ifindkarma. elegance is refusal.

January 14, 2011

Social Networking Venn Diagram. 2011 update!

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , — ifindkarma @ 12:01 am
In the last few weeks Quora came alive and MySpace is dead…
So we’re upgrading our DespairWear for the new year!

Social Networking in 2011 is neither social nor networking. Discuss.

Props to Christian Bale for illustrating the new social order:
Facebook = Narcissism x Stalking
Quora = Narcissism x OCD
Foursquare = Stalking x OCD
…and Twitter is the one ring to rule them all.

    It matters not if you’re a panda or a whale.

    This is the state-of-the-art in social networking right now:

    Facebook forces me to bring all of my friends and interests with me wherever I Connect, like Yoda riding my back telling me what to do, grammarlessly and ceaselessly.

    Twitter has no memory and as a result is useless if I want to have an actual conversation. The community and content have nowhere to continually improve but elsewhere, so Twitter will always exist as exhaust.

    Zynga is the Chuck E. Cheese’s of the Internet: I buy phony currency with real money to play games I won’t care about in a year to earn tickets redeemable for stuff that does not move my life forward or contribute to my genuine happiness.

    Foursquare and Quora combined have fewer than 10 million users. Compared with the size of the Web, that rounds to zero.

    The world can do better.

    The future of social networking is waiting to be invented.

    In Kushinagar the trees lower their blossoms on the Buddha’s death bed.

    His last works at the age of eighty are:

    Carl Sagan once said,

    Somewhere, something incredible
    is waiting to be known.

    Social networking, we’re ready for a change.

    Bring it.


    October 8, 2010

    LOOK is worth getting Showtime for…

    Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , — ifindkarma @ 12:53 am
    I have thought deeply about the future of social media, and right now my thoughts are consumed by a wonderfully inventive new television series that is shaping my perspective.

    This groundbreaking show is called LOOK, and it is awesome. It’s addictive, sexy, social, and stands up well to multiple viewings. In short, it’s a hit.


    LOOK airs Sundays at midnight this fall, starting THIS SUNDAY 10-10-10, so please set your Tivos!! To everyone who asks me I tell them that

    LOOK is definitely worth getting Showtime for!

    The main theme of LOOK is that we are always being watched by surveillance cameras, smartphones, FLIP’s, and webcams.

    In the post-9/11 United States, there are now 40 million surveillance cameras and 160 million camcorders.

    The average American is captured on camera more than 200 times a day, and we really don’t think much about the implications of that…

    Don’t let the creepy Saw vibe of the teaser fool you: this is neither horror nor fantasy. This is a well-written drama in the tradition of Dexter and Weeds, that has some parts comedy, some parts crime / mystery, some parts sex, and like an onion (or an ogre) it has layers that peel back as more is revealed about the characters in each scene. The first episode is good, the second episode is great, and the third episode is exceptional… and it just gets better from there!

    The show has lots of subtle and interesting things happening in the background since all shots are taken from the perspective of a surveillance camera or mobile device. As a result, the interconnected relationships between the many characters unfold over time as in a Robert Altman movie or the film Crash, and although I’ve seen the first four episodes I want to go back and LOOK at them again to see things I didn’t see before. One LOOK is not enough.

    In 37 U.S. states it is legal to have cameras in dressing rooms and toilets. The series regularly showcases characters who aren’t watching when they should, or who are watching when they shouldn’t.

    Mobile devices and social media — such as Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, and especially Facebook — accelerate the spreading of information about us, and the series (like the award winning LOOK movie) always reminds us of this reality without making a judgement call about whether it’s better for security or worse for individual liberties. The more I LOOK, the more I internalize that privacy is an illusion; it is a throwback to the time before Y2K — before ubiquitous Internet and cell phones with cameras.

    I say “especially Facebook” because Facebook’s mission is to “make the world more open and connected” and so despite increasingly improved privacy controls, Facebook’s mission taken to its illogical extreme is still to make us all comfortable sharing as much as possible with as many people as possible.

    Memo to Facebook audience: I LIKE LOOK.

    Memo to Twitter audience: I ❤ LOOK.

    In LOOK a colorful cast of characters cheat, lie, and commit crimes that are all revealed by the winking but watchful eye of the every-camera.

    Warren Buffett once gave me the advice to never do anything I didn’t want to see appear on the front page of the New York Times; LOOK wears this sentiment proudly, and reminds me of an excellent line from The Social Network

    The Internet isn’t written in pencil… it’s written in ink.

    The Internet offers a substrate for the permanence of everything we do. Because cameras are capturing everything, what we do in life echoes in eternity, and thanks to LOOK, everyone can now see that. LOOK is Gladiator-Good.

    LOOK was conceived and c
    reated by
    my hero Adam Rifkin, and it is already a critical success like other Showtime series Dexter and Weeds. It has Emmy-worthy writing, directing, and editing.


    I happen to think it will be a popular success too, because the acting is superb — and I give tremendous, fabulous shout outs to Sharon Hinnendael and Ali Cobrin, two bona fide stars in the making.


    I was so enthused about their performances that I sent them accolades on Facebook, and we had some great discussions. Both Sharon and Ali strike me as down to earth, smart people who are great actresses, too.

    Sharon is a huge fan of Wisconsin and the Packers, and she genuinely appreciates her family’s support in her career.


    Like Sharon, Ali looks like she’s having a great time playing her role in LOOK. She grew up training to be a classical ballerina in Chicago and New York, and it really seems like she misses ballet school. However, the rest of us should be thrilled that she transitioned from ballet to acting so gracefully, because she owes all of that poise and confidence to her years spent in tutus.

    In her free time, Ali is a yoga enthusiast, and she dabbles in arts and crafts as well. She keeps LOOK’s surveillance theme in her Maxim interview with Carlos Nunez, and her photo with Tyler Shields (below) is timeless and cinematic, just like Ali.


    Sharon and Ali’s brilliant performances portray the ethical challenges of being a teenager living in a world where there are cameras everywhere to capture what happens when our own instincts aren’t right.

    Their scenes are compelling to watch and fabulously sexy, but the implications are very serious and quite disturbing:

    It’s no wonder the show is so good, since the people who worked on it are so good. Sharon and Ali lead a very talented ensemble cast, and everyone from Adam Rifkin to producers Brad Wyman and Barry Schuler are humble, hardworking, and very creative. The show took them only 4 weeks to shoot but a year to edit, and that incredible attention to detail pays off as the stories unfold excellently in interconnected fashion.


    On Tuesday, we screened LOOK for the fabulous people working at the Twitter headquarters in San Francisco (including new CEO Dick Costolo!!), and everyone in attendance loved it. Especially the scenes where Twitter and YouTube are themselves ancillary characters that move the story along!

    I give tremendous kudos to Showtime for sponsoring this series, and please consider this vote to have a season 2, 3, and beyond, just like with the very excellent Dexter and Weeds.

    LOOK is a revelation to watch.

    The more we LOOK, the more we see. So LOOK closer!

    Personally, I can’t wait to LOOK again!

