, Presidential Debates, and more. It helps if the event is more than a few hours, so the NCAA Tournament seems especially worth it, but long term I'd love to see it applied to anything truly newsworthy, as opposed to just popular-among-children-who-neither-vote-nor-know-anything.

That seems to me a pretty humble request, and as an active user on each of your platforms within the first year of your existence, I feel justified in saying, come on let's get to it! 

Kyle Kinane vs. Pace Salsa Is Really About Failed Product Language And Design

"You're Doing It Wrong" by  Peter Dahlgren via Flickr

"You're Doing It Wrong" by Peter Dahlgren via Flickr

(AUTHOR'S NOTE: None of this happened. Skip to end for update. Overall point is still interesting so read for that. Or don't because maybe this blog post doesn't exist. Maybe I'm not real. Maybe I'm just another dumb Internet meme sucking up your time)

Ross Luippold over at Huffington Post Comedy has a great replay of the Twitter interactions between comedian Kyle Kinane and Pace Foods that went down this weekend. The exchange centers on the fact that Pace was auto-favoriting tweets mentioning its product, and that made for the favoriting of pretty ridiculous tweets. 

It all started when stand-up comedian Kyle Kinane, who counts the likes of Patton Oswalt and Marc Maron as fans, noticed that the Twitter account for Pace favorited a 10-month old tweet insulting their salsa.

 

Left unsaid in Ross's overview and underpinning why such exchanges were funny in the first place are two basic problems in the design and architecture of Twitter. Allow me to elaborate/rant at length.

First, "favorite" has always been the wrong term for that Twitter action.

"Favorite" implies enjoyment and endorsement of content that stands out above the rest for being not just noteworthy but good. Orange is my favorite color. Kale is my favorite vegetable. Non-conflicted black republicans are my favorite non-existent political group. However, people don't actually use the Twitter feature to mean this in all cases. Often we're just remembering, marking, saving, flagging, storing, bookmarking or otherwise more neutrally noting a tweet. We are long overdue for Twitter to change the verb from favorite to something more neutral.

Know where else we've seen the misuse of verbs in social media? Facebook. "Like" needs to become something else. I don't "Like" when a friend posts that his uncle has just died. I empathize. I feel. I support. I don't like. It's especially problematic with Facebook Pages. I don't like Mitt Romney. I chose to follow his page to keep tabs on what he was up to (someone had to). A like is not an endorsement. 

And don't get me started on "friend." Facebook has done more to destroy the meaning of the world "friend" than all the rumor-spreading, backstabbing, and two-faced behavior of the world's people combined.  

There's something odd about these social platforms being so neutral in so many of their operations (seemingly) in that they don't endorse movements per se; they want to get out of the way and let users express themselves. Yet they force a non-neutral stance on every user when they make language choices such as favorite, friend, like across a set of interactions that can and do mean so much more than that. Facebook takes the cake because it has forced us into "liking" brands then goes back and sells our likeness in an ad for that brand saying we actually like the brand! Way to juke the stats, Facebook.

Second, favoriting activity is public and social if your Twitter account is public. This is overly simplistic and bad.

In the Security and Privacy section of your Twitter account settings, you're allowed to make your entire account private. You can also choose to conceal the location of your tweets and determine if people can even find you on Twitter based on your mobile number or email address. Twitter could, and I think should, add an option to keep your favorites private. There's a role for you keeping a secret file of tweets you want to come back to. No doubt part of the decision to keep this activity public is to drive more activity. Favoriting is an entirely new category of interaction the company can track, report, and use to populate activity streams. Many people use Twitter in a read-only mode. Favoriting lives in the gray area between true lurker behavior and posting tweets like an addict (aka me). The added twist is that while the word and button design of Favorite on Twitter has remained the same, its meaning has changed dramatically.

Favorites used to only be visible for folks who visited your profile page and explicitly clicked on your favorites. They were technically public but practically hidden if not invisible. Now they act more like a mention, proactively alerting (snitching to?) the party whose tweet you've favorited about what you've done. 

The activity of people favoriting my tweets now shows up in my Twitter experience. Twitter be snitchin yall. 

The activity of people favoriting my tweets now shows up in my Twitter experience. Twitter be snitchin yall. 

That's what happened with Kyle. In a sane and less noisy social world, he should not have even known that Pace had marked his tweet.  Twitter created a social interaction where none was intended. They changed the meaning of the word favorite when they launched the feature then changed it again to make it a form of communication. 

Who does this the right way? Instapaper, sort of. Your "likes" don't have to be publicly exposed. What I don't like is how they couple this choice with people finding you through connected services. Those are not connected choices.

Google Chrome.png

There should be an experience of these services that doesn't force blanket meaning on our actions, or if they do, they do so with the lightest possible meaning and the clearest possibly explanation of consequences. When I like or favorite the first few times, the service should explain to me what that means and where this action lives on. "Like" sounds innocent, but it isn't. "Favorite" is innocuous until you're caught favoriting something offensive or dumb (like U.S. immigration policy).

There should be an experience that doesn't force our actions to be both public and social as well because in so doing they force us to answer for behavior that has largely been implicit or passive or silent or all three. We're pouring so much of our lives, our business, our politics into this machinery, but we're still learning how the machinery changes those lives and businesses and politics. 

Just consider the physical books and magazines you've read. What if when you folded a page or highlighted a passage or placed a bookmark, that book reported your activity to the author and the publisher and told them that "Baratunde Is Over The Moon about page 43 in Mein Kampf" because "Is Over The Moon" is the way they've chosen to lable the action. That's what UX can do when it's done wrong, and a much much milder version of that is what happened to Pace. 

I love Kyle Kinane. He's super funny and had a great and creative way of handling his exchange. He was performing. He was doing real Twitter comedy--not just tweeting out standup bits over Twitter as a transport layer, but using the native interactions of the platform to inspire creativity. He was speaking the language. However, in a world where social platforms use the right language and give us control over both the public and social settings of our actions, this incident would never have happened. 

Update @ 17:39 2nd December 2013

Love this question from @HumorCode, and I tend to agree. I've re-read the above, and it's slightly more categorical and absolute than I intended. Twitter is fun. New types of interactions aren't always a problem. They are interesting and create new opportunities for expression and communication. I'm for all that. 

More than a restriction on user interactions, I think what I'm calling for is clarity. I'm pretty sure (and certainly hope) that Pace might have set their auto-bot differently had they known it would proactively alert the users whose tweets it was favoriting. 

Good followup point @HumorCode. 

While we're at it, what substitute words could social platforms enable to replace these generic overly broad forced meanings? 

Instead of Favorite and Like, I nominate

  • Goddamn Love
  • Hug
  • Grind Up On
  • Flick
  • Pinch
  • Stash
  • Stow
  • Tuck
  • Fondle

What say the rest of you? 

Update 17:52 2nd December 2013

Yes yes Bart. The well-funded Pace Foods corporation should have invested in humans and machines that knew better. That's the least interesting part of the story for me, but it's a valid point. Dear Internet, stop making valid points which expand and occasionally shift but never quite undermine my main point!

Update 18:01 2nd December 2013

Well ain't that some sh*t. The entire thing was a hoax pulled on Kyle. Pace account was fake. Life has no meaning. None of this matters. Nothing matters.

That's annoying to say the least. So strip out the part about Pace, and my overall point remains valid and interesting, I think. Favorite and Like are the wrong verbs. We need more understanding of our how actions ricochet through the digital ether. 

I'm going to go burn something now. 

I'm on the cover of Fast Company for my #unplug feature

December 15, 2012 to January 8, 2013 I left all email and social media. It was 25 days of relative digital quiet, and I loved it. The experience was so profound, I wrote about it for Fast Company. The piece launches online this week, and is accompanied by related stories and Twitter activity around the hashtag #UNPLUG.

Here's a more digestible version I and my colleagues at Cultivated Wit made for Tapestry.

Update: here's an audio performance I posted to SoundCloud 

Oh, and they made me the cover of their July/August 2013 issue which hits newsstands June 25 and looks a little something like this:

Actually, the cover looks looks exactly like this.

