>1. The Facebook upsides are much smaller than we think.
When I joined Facebook, back in the 'college-only' days, there weren't that many people there. It was about linking together with my dorm-mates, writing silly things on each other's walls (which were just overwriteable textareas), and generally wasting time. While the political motivations of the Facebook creators are debatable (I've heard bad things), on the simplest level, it's just a site where you post some information. They don't own your personal information. It's not a f trap. It's not the only one (Orkut, Myspace, Friendster, etc). At the end of the day, I don't care if an advertiser knows that I am friends with X and I like rock climbing. If they want to market pertinent offers to me, who knows? I might actually be interested.
This entire article is such a massive vortex of nothing ("Post stuff elsewhere, too") that it is evoking an emotional reaction from me. Who needs to be told this stuff?
From experience, I know that the directors of nonprofits need to be told this stuff!
I've run into a downside he doesn't touch on: On Facebook it's plainly obvious to users when people aren't engaging with you -- there's a reverse network effect.
With a normal web presence, it looks the same no matter how many people are visiting it.
With Facebook and other social idioms, it will be clear from the first pageview if noone showed up or if everyone left. The page/group's point in the hype cycle and demographics are obvious too.
Users can identify a failed launch or a ghost town at first glance, intuit that there's nothing there, and click away -- all without looking at your content.
As an online organizer I can say that this is the best website I've discovered in ages. I am craving for this information and have been unable to find much sources that focus specifically on the issues that I face. Thank you for linking to this site! Really, thank you!
The article itself couldn't be truer. I see organizations going head over heals into social media thinking that there is some mother load of new "activity" at the middle of it. In reality all they are doing is waisting time that they should be spending doing "traditional organizing".
Community organizing is by far time better spent. I will submit to the experiences of a community organizer any day of the week. These people are the ones making any difference. They are the ones nurturing real connections with real people. By contrast, friending on Facebook is close to meaningless. We, online organizers, are here for a ride trying to figure out what to do with this relatively new medium (the Internet in general). The best tool an organizer has in her arsenal is a face to face meeting where you can build a real connection. This tool is taken away as soon as you move online.
I just posted this link on Facebook, and told a friend who works for a nonprofit organization that has a Facebook page about it. This is important information for people who support nonprofit organizations.
>1. The Facebook upsides are much smaller than we think.
When I joined Facebook, back in the 'college-only' days, there weren't that many people there. It was about linking together with my dorm-mates, writing silly things on each other's walls (which were just overwriteable textareas), and generally wasting time. While the political motivations of the Facebook creators are debatable (I've heard bad things), on the simplest level, it's just a site where you post some information. They don't own your personal information. It's not a f trap. It's not the only one (Orkut, Myspace, Friendster, etc). At the end of the day, I don't care if an advertiser knows that I am friends with X and I like rock climbing. If they want to market pertinent offers to me, who knows? I might actually be interested.
This entire article is such a massive vortex of nothing ("Post stuff elsewhere, too") that it is evoking an emotional reaction from me. Who needs to be told this stuff?