^^^^^
CB: You mean like everything has a beginning,middle and end ?
^^^^^^
>
> In other words, it often has little to do with the bad moral behavior of
> individuals (not that you said this) or the lack of will power on the part
> of list members to devote time to the list or even that, per se, the
> technology is antiquated and old.
>
> What you are seeing is not about old technology but the systematic
> manipulation of our behavior. If these principles weren't being
> systematically deployed in order to stave off what was, historically, the
> typical lifecycle of interactive social media, then you would probably see
> the same thing happening elsewhere.
>
> In the cases of facebook and twitter, not only do they use methods to make
> people feel stimulated, addicted, and - for about 25% - depressively
> attached to the interaction, they also tie it to people daily lives by
> attaching obsessive behavior on social media with people's careers and/or
> the success of organizations to which they are affiliated. If you want to
> affiliate with people way out of your league, who'd never pay attention to
> you otherwise, hit Twitter. That's what you read in all the guides to social
> media. They dangle it out there like it's the new Horatio Alger story.
> "Look! You never know! You could become famous, get a job, hit the lecture
> circus, land a gig! Who knows?! it's worth a shot and you get to talk to
> important people!"
CB: Celebrity fans ?
^^^^^^
>
> One pamphlet published by marketing firm even goes so far as to delve into
> the research they've done on how publicly attacking people and entities can
> be used to your career and business advantage. Though, of course, they
> present all this in the guise of "science." The idea is that Twitter - with
> it's easy to convey @ identities which are great for marketing - Follow me
> at @... -- is an essential marketing tool, and probably the one with the
> most sophisticated methods for converting the psychology of addition to the
> business rules that guide their software development.
>
> Meanwhile, Facebook's Zuckerberg wants to make it has famously insisted that
> he wants Facebook to be a utility. Not a software utility alone. Rather, a
> utility like the cable or power company. Something with which you'd no more
> live your life without these than you'd go without water to live. This is
> why he hired Sheryl Sandberg - went after her hard, in fact - because she
> had political experience and ties to help him negotiate the regulatory
> waters.
CB: facebook is used as a political action network , too
>
>
>
> At 08:18 PM 12/14/2013, John Gulick wrote:
>>
>> >It's because they are carrying over conversations on facebook and twitter
>> and forgetting that not everyone subscribes.
>>
>> Au contraire. I started the thread. I haven't been on Facebook (save for a
>> few minutes) since August, and I've never ever been on Twitter. In fact one
>> reason I started the thread is because I'm not on social media. Anyway, to
>> the degree there's any activity on the list, much of the commentary is meta,
>> and I'll let that speak for itself.
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> --
> http://cleandraws.com
> Wear Clean Draws
> ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk