Browsing through Facebook again and one more time, I realize one thing: Facebook groups became a clusterfuck. There are groups who are really doing an amazing job at delivering what people feel asking for but then there are some things which really rather show the "bad" side of Facebook groups. Three things may be a reason: being on Facebook, being better than Facebook and being Facebook.
Sounds interesting or totally ridiculous and you ask how that comes together with reason?
Then read on!
Being on Facebook - Capital of the Textpire on the Net
One thing cannot be denied: Facebook is a huge thing on the net, maybe even the biggest site or the site with the most messages written daily on the world (Whatsapp doesn't count since it's no social network, just a messenger). So, you could say it's the capital of texting - a textpire. Next to the capital of the Videoplic called Youtube while the measurements by Google on Youtube are more similiar to a dictatory leadership.
Both have in common: they are big sites and they are often visited and they are famous. So if you have some creative ideas to come up with, you will most probably publish them on Youtube or Facebook. Hell, even when showing off short stories you even go to Facebook or Youtube nstead of sites dedicated for fiction or writing. And this is where groups come in: keep in touch with your fans and followers and get the newest information of your star or person being in the publicity.
And then, there are groups. Groups don't always need a star inducing it to be created. It can be simple like "Cakes, Cakes, Cakes" or "I am Tomato" or a group of your local football team or school. Very different kinds exist directed at different interests: "Cakes, Cakes, Cakes" would be a site obviously dedicated to cakes: making them, sharing them in form of pictures, receipts and other stuff or showing off good conditors.
"I am Tomato" might be for those who are so in love with tomatoes, that parents go on and say like: "You will become a tomato soon that much you fawn over them" and afterwards, they are inspired to make a group based on that.
Well, they all serve a purpose, they all keep their purpose and best: they all do it with love. And this is what makes a group pretty charming: the admins' visible love for their site (if it isn't a celebrity site, then the celebrity itself) and their dedication and effort to build an awesome group. And on Facebook, they can expect lots of followers of course since it's a medium used by hundreds of millions of people.
So, good groups who always aim towards their purpose and do it with love, can expect followers, clicks etc. and really deserve those followers. Some have them already, some groups even grow. And then, once in a while, a certain dynamic kicks in the group system...
Being Better Than Facebook - The Internet Kingdom's Capitalism
For every nation, there must be a system based on principles and rules. In case for the Videoplic of Youtube and Textpire of Facebook which belong to the Internet Kingdom (or Kingdom of Internet), the general rule is: clicks sell! And there the ugly side begins to shine: Youtube channels do that in form of faking stuff or misleading thumbnails or titles with misleading content, Facebook groups do the same - except in a more blatant way.
The group which inspired me to write that was "Can a pretzel get more followers/fans than Tokio Hotel?". Let me explain a bit background story for it.
It was hilarious when it first began and I've found it pretty funny and followed it, to see which jokes they can bring out. Afterwards, I've joined a similar group - just with a brick and a certain local Austrian politician. I've found it pretty funny when they were posting funny stuff from that politician and I was giggling reading and seeing all that.
But then, the dark age came. As funny as the idea was, the group wasn't made of corporation chiefs or certain companies; it was made by a humble human in daily life - as you and me. And when the steam behind an idea begins to decease and the group activity suffocates. Or - the last grasp - you sell the site to somebody else. You may get money for it after being a huge trend, companies or other sites may be interested to gather more clicks by linking to themselves and so on...
And from what I've heard, this phenomenon isn't that uncommon. When groups begin to decease or are in full bloom, admins may hand or/and sell their group activity to somebody else. Then the one who bought it can effectively post stuff which links to their personal site or company and it reaches people who were trending the group for their original reason.
To serve my proof, read these three links I've dug up. For the first link, just look at the group page and check how much they are related to their title. Or look if the posts consist of any links leading to certain pages.
For the second one, just a proof that selling groups doesn't seem too uncommon.
And the third that obviously I'm not the only one annoyed by groups of the commercial kind:
http://www.heavy.com/comedy/2013/01/facebook-fails-the-20-weirdest-facebook-groups/
https://forums.digitalpoint.com/threads/how-much-would-you-sell-a-facebook-group-for.1091866/
http://www.techhive.com/article/2046925/beware-spammers-thriving-in-facebook-groups.html
That's nothing else than capitalism - in a very, very liberal kind. You don't need to change your group name from "Strawberries" to "www.lafame-fm.com" or "La Fame FM" (site name just invented by me, I don't know whether that site exists for real) like you would when you rename a company or a CEO begins to lead a company. That liberal is internet capitalism and it seemingly sells.
And no one seems to mind it really - when Facebook does ads, everyone would make a witch burn and hate on Facebook. In that sense, sold off groups seem to do much better than Facebook.
Being Facebook - I Don't Care, I Love It!
...or "Got It!", both makes sense considering Facebook got enough users and can do what they want, seemingly the same with the Videoplic of Youtube, even if they get a shitstorm for Google+ integration as slow but steady mandatory part.
And I may sound like an NSA employee: even an anarchy-like system called the Internet needs rules. In this case, it would be about reusing groups or changing group owners.
Let's be honest: the Facebook and Google policy of typing your real name has reason. And there it isn't even important whether you want anonymity or not. Anonymity isn't what Facebook is made for, it was made for social linking; and which people would recognize their lost son when instead of this real name, the name "Damien SWAGGER Shaq O'Neil" is displayed? And this is only the personal level, not even the commercial level.
The commercial level of setting up policies should be to avoid scam, spam or misleading presentation and offensive groups. Those who follow Will Smith or Taylor Swift: how would it be when instead of your hottest news about Will or Taylor, images with jokes or memes were posted on these fan sites? And you always get a link shoved up your wall? Because they appear on your wall if you suscribed and when nothing related to your idol appears, you wonder at one point: "What. The. Heck. Is. Going. On. There???"
Or if you follow somebody who is only an impostor of your favorite celebrity? Would you feel tricked? Very well, you should feel that way. Isn't advertising illegal anyways when under a false premise? (I dunno the answer, but there might be a rule).
To connect the personal and commercial level: your profile has the purpose of being you, a group has the purpose of being what they write they are.
If you are "Missouri Friedman", then your purpose is being who you are, Missouri Friedman.
If your group is called "Japanese Cars", your purpose is everything Japanese cars-related.
If you don't serve that purpose, never open up an account on Facebook or open a group there. In the end, it means that not every idea can stand endure being a good and thriving group for a while.
And with this, I conclude the point that Facebook has to do a lot to serve a good environment free of business making and keeping the networking clean. No matter how business-like Facebook acts, in the end it's still a social network at heart. And so should it be with groups, too. Facebook doesn't seem to care about its anarchy inside its own networks as much as sold groups don't care about their own anarchy they cause.
For this case, identification and inspection on them should be a must-have.
And it would benefit us all because we would be protected by advertisements from random websites, companies or scammers we never wanted to have or follow. So, Textpire of Facebook: get your damn things straight or you will light up a bad civil war!
A certain post brings it all really precisely to the point:
"Facebook is supposed to be a social networking site - not a business venture. If people want to buy a database for marketing they will buy a database not a suspect list of people who probably will be of no use to them. You are totally violating data protection rules if you go ahead with your intention."http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091031174116AAA20hw
P.S.: Tomorrow I will stay in Berlin (capital of Germany) for 10 days! ^__^
Vacation alone! - Something I've waited for so long. Of course I will write posts about my vacation and maybe publish them even during vacation.
Otherwise, see you later, folks!
No comments:
Post a Comment