    For more analysis, see:


    For more content and conversations, see:



    No exaggeration: LOOK is worth getting Showtime for…
    If you believe it, tweet it!



    Two Adam Rifkin’s give LOOK three thumbs up, and around the world!!!



    August 20, 2010

    Whales and Lobsters: Facebook and Twitter and CASH, oh my!

    It’s been a month since I wrote Pandas and Lobsters, and I’m ready to delve further.

    Specifically, the “social interest graph” — Pages & Likes — is so money, and most people don’t even know it yet. 

    Whales and Lobsters are the foundation of social networks, and Facebook is a machine for turning Whales into CASH. Let’s explore why, and the implications…

    The hype around this week’s launch of Facebook Places is misguided. Facebook Places are not about check-ins; they’re about making millions of new Facebook Pages that are monetizable. Foursquare is a sideshow; Twitter is currently Facebook’s main competition for public, lurkable, searchable, transactable Pages for brands. If someone asks why Facebook wants to be in local Pages, echo the immortal words attributed to bank robber Willie Sutton: “Because that’s where the money is.

    To understand why, we once again zoomorphize the Facebook population:

    Lobsters are individuals with Facebook Profiles. Facebook is a lobster trap and your friends are the bait. A lobster has a ganglia-brain the size of a grasshopper’s, and no attention span, so frankly the most useful thing it can do is get laid. Male lobsters try to mate with almost every other female in the area, which makes male lobsters very annoying. Collectively they are the reason why Facebook has more pageviews than the next 99 biggest websites combined.

    Whales are brands with Facebook Pages. Brands encompass both individuals and businesses. Facebook Profiles are painfully unusable for Whales because in general they have more friends, fans, and followers to interact with than an individual with Facebook’s tools can reasonably manage. If how Facebook makes CASH is the question, whales are the answer. Whales are the lifeblood of Facebook financially: they are the brands who in aggregate pay more than $1 billion annually to Facebook, Inc., to advertise their Facebook Pages and collect more fans for those Pages via billions of daily LIKE buttons.

    Whales and Lobsters are the foundation of social networks, and Facebook is a machine for turning Whales into CASH. Whales create and share publically, and pay actual CASH; Lobsters consume privately, and occasionally LIKE and comment publically, and pay attention (and time). In the best social networks this creates a virtuous cycle: Celebrities and artists interact with fans, while businesses and organizations interact with customers, and social networks allow the Whales to build deeper relationships with their fans and customers. And vice versa. LIKE a palindrome. LIKE, totally.

    A click’s just a click, but a LIKE is a LEAD. Ongoing relationships are the key difference between the mere clicks Google advertisers pay for and the potentially-interactive LIKEs Facebook advertisers pay for. AdWords and AdSense account for 99% of Google’s profit. This is why Google has taken notice (though someone should point out to Google that Like.com has nothing to do with all the billions of daily LIKE buttons they see on the Open Web).

    Facebook has only 3 million Whales — Branded Individual and Business Pages — that collectively represent only 5.3 billion clicks of the LIKE button thus far. Facebook by the Numbers hides this fact behind all the statistics about the 500 million Lobsters: the average Facebook user LIKEs fewer than 10 Facebook Pages (divide 5.3 billion by 500 million). And you have to look very carefully to realize that most of the total 5.3 billion LIKEs were unpaid or forced conversions.

    Since Whales and LIKEs are essential to Facebook’s revenues, the race is on to win the minds and hearts of Whales and the Lobsters who LIKE them. Facebook may look like Winner Takes All presently, but that’s because Twitter hasn’t really entered the market of charging Whales for LIKEs… yet. Now you may ask yourself: how many Whales and LIKEs does Twitter actually have? It’s a good question because Twitter is pretty tight-lipped about these numbers. But I can guess.

    Twitter currently has at least 10 million Whales, and more cu
    stomers are willing to FOLLOW something than LIKE it.
     That’s wild speculation on my part; 10 million comes from Twitter Counter and Twitter’s Lobster count is over 190 million users; with more than 65 million tweets a day, I have no idea how many FOLLOWs the Twitter Whales collectively represent, but anecdotally I know more friends who are willing to FOLLOW things than LIKE things. Facebook gets 20 million LIKEs a day. Whatever the actual number of FOLLOWs a day is, it’s clear from recent WTF features (and their WTF ilk) that Twitter wants to accelerate FOLLOWs sooner rather than later.

    Why are Facebook Places so important? 1.5 million Facebook Pages are local businesses, and Facebook needs more Pages. Since almost every celebrity, artist, and global business already has a Facebook Page, local businesses are pretty much the only way for Facebook to increase its lucrative Whale count. So much for the open versus privacy tradeoff: Facebook Places are Facebook Pages, and Facebook Pages are too money to be private. That Facebook also gets to stomp on Google Places only makes it more delicious, but mark my words: Facebook is fighting Twitter for mindshare with the Whales who pay them CASH.

    Why do Whales LIKE to pay Facebook? FOLLOW the CASH. My friend Winston, a local business owner in Palo Alto, told me recently that he had little faith in Yelp, FourSquare, Groupon, or even Google Places to move the needle on his business. You heard me: 300k groupons can be wrong because no local business is The GapWhat did he think worked? His Facebook Page. Why? Because he could easily see how many users had visited the Page each day, and the age-sex-location of those users.

    Even though Winston received no data about conversion rates and offered no special deals — his Facebook Page, like most, is almost entirely a Placeholder — he zeroed in on the fundamental truth of all brand advertising: that eventually numbers of local eyeballs will convert to local business. The thing that pleased him was simply being able to see the numbers of eyeballs entering the funnel at the top. Facebook’s success is really as simple as being the first business to offer that data visually with such ease of use. Even Foursquare knows that “local businesses love this stuff.

    Now, the early bird gets the worm. The early worm gets… eaten. Is Facebook the annelid in the New Whale Order? Yes, if Twitter can learn enough about what Facebook offers its Whales in exchange for CASH — with the LIKEs and the age-sex-location demographics and the pretty pictures that illustrate funnels. We’re not talking about fixing the unusable mess that is Twitter search or developing the rocket science that is Google Analytics. We’re talking something much simpler and emotionally satisfying than anything Google can provide: Local businesses using the Web to build relationships with their customers. Tweet, and your customers tweet with you; Google, and you Google alone.

    My guess is that Twitter already knows everything I just said, and is quietly employing Lesson #4, Part 3: keep your mouth shut.

    No wonder Twitter is so… quietly nonchalant. Look carefully, and you’ll see in their eyes the kind of calm that comes from knowing something profound that others are only beginning to wrap their heads around…

    July 17, 2010

    Cell 13 and The Thinking Machine.

    To whoever finds this,

    I am writing this on toilet paper from a dungeon that I’m guessing is located in Google’s nether regions.

    The sign on the door says “Cell 13“.

    All I’ve had to eat the past few days were a couple of bamboo shoots and leaves accompanied by a lovingly handwritten note inscribed, “Who’s the master baiter now, Lobster Boy?”

    “Lobster Boy”?! Is my semblance to a panda not obvious??

    How did I get here? Last thing I remember was emailing Pandas and Lobsters to Posterous 96 hours ago, then leaving the SayNow office with my intrepid sidekick Troutgirl. Next thing I knew, I was dragged off the street with a bag over my head as I yelled, “Help me, intrepid sidekick Troutgirl!” She angrily rifled back, “Who are you calling sidekick?! YOU are MY sidekick…” as I got pushed into a van and carried away…

    And now I wonder. Was it my message — that Google applications are for people who want to hit-it-and-quit-it, but social applications are for people who’d rather stay-and-play — that landed me in incarceration? Or did I offend them with style, not substance?

    In any case, here I sit in a dark prison cell. On one wall is Orkut, hanging in shackles.

    Also sitting in the dungeon is the Old Spice Guy, Isaiah Mustafa. I guess that’s how they got him to do all those videos for YouTube this week. If they can get him to make one for every person on Facebook — what’s that, just 500 million more videos? — perhaps they can build a compelling social network out of nothing but sweat, tears, and Old Spice…

    In a comfy chair in the middle of the dungeon, Paul Adams furiously scribbles notes whenever I talk with Orkut or Isaiah. Orkut hasn’t said a thing to me, and frankly I’m intimidated by Isaiah. I offered him some of my bamboo but apparently he won’t eat carbs.

    Paul won’t talk with me directly. He’s shy. I keep telling him to read jwz’s “Groupware Bad” rant but all he does is scribble it down in his notebook. Since he’s writing anyway, I make sure to speak in lots of metaphors and new-age speak, like these words of Stephen Covey: “We are not human beings on a spiritual journey. We are spiritual beings on a human journey.” Whenever I say something like that he looks at me like a side dish he didn’t order.

    Since he’s writing furiously, I try to talk more slowly. “Do you think Google has become much too insular? When muskoxen feel threatened, they face outward in a ring. Google is a circle of yaks, facing inward. Which is understandable, given the $30 billion pile of gold buried beneath the campus, which itself explains why rainbows always end at the Googleplex. No rainbow can compare with the dozen years Google has spent developing The Thinking Machine, which is why Google believes nothing is impossible when you apply Google’s Glorious Hive Mind to it. Not even… social applications!” He raises an eyebrow.

    I go on. “You could ask The Thinking Machine anything in the world. Why is the sky blue? What is the twelfth dimension that Foursquare has somehow magically tapped into? Wtf is a Quora, and why should Google care?? What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything???” He raises the other eyebrow.

    I go on. “I’m guessing you care about social networks because they are drawing the attention of advertisers. Seven years ago Google was processing 200 million searches a day, but now Twitter is processing 800 million searches a day on less money than Google spends on food (and fewer total employees than Google hired last month!). Since April, Facebook has jumped from 100 million mobile users to 150 million mobile users, led by Xoogler Erick Tseng…”

    This finally incents Paul to speak. “You know we put a microchip implant in all Xooglers before they leave so we can track their progress in the wild…” And then he stops himself because he knows that I can do the math that on the Facebook side, Sheryl, Elliott, and Bret & Paul are Xooglers, and on the Twitter side, so are Ev, Biz, Dick, and Jason. I chuckle to myself thinking that Dennis might have hatched his Foursquare scheme while sitting in this very prison cell.

    I goad Paul, “This is good, Paul. Let it out. I know you want the answer to something, so let me anticipate that and tell you that whales are the answer.”

    This is more than he can stand. He screams at me, “You speak only in maddening metaphors!!! Well you’re a prisoner, and WHERE ARE YOUR WEAK LINKS NOW??? And by the way, we’re working on an algorithm to crack your metaphorical codes, so don’t be too smug… We do, after all, have The Thinking Machine.”

    At that moment, who should peer at me from a dark corner that I thought was unoccupied? None other than the very first Facebook friend himself, Mark Zuckerberg.

    “Google wants to be my friend,” says Mark. I give an astonished look to Paul.

    Paul admits, “We actually perfected the Zuckerbot last year. No one inside Facebook actually knows that it’s not the real Mark running their company anymore.”

    That wipes the smile off my face, so I try to reason with Paul to let Mark go. “Look, I know that Google is worried because Facebook is shrinking the good part of the Web. But you’re going about this all wrong. Instead of taking a defensive posture like muskoxen, or trying to make bad Facebook copies like Buzz, you should give up on lobster traps and put your faith in the strengths of the Web itself.

    I don’t think Paul was listening to me because at this point he’s writing furiously… “Google — and everyone else — needs to stop letting Facebook set the terms of social, because social has never actually been about the power of STRONG ties, nor about a FIXED identity. One of the reasons Buzz tweaks people out so badly is that they attached it to the very very most fixed part of your online identity, which is your actual email account. The number of non-Googlers I know who use Buzz rounds to zero.”

    Paul’s hand was cramping but I can’t stop yakking…

    “Paul, I know you’re biased against Facebook. About the anecdote that begins your 200+ slide deck… There’s a woman with some homosexual friends in LA, and she comments on their pictures in the bars they go to together. Meanwhile, she’s teaching 10-year-olds how to swim. And the 10-year-olds somehow have access to her Facebook account. But she doesn’t realize until she’s talking with the anthropologist that the 10-year-olds who shouldn’t be using Facebook can see the comments she made on the pictures of her friends at the gay clubs.


    “Skeptic Geek looks at those 200 slides and concludes, If Google Me were indeed under development, looks like it will be a network designed for close ties — family and close friends — which is how Facebook initially started.


    It is SUCH a misconception that Facebook initially started for family and close friends.


    It started for schoolmates to MEET each other. LITERALLY THE FACE BOOK: 

    • Cute girl or dude in my dorm, who are you?
    • Who has notes to that math class I slept thru?
    • I’m selling a futon on campus, who wants it?
    • I wanna join the college glee club; who else is in it?

    “It was all about people in that magical liminal moment of American life: the first year of college. Where you could change your identity in a summer. Go from Kitty to Karen, trade your MG for a white Chrysler LeBaron….

    “I remember reading something about Soledad O’Brien… She’s from Long Island. Last day of high school, she’s a cheerleader rocking massive feathered hair. By the third day of college, she’s calling herself Soledad and has stick-straight hair and no makeup.

    “When Facebook was cool, it was all about establishing your public identity, without anyone from your past to set it in stone.

    “Now you gotta be the same you whose cheeks were pinched by your aunt when you were 6 and chubby. You gotta haul around all those “friends” from junior high who saw you with zits and glasses, and braces on your teeth. You gotta live with the legacy of your Young Republicans phase or your Social Democrats phase or your French existentialist phase, or your drunk slut phase…”

    I was rolling. “The best Web applications became big because the earliest adopters embraced them passionately. Like Danny DeVito’s penguins-with-bombs in Batman Returns, the earliest adopters are an army of penguins who like to declare, fuck off bear cavalry!




