How Mark Zuckerberg Fooled ‘60 Minutes’(paidcontent.org)
paidcontent.org
How Mark Zuckerberg Fooled ‘60 Minutes’
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-how-mark-zuckerberg-fooled-60-minutes/
28 comments
I made sure to watch this interview and its being discussed energetically on Hacker News, so if Zuckerberg fooled 60 minute he's fooled everyone else too. I found the interview extremely interesting - Facebook is becoming a gargantuan and Zuckerberg is on the level of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates now. I know that they got their share of interviews done on their terms in their heydays.
> and Zuckerberg is on the level of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates now
He really isn't. Jobs and Gates brought PC's to the masses, nothing Zuck has done is on that level, not even close.
He really isn't. Jobs and Gates brought PC's to the masses, nothing Zuck has done is on that level, not even close.
Zuckerberg brought the use of profile-based websites into the mainstream for hundreds of millions of people. It's a massive shift in communications.
It's not that massive. So you can send short messages to your friends that your other friends can also see. Cool, but, not exactly a rival to the birth of personal computing.
People know more about the lives of their friends and family than they ever have before, and with far less effort. Facebook has dramatically strengthened weak social ties, and judging by the existence of cities, social ties are fairly important to our societies. The company has had significant and meaningful effects on the world, and we're only beginning to understand them.
People know more about the lives of their friends and
family than they ever have before
There's a ton of stuff that goes on in our lives that don't merit notifying everyone about directly, but might merit posting a status or picture to Facebook. It reduces the friction involved in sharing information. I don't think I ever would've seen as many pictures of the random events in the lives of my family and friends without Facebook. That's valuable to me. I also have a much better idea of the interests of acquaintances and people I haven't seen in a while since the links they share shed some light on that.
Of course more direct communication still happens outside of Facebook. I think that "random nonsense" is more valuable to people that you're assuming. Presumably, people wouldn't use Facebook if they didn't find it valuable.
Of course more direct communication still happens outside of Facebook. I think that "random nonsense" is more valuable to people that you're assuming. Presumably, people wouldn't use Facebook if they didn't find it valuable.
I don't think I ever would've seen as many pictures of
the random events in the lives of my family and friends
without Facebook
I think that "random nonsense" is more valuable to
people that you're assuming
Photo sharing isn't new, but tagging people in photos is, as is being able to effortlessly access anyone's photos without having to figure out where they are and find some link in an old email or something along those lines. I'm not arguing that Facebook has been particularly innovative, though they have been in some cases. My argument is that their product has changed the way people interact with each other, and that's easy to see.
Eh, at least in my personal experience, Facebook hasn't been that big of a deal to me. And I suspect it's the same for lots of its casual users (which I further suspect make up most of its userbase).
Yes, you are right, in terms of "one-way" communication (status updates etc), it lets you keep tabs on your friends more easily. But that sort of status-updating functionality wasn't even in there (or at least emphasized) until Twitter came along. So give them some credit. And even then, I think you overestimate just how much people share on Facebook. I've noticed that some (like 10-15%) of my fb friends constantly post updates, pictures, etc., while the others (while still maintaining a "presence" on the site) just don't. And for the purposes of this post, I actually went and checked a few friends' profiles to be sure it wasn't just that I was only seeing a select few on my feed, heh. (I'm one of the ones who don't share much, and these days I don't even check Facebook much actually.)
In terms of two-way communication, it's only real innovation was to allow others to follow along with the conversation. Which is a pretty big deal, of course--allowing others to join in on digital conversations is a big boon. But that's really it... the rest of its functionality isn't as big of a deal and frankly was scraped from other sites anyway (even being able to follow a conversation on a profile based website was an idea from Myspace actually).
That's my take anyway. I've been on Facebook since 2006 (well, on and off--deleted my profile for about a year then made a new one a few months ago), and honestly it really hasn't been a part of my life nearly to the extent that computers and all the other services they provide have been. And for what its worth, I'm a pretty social, outgoing person, so my viewpoint shouldn't be slanted by introversion.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling post.
EDIT: I should add (as danieldon noted) that events are a genuinely useful feature that Facebook had before any other site (to my knowledge). I give them credit for that. Anything else is pretty much fluff though, and while I understand the idea that even vacuous communication should lead to greater trust and social bonds in the real world, I disagree that that actually happens in practice.
Yes, you are right, in terms of "one-way" communication (status updates etc), it lets you keep tabs on your friends more easily. But that sort of status-updating functionality wasn't even in there (or at least emphasized) until Twitter came along. So give them some credit. And even then, I think you overestimate just how much people share on Facebook. I've noticed that some (like 10-15%) of my fb friends constantly post updates, pictures, etc., while the others (while still maintaining a "presence" on the site) just don't. And for the purposes of this post, I actually went and checked a few friends' profiles to be sure it wasn't just that I was only seeing a select few on my feed, heh. (I'm one of the ones who don't share much, and these days I don't even check Facebook much actually.)
In terms of two-way communication, it's only real innovation was to allow others to follow along with the conversation. Which is a pretty big deal, of course--allowing others to join in on digital conversations is a big boon. But that's really it... the rest of its functionality isn't as big of a deal and frankly was scraped from other sites anyway (even being able to follow a conversation on a profile based website was an idea from Myspace actually).
