Facebook, Why Can’t You Be More Like Google + ? (Part II)

So, I commented on my first TechCrunch article. True, it’s kind of a  nerdy thing to, but since I spend much of time doing blog commenting as a way to publicize other people’s brands, I wanted to try it out for myself. Plus, having majored in Philosophy, when I hear a bad argument, it’s like hearing nails on a blackboard.

I had to comment on the TechCrunch article because the author had made this very not-logical argument and devised an extremely melodramatic conclusion: Digg Data Reveals What We Read But Are Too Scared or Embarrassed to Share.

To sum it up, he claims that people share different things on Facebook than they read on Digg because they are “embarrassed” to share their true selves and interests with their friends.

I disagreed:

Isn’t it possible that people don’t post things to Facebook because they don’t think their friends will care? Technically, it IS a social platform where you communicate with others, not just announce things you like. This article reveals the author’s perception of what Facebook’s purpose is, but I think to draw the conclusion asserted in the headline, you’d need to examine that further?”

Now, far be it for me to say anything bad about this guy, because he’s extremely qualified and writes good articles all the time. (Whereas I blog inconsistently, and nobody wants me to work at TechCrunch.)

However, I noticed later that the author had added this postscript:

[Postscript: Yes, maybe people don’t share niche content because they think it will bore most of their friends. But what really bores me is the softball, middle of the road content I can find anywhere. Expose me to your niche, show me why you love it, and I might just geek out with you.]

Hmm, sharing niche interests and geeking out in small groups over personal things. Wait…when you say “niche” do you mean…. circle?

Ironically, what this whole thing illustrates is that Facebook simply doesn’t inspire the kind of intimacy and niche sharing the author thinks it should. I think his postscript was very sweet and idealistic, but there are some things that just aren’t interesting to other people and don’t need to be shared with 300-1500 people. Maybe the problem isn’t that people are embarrassed about their interests, maybe the problem is that the Facebook really isn’t the right place to share certain things. (Although with the introduction of the timeline, it’s certainly trying to be.)

Sounds like another small win for Google +, to me. Now if only they could get anyone to start using it…


2 thoughts on “Facebook, Why Can’t You Be More Like Google + ? (Part II)

  1. “Facebook simply doesn't illicit the kind of intimacy”. Perhaps we need more illicit intimacy on Facebook?

    But seriously:

    I see a lot more sharing on FB than I do on G+. All of my social media savvy friends (and there are a lot of them) have G+ accounts but there is almost no sharing going on.

    Most of the sharing I see going on in FB is in secret and closed groups – sub communities within a common interest – where the people who write articles on stuff like this can't see it happening. Put another way: you don't see niche content on FB because it is hiding in secret groups.

    As far as G+ as a social network goes… until my fans can post content on my business page for all fans to see, I can't consider G+ to be a social network.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s