Facebook pushing advertising into Your Friend Feed

For those of you not yet alarmed by the growing problems of the big blue beast, here is one more interesting add on -feature interfering your social enjoyment: Facebook is planning to integrate shameless advertising into your Friend Feed. Yes, in the middle of your lifeline. In other words, if you think you can escape and ignore those agonizing ad slogans on the side, think again. Think of tacky Viagra ads popping up in the middle of ogling at your friends whereabouts. And there will be no way to hide those pesky lines. Yes, a mass of people will probably object. But will they abandon ship?

With over 750 million users and growing, the chances are good old Zuckie just simply doesn´t care what we think. Why should he? At this point, the beast of a company is mainly interested in generating income, in masses. We, the people, are commodity being sold to the advertisers. This is nothing new, it is how most of the privately-owned media works. But has Facebook grown to be something more than just a medium? A virtual living room consisting of our social life, private information, desires, loves and hates? If you change your status into single, would you object to condom ads popping up in your feed? Heck, they already introduced the idea of announcing your unborn child, so what is off-limits anymore?

E.B. Boyd from Fast Company already announced Facebook´s new partnership with the Nielsen company in creating an Online Campaign Ratings -system, which basically observes the demographic data behind ad usage within the network. Who is viewing and what; much like what Nielsen has done so far with measuring television use. This is clearly just the start. 

One might say that ads aren´t cool, but then again, is Facebook cool anymore? Has the fickle aura of hipness shifted and traveled over the rainbow somewhere like the Google+circles? What do you think?

Facebook pushing advertising into Your Friend Feed

Google+ after the Initial Infatuation

So how many of you have already tried out Google+, the bold contender against the stealth monopoly of Facebook?
Not many, I suspect. After the not-so-secret launch this week, Google+ is now -supposedly-open for the great public to join. Although many became enamored with the sleek and clean design, the truth is that it is slightly... lonely. Yet. The new social network is, as I described earlier, a sandbox without active playmates. Or am I just the only one being left out of all the fun games on the yard? Can´t be.

Over time Facebook has managed to acquire not just headcount, but games, company pages and easy sharing options with Youtube-clips and print media articles. Is it even possible to do the latter with Google+ yet? As it is, besides posting the idiosyncratic egonews flashes on the like of "I am watching tv", people seem to like to share video clips and news articles over the social network. Pastime for the electronic masses.
And in many online publications, the button for Facebook is _there_, just a click away. Youtube is owned by Google. I tried adding a music video the normal way to my Google+-profile. It placed itself to the +1 recommended -area, where the actual video can be accessed and watched through redirection to Youtube. Why would anyone want to leave the social network to see my "recommendation"?

As Janne Ruohisto recently wrote, it is possible that Google+ will, over time, become more like a closed social network for purely professional circles, in the likes of Yammer and Socialcast. So far, they have a lot to catch up to. The interest is there, the desire to swift over from Facebook is growing. The once celebrated indie-spirited Facebook has grown into a megalith, which guards itself fiercely (try switching your friends over to Google+? We will bury your profile!!). Except when it comes to the question of privacy. The repeated accidental bugs opening up the private information are all too familiar for us.

The new announcement over the union between Skype and Facebook is great, and was magnificently timed. But the real question is, whether they will be able to answer to the much bigger questions out there: the division between growing amount of "friends" and the ownership of added personal information. Google+  has the idea of division beautifully embedded into its design with "circles". When will the same idea pop up in Facebook? Quite soon, I suspect. But also, the larger public has begun questioning Facebook´s policy of owning everything one adds into the system.Is it fair? Is it right? And more importantly, above else, should we tolerate it?

Google is bringing official  brand pages, or company page possibity, into the Google+ in two weesk. In other words, they are suspecting the critical mass to grow into such portions within this time period, that it becomes worthwhile. At the moment getting in, or "getting an invite into circles" is troublesome and takes patience and many, many tries. This illustration describes it perfectly. Still, will you be joining "The Plus" when you can? As a hint, it is good to start with old Zuckie in your circles. After all, he is the most circled person inside Google+ as I´m writing this.

Google+ after the Initial Infatuation

The Race is on: Facebook versus Google+

Earlier this year we learned about the slight slump in popularity of the megaorganism known as Facebook. 
The number of Americans using the"blue timekiller" (as I lovingly call it) had dropped within the period of May from 155 million to 149 million. And this, they (as in the faceless, all-encompassing specialists)say, is a reason to worry. Is the pop rocket of a phenomenon showing signs of fatigue? Entering mature phase? (In all fairness it is gaining more adult users over 45 rapidly). Every trend has their beginning and an end. And now, with us all hooked into using social media services, it appears to be almost translucently cool to be able to resign from joining the game. At least, that´s what I blogged about at the end of last year, with hints of antisocial network and the luxury of saying no. Because let´s face it, being "off-grid" nowadays is getting rare indeed.

Then again, for a discernible part of us, Facebook, is just... plain fun. It is like the good old handy telephone book, with only a few tiny little upgrades. I like not always being forced to leave the house to talk with friends -especially when it is freezing cold outside and you feel overdrained. If only it did not play with our privacy so much. All the little bugs and crunches that made us cough, worry and shake our heads over the last year -could this be done differently? And hey, as we are talking about it, why is there no good competition? Sure, there was (and is) diaspora , where at least you can own the rights for your own pictures. But that did not really catch fire. Nowadays, it seems diaspora is mainly being visited by its developers. Correct me if I am wrong. So what is a girl (or a boy, or an animal) to do?


Enter Google+.  The latest development of the magnate company to get us all hooked inside the big megacorporation. After being released a few days ago for a selected group of people (ok, the ones who managed to buy, bag or steal an invite) it has generated buzz all over the web. Is this the Facebook-killer? Can the social network be redone, and better?
So far, my experience is quite narrow and clinical. With the lack of an as established and large friendsupply inside the "+", playing around just isin´t as fun, at least for now. One feels like the odd kid left on the sandbox with a plastic toy and anticipation hanging in the air. However, the positives of the new social media are visible, and Google has definitely noted the problems within Facebook, which we all are more than familiar with.

The pages are clean, sleek and free of clutter. Have you noticed how the sideline of ads in Facebook has grown deviously over time? How everything you search or write about is instantly met with similar themed ads? So far, there is no such thing in Google+, but then again, they might start playing the moneygame any day soon. Google+ consists of "hangouts", "circles" and "sparks". "Sparks" is where news become social and users can set the news to match their preferences. "Hangouts" is like the name: place to hang out with your friends from various circles -through video chat. And guess why Facebook announced they are bringing Skype-powered video chat this week? The competition can be fruitful for the large public.

"Circles" is the main pro side of Google+. Tired of setting up limitations for various friends over at Facebook? Yes, the whole thing can be done differently and smoothly. In Google+ the user can easily place people in separates "circles", and set limitations to these circles of friends. Now you can literally put those parental units in their own circle, and not worry about them seeing you every post from last Friday. Let´s not forget business contacts, either.  Oversharing just is not what most of have a need to do.

Another pro (or con, depending how you look at it) is that the whole thing is integrated with other Google services. Just log into your account (gmail, Youtube etc) and you are free to play with Google+, as well. This should be good news for Android- phone users as well, as the "app" for Google+ is already available, as write this. And I got it yesterday, thank you very much. Intrigued, but wondering how to switch all you hundreds of close friends from Facebook to Google+ smoothly? No worries, there is a solution! Courtesy of a friendly developer named Mohamed Mansour, one can easily switch the bundle of pals from the blue system into the G-system. It is called "Facebook Friend Exporter", it is free and available here . Be prepared to move everyone into their respective circles, though.

So how does one get inside the happening hotspot of the moment? My, by invitation only! As I am writing this, the invitation system does not work smoothly as of yet (that´s why the system is not officially open yet!). But every now and then a few invites slip by. So... does anyone want an invite? If so, write a nice comment, send your gmail-address (snoweffect333@gmail.com) and I will do my best.

The Race is on: Facebook versus Google+

"The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo": American version trailer

As I have stated previously, I don´t like remakes. They don´t make sense, especially when the first editions are done perfectly to the point. But of course, if the idea is good (read: marketable) and worth repeating, it will be exploited.

The original Swedish "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", based on the book "Men who hate women" by the late Stieg Larsson, was superb. Mostly due to the main actress of the film, Noomi Rapace. After her international debut, she is now well on her way to becoming a big star. Duly deserved. By all accounts, her successor in portraying the feisty character of "Lisbeth Salander" will have a hard time convincing the fans of the story of her acting abilities. If anything, the role is extremely demanding, and not meant for the mainstream Hollywood lightweight thespian.

So far, the clip of the forthcoming American remake by David Fincher does not show us much of the skills of Rooney Mara, trying to reenact Rapace´s brilliance. If anything, the short clips show us identical images and scenery resembling the original film.  Why? Because it was _filmed in the exactly same locations_. In Sweden. So why the redo? Because they just don´t like to read subtitles over there. They don´t. Good idea can be capitalized so much more smoothly without those pesky letters ruining the lower half of the screen. I will be eager to see the full final version of this re-cooking, though.  And whether it turns out to be a financial success. Rooney Mara? Not expecting that much, sorry. What mostly strikes me in this clip is the haunting music by Trent Reznor of the "Nine Inch Nails". He also composed "The Social Network".

"The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo": American version trailer

The Antisocial Network

Funny how trends go about. First it´s the few innovators that proudly show off their new toys and habits for the rest of the vulgar herd. If it works, the masses catch on. The cycle dies, when the conservative everyman has heard or adapted the trend. Early adapters and coolness hunters are valuable in showing the way forward. This reminds me of Iceland, and how it is commonly used by companies as a closed testing ground for new fashion. If it passes there, it will most definitely work elsewhere. Don´t believe me? Go and visit. What the people wear now, is all the rage a few years from now. If anything, the current economy might even push out the creativity and craftiness in full blossom.

In the light of this cycle of chic, should we be alarmed of the recent death of the oldest known Facebook user? Ivy Bean was 104-years-old, had 4949 friends (!) and proud to be part of the network since 2007. She also used Skype, which I suspect is not the usual tool of communication for seniors in her golden age. Yes, the mature surfers are catching on the social media wagon. I blame it all on William Shatner. The old prankster with a phase gun has been tweeting since the early days of the service and currently is the proud owner of 417 394 followers. He turns 80 next year.




Jesse Eisenberg, the actor mostly known for portraying the founder of Facebook, was recently interviewed by Time Magazine. The young hipster proudly claims to not reading his mail, not having a television set for the last 10 years, and no, he does not have a Facebook account. (So I suppose the nine fellows or so presenting themselves under his name on Twitter are not really him, either) In essence, Jesse has decided to opt out of the all-encompassing influence of real-time networks, being in touch 24 h and knowing the news instantly. Or, that is at least the image he likes to give us. Why? Because it is cool. I can almost  picture Jesse carrying a vintage retro Nokia log, which works occasionally, carries a ton -but brings instant street cred for the lone cowboy who just doesn´t want to be like the rest of us. (Oh please, he so has a Blackberry or iPhone with him at all times. Trust.)

Another low-tech trendster and the original lady of hip is our very own Winona Ryder. She also has declared her open dislike for our digital age. While she treasures her old mix-tapes (remember those?), the girl has no computer. Apparently Winona has heard  that "one can find anything on there; troubles, salaries and such". Ms Ryder lives in San Francisco, of all places, so the idea of her being isolated amids the hot spot of global information technology development seems absurd. But plausible, yes.When you think of all the necessary information and services being available today online ONLY, it becomes  hard to imagine someone being able to live separate from the web (in United States). This leads me to assume that this kind of living is a right for the rare and privileged. In other words, one has resources  and people working for them in minding their affairs. Can you imagine living without a computer and modern communication technology?

The Antisocial Network