    I continued. “The army-of-penguins love to put a Web application through stress tests, and make sure it’s ready to be spread. One of the differences between a startup and a big company is that a startup has the luxury of being cool at first. NOT having to design for the entire world on day one. Getting to revel in the penguins-with-bombs phase. And then the millionth user phase. And then the 10 millionth user phase. The better Google apps had that kind of rollout… Gmail, Reader. Mind you, Reader has never, ever gotten anyone laid. So you can’t use it as a model. Instead, repeat after me: USER GOOD.”

    I was ready to finish. “Google — and everyone else — needs to stop letting Facebook set the terms of social applications, because social has never actually been about the power of STRONG ties, nor about a FIXED identity. Look to the WEAK TIES. Look to IDENTITIES IN CONTEXT.
    There’s still so much to be done in helping people meet, have conversations, and hook up. You can do it!!! You do, after all, have The Thinking Machine…

    And with that, Paul tidied up his notes and left the dungeon, and I haven’t seen him since. Mark is taking a power nap, Isaiah is getting his beauty rest, and Orkut still hasn’t said anything. So I’m sending out this beacon.

    And so, I tie this note around a rat’s neck so that when it escapes to freedom, it will bring my message to someone who can kiss my Posterous…


    P.S. — Pandas poop 40 times a day, and I’m all out of toilet paper… 

    July 13, 2010

    Pandas and Lobsters: Why Google Cannot Build Social Applications…

    After researching what pandas do all day, I was struck by how panda-like we are when we use the Internet.

    Roaming a massive world wide web of forests, most of our time is spent searching for delicious bamboo and consuming it. 40 times a day we’ll poop something out — an email, a text message, a status update, maybe even a blog post — and then go back to searching-and-consuming.

    For a decade, Google has trained us to optimize our pandic selves:

    The kind of application that Google knows how to make well are the kind that embody a panda’s “eats, shoots, and leaves” model of Internet behavior. Pandas spend every waking hour foraging — aka searching — and consuming. The most successful Google applications serve such a utilitarian mandate, too: they encourage users to search for something, consume, and move onto the next thing. Get in, do your business, get out. Do a Google search, slurp down information, move on. Pull up Google maps or Gmail or Google news, do something, leave. Where Google does not excel is in making applications that are by their nature for lingering and luxuriating — the so-called social applications.

    What’s the main difference between successful Google applications (search, maps, news, email) and a successful social applications? With Google applications we return to the app to do something specific and then go on to something else, whereas great social applications are designed to lure us back and make us never want to leave.

    Consider this example: Google Answers focused on answers and failed; Yahoo! Answers focused on social and succeeded. The primary purpose of a social application is connecting with others, seeing what they’re up to, and maybe even having some small, fun interactions that though not utilitarian are entertaining and help us connect with our own humanity. Google apps are for working and getting things done; social apps are for interacting and having fun.

    Put another way, Google designing social apps is like Microsoft designing iPod packaging.

    Now, consider the Four Horsemen of Hotness in 2010: Facebook, Quora, Foursquare, and Twitter. Think deeply about why none of these four could have been developed inside Google.

    Facebook is a lobster trap and your friends are the bait. On social networks we are all lobsters, and lobsters just wanna have fun. Every time a friend shares a status, a link, a like, a comment, or a photo, Facebook has more bait to lure me back. Facebook is literally filled with master baiters: Whenever I return to Facebook I am barraged with information about many friends, to encourage me to stick around and click around. Every time I react with a like or comment, or put a piece of content in, I’m serving as Facebook bait myself. Facebook keeps our friends as hostages, so although we can check out of Hotel Facebook any time we like, we can never leave. So we linger. And we lurk. And we luxuriate. The illogical extreme of content-as-bait are the Facebook games where the content is virtual bullshit. Social apps are lobster traps; Google apps do not bait users with their friends.

    Quora is restaurant that serves huge quantities of bacn and toast. Quora is a dozen people running dozens of experiments in how to optimally use bacn to get people to return to Quora, and how to use toast to keep them there. Bacn is email you want but not right now, and Quora has 40 flavors of it that you can order. Quora’s main use of Bacn is to sizzle with something delicious (a new answer to a question you follow, a new Facebook friend has been caught in the Quora lobster trap, etc.) to entice you to come back to Quora. Then, once you’re there, the toast starts popping. Quora shifts the content to things you care about and hides things you don’t care about in real-time, and subtly pops up notifications while you’re playing, to entice you to keep sticking around and clicking around. Some toast is so subtle it doesn’t even look like a pop-up notification — it just looks like a link embedded in the page with some breadcrumbs that appear in real-time to take you to some place on Quora it knows you’ll find irresistible. For every user’s action, bacn’s and toast’s fly out to others in search of reactions. (Aside: if I were Twitter, I would be worried. Real-time user interfaces are more addictive than pseudo-real-time interfaces; what if Quora took all of its technology and decided to use it to build a better Twitter?) Social apps are action-reaction interaction loops; Google apps are designed just for action.

    Foursquare exists in a dozen dimensions. That statement is ridiculous on its surface; after all, even String Theory has only 11 dimensions. (Technically, it’s 10 dimensions, beca
    use they start numbering at zero.) Whatever higher-than-the-highest reality Foursquare thinks it’s building, one thing is clear: this company is more about chemistry than physics. Foursquare has studied the works of David A. Kessler, who studied hyper-palatable foods that had various combinations of salts, fats, and sugars that stimulate the diner’s brain to crave more, rather than satisfy their hunger. The more a person uses Foursquare, the more a person wants to use Foursquare: the points are salts, the badges are fats, and sweet sweet mayorships are sugars that we fight over like we’re
     Sneetches. Ok, so Foursquare’s leadership thinks they’re only 10% of the way there — I guess they have 11 other combinations of salts, fats, and sugars to perfect so that all we do all day, every day, is check into Foursquare. Social apps offer a steady diet of junk food to keep us addicted; Google apps offer mostly bamboo.

    Twitter is a giant blue ball machine. Even the New York Times says not enough people understand what the heck Twitter is, for them to be willing to use the word tweet in polite company. But that doesn’t stop lots of people from using Twitter. Perhaps they are enamored by a word that sounds ornithological in nature. I tried to explain it to my brother like this: tweets are little blue balls, and they get bounced around by a giant machine so others can enjoy them. Those people can react by copying the balls (retweets), swinging at the balls (at-replies), or beaning the originator in the head (direct messages). There are also lots of whales on Twitter — celebrity whales to attract us, and fail whales to repel us. As opposed to Facebook, which hates whales because whales distract the lobsters from the traps. At this point, my brother gives me a blank stare and says he’s going back to Facebook. Which goes to show that a social app doesn’t need lobster traps, bacn and toast, or 12 dimensions to be successful; it just needs balls. Social apps are whimsical and fun; Google apps are whittled and functional.

    So why can’t Google build social apps? Because Google’s core values (“be useful”, “do good by users”) reject the very notion of lobster traps, bacn and toast, a dozen dimensions of junk food, and giant blue ball machines. Understanding those concepts is not easy. It takes lots of practice, and lots of patience, and lots of learning.

    2010’s leadership of Facebook, Foursquare, and Twitter struggled for YEARS learning from FriendFeed, Dodgeball, and Odeo, respectively. The main mythical man month mega mantra — “build one to throw away” — isn’t just a clever way to gracefully fail on the first iteration; it’s the way we learn. I believe those collective experiences have given them the humility to know that most things don’t work; the confidence to know that simplicity is more important than features; and the stamina to see their visions through the good, the bad, and the ugly that accompany startups.

    Does Google have the patience to launch social apps that aren’t widely used so they can learn from them? Not Lively.

    Does Google have the ability to launch social apps that aren’t utilitarian? Repeat after me: “A Buzz is a high-frequency Wave.” And neither pandas nor lobsters know what those are, other than wacky experiments gone awry.

    Has Google’s culture-of-facts ever learned from Orkut? Good question for the triumvirate. A humbler panda than me once tweeted:

    So, to summarize: Google is responsible for Orkut, Wave, and Buzz. Ex-Googlers are responsible for Facebook, Foursquare, and Twitter. Discuss.

    Ok, I’ll discuss. I have three main points:
    1. Google cannot hire a Head of Social because no individual can change Google’s DNA of building applications for pandas, not lobsters. Googlers who wanted to develop great social applications had to leave Google to do so.
    2. Google cannot buy Twitter or LinkedIn or Quora (or all three!) because Google’s culture has no respect for successful social applications. YouTube’s office is still far from the Google campus to avoid the toxic attitude described by a former Orkut employee, “[Google has] an environment that viewed social networking as a frivolous form of entertainment rather than a real utility, and I’m pretty sure this viewpoint was shared all the way up the chain of command to the founders.
    3. Google cannot focus group its way to successful social applications. Henry Ford opined, If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.
    And three reasons why Google should be concerned:
    1. Facebook serves 3 billion LIKE buttons a day, serves one-sixth of all U.S. ads, has more traffic than Google or the next 99 sites combined, has 100 million mobile users and five times as many web users, and when it launches a Facebook search engine, it will be the second biggest search engine in the world right out of the gate.
    2. Twitter’s search engine is bigger than Bing and Yahoo combined. Not only is Twitter doing 800 million searches a day, but apparently they’re the fastest growing search engine in the U.S.
    3. Bing actually seems to have a better relationship with Facebook and Twitter, and in addition, Bing has gone out of its way to partner with Amazon as well as Apple and its soon-to-be-100-million iPhone OS devices.
    So… Now would be a good time for a bold move from Google. YouTube is the only social application Google has ever bought that was and remains #1 in its category. What can we learn from that?
    1. Google FAILED going head-to-head against YouTube. Buying YouTube in retrospect was a great idea, and keeping YouTube separate from Google HQ was a great idea.
    2. Google FAILED in acquiring and integrating other social products. Blogger, Picasa, JotSpot, Dodgeball, Jaiku. None are their category leaders now. Some are dead. Why?
    3. Google FAILED to create Google Contacts that are easy to edit and integrated with Facebook and Twitter. Why then should we believe Google can do something simple, entertaining,  and interesting with Google Profiles?
    Google is filled with adrenaline now that Facebook and Twitter are juggernauts in social advertising and searching. Google is ready to fight, but social applications are about loving not fighting. Google is from Mars, and social applications are from Venus. Anyone know someone who can build a rocket ship so Google can ride to the world of social applications?

    My advice for Google’s Trinity is to put on your thinking caps about social apps. Think really carefully about what you need, and why. Look to the glorious words of jwz:

    “Social software” is about making it easy for people to do other things that make them happy: meeting, communicating, and hooking up.

    And for all us lobsters, I just have one thing to say: “Yeah, you’re all gonna be okay.

    July 8, 2010

    Whales are the answer.

    Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , — ifindkarma @ 9:47 pm


    Whales are the power users of any given system. So…

    Whales are the answer to the universe‘s big questions

    Who does Facebook hate? Whales.

    Who does Twitter love? Whales.

    Who knows the best new apps of 2010? Whales.

    What makes social game companies money? Whales.

    Who sang “Hobo Humpin’ Slobo Babe”? Whale.

    What is the biggest animal on planet earth? Blue whales.

    Who are the victims of eco-terrorism? Whales.

    What has stilts and kicks ass? Whales.

    What flies over Afghanistan? Whales.

    What intelligent life exists in the universe? Flying whales.

    What was made for outer space? Space whales.

    What both exists and doesn’t exist? Space whale.

    What can you say when you have nothing to say? Whale.

    “Whale may also be used randomly to create widespread confusion.” You don’t say? 🙂

    June 18, 2010

    Why being a Facebook whale is an EPIC FAIL.

    Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , — ifindkarma @ 6:49 pm

    I love Facebook, but Facebook does not love me. Why? Because I am a Facebook whale. Allow me to explain…

    A whale is someone who’s big.??(In??Ocean’s 13, for example,??the whale owned the air south of Beijing. Social gaming companies love whales.)



    On Facebook a whale is someone with 5000 “friends”, more or less. (A “Facebook friend” is a member of one’s “social graph“, and I traced the origin of the use of the word “whale” to refer to a heavy user of a social network back to??Friendster??in 2003-2004. I’m guessing “Facebook whale” came from former Friendster employee Nick Heyman when he moved to Facebook in 2005. By??2007,??Scoble??and??The Guardian??were talking publically about Facebook whales.)


    So… why does Facebook want to beach its whales?

    In Facebook parlance: it’s complicated.

    Facebook does not allow its whales to have more than 5000 friends. For years Facebook has said??they want whales to have Facebook pages instead, because Facebook pages make them money. (For what it’s worth, I still think Facebook pages are ridiculous.)
    In any given day, a whale will lose several friends due to people quitting Facebook and people “unfriending” them, because Facebook users value “friends” less than a Whopper. Also, Facebook’s databases don’t stay synchronized so as a result if you keep reloading a whale’s page you’ll see different friend counts. This is how whales sometimes slip over 5000 friends occasionally.
    Once a whale hits 5000 “friends”, Facebook won’t let the whale add more friends until the whale loses some friends. Nonetheless, it is straightforward for anyone who so desires to become a Facebook whale. The more ambitious among us can do it??in a week.
    Facebook hates its whales. I’m not sure why. Possible explanations: whales stress Facebook’s technical architecture, whales detract from Facebook’s belief that you should only friend your friends, and whales cost Facebook a lot of money to serve because their demands are greater.

