marco’s posterous

Mike Elgan

July 17, 2010 (Computerworld)^[1]

Facebook has a huge problem. No, it's not privacy, security, application spam or even horrible P.R. from the upcoming movie, "The Social Network^[2]." These are short-term annoyances for the company, but not existential threats.

Here's the real problem: Facebook^[3]'s social network can't mirror the actual social networks, or social groups, that people have. Because of that, users are beginning to notice a curious effect: The more you use Facebook, the less usable it becomes.

It turns out that our feelings about Facebook aren't static. They're evolving in a way that will eventually lead many of us to quit and find something else -- or at least minimize use.

Facebook is structured on the false assumption that you have one social network. But nobody has one social group.

A nine-year-old has at least two -- parents and peers. A teenager has at least three -- add "trusted close friends." And a middle-aged adult has many: Former school-mates, former colleagues (each company is a separate peer group), non-nuclear family, nuclear family, current co-workers, close friends, etc.

While it's true that you belong to all your social groups, you're the only person in the world who does. Each other member of any group does not belong to your other groups. Sooner or later, your social groups are going to clash and you're going to get burned.

Here are three real-life examples (Names have been changed to protect the guilty):

• Maria's son posts a status update: "Having a great time at the beach with the parents!" Maria's boss posts a comment: "Didn't you call in sick?"

• Bill posts 30 pictures from college, and tags friends in the photos. One of those friends is Steve, who is shown drunk and vomiting in the picture that shows up on Steve's "Photos" page. Mom, dad and grandma all acquire a new perspective on the financial help they gave Steve for college.

• Janet, a high school senior, posts a generic comment about her mood, saying "feeling bla today." Then Margaret, a close family friend in the same age group as Janet's parents, comments, "what's wrong, honey?" After that, several of Janet's high school friends post a series of profane, obscene or objectionable comments that humorously suggest causes or cures. Because Margaret commented, all subsequent comments flow into Margaret's Facebook News Feed.

These cases all illustrate the clash of social groups, where a member of one social group gains unnatural access to the conversation of another.

One of the most common clashes of social groups happens when the parents of young people sign up for Facebook, so common that there's a blog devoted to the catastrophe^[4].

A gaming site called Roiworld surveyed 600 teenagers and found that 20% of teens have either dropped Facebook or are using it less. Of those who have abandoned Facebook altogether, 43% say it's because there are "too many adults or older people," their parents are on Facebook or because they're concerned about privacy.

[ See related: Are we burning out on Facebook?^[5] ]

Teens are a "leading indicator" here. The rest of us will follow. Facebook users appear to follow a predictable pattern of evolution with their feelings about Facebook, and teenagers are just further along.

Here are the five stages of Facebook grief:

1. Confusion. What's it for? How do I use it? Why would anyone want to post here? Who's seeing this?

2. Discovery. Hey, my high school friends are here. Reading my News Feed actually makes me feel more connected to people. This is actually pretty fun. I look forward to checking Facebook every day. I love this.

3. Utility. Facebook helps me stay connected to former colleagues, which could help me find a job in the future. I learn things about my own kids that is valuable to me that I wouldn't otherwise hear. It's easier to communicate with everyone on Facebook than e-mail, phone calls or any other means. I need this.

4. Embarrassment. Whoa! I did NOT want my co-workers to see the picture of me someone else tagged. Too much personal information in that post! Whoops! I did not mean to offend someone -- I forgot who would be listening.

5. Withdrawal. To avoid problems, I'm going to have to assume that everything I say is public, not private like I used to think. I'll minimize my posts or stop using Facebook altogether.

Facebook's popularity is based on the reality that human beings are social creatures. Staying connected with people we know is innate to us. But maintaining separate social groups that we don't want to clash is also innate.

In the same way that Facebook got popular by satisfying our need to connect, either Facebook or a competitor will get popular by doing something about Stage 5, which is where we're all heading (if not already there.)