Time Machine: Finally A Production Does Something Interesting On YouTube

I'm always interested in how creative people will take advantage of new means of production and distribution. Our networked infrastructure and ever cheaper and more powerful processing power have upended business models and changed the relationship between artists and producers. However, most early examples of the impact of new technology are uninteresting. It's dominated by people who just see a new way to distribute the same content. Examples include those who use Twitter to carry their RSS feeds or YouTube to post their broadcast video content. A higher level of evolution comes when people take advantage of the new means of production or distribution to enhance interactivity. Perhaps they allow and engage with comments or crowdsource the financing of their projects. But the most interesting is when the content itself, the production, changes because of new capabilities. The first TV shows were just radio host talking. It took a while to really take advantage of the visual medium. I've just found the most interesting example yet of this change in the art itself on YouTube. It's a "forking" or choose-your-own-adventure style series whose conclusion is up to the viewer. At the end of each clip, you face a decision about how the plot is to advance. It's a very old and simple concept, but until now, we haven't had a way for people to employ it on a large scale. The people who've been promising "interactive TV" said this would come a long time ago, but their implementation depends on mass upgrades of cable boxes across hundreds of millions of households adopting a common standard. Meanwhile, a few months ago, YouTube added features allowing producers to embed video links within a clip, and these guys have run with it. Check it out. Now think of all the interesting technologies and social media tools out there and how the art itself will adapt to the new capabilities. Let me know if you've found some interesting examples.

Facebook Page Activity Hits The Feeds!

Thanks to a conversation with Jon Pincus, I just found out that Page activity (beyond becoming a fan) will hit the facebook newsfeed for the following actions: commenting on video, posting to discussion board, posting to wall, posting a fan video.

What doesn't hit feed: inserting a posted item.

The big aha: if you are the admin of a page, your own activity on the page will not hit your feed. I had to de-admin myself to get this activity to show. Have a friend be your page admin

How Twitter Is Humanizing Comcast And Why That's A Terrible, Terrible Thing

So the web is all abuzz with news of Comcast's customer service wading in amongst the people with its shiny new Twitter account. Valeria Maltoni at Conversation Agent is the latest to weigh in on what many see as a positive development. Comcast is diagnosing modem troubles and providing information on new features and even shooting troubles. That's all well and good, but the company is also engaging in small talk and using emoticons and generally exhibiting human behavior, all of which I find quite troubling from a billion-dollar corporate entity. Last night, I had a "conversation" with Comcast. I noticed Comcast engaged in an exchange with someone named Robbie.
comcastcares: @Robbie the next version is really cool! Check out Smartzone http://www.comcast.com/ces robbie: @comcastcares @comcastcares wheres my beta invites to all that!!! i want it!!! comcastcares: @Robbie I want it too! me: @comcastcares you are not allowed to be a real person socializing among real people. you are a nameless, faceless corporation. stop it. comcastcares: @baratunde That just gave me the biggest laugh of the day!! Thank you! me: @comcastcares there you go again. CORPORATIONS DON'T LAUGH. THEY EXPLOIT. Stop acting like people! stop "talking" to me!!
Can you not see the horror that this portends? I made a corporation laugh. This is antithetical to all I have worked for! I'm a political comic and activist, and I have not honed these skills for the pleasure of moneyed non-personages. I'm here to inflict pain on corporations, not mirth! Now that Twitter has allowed corporations to express joy, what is next? Will comcastcares ask if I'm feeling down on a rainy day? Will it, yes IT, offer condolences for lost loved ones? Now that it has laughed, will it also cry? Oh I cannot even imagine what the tears of a multichannel service operator would look like. Most terrifyingly, having expressed joy and soon sadness, what will an angry Comcast do. You know anger is just around the corner, and I don't think it's too soon to prepare for the Wrath of Comcast. Will it tell us to "talk to the hand," or will it merely raise our cable fees at a rate exceeding inflation for the next 10 years? Will it give us the evil eye and curse us under its breath, or will it instead stack the audience at net neutrality hearings with its employees in order to prevent critics from having their voices heard? Might its anger manifest in a violent fit or, more dangerously, through astroturf lobbying designed to deceive the public into thinking there's real, grassroots support behind its interests? Do you see what Twitter hath wrought!?

On Politicians, Social Media And Obama (with diagrams!)

So my social media homeysita Teresa Valdez Klein blogged over at Web Community Forum the following
In their new book, Groundswell, Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff outline five major objectives in online community building: listening, talking, energizing, supporting, embracing
    If I had to wager, I’d say that the candidates’ efforts on Linkedin fall neatly into the second category. It’s unlikely that the candidates are actually paying attention to the thousands of responses pouring in, but that’s a smaller part of the political equation. The important thing from where the campaigns stand is that these outreach strategies make people feel heard. But, as we online community geeks all know, there’s a big difference between making people feel heard and actually hearing them.
    Good point, but I'd like to extend it. I haven't read Li's book yet (though I have it thanks to you, Teresa), but I have been working on a response to BL Ochman who thinks Obama's not using the Internet well at all in terms of empowering people. I'm not lumping Teresa and BL into the same boat, but I'll respond to both with a part of my view on political campaigns and social media. Let's start with Talking 2.0

    Politicians and Social Media 1: Talking 2.0

    In this part, politicians with their big heads and big mouths sit on the top, get on TwitterSpaceBookTube, collect a bunch of friends and broadcast their message in a very direct mail sort of way. It's just like direct mail, except the people build their lists on their own. It's advertising beyond 30-seconds and much better targeted. Now, Fundraising 2.0

    Politicians and Social Media 2: Fundraising 2.0

    Again, politicians are at the top of the heap, this time tapping into millions of small donors. Obama is the king of this right now. At this phase, politicians enable donors to solicit from other donors with their own mini-campaigns and donation widgets. This is significant, as it threatens the big time financial interests who've long held the ear (and balls) of our elected officials. Listening 2.0 I don't have a picture here, but just invert the talking image: lots of voices and ideas from the people slapping the politician upside the head. Teresa's LinkedIn post is taking a look at this. Everyone using the web for this purpose has a ways to go. The wiki model has proven most effective at integrating contributions from the multitudes into a coherent work. Will we ever have a wikitician? a wikiacracy? I know Obama has a form on his site to collect ideas and feedback on his various posted policies. I have no idea what happens to that. Do they go to advisors, interns, /dev/null? Not sure. What I do know is that the next layer is essential to reaching a point where campaigns and politicians can meaningfully integrate all that they are hearing from voters and supporters.. Community-Building 2.0

    Politicians and Social Media 1.0 - Community Building

    This is a very different picture. The politician isn't necessarily at the top. They are at the center, because it is around them that civic activity is happening, but people's attention isn't solely focused on listening to the politician, giving money to the politician or even talking to the politician. To extend Tereas's line, "as we online community geeks all know, there’s a big difference between making people feel heard and actually hearing them" and enabling them to hear each other. People are talking to other people. The politician/campaign/organization is the hub of this activity but not necessarily the top. They provide tools, however, which allow people to identify and find each other. They provide materials. On Obama's site, this is the my.barackobama.com social network tool. I've seen volunteers from NYC take this tool and use it to organize dinner parties, trips to Virginia and Pennsylvania and more. Folks looking to help out turn here to find activity in or near their zipcode. The politician, in this case Obama, has inspired or enabled communities to form and to take action. Today that action is focused on getting this candidate elected, but what I'm really excited about is how this carries on into the actual governing. There are promising signs from the Obama campaign that they will do more than any president in history or any candidate running to bring active citizens and community into our government. I've written on that here:
    if Obama's campaign is successful, it will be because we are successful, and if that happens, I envision a country in which people are more engaged in their government and society and thus check the power of those who already have unfettered access. I know the power of this inspiration because it has touched me and made me committed to seeing it happen in my small sphere of influence. If his revolutionary open government and technology plan and government ethics plan (for the love of god, read it!) comes to pass, we will have more visibility and input into the (corrupt) workings of our government than ever before, and it will be up to us to act on that new information. (BTW, compare that to this assessment of Hillary's tech/communications plan. It pales). With the searchable government spending database he spearheaded (use it!), we may find that the obscenity of our budgetary priorities is so readily available, we have no choice but to protest it. Obama's platform is not just about his positions. It's about the tools and infrastructure he's offering directly to the citizens of this country. Forget for a moment who speaks in a most commanding fashion about the particulars of health care legislation. Forget about beautiful language or alleged experience. Look at what President Obama offers all of us: empowerment. Empowerment like we've never seen. Power we forgot we had. Power that a community organizer trained on the streets of Chicago would recognize in a heartbeat. We may not get an opportunity like this for several decades! Look, I am under no illusions about the forces that wield the true power in this country, but what has been restored by Obama's campaign is my faith (and go ahead, say it, "hope") and knowledge that true power is still held by the people, and that we the people can use more of that power under President Obama than under any other. By far.
    These Obama proposals offer unprecedented access to the workings of government for the common citizen. Searchable databases of federal department documents and activities and data, comment periods on non-emergency legislation, streaming video of important meetings. It's hard for citizens to act intelligently without information, and I'm impressed that Obama sees the value in opening the doors. That's the exciting thing for me. Not so much knowing that a candidate actually reads my posts on twitter, but knowing that I can collaborate with my fellow citizens in keeping an eye on government and in building solutions to some of the pressing problems we face. As always, Fired Up!