    How do I know Facebook hates its whales? From talking with other whales. Sometimes Facebook randomly??accuses whales of being robots, and sometimes Facebook randomly disables accounts of whales, which is why??the 5000-friend limit causes anxiety??among whales.
    Nonetheless, it is likely??the 5000-friend limit has ripple effects.
    The benefit of being a Facebook whale is that whales always have someone interesting to talk with on Facebook. Since most of Facebook activity is about commenting on walls, links, and photos, the whales get the most serendipity when it comes to receiving feedback.
    The benefit to Facebook from having whales is that most Facebook activity involves a whale initiating, participating in, or spreading conversations on walls, links, and photos.
    However, there are many problems that come with being a Facebook whale. From my extensive use of Facebook on Chrome, Safari, IE, and Firefox, and via text messaging, as well as on iPhone, Android, and iPad, over many years, here are the top ten reasons by being a Facebook whale is an EPIC FAIL:
    10. Facebook does not stop people from sending me requests to be their friend, even though Facebook prevents me from accepting their request to be a friend.??What. The. Fuck???? In this way, the Facebook service embarrasses me many times a day, every day, because I have no good way to tell people that Facebook won’t let me be a friend. Rule number 1 of a social network: do not embarrass your users regularly. FAIL, Facebook, FAIL.
    9. Facebook does not let me “like” Facebook pages anymore because they’ve co-mingled the “social graph” and the “open graph”. So whenever I try to “like” a Facebook page, I get the message that I cannot “like” that thing because I have too many connections. In what social model does the number of “friends” one has limit the number of things one can “like”? Isn’t Facebook incentivized to collect “like” information from me, so they can make money selling me other things I might “like”? In short: Facebook is both hurting themselves because they cannot monetize me as well as they should, and also embarrassing me every day because Facebook forbids me from “liking” the good and good food??and??wonderful art and good food and??good wonderfully artistic food??of my friends! FAIL.
    8. Facebook has no migration path from profiles to pages.??How about a button I can press that automatically turns my Facebook profile into a Facebook page so I can take my friends with me? How about giving me all the functionality in my Facebook page that I enjoy in my Facebook profile? And while I’m ranting about this, let me add that it’s embarrassing to tell people they can’t “friend” me, they can only “like” me. FAIL.
    7. Facebook inbox rarely loads.??Maybe one in 10 times. I have to look in my gmail for Facebook messages, and usually I need to reply by email or text message, not Facebook. FAIL.
    6. Facebook iPhone app rarely loads.??It crashes often, hangs often, and photo uploading fails at least 80% of the time. This is one of the top reasons I ditched my iPhone??for an EVO. FAIL.
    5. Facebook invite widget crashes the browser. Which means I can no longer invite people to any Facebook events I set up. I have tested this with Chrome, Safari, Internet Explorer, and Firefox — on Windows and Mac, on desktops and laptops and iPads. FAIL.
    4. Facebook events page rarely loads and the Facebook requests page rarely loads. As a result, I cannot see events I’m invited to, and I can’t see any requests from friends from applications, and I can’t see the add requests from new people. FAIL.
    3. Facebook’s text message interface regularly delivers responses to the wrong thread or wrong person, and sometimes delivers private messages to public places. Once again this embarrasses the living daylights out of me. Imagine my horror when the text message I sent in response to one status “Work that booty, George!!!” went to a friend who is a woman who is devoutly religious! Not to mention I have to explain to her who George is. Or explain to Catherine why a message to Heather ended up as a response to her thread. “Why are you calling me Heather???” I didn’t; I just texted a response, and Facebook delivered it improperly. Let me repeat that in capital letters. FACEBOOK DOESN’T KNOW HOW TO MAKE A MESSAGING SYSTEM THAT DELIVERS THE MESSAGE TO THE PERSON I INTENDED. IN 2010.??This texting snafu yesterday was a personal disaster: Private messages went public, and public messages went to the wrong people. And so yesterday I gave up. I stopped using the text message interface. And I’m really, really embarrassed by the whole situation, thereby violating rule number 1 of a social network. FAIL.
    2. It is impossible to keep track of the Facebook conversations I’ve participated in. I comment on a wall post, a link, or a photo, and then I have to pray that “Facebook notifications” tells me when someone has responded to it. Really? REALLY?? No. More often than not, the communication gets dropped in mid-conversation. Or I can sign up to get an email for every response. My “facebook” folder in gmail now has 24,000 unread messages in a year. TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND. Would a conversation console that is not just a lossy notifications panel really be a difficult thing to create, Facebook? FAIL.
    1.??Interesting conversations get buried.??If interesting conversations are impossible to keep track of and hard to find, Facebook remains??a superficial annoyance rather than a place for meaningful interactions that deepen the relationships we have with people we care about. And yet, because Facebook likes diluting its streams,??threads always get pushed down to the point where we can’t find them. Try to find a Facebook conversation you had 6 months ago. You can’t. I believe Facebook learned this bad behavior from Twitter, where any??gem??will also get quickly??buried. Searching Facebook for past conversations is like drinking the ipecac martini that is Twitter search. EPIC FAIL.
    I point out these ten items not out of hate, but out of love. I love Facebook, and I want to use Facebook more. I wish Facebook would love its whales, instead of making being a Facebook whale equate with EPIC FAIL.
    This post was humbly written by a panda and a whaleme.
    Will this post make a difference???We’ll see.

    June 14, 2010

    I should invest in a luck factory. I’d make a fortune!

    I got a decent amount of replies for the tweet??…

    Even if you work hard and make wise choices, you still need a little luck. Never forget that.

    …but unfortunately then I tweeted about Google which got retweeted and commented on many times, and all of the replies I got on Twitter got lost in a cacophony of random chirping.

    My lovely little stream of replies and was flooded with a barrage of randomness, and now whatever conversations I might have had on Twitter about the role of luck are gone.

    I could look for those replies, but searching Twitter is like drinking an ipecac martini.

    At least Facebook keeps the thread intact

    Even if you have a little luck, you still need to work hard and make wise choices. Never forget that.

    …but Facebook keeps diluting the stream so that thread keeps getting pushed down. Which is bad luck for me if I want to find that conversation six months from now.

    Hey Facebook, I don’t piss in your swimming pool so stop crapping in my stream!

    Is it bad luck that Twitter and Facebook make it so that we never step in the same stream twice, making it futile to see where we used to be? No, that’s by design. My bad luck in losing a potentially great conversation about luck was intentionally caused by the way Twitter and Facebook design streams. Or, put another way:
    Some things attributed to bad luck are actually the consequence of design.

    …which makes me wonder how many things I call bad luck are actually caused by someone else intentionally. Sometimes I feel like bad luck is the only luck I have. Maybe it’s my perception that’s off. Maybe it’s my attitude that needs adjusting.
    Yeah, I think that luck would make me happy, but would happiness bring me luck?
    Which brings us to the role of attitude in luck.
    If 80% of success is showing up, then how much of luck is a decent attitude?
    In all likelihood, a lot.
    Richard Wiseman says,
    Only about 10% of life is purely random. The remaining 90% is defined by the way we think. Our attitudes produce our luck.

    I read that and think to myself: Still, there’s that remaining 10%, and that’s the part we need EVEN if we work hard and make wise choices.
    Business idea: figure out how to manufacture luck, and make a fortune. Which is where we started:
    I should invest in a luck factory. I’d make a fortune!
    In the meantime, I’m going to make it a habit to hang out with people who are lucky. My father used to tell me that people with good luck are contagious — as are people with bad luck! He would affirm daily:
    Avoid the unlucky, the unethical, and the unhappy.