That's my take anyway. I've been on Facebook since 2006 (well, on and off--deleted my profile for about a year then made a new one a few months ago), and honestly it really hasn't been a part of my life nearly to the extent that computers and all the other services they provide have been. And for what its worth, I'm a pretty social, outgoing person, so my viewpoint shouldn't be slanted by introversion.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling post.
EDIT: I should add (as danieldon noted) that events are a genuinely useful feature that Facebook had before any other site (to my knowledge). I give them credit for that. Anything else is pretty much fluff though, and while I understand the idea that even vacuous communication should lead to greater trust and social bonds in the real world, I disagree that that actually happens in practice.
[deleted]
The value of facebook to a person varies dramatically based on whether that person's friends and family would previously overcome the trivial inconvenience[1] of communicating with them in pre-facebook ways.
[1] lesswrong.com/lw/f1/beware_trivial_inconveniences/
[1] lesswrong.com/lw/f1/beware_trivial_inconveniences/
[deleted]
In the eyes of a lot of non tech-savvy people (like my parents, or lots of facebook users), Zuckenberg (or the guy who invented Facebook) is more known than Jobs (the guy who [co-]invented Apple). Despite how those actions weight.
Popularity does not equal impact. Jobs and Gates changed the world in a massive way, and brought something new to it; Facebook didn't, people had access to similar sites long before Facebook. If Facebook disappeared tomorrow, the world would chug on and barely miss a beat; if personal computers disappeared tomorrow, the world would collapse.
But he's aiming for something on that level: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/57933bb8-fcd9-11df-ae2d-00144feab4...
"60 Minutes overplayed a purely cosmetic change"
It's a purely cosmetic change that affects half a billion people. Does every web startup deserve news coverage when they redesign? No. Does facebook? Yup. The impact is larger. Pretty simple.
It's a purely cosmetic change that affects half a billion people. Does every web startup deserve news coverage when they redesign? No. Does facebook? Yup. The impact is larger. Pretty simple.
Does GreenPeace, the Red Cross, the Peace Corps, the US Government, the United Nations, get a 60 minutes interview when they redo their page?
If you could prove to me that hundreds of millions of people interacted either any of those web sites (or even all of those websites) in a meaningful way on a regular basis, I would buy your argument.
Facebook has done a lot of redesigns, this is just a redesign that acts as a suitably rich metaphor for highlighting what the "new social web" is all about, or at least what part of the "new social web" is about at a level with which people can follow along.
Facebook has done a lot of redesigns, this is just a redesign that acts as a suitably rich metaphor for highlighting what the "new social web" is all about, or at least what part of the "new social web" is about at a level with which people can follow along.
to get covered by TV you don't just have to be a big organization, you have to have a story.
as another commenter said,
"this is just a redesign that acts as a suitably rich metaphor for highlighting what the "new social web" is all about"
that creates a narrative that 60-minutes can get behind and milk, for eyeballs, fun and profit.
if the Red Cross poured millions of dollars into an entirely new online strategy that had a strong TV-friendly narrative ("the future of donations is social" or what have you), I'm sure they would be attractive to 60-minutes too. That's only part of the equation though, you need a hot PR team in place who can reach out to major channels like this and pitch the story right. You don't get on TV just by existing.
as another commenter said,
"this is just a redesign that acts as a suitably rich metaphor for highlighting what the "new social web" is all about"
that creates a narrative that 60-minutes can get behind and milk, for eyeballs, fun and profit.
if the Red Cross poured millions of dollars into an entirely new online strategy that had a strong TV-friendly narrative ("the future of donations is social" or what have you), I'm sure they would be attractive to 60-minutes too. That's only part of the equation though, you need a hot PR team in place who can reach out to major channels like this and pitch the story right. You don't get on TV just by existing.
Completely ignores fookyong's point. Do any of the sites you mentioned have 250+ million people using it every day?
Well, I don't know about the others, but the US President can preempt any prime time program on every major network whenever he wants. That seems quite a bit more powerful than a 60 minutes interview.
> Does facebook?
No.
No.
This is a good article.
It doesn't take very much to fool 60 Minutes these days, actually. They ceded the crown of investigative journalism to bloggers long ago for better or for worse, and their demographic is rapidly aging to the point where virtually every commercial is for a prescription drug that would only be appropriate for those over sixty. This was an interview meant primarily to encourage younger viewership, but otherwise for the elderly, meaning those who probably don't use Facebook but have heard their children or grandchildren talk about it. It showed.
It doesn't take very much to fool 60 Minutes these days, actually. They ceded the crown of investigative journalism to bloggers long ago for better or for worse, and their demographic is rapidly aging to the point where virtually every commercial is for a prescription drug that would only be appropriate for those over sixty. This was an interview meant primarily to encourage younger viewership, but otherwise for the elderly, meaning those who probably don't use Facebook but have heard their children or grandchildren talk about it. It showed.
The real tv journalism gets done by PBS's Frontline.
The real question is whether the Winklevi fooled anyone.
Why is that the real question?