    My Facebook Outreach Presentation

    Another dispatch from the Web Community Forum conference on Facebook. I was added, last-minute, to a panel on using Facebook for outreach and marketing. I shared the stage with Jason Preston, who marketed this very conference almost exclusively on Facebook. Doing a great job with the moderation was Mr. Todd Sawicki. Highlight for me was getting to show the Facebook video where I drowned a puppy because no one was using my group's discussion board. Here are my slides. Steal these ideas. Just gimme credit if they get you rich. (keep quiet if they drive you into poverty). Update 7 December. slide 3 says I have 11,238 friends. Drop the first "1" and it's accurate. Fast typing on stage. Sorry.

    SlideShare | View | Upload your own

    My Facebook Curmudgeon Presentation (Updated with Panel Notes!)

    (Update: I've added notes on the panel below the deck). Today I presented at the Web Community Forum conference on Facebook along with Tris Hussy, Jeremy Pepper and moderated by Dave McClure. It was the final panel of the day and felt like a group therapy session. After a full day talking about the cool things you can do in Facebook, the three of us brought it back down to the stuff that sucks: bass ackwards email, application spam, insufficient privacy controls, confusing groups vs. pages and more. My thoughts/slides were mostly based on these blog posts (number 1 and number 2). Here are some slides I prepared for the panel. Feel free to use and enjoy:
    UPDATE 6 December 10:33am (PT) The Web Community Forum twitter feed is doing a good job note-taking (note-tweeting?) on all the panels. Here is a manual cut and paste (yuck) of our curmudgeon panel. * Facebook curmudgeons panel. Fill in the blank "Facebook sucks the most because..." * Tris: Facebook sucsk the most because the groups are absolutely useless * Baratunde: Facebook sucks the most because it destroyed his ability to communicate with his fans * @trishussey says that Facebook sucks because the groups are "useless" * @baratunde says that Facebook sucks because he can't message his groups * Jeremy: Facebook sucks the most because there is a misperceived sense of privacy * @jspepper is complaining about the "mis-perceived sense of privacy" * @jspepper says that people get put in jeopardy when they have public conversations on Facebook * "kids, they just don't get it" - @jspepper * Facebook treats you like a spammer when you're not, says attendee Ellen * if you complain, sometimes things happen unilaterally says another attendee * lack of discussion board notifications is lame Eric Weaver * Facebook the company is "amateur hour" says an attendee who says that they are disorganized when they plan their events for developers * we're all having a really good time here, people are laughing and having a great time * other people can't choose how they want to be contacted, that's a problem * the wall is not a substitute for controlling how people can contact you * "God's green Internet earth" says Tris. LOL! * "search is completely broken" says another attendee in the audience * McClure is going around the room asking people what sucks about facebook. Lots of functionality issues. * to try to find something in the history of posted items - there's no way to hold onto a piece of useful information * a lot of people are harping on search as a problem * everyone hates messaging * @jowyang - let's make some suggestions, I TOTALLY agree with that. Bitching and moaning is all well and good, let's do something positive. * Dave McClure just said, "Facebook sucks, but you're all regular users." @baratunde says, "America sucks, but I'm a regular user of that." * @jspepper says that original college users have a misconception of the privacy and the walled garden - they post everything * @jspepper knows someone who posts all this stuff and by posting their schedule, it led to someone getting raped * @jspepper, "if you don't want to be in a walled garden, don't join." * The biggest problem is the privacy issue and the lack of corporate responsibility for it. - @jspepper * "I don't think Facebook gives a shit about their community at all. They think they're just numbers for advertising." - @jspepper * Dave McClure says that monetization and CTR are really a huge problem. * @baratunde says that e-mail and the