Skip to main content

The two faces of Facebook

I don't share the views of those who moan and groan about Facebook eroding this, that and the other - and probably causing your mind to rot as well. If people spend hours a day on it, yes they should get a life, but a quick pop into it on occasion is good fun.

Facebook is particularly useful if, like me, you spend much of your working day alone. It gives a little sense of community as and when you want it.

But I've a real dilemma about how to use it. When I first went on Facebook, it was at the encouragement of the publicity person for a publisher. She saw it purely as another way to get exposure. 'Want to build up friends fast?' she said. 'Ask PR people. They'll be friends with anyone.' (Sorry, PR people, but it wasn't me who said it.) In that mode of operation, you accept friendship offers from anyone, because it's all about getting the biggest number of friends so you can use it as a PR vehicle.

But the problem with this approach is that the information you see about other people becomes increasingly meaningless, because it's about people you don't know. At the moment I can see pictures of my nephew's birthday party (you can't escape, Edward!), and little snippets of news and views from lots of people I know and like. Should that be sacrificed for exposure? I suppose the ideal would be if Facebook let you have two kinds of friends - the ones you communicate outwards to, and the ones whose stuff you will see. (Or does it already do this? I'm no Facebook expert.) But arguably this reduces the community nature of the beast.

Hmm. It's a tough one.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope