Smart Whatever Of The Day — You Can Be Honest On A Blog!

You can be a smart-whatever on Twitter, a faceless friend who makes many people feel awesome on Facebook, and an honest person on one’s own blog.  Of course, this is my biased, opinionated opinion on all current social trends, and so you should keep yours.  Furthermore, don’t forget to look beyond these words as there is a flip side to everything.

Facebook Haters And Lovers Came Out In Droves On Facebook IPO Day


facebook (Photo credit: sitmonkeysupreme)

It’s easy to envy others who are wealthier than us, but when it comes down to the truth we too want to be just as wealthy or wealthier.  CNN has a piece, Surprise: The Internet hates rich people, which suggested that people were not happy about how their profiles and social interactions had become monetized and made many Facebook staffs and investors super wealthy.  I think the people who envied about the newfound fortune of Facebook staffs and investors were probably angry that they didn’t get a piece of the action — they are the contents and yet have got nothing from Facebook IPO (Initial Public Offering).  Obviously, it’s within our human nature to feel like that!  Obviously, Facebook has done nothing wrong to deserve such a scorn and envy, because it’s a company with a sole purpose of making the people who run and invest in the company wealthier.

Facebook IPO was happened during the trading time today, but after the market has closed the share price for Facebook stock is just 23 cents higher than its IPO share price which was at $38.  At $38.23 a share now, some people on CNBC news had reported that there were people who felt disappointed that Facebook stock wasn’t doubled on IPO debut.  Obviously, it might be that people were not so sure that Facebook could sustain the hype, and they might feel that Facebook stock was too overvalued.  In any case, the emotion was running high all day as people were either hate or love Facebook for its IPO debut.

I do think I might have an idea for the people who envy of the newfound fortune of Facebook staffs and investors, they can simply band together and create a competitive social platform (i.e., similar or better than Facebook) which will share whatever fortune derives from running such a social platform to all social members.  It’s just that they do have to convince businesses around the world to advertise with this particular social platform, and if the business takes off the social members within this particular social platform will reap the shared profits.  Perhaps, they can too have an IPO and all social members will share the profits from having a successful IPO (if the IPO is successful though).  Nonetheless, they have to address how much profits to be shared with new members and veteran members.  They might have to come up with a very complicate mathematical formula to distribute whatever profit there is to all of their social members, or else some people will definitely complain that they have not received the fair portion of the profit.

I don’t think we should hate Facebook staffs and investors for their newfound wealth that derived from Facebook IPO debut, because Facebook IPO debut followed a well accepted corporate structure in regarding to how a private company allowed itself to become a publicly trade company.  The people who hate to see Facebook becomes successful can always cancel their Facebook accounts.  Also, they can band together to create a social platform that allows sharing profit as to how I had described in a previous paragraph.

In regarding to the future of Facebook stock, I don’t think anyone will definitely know.  Facebook is a company that has a lot social members (as in 900 million users or more) and yet it cannot generate the level of revenues that people are expecting it would.  Furthermore, Facebook type of business is all about being excellent in retaining happy members, because unhappy members can always just leave Facebook for a competitor in matter of a second.  People can always leave Facebook for something better or newer or fresher.  In upcoming days, Facebook has to come out with services that are stickier than just allowing people to be connected and stay happy, because happiness can be very moody sometimes — as in I’m happy now, but how about a few minutes later?  Sure, people love to connect, and Facebook is good at this, but there will always be plenty of alternative social platforms and web services that are also excel at allowing people to feel socially.  Facebook future will have to rely on convincing its members that not only they have to be connected and stay happy within Facebook, but they also have to click onto Facebook ads and do whatever else that can generate the kind of revenue that Facebook shareholders have hoped for.

Is It OK For Social Network Users To Be Forced Into Revealing Their Private Profiles?


facebook (Photo credit: sitmonkeysupreme)

Social networks such as FaceBook allow people to make their profiles private so they can have a place online where they hold their private thoughts, pictures, and what not.  Obviously, the whole idea of private profiles is to allow social network users to share such private information with people who have close or intimate relationships with the profile owners.  Unfortunately, some employers, teachers, and other people who are in authoritative positions are increasingly demanding to have access to private profiles of the people that they’re in charge of.  Is this even legal?  So, here is the question, is it OK for social network users to be forced into revealing their private profiles?

This is one tough question to answer in my opinion.  I think I should say, this is one tough problem to solve!  On one hand, I do not like the idea of sharing private information in my private profiles to anyone besides the few people who have really close relationships with me in real life.  On the other hand, I understand that employers, teachers, and the likes might want to prevent embarrass situations before such situations take place (i.e., they want to make sure the people they deal with do not post obscene materials online).

Perhaps, we can solve this sticky situation by taking the middle road approach.  It goes like this!  It’s unethical, and might be illegal for the people who are in charge to force someone into revealing the information within a private profile, but the same people can take appropriate actions against the people that they are in charge of if the private profiles of these people leak obscene materials to the mass.  So, the idea is not to take action until indecency materializes!