telephone are substitutes for Facebook * Facebook messaging is a deprecated version of e-mail * "Never abandon basic features that work." @baratunde * @trishussey wants a POP connection to download his FB e-mail * Facebook has taken us back 40 years of messaging, sayeth @baratunde * @trishussey, "I would rather use Lotus Notes than Facebook messaging and Lotus Notes is the worst e-mail system in the world." * Dave McClure asks how can they improve * @jspepper - FB doesn't care until people rise up and actively abandon * @jspepper, "I'm not writing them off as malicious." * @trishussey - Facebook is a "faux monopoly" because if any one thing blows up, people will leave. * Tris: what percentage of your friends on FB would have to leave for you to go "eh, I guess I don't need to go there as much"? * That's how fragile FB's appearance of monopoly is (tris) * @baratunde - Facebook has a monopoly on my audience. They are good AND evil. They are not "benevolent." * @jspepper, "it's SO not a monopoly." I don't see my parents on FB. There's a diversity of social networks out there that target niches. * Kara Swisher is right when she says that Zuckerberg is showing his youth as a CEO sayeth @trishussey. * @trishussey admits to having been an asshole when he was 25 * @jspepper, you can tell a Harvard man, you just can't tell him much * Dave brings up Beacon - @trishussey says that Beacon belongs in the 4th circle of Hell, but there are things they can do to improve it. * @baratunde - Beacon was the 7th circle of Hell before they changed things * There needs to be a privacy czar that you talk to before you launch something like this (Beacon) - @baratunde * opting out completely should be my choice - @baratunde * @jspepper puts Beacon at 6.5 circle of hell eeven after the opt out because he wants people to see what he's doing in some cases * @jspepper - I do like Facebook, there are amazing things that you can do with it. What they're doing gives them an "evil tinge." * @trishussey - where are the people around Zuckerberg slapping him upside the head? * @davemc500hats is having a lot of fun up there moderating. I can tell by the grin on his face. * @rumford is asking @jspepper, don't you think that FB is a company, they don't need to seek approval or permission at all * @rumford says that pissing off the FB community is a "calculated business risk." * @davemc500hats asks @trishussey, "your daughter is a Web narc?!?!?!" * @davemc500hats asks, "are apps useful? or not useful?" * @trishussey - useful apps die, points out that @rumford said the same thing * @baratunde says that a small subset of apps are engaging, but he's downsizing * @baratunde, "the app process has so biased me against all apps, because they're spam." * @baratunde - don't e-mail me. "you have a walled garden, stay inside." * @jspepper says that he doesn't have a favorite app yet * @davemc500hats asks, "is FB a great development environment?" * @jspepper says that you have no choice but to go to Facebook if you're an app developer * @davemc500hats, $15 billion, "more, less, or no fucking way?" * @trishussey says, "no fucking way." * @trishussey - I would put it into the billions, but 15 is just way too high * @baratunde says, "valuation is tricky and weird. If we all believe it's worth it, it is worth it." * @baratunde says, "it's not going to become the Internet." * @jspepper says that he doesn't understand all the frenzy around the valuation. "They're not making money on advertising yet. * @davemc500hats "poke, superpoke or get your hands off me?" * @trishussey, "i could live without poking." * @baratunde, "I have been known on occasion to poke people." * @jspepper "when men poke me on Facebook, it creeps me out." "This woman keeps on poking me, and I don't know her. It creeps me out." * attendee: what do you not like from a marketing point of view? @baratunde says, "I was using this as a marketer without the proper tools." * @baratunde says, "make how do you know this person? an actionable tool for marketers. also vulnerability of losing all contacts." * @baratunde says, "I want grages!" (groups + pages) * @baratunde says, "Ning has wonderful stuff, but there's no meaning to life without the people. You can't tell people where they should go." * @baratunde, "to just leave would have hurt me a lot more than it would have hurt Facebook."