How social networks should work

The social network of the future will pattern itself after real-world social groupings. It will enable people to have private, closed, secure conversations within groups, without fear that one social group will gain access to the conversations of another.

One simple approach would be for a social networking site to force you to place each new friend into one or more social groups. Default labels could be "immediate family," "extended family," "former co-workers," "classmates," "best friends," etc.

To successfully post a picture or status update, you would have to click on checkboxes that determined who got it. You should be able to choose any or all groups.

The posts of others could be color-coded to determine which social group they originate with. Comments would stay within the social groups the comment originated in. Related to this, all profile and personal information would have to be checkboxed as well.

I don't know if my imagined scenario is the best one, or even if it would work. The point is that someone must -- and someone will -- create a system for segregating all the social groups in your life. And whoever does that will win over Facebook users spit out the other end of Stage 5.

Such a system is especially urgent because of the rapid growth and coming automation of location services. People will want to automatically share their current location with one or more social groups, but will want to avoid sharing that information with others.

If they can't block some of their social groups, they will block all -- by avoiding an otherwise valuable service.

One interesting facet of the five stages is that along the way, you start to love and need real social networking. By the end, you still do -- but Facebook not longer satisfies.

The 500 million-user question is: Who will create this social network? Will it be Google^[6] with its rumored "Google Me" service^[7]? Will it be -- gasp! -- Microsoft^[8]? Or will it be Facebook itself?

Nobody knows the answer to that question. But what we do know is that Facebook's current structure is unsustainable. Eventually social groups collide. And when they do, it's lights out for Facebook.

Mike Elgan writes about technology and global tech culture. Contact Mike at mike.elgan@elgan.com^[9] or follow him on Twitter^[10] or his blog, The Raw Feed^[11].

This week Facebook will register its 500 millionth member. It's a milestone both significant and meaningless: yes, it's a reminder of just how big the social-media giant has become, but really—did we need reminding? That Facebook is a part of many Americans' daily lives is clear.  But how it's affecting those lives is still being examined. We know that Facebook can be good for your health, and that it can make everything from networking to sharing photos easier. But there's also a potentially sinister side, even aside from dubious privacy issues. Below, 10 ways that Facebook can do more harm than good.

1. You'll be reunited with your biological parents. This can be good news, but it's not always. Take Prince Sagala, who found her biological children on Facebook—children she alleges were kidnapped more than a decade ago by her ex-husband. The mom and kids are now reunited. The only problem: the kids grew up with their dad and don't want anything to do with the parent who now has custody. And in an even more horrifying story, Aimee Sword was sentenced to nine to 30 years in prison recently for sexually abusing her 15-year-old biological son, whom she tracked down on Facebook. 

2. Your creditors can track you down. Creditors use Facebook as a way to both track the movements of debtors and keep their eyes on any potential assets that could be seized to cover those debts. At first, lenders may use Facebook to determine whether you're a worthy candidate for a loan. But should you come to owe a creditor money, the company can track you down and discover your assets by monitoring your Facebook feed.  

3. Your insurers can deny your claims. Remember the woman who was receiving workers' compensation for depression, only to be "outed" by Facebook pictures of her smiling? Her insurance benefits were cut off, with insurers saying that her photos showed she was ready to return to work. That's left attorneys who argue for disability benefits concerned. Many now advise against giving away too much on Facebook. 

4. Your ex can use it against you in a divorce. Facebook is a popular tool for divorce attorneys, who comb pages of their clients' spouses for evidence of neglect, infidelity, or deception. (One study suggests that Facebook comes up in one out of five new divorce petitions). Mashable says a woman lost custody of her children after her ex proved she was spending time tending her crops on Farmville instead of spending quality time with her kids, while divorce lawyers have given multiple interviews extolling the site's virtues as a way to air damaging dirty laundry. 

5. It could make you depressed. Researchers from Stony Brook University in New York found that teenage girls who spend the most time discussing their lives with friends were more likely to be depressed. Apparently, spending too much time dwelling on gossip and your problems can make you feel worse, not better. The researchers didn't study Facebook in particular, but they indicated that social-networking sites such as Facebook made it easier for people to be in constant contact with friends and perpetuate the unhealthy discussions.  

6. It can cost you a job. A British survey of employers found that half of those polled had turned down job candidates once something unsavory about that candidate surfaced on Facebook. (Examples include tales of drunkenness, photos of illegal activity, and bad grammar.) In the U.S., 20 percent of employers admit to scoping out the Facebook pages of potential job candidates, while 9 percent say they're going to start soon. 

7. It can out you to your family.  Even if you're discreet on Facebook, your loose-lipped friends might not be and could post comments on your wall that betray your secrets. But there are also more insidious outings going on: MIT students designed an algorithm that successfully pinpointed gay users by analyzing how many of their friends were gay.

8. It can make it easier for your stalker or abusive partner to follow your movements.  Let's be honest: if there weren't Facebook, abusers would find another trigger to set off their rage. But Facebook has made it easier for these people to keep tabs on their victims and respond to their movements, even after the victim has tried to sever ties. In one particularly sad case, a woman who changed her Facebook status to "single" was killed by her husband, from whom she had separated. After seeing her status, he broke into her home and stabbed her repeatedly. 

9. You can be sued for libel. There are already several cases of libel suits over content posted on Facebook. In Britain, where libel is easier to prove than in the U.S., a businessman won £22,000 when a former classmate created a fake profile full of defamatory information. Stateside, an Ohio-area band sued a Facebook "hate group," and a Michigan towing company sued a student who created a Facebook page alleging that the company tows legally parked cars. (The company says those claims are false.) So far, the law appears to be on the poster's side. But it's still a hassle.

10. Your kids could be targeted by predators. After a teenage girl in England was murdered by a sex offender who posed as a teenager on Facebook, the British version of the site added a "panic button" that allows teens to report any unwanted attention—including cyber-bullying—directly to the authorities. But the button is not yet on U.S. or other international versions of Facebook, and it's unclear whether the company plans to add it. 

Know of other examples? Leave them in the comments below.

Ahahahahuhuhuheeheehee...

"This 5 year old male was a pet in a home, and now lives at the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center. This little guy had been given an apple to eat, and seems to act more like a puppy than a porcupine!"

Duration: 57:29 CC STEREO TVRE
Travel back in time to the glamour and bloodshed of ancient Rome's gladiatorial world, where men fought for their lives to satisfy the whims of emperors and a bloodthirsty populace. Combining compelling narrative with state-of-the-art computer graphics and high-quality drama reconstruction, this production throws new light on the way gladiators really fought and trained, and reveals that many of them were the superstars of their age: even noblemen aspired to be gladiators. What caused the notorious arena to be built, and what made Roman society demand such extreme entertainment to be played out there? This program revolves around the true story of Verus, who rises from slave to star gladiator, but who faces the ultimate challenge in one of the very few gladiatorial fights that was recorded and described by contemporary writers. Its outcome was quite unexpected. Discover Verus' story, live his journey and experience his quest for freedom.

Channels and Airdates:

Colosseum: Rome's Arena of Death | KQED

WASHINGTON—As Congress prepares to allow gay individuals to serve openly in the military, those against the proposed change voiced their concerns Monday, warning the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" could soon lead to strong, strapping American soldiers engaging in mind-blowing homosexual intercourse right on the battlefield.

"We're sending our soldiers out there with a mission, and that mission is to protect this country," said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), one of many conservative politicians who staunchly oppose the change. "If this is repealed, what's to stop all-night sex romps from breaking out while U.S. servicemen are hiding in a bunker, or crawling around an irrigation ditch bathed only by the light of the moon, or, say, the dozens of other situations I've already thought through in elaborate detail?"

"We can't allow this to happen," Gohmert added as beads of sweat collected on his brow. "It's wrong. Sweaty male sex—no matter how erotic and uninhibited—is so wrong and so, so naughty."

