I don't know if we should really laugh at them, sometimes it's real science, it's just that the context or the subject makes it funny or disgusting. It's also I think a way to release some pressure from the shitty stuff you have to do to get some knowledge.
One thing not covered in the blog post (except Twitter) was social media or regular media where you interact with people you don't already know (e.g. Twitter, Reddit, Hacker News). Is this less common because friend-based social media is mostly photos and teenagers prefer using images to communicate? Does having a pseudonym on any of these sites count as anonymity, or is that preferred to communicate with friends anonymously? Thanks!
I think Instagram (along with Twitter) is used a lot to interact with a wider base of people than just your friends, supporting your idea of image-based networks, but I don't think it has to do with their particular media. Reddit, and other forum-like sites, are popular in certain cliques (mainly tech-savvy ones -- anime/manga fans, gamers, etc.), but hasn't really broken out in mainstream teen culture. My hypothesis is that teenagers like the more personal, if you will, aspect of Twitter/Instagram/Facebook/etc. in that they are very user-based -- even if you find content based on a hashtag (say, on Twitter), who posted it is just as important as what they posted, unlike forums, where content matters significantly more than its poster. (How many Reddit usernames do remember? Now what about Twitter?)
I think pseudonymity is perceived in a very different manner than anonymity. With a pseudonym, you can piece together the scraps of information someone leaves and maybe make a good guess at who that account is; at least, that's how one feels when using a consistent pseudonym, even if it's unrealistic. With anonymity, you have no sense of responsibility for your actions, because each one post is unlikely to reveal much on its own.
Again, I probably have a skewed view of things, but hopefully this was at least thought-provoking!
"This is huge for Facebook — it has become an ubiquitous utility. And my sister didn’t even know Messenger, Facebook’s well-regarded, standalone messaging app, existed. Couple this anecdote with the WhatsApp acquisition and Facebook seems poised to own (utilitarian and functional) communication."
Given how hard Facebook pushes, and has subsequently forced Messenger onto all mobile users, his sister not knowing it exists is not good for Facebook. I'm sure the author is trying to spin it into a positive since he works there, but that's quite a stretch.
On the flip side, though, people considering Facebook a ubiquitous utility is very much a good thing for them. In my experience -- and I am by no means a teen -- Facebook is both the de facto way to stay in touch with extended family and friends worldwide, but it is also the fall-back social platform everyone can count on being a viable option if, for whatever reason, the first or second choice doesn't work. It's still perfectly acceptable for an individual not to use Snapchat, Instagram, Whatsapp, or similar, but everyone now assumes that all their connections have an fb account. Frustratingly, in my life this phenomenon rears its head most often with group structuring and event planning, since fb groups are so easy to create (and actually work pretty darn well). Others have expressed frustration at the inflexibility of fb events ... my experience has been that fb groups -- at least for recurring events -- have supplanted actual events.
I initially felt corralled into installing it but now I use it quite frequently to participate in small group discussions with my friends. Actually, I should clarify: it's almost exclusively one group discussion that we use to organise our social lives (last-minute day trips at the weekends, beers after work, that sort of thing). Email has become fragmented (not universal; everyone has a number of accounts), there is no group option on SMS, and Twitter is too public. There isn't a comparable communication medium in use within my social circle.
I find the app experience pretty reliable and straight-forward. I especially like the option to 'snooze' chats for an hour or two (I'm trying to get some work done and my friends are all telling jokes) or until the next morning (I'm engaged this evening and don't want my phone pinging all the time).
(As it appear to be relevant and give context to this discussion, I'm a late-20s English male.)
I mean, that's nice and all, but like most things which have a utility tied to their network size, the quality of the app is largely irrelevant. If someone sends me an fb message to update me on where we're meeting, I want to see that right away regardless of my dislike of the UI.
Yes, because I'm pro users rights. I don't believe people should be forced to look at (or sit through 30+second) ads for things they don't want or need, that are bad for them, or that perpetuate unhealthy stereotypes or behavior. People can choose those messages on their own through whatever media they seek out, but it shouldn't be compulsory.
Aside from that, there are too many other ways to monetize in 2014, and this is only growing. I use Ghostery, Disconnect and original AdBlock (getadblock.com) not AdBlock Plus, which has a semi-extortionist ad program that actually showed me ads without realizing it.
If you answered "No" but use Chrome (and probably other modern browsers), you may not realize that it already automatically blocks pop-up ads for you, so to some extent you are already using an AdBlocker. Ads haven't gotten much less annoying than they were in 2008, the browsers just hate them as much as you do.
No one forces you to look at ads. You choose to visit websites that display ads. I don't personally understand why ads are such a big deal to some people.
That being said, I do sometimes acquire shows with unfriendly streaming situations through...other means, which is pretty much the same thing at the end of the day.
No, users have no idea how many or what kind of ads are going to be on a website before they get there, and some content has ads, others don't. Just a few examples are pre-roll ads on YouTube videos (some have them, some don't, it's not a choice), news articles with ads mid-paragraph, or sliced up into slideshows with ads to continue consuming or receive any content.
You may not personally understand how insidious ads can be, but 450 Hacker News readers do. I didn't even cover the issues with tracking, privacy and potential malware.
This ad is the poster (pardon the pun) for YC sexism, it still appears in women in tech blog posts all the time. Hard to imagine being a Stanford student in 2006 who has never heard of "Y Combinator" and sees this ad. May get a laugh from a guy like Evan Spiegel, but is just plain creepy to a woman.
That's interesting because #1 is my ex (who's not too active on Facebook), as well. But #2 is my cousin who is hardly active on there. #3 is someone who is kind of active but I never hung out with much.
My current girlfriend, who is not active on FB at all (she's more of a lurker), is basically last, with only 1 assimilation point.
I would not necessarily take the blog post author's advice. He appears to be a big self-promoter that's more impressed with the perceived prestige of a management consulting job than the success of his actual startup.
I'm enjoying the thought of watching them being laughed at in-person at Harvard.