Obviously, the people who are in positions of demanding access to private profiles of social network users might not like this middle road approach much.  They probably hate the idea of not knowing ahead or waiting for a time bomb to explode on their hand, but it’s unethical of them to force someone into revealing the private information — whether such private information store inside social networks’ private profiles or in a bank’s safety-deposit box.

With or without this middle road approach, social network users need to safeguard their private profiles carefully.  After all, if their private profiles get hack, their real life can get really messy.  This is why I think it’s always best to keep what really private private!  By this I mean you should not post anything that is so private onto the web!


When Facebook Forces Users To Use Timeline, Facebook Activities Might Be Shrunk

facebook engancha

Image via Wikipedia

PCWorld’s Facebook Timeline Privacy Tips: Lockdown Your Profile article points out the concerns for how easy it’s for Facebook users to be able to devour past Facebook comments, events, daily wall posts and more of any Facebook user through Facebook newest feature known as Timeline.  Indeed, it’s quite unnerving for how easy it’s for someone to look up your Facebook history by using Facebook Timeline feature, but then again a wise person should not have posted something so private on a very public medium such as Facebook!

In fact, Facebook Timeline feature might have a backlash effect against Facebook.  Facebook users might become ever more conscious about what they will do and post on Facebook, therefore the level of Facebook activities might be shrunk in time.  Then again, it’s only a speculation of mine, because I don’t have a crystal ball of how the future will look like!

For having said a wise person should not post something so private on a very public medium such as Facebook, I fear even myself sometimes might forget to practice what I had preached.  Nonetheless, it’s good to know Facebook does in fact allowing you to tightening up the privacy to certain extend so Timeline feature won’t expose the things that you’ve posted and wanted to be hidden away from the prying eyes of the public.  I guess one can always follow the tips in the article above and lessen the effect of Timeline, but to be wise one should always post something one care not for the world to see on Facebook and keep the rest to oneself.

Duh, Social Networks Want Real Names Only

Facebook logo

Image via Wikipedia

I will never know if my suspicion on why Facebook and Google Plus want to mandate their users to don real names has any merit, but I think I want to point it out anyway.  I think it’s for an economic reason which explains why Facebook and Google Plus want users to use real names on their social networks and not nicknames.

It’s obvious Facebook and Google Plus want their partners to see their users as real people and real accounts and not some fake, make up usernames and nicknames.  Knowing with real active users who use real names on social networks, the sky is the limit for sparks of new partnerships, ideas, ventures, and innovations to take hold.  If this isn’t for the bottom line, then I don’t know what would.  Then again, I hate to point something out that is so obvious, because I might be the last person of them all to have do so.

Sure, it’s tempting to think using real names on social networks somehow divert the possibilities of various dangerous activities of how the use of nicknames could encourage, but the realities are things could go both way.  The use of real names on social networks doesn’t mean it’s going to be effectively eradicated the dangerous activities that would spur under the use of nicknames, and vice versa.  Therefore, economic reason does make more sense in regarding to why Facebook and Google encourage users to use real names.

It’s obvious to see Facebook and Google like to discourage users who want to create too many fake accounts.  By now you would say duh, but I would say duh too.  It’s the whole point!  The point of having or making the appearance of real users ever more transparent so social networks that do promote real names seem to be even more valid than ever, and this might help prolong the relevancy of social networks for some time to come.  Just think about this, the next time if you want to join a social network, would you want to join a social network that you think there might be more zombies than real users?  Such a social network might not have a mandate to push for using real names, and so in the end it might not be so relevant to the whole Internet scene.  Moreover, how can we even dare to try to trust a recommendation from a friend on a social network that lacks real name mandate?  It’s not economically wise for such a social network to not mandate the use of real names, right?  At the least, great social networks know that by merely declaring a mandate of real name usage can greatly boost their wonderful existences onto a higher plane.

Users want to know the people that they are communicating with in real social networks, albeit they might never be able to truly know the people that they are friending with from the start.  It’s the intention that counts, I guess.  At the least, users want to know the real names of the strangers who want to friend them, regardless of the intentions that drive the friending in the first place.  OK, by now it sounds very much like I’m sort of pointing out the same thing over and over again; I simply put that social networks want users to use real names so the economic future of social networks might be more viable.

Disclaimer of sort:  I do not favor either camp, because I favor both!  Sort of having a split personality on this matter, I think!  I like the idea of having a nickname so I won’t be so open on the Internet, but I also want to know the people I’m communicating with on the Internet are real!  Therefore, I do not have a personal view on this, but I just want to point out the obvious reason of why Facebook and Google want users to use real names.  Like I said, I’m probably be the last person who takes note of this and makes a big deal out of it!

Inspired by this article: