Comments on: Twitter vs. Facebook: fad vs. need? http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2009/04/03/twitter-vs-facebook-fad-vs-need/ EBB is the ebiquity research group\\\'s blog at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC). We focus on technologies that facilitate the design, implementation and control of distributed, intelligent information systems -- mobile and pervasive computing, ad hoc networking, multiagent systems, knowledge representation and reasoning, and the semantic web. As the tides of technology ebb and flow, we hope the good ideas wash up on our beach and the bad ones drift back out to sea. Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:39:45 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: matt http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2009/04/03/twitter-vs-facebook-fad-vs-need/comment-page-1/#comment-30921 matt Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:30:56 +0000 http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/?p=1817#comment-30921 However nobody gives a crap what normal people Twitter. Celebrities are the only people that can make use of Twitter. 70% of Tweets are useless babble it was shown in a recent research study. Nobody cares when you wake up and pour a bowl of cereal. However nobody gives a crap what normal people Twitter. Celebrities are the only people that can make use of Twitter. 70% of Tweets are useless babble it was shown in a recent research study. Nobody cares when you wake up and pour a bowl of cereal.

]]> By: Chris Diehl http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2009/04/03/twitter-vs-facebook-fad-vs-need/comment-page-1/#comment-29137 Chris Diehl Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:13:24 +0000 http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/?p=1817#comment-29137 Twitter and Facebook are different in one important and fundamental respect. The power of Twitter comes from exposing your tweets to the entire world. That is the norm on Twitter, not the exception as in Facebook. That openness allows you to build new weak ties with others around the world that may be difficult to impossible to foster offline. If exercised appropriately, Twitter provides a significant value proposition that Facebook simply cannot provide. As you express your identity on Twitter through a history of tweets, relevant relationship discovery begins to happen for free as others who are searching find and follow you. I experience it routinely firsthand and it is fantastic. This is no fad for me. Twitter yields real value for me each day. Twitter and Facebook are different in one important and fundamental respect. The power of Twitter comes from exposing your tweets to the entire world. That is the norm on Twitter, not the exception as in Facebook. That openness allows you to build new weak ties with others around the world that may be difficult to impossible to foster offline. If exercised appropriately, Twitter provides a significant value proposition that Facebook simply cannot provide. As you express your identity on Twitter through a history of tweets, relevant relationship discovery begins to happen for free as others who are searching find and follow you. I experience it routinely firsthand and it is fantastic. This is no fad for me. Twitter yields real value for me each day.

]]> By: RHH http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2009/04/03/twitter-vs-facebook-fad-vs-need/comment-page-1/#comment-29012 RHH Sat, 04 Apr 2009 22:09:40 +0000 http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/?p=1817#comment-29012 According to CW, we should expect Twitter, having received so much media attention, to now face a backlash. Prophecy coming true? http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_6_stages_of_twitter_media_coverage_hell According to CW, we should expect Twitter, having received so much media attention, to now face a backlash. Prophecy coming true?

http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_6_stages_of_twitter_media_coverage_hell

]]> By: Seinberg http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2009/04/03/twitter-vs-facebook-fad-vs-need/comment-page-1/#comment-28999 Seinberg Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:10:44 +0000 http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/?p=1817#comment-28999 It seems to me that both Facebook <em>and</em> Twitter are fads. Friendster was the first big social networking site, then it was MySpace, and now it's Facebook. MySpace is considered the "ghetto" social networking site now, and nobody even talks about Friendster anymore. After Facebook's terms of service fiasco they could have easily lost their momentum to another competing site. Eventually Facebook probably <em>will</em> lose its popularity if for no other reason than because it's not the new, hot, hip thing. That's exactly what happened when everyone left MySpace for Facebook. These kinds of sites are all about instant gratification, socializing, showing everyone else what you're doing and seeing what others are doing, etc. If part of being hip is to move to another site (I'm not kidding) and that idea starts to catch on, people do it in droves. Then the rest of us who are left behind on a dead social networking site eventually move over too because nobody else is on MySpace (or Facebook?) anymore :-) It seems to me that both Facebook and Twitter are fads. Friendster was the first big social networking site, then it was MySpace, and now it’s Facebook. MySpace is considered the “ghetto” social networking site now, and nobody even talks about Friendster anymore. After Facebook’s terms of service fiasco they could have easily lost their momentum to another competing site.

Eventually Facebook probably will lose its popularity if for no other reason than because it’s not the new, hot, hip thing. That’s exactly what happened when everyone left MySpace for Facebook. These kinds of sites are all about instant gratification, socializing, showing everyone else what you’re doing and seeing what others are doing, etc. If part of being hip is to move to another site (I’m not kidding) and that idea starts to catch on, people do it in droves. Then the rest of us who are left behind on a dead social networking site eventually move over too because nobody else is on MySpace (or Facebook?) anymore :-)

]]>