    So make it a habit to spend time with lucky people… and affirm!!!

    June 8, 2010

    We believe in the interconnectedness of all things.

    “We are feedback loops; we are the stories we tell ourselves…”
    ~ Doc Jensen on LOST  

    “He who wonders discovers that this in itself is wonder…”
    ~ M.C. Escher

    In the beginning, there was nothing but darkness. We all were one.

    And then we said, “Oh haiLet there be light.


    And then we LOOK closer and more carefully. We could see that there was nothing. Which is a funny thing to say because sometimes words are inadequate, and sometimes words have two meanings.

    And then expansion started… Wait!

    And we added things. And the universe expanded. And we added more things. And the universe kept expanding to accommodate adding more things. And everything was awesome. Fundamentally.

    It might seem like everything was added randomly. And perhaps that is the case. But that’s not what we believe.

    We believe in the interconnectedness of all things.

    This idea was kept in the dark for billions of years. Instead, the reigning belief was detachment: “I don’t really want to know how your garden grows, ’cause I just want to fly.” And so, we lived forever…

    …and life was but a dream. Edgar Allan Poe waxed poetic, “All that we see or seem… is but a dream within a dream.” (Thanks Ankita!)

    And we thought about the words of Rumi…

    We come spinning out of nothingness, scattering stars like dust.

    The wound is the place where the Light enters you.

    The face of the unknown, hidden beyond the universe would appear on the mirror of your

    They say there is a doorway from heart to heart, but what is the use of a door when there are no walls?

    Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.

    And the Primitive Radio Gods whispered quietly in the corner…

    Am I alive, or thoughts that drift away?
    Does summer come for everyone?
    Can humans do what prophets say?
    If I die before I learn to speak,
    can money pay for all the days
    I lived awake but half-asleep?

    Suddenly we woke up with a kick. And we were no longer detached when we woke up with the idea. Not to spoil Inception, but merely to praise Inception:

    What’s the most resilient parasite? An idea. A single idea from the human mind can build cities. An idea can transform the world and rewrite all the rules.

    For our idea, Douglas Adams offered enlightenmentSpecifically, Dirk Gently illuminated us.

    I’m very glad you asked me that, Mrs Rawlinson. The term `holistic’ refers to my conviction that what we are concerned with here is the fundamental interconnectedness of all things. I do not concern myself with such petty things as fingerprint powder, telltale pieces of pocket fluff and inane footprints. I see the solution to each problem as being detectable in the pattern and web of the whole. The connections between causes and effects are often much more subtle and complex than we with our rough and ready understanding of the physical world might naturally suppose, Mrs Rawlinson. Let me give you an example. If you go to an acupuncturist with toothache he sticks a needle instead into your thigh. Do you know why he does that, Mrs Rawlinson? No, neither do I, Mrs Rawlinson, but we intend to find out. A pleasure talking to you, Mrs Rawlinson. Goodbye. 
        — Douglas Adams, Dirk Gentley’s Holistic Detective Agency

    And then Tim Berners-Lee — or was it Dan Connolly? — distilled the words to their essence:

    We believe in the interconnectedness of all things.

    And then Jamie Zawinski reflected on the Vannevar Bush-influenced words of Ted Nelson:

    Intertwingularity is not generally acknowledged —
    people keep pretending they can make things deeply hierarchical, categorizable and sequential when they can’t.

    Everything is deeply intertwingled.

    And then the Internet developed its own connective tissue. Which itself is unsearchable.

    And then I couldn’t believe what happened next. Free association. Say what? We’ll see.

    …continuing. LOOKWe didn’t start the fire. America, fuck yeah. Freedom isn’t freeTerrible Disney lessons. The virus of faith2000″ TVYou’re the man now, dawgBlue ball machine. Facebook is a lobster trap, and your friends are the baitTrue happiness comes from within. It comes back to you, you’re gonna get what you deserve… lovin’ is what I got, remember thatThe ride does not require an explanation, just occupants. Imitation of lifeNoah’s photosI’m expressin’ with my full capabilities, now I’m living in correctional facilities. Now let me welcome everybody to the wild wild west… California love… Regulators!!! I want it all: brand new socks and drawers. Why do I live this way? Heeeey, must be the moneyAlright stop, collaborate and listen. How can I find a woman like that? Guitar: impossibleFrench bulldogs. OMG pwnies. Ready, set, bagSpeak with meMeditate. Mediate. Kick. Things that make you go hmmmShow me how to dance. Alejandro. Ra ra ra ah ah ah roma ro ma ma gaga ooh la la. Cameron Diaz dancesStephen Hawking rocks. Time travel is horrifyingOuter space sucksCrumbling cities. Pink housesIconic bras. Mad menAh, l’amourDisney perversionsEpisode 200. And 201. FreedomUnconscious trumps free will. Disney deathsSerial killers. Corporate slogans. At-atCanned unicorn meatWhat if you’re wrong? The purpose of purposeThe empathetic civilizationEmma BatesQualia. Reid HoffmanHegel’s philosophy of history. The unexplainable. Time-traveling brandy thievesLife on Mars. LOST. The Little Prince.

    I love The Little Prince. Whi
    ch reminds me of some of my favorite words that Robbye Bentley has posted recently

    “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.” ~ Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

    “I will love the light for it shows me the way, yet I will endure the darkness because it shows me the stars.” ~ Og Mandino

    “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

    “Life and Jah are one in the same. Jah is the gift of existence. I am in some way eternal, I will never be duplicated. The singularity of every man and woman is Jah’s gift. What we struggle to make of it is our sole gift to Jah. The process of what that struggle becomes, in time, the Truth.” ~ Bob Marley

    “We are not human beings on a spiritual journey. We are spiritual beings on a human journey.” ~ Stephen Covey

    Thank you, Robbye. I have some favorites of my own, too.

    The words of Rumi echo in eternity, “The face of the unknown, hidden beyond the universe would appear on the mirror of your perception.”

    Which takes me full circle…

    Three things in human life are important: The first is to be kind. The second is to be kind. And the third is to be kind.” ~ Henry James

    Truth is, everybody is going to hurt you; you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for” ~ Bob Marley

    I believe that everything happens for a reason. People change so that you can learn to let go, things go wrong so that you appreciate them when they’re right. You believe lies so you eventually learn to trust no one but yourself, and sometimes good things fall apart so better things can fall together.” ~ Marilyn Monroe

    If success or failure of the planet and of human beings depended on how I am and what I do… How would I be? What would I do?” ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

    We are all connected to each other, in a circle, in a hoop that never ends. How high can the sycamore grow? If you cut it down, then you’ll never know…” ~ Colors of the Wind

    And Scott Adams said, “The best you can hope for in this life is that your delusions are benign and your compulsions have utility.”

    So it goes…


    And then a lot of peoples’ brains exploded. Such is rock n roll.

    And then we rested. Or at least, we tried to relax and breathe and reflect

    And appreciate that nothing can ever be truly, fully understood. Seriously.

    Still, three fundamental questions remain:
    1. If everything is everythang, are being and becoming just limited beings’ perspective of the oneness?
    2. If happiness is part of the oneness, why is it so difficult to be here now and connect to that happiness?
    3. If lessons are repeated until they are learned, is learning just finding the right connection to the oneness?

    And are there things we can never learn? We’ll see.

    If some connections cannot be made, perhaps there is no spoon at all.

    If Internet is the substrate for interconnectedness of all things, perhaps The Architect knows.

    And are there things that cannot be taught? Richard Feynman refuses to explain how magnets work. Feynman concludesI really can’t do a good job, any job, of explaining magnetic force in terms of something else you’re more familiar with, because I don’t understand it in terms of anything else you’re more familiar with.

    Breathing is neither learned nor taught. It just is. And yet sometimes we must remember to breathe. And to be here now. And to be grateful for every breath.

    And then when that gratitude gets us reflecting about the meaning of life, we learn to let it go; this too shall pass

    It’s one who won’t be taken, that cannot seem to give, and the soul afraid of dying that never learns to live, sang Bette Midler.

    So it goes.

    Savor every second; enjoy every sandwich, as the dying Warren Zevon put it.

    So it goes.

    You need to live before you die, said Steve Jobs…

    You can’t connect the dots looking forward. You can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have
    to trust in something, your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. Because believing that the dots will connect down the road will give you the confidence to follow your heart, even when it leads you off the well-worn path, and that will make all the difference.

    So it goes…

    It is through death, too, that we make a connection with Randy PauschCon te partiro.

    In the end, there is no greater job than enabling the childhood dreams of others.

    And in the end, everything will be okay. If it’s not okay, it’s not the end.

    And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.

    And in the end, only kindness matters.

    So we dance. And LOOK. And simplify. And reflect. And breathe.

    Which takes us back to the beginning.

    And then… Bazinga!

    May 20, 2010

    Taylor Momsen Revealing Photos, Vajazzling, and Ten More Ridiculous Facebook Pages.

    Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , — ifindkarma @ 12:32 am

    Actually, there are no revealing Taylor Momsen photos here.??That’s just searchbait. People type in things like Taylor Momsen revealing photos into Google or Bing??or Twitter??– or Facebook! — and then get search results that link to Web pages that have, say, titles like “Taylor Momsen Revealing Photos and Ten More Ridiculous Facebook Pages”. It’s an old marketing trick that also serves as the foundation for why Facebook Pages are so valuable to Facebook and should be making people inside Google and Bing nervous about Facebook Pages becoming more authoritative than Wikipedia pages.

    I talk about this in my writeup of my top 10 ridiculous Facebook Pages.

    That writeup is summed up in the question, “Why does Facebook have Facebook Pages?”

    The answer, according to Facebook, is to make money.??
    The answer, according to me, is to entertain us.??
    Backing up my point (and NOT theirs) are ten more ridiculous Facebook Pages:

    I’ve now collected??1001 ridiculous Facebook Pages. But I’m always hungry for more.

    What are your favorites?


    P.S. — I stand corrected when I said no one could possibly like vajazzling at the end of the original post about my top 10 ridiculous Facebook Pages. Apparently 1325 people on Facebook like Vajazzling your Vajayjay.??Sure, that’s only 2% of the number of people who like Taylor Momsen, but it still makes you wonder about the youth of today. Oh, the humanity!

    May 17, 2010

    Top 10 Ridiculous Facebook Pages.

    Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — ifindkarma @ 10:53 pm
    I was in the middle of the shop rands wants when I stopped to do a Google search.
    And I was shocked and amused when I realized that having a damn good time??and being awesome??show up in Google search results as Facebook pages.
    Clearly Facebook will not be happy until they own a page for every single thing someone might type into a search engine. This would be akin to the Collect Underpants??mantra, otherwise known as Phase 1. Phase 2 is??getting all Facebook page owners to pay??to drive traffic to their Facebook pages. Phase 3: Profit!!!
    Orli Yakuel showed us how to make engagingly awesome Facebook pages. Even if you can’t change the title of a Facebook Page after you create it.
    And even if Facebook removes admin privileges of successful pages that aren’t businesses because they can’t afford to pay for ads.
    With pages, Facebook was well on its way to world domination…
    And they would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for those pesky Facebook users collectively making oodles of ridiculous Facebook Pages??anyway, thereby diluting the meaning of LIKE on Facebook. For example,??Fucking Shit Up??(amazingly) has 16k likers and Fucking, Austria??has 20k likers. And those are just two examples.
    To make matters worse, Facebook got greedy and created a whole bunch of pages where there were none. What, the user pages weren’t ridiculous enough for them? As Facebook users fall victim to LIKE fatigue, it could destroy the whole system. Collect Underpants??is only liked by two people and??the Holy Carp??is only liked by a single person. When phrases that useful can’t attract the attention of more??likeaholics??without someone having to pay for ads, it makes me wonder if Facebook users already have LIKE fatigue. Or maybe their LIKE fingers are arthritic, and we’ll have to find ourselves a latter-day E.T. to heal us all.

    Facebook pages are redonkulous.??And I want more, more, more!


    So I’m taking a moment to promote my ten favorite ridiculous Facebook Pages:
    10.??Can you tell your breasts to stop staring at my eyes???(32k likers)
    9.??Is it just me or does Oscar the Grouch look like a big pile of weed???(40k likers)
    8.??Unicorns are real; they’re just fat and gray and we call them rhinos.??(492k likers)??
    7.??Maybe its Maybelline. Maybe its Photoshop.??(590k likers)
    6. I never realized that after Monday and Tuesday, the calendar says W-T-F.??(840k likers)
    5.??Anne Frank would be so pissed if she knew everyone read her diary.??(1.1 million likers)
    4.??Meowing back at a cat when it meows at you.??(1.3 million likers)
    3.??Mom, mom, mommy, ma, mom, mom, ma, ma, mommy, mommy… WHAT!!… hi!
    (5.6 million likers)
    2.??I don’t care about your farm or your fish or your park or your mafia.??(6 million likers, which actually seems small)
    1. Hi, my name is Adam Rifkin, and I am a likeaholic.
    I’ve actually collected 1000 ridiculous Facebook Pages. But I’m always hungry for more.

    What are your favorites?


    P.S. — No one likes Vajazzling on Facebook, right?

    May 10, 2010

    Facebook’s Eroding Privacy Policy. What Privacy?

    Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — ifindkarma @ 5:13 pm

    Rohit Khare at TechCrunch kicked off the weekend discussing the Facebook Disconnect: “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

    Kurt Opsahl of EFF and Matt McKeon of IBM explain Facebook’s eroding privacy policy.

    And it’s getting worse.??There is much to??freak out??about. Seriously.??We got Zucked.

    Adam Mathes said it best: “Facebook has slowly but surely changed from a tool designed to limit access to yourself and share personal data with a small set of people based on common group affiliations (colleges and companies) to a confusing set of technologies that take data about you and share it publicly. And with companies. Without you knowing.”


    Older Posts »

    Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.