Despite its support from the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the repeal has been condemned by many military officers who worry it could disrupt troop cohesion and endanger the lives of the taut young soldiers who have dedicated their lives to serving America with "every rippling muscle in their rock-hard bodies."

Others have argued that allowing gay soldiers to push their lifestyle on others, testing the limits of pleasure a man can take before he erupts in uncontrollable ecstasy, would seriously damage morale.

"The military should not be used to advance some radical, steamy, mouthwatering social agenda," said Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ).

"Our men need to know they can count on each other in battle, and we can't have them getting distracted by illicit romantic dalliances," said Gen. James T. Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps. "Especially if one's a little blond Adonis farm boy and his buddy's a real tough street kid straight out of Brooklyn. I mean, think about it: What if they lock eyes and abandon their post to start ripping each other's fatigues off, revealing twin sets of glistening washboard abs and at last fulfilling their hidden passions?"

Continued Conway, "Is this the message we want to send to our enemies?"

Many active-duty service members told reporters allowing gay individuals to be open about their sexuality would result in great discomfort among platoons overseas.

"The last thing I need after a 12-hour reconnaissance patrol is to know I'm hitting the showers with some guy who might be checking me out and who might, after seeing what I have to work with, find himself wondering if I too long for the firm yet tender embrace of another man," Army Cpl. Dale Montgomery said. "So, in conclusion, what were we talking about again?"

Earlier efforts to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell have failed, including a notable 2007 bill to end the policy that was filibustered by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), who over the course of several days repeatedly screened the gay pornographic film Thrill Sergeant and demanded to know if his colleagues liked that sort of thing.

Repeal opponents argued that future combat missions might slowly begin like this scene from 'Trained To Obey'

This May, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) promised voters he would do everything in his power to prevent gays from serving openly in the armed forces, and on Thursday, he told reporters that the role of the military is to defend American freedoms, not "the rights of, you know, those people some of us stay up all night thinking about as we toss and turn."

"Imagine you've got a boat full of sailors out cruising the Gulf of Aden when all of a sudden they're attacked. Some of the homosexuals lock themselves below deck and begin touching themselves," said the 73-year-old senator and Vietnam War veteran, his breath quickening. "One of their names is Ricardo. Unbuttoning his pants, he throws his gunner's mate down on the cot and penetrates him, his big, beautiful dick shimmering with power, his dog tags bouncing up and down as he's pounding, and pounding, and pounding."

Added McCain, "What I'm trying to say is: It all boils down to combat effectiveness."

When asked about his views on lesbians serving openly in the military, McCain made no secret of his position on the issue.

"Female soldiers being intimate with one another?" McCain said. "Gross! No, thank you."

Q: I believe I would qualify for the new high-risk pool since I have been uninsured for more than six months and have a pre-existing condition. Where and how do I apply?

Q: Where can my nephew go to get healthcare insurance? He is self-employed, married, has two children, and is low-income.

A: At last, there's an easy way to answer questions like these. It's called healthcare.gov, it went live this morning, and even though it won’t dole out a penny in subsidies, or have the power to make a recalcitrant insurer write an affordable policy for an adult with a pre-existing condition, it still represents a gigantic step forward for consumers. Until now, incredibly, there has been no single, comprehensive listing of health insurance policies available to individuals and small businesses who are not eligible for Medicare. Anywhere. Period.

"We have more than 1,000 insurance carriers offering 5,561 products open for enrollment," said Todd Park, chief technology officer at the Department of Health and Human Services and the mastermind behind the new site. "It was developed in 90 days, which is crazy, with the benefit of a ton of consumer input—18 focus groups in five locations, and two full days of beta testing."

You can go on this exceedingly easy-to-navigate website—brought to you courtesy of a provision of the Affordable Care Act—enter your state of residence and answer a few questions such as how old you are, whether you have a serious health condition, and whether or not you’ve had trouble affording insurance, and get back a comprehensive list of options both public and private. These include:

Private individual and small business health plans. You can see every plan sold in your state (insurance is regulated and sold on a state-by-state basis), along with:

Argentina legalizes same-sex marriage