Whether or not social networking platforms themselves having aged, leaves one with the sense that there is less to be had or desired, I am not certain. The problem one might suspect is that having spoken, if it were by nature of profanity, redundancy, or least given by way of the tactful enterprise of conversation where having spoken enough leads where one might imagine things were going, I wonder if in the future the idea of social networking should be in decline or be headed right out the door for many. Celebrities, for instance, in recent years have been chased off of Twitter, apparently the less than civil bacchante do so much the chasing here leading much to outcomes, or that any given hemisphere need at least no more than the collusion of one or handful to lay ruin to the notion that a world should be so welcoming and inviting. For a long time, I never really considered much of the hype of Twitter notable at least in so far as active usage, and then up until recently it seems the challenge of producing truncated messages having articulated something should give enough reason for a possibility that another mode of communication were worth the effort. At least, up until now, I've clearly violated all such rules if this were ever worthy of a tweet, and I'd be forced to put up a shorter synopsis, "What is the future of Social Networking?" If it were that old stale and stagnant networks seemed to reflect a new direction of the revolving door, one might have noticed, for instance, something of automation by which the nature of followers were steadily rotating in the same manner...here 'follow' bait were given by someone having put up a generally fake automated channel, in order to bait you into following for a short while whereby the other account holder drops your account, neither so much desiring to hear your version of things. If these sorts of accounts weren't directly brokered by bots, it seems by anecdote alone, that the follower actually weren't bothered by the fact that you had tweeted or hadn't tweeted, but merely in the observation of time and account activity seemed to observe you in a different way. Here data mining, for instance, recovered that you spoke, or re tweeted something about 'space' generically speaking, and then some account operator connects you to that account, one should imagine, advertising, or that one might have scoped out a message for the timeliness given, but the problem here were that you weren't either a business, corporation, or so much of a bot, looking to segregate your world into so much the precision of product commodities that I were talking about 'space' and only 'space' related stuff, but I happened to be an at times 'activist' or at times quite polemical in nature. Then you are recalling the recent social networking don'ts here, which were to mean contrary to the at times natural order of humanity, having any opinion in so far as politics, or if being something of an antagonist on these matters, it were better served belonging to one wing relative the other. The door revolves, and any frequency in social networking usage, while potentially changing an audience landscape seems nothing short of reflecting something that weren't really socializing at all, but given to appearances, one might wonder. If statistics weren't also reflecting this, it seems there could be something artificial by the natural construct of such social world, obviously, it seems those who, for instance, started given twitter advertising notice were very much those engaged in high publicity advertising to begin with. Media moguls, movie stars, pop stars, or likely those with any given prioritization in so far as marketing inclinations in giving forth product commodity, and herein that product were so much given to its particular allotment, a lot of twitter it seems is neither a self reflection given by individuals one should wonder at times, but by those interested in branding, and given to highly repetitive tickers repeating one advertisement after another, and even where condensed language, potentially owing to some cleverness more often rarer. If it weren't only that the so called 'working' of twitter were given much not only to its own commercialism, it were also amateurish and self promotion to much of the same pulp tweet narrative.
I've followed more than half of, for instance, science and technology tweets, and had found myself skipping over a vast majority of anything related, and similarly offering the same for other subject matter. Perhaps, the average individual could provide something beyond the stale repetition of re tweeting other subject matter and having some self comments here, but usually one should imagine this were much time consuming to any daily lives in so far as personal take on things. Generally most of this social network could be left with those actually twittering in natural language, and at times rarely this would include the sort that hadn't so much the patience for spell corrections, and especially having done this when constrained to a smart phone for communicating which in my opinion absolutely stinks for efficiency in typeset language communicating as it turns out the QWERTY board would have more efficient counterparts, but natural button stroking with given two hand posture typified by a reserved space, is likely not to be completely replaced in so far as efficient communications productivity, or in generally compared to natural comfort using such a keyboard relative to a single hand cramped device given by the often hunt and peck procedures used. Supposedly radio interviewed research scientist on the subject matter likened this cutely to 'twitter' based language (i.e., in creating new words that included numeric phonemes for multiple characters replacement, or acronyms for instance), but one should wonder how far this communication set likely would extend beyond artificial promotions here. The inclination at least with a couple hundred follows were given likely to much daily tweet activity, and likely some 90 percent or more I'd likely never read, or merely skim over, adding to this, not only likely that I might have done the same with google +. Albeit maybe more likely if having come from more personally known acquaintances.
Google + seems sedate in comparison to twitter on the matter of follower rotations here, and the vast majority of those doing the following seem to set up nothing more than 'bot' type accounts, or generally 'fake' accounts that seem to point to some interest or past time, but really have tweet advertising pointers that direct one off to a site that has little to no content, or merely is another site link redirect yet again. While some might claim to be an interest site, its also harder to characterize this as legitimate, if not having been more so in line with engaging in more subtle forms of social harassment. On the other google + may not be as advantageous, for such crowds, at least given that one can control following/follower broadcast information which means that little advantage might be provided for someone potentially engaged in such behavior. While twitter, for instance, does allow for account blocking, it is another formal step, that could be better nuanced in my opinion, or at least like Facebook back in its day if such is still not the case, user controls in certain ways may not be as best considered in so far as providing user customization of public interactivity. It seems that while some social networking platforms may be better slated in terms of handling better user customization to social interactivity, while traffic may be slower, on the other hand, this might also might have some correspondence between the statistics of legitimate versus less legitimate users (or those users that are entirely bots). This is not to say that by far, Facebook weren't ranking heavily for any usage base of actual humans using the service, or those at least using that weren't given to some sort of 'trolling', data mining purpose, social harassment, or any other socially malicious type purpose, but I wonder if there aren't disproportionately much higher levels given on some of these platforms?
Recently a personal discussion on the matter of social networking, considered that much of the inherent problems of Facebook related so much to the lack of being able to privatize a message, or constrain messaging to given groups of individuals, as opposed to availing this to a much broader audience and/or having little say or control, and instead, as I have at times outright complaints by others, letting Facebook's smart social communication algorithms decides who does or doesn't receive a given message which seemed to be suggested occurring informally. Obviously, for instance, social networking platforms, if one had an ear for conspiracy theories here, might have some vested interests in not letting too much certain broadcast dominance in so far as messaging, if it were likely to turn off more so a given user base, or it seems weighing the positives for negatives, restraining publications in terms of outreach could be advantageous for those likely better receiving a message. As it turns Facebook, in so many words, admitted at times to mood manipulation experimentation likely one should imagine for this sort of purpose. Although I'd refrain in laying at the sole doorstep of Facebook alone.
Its not that I consider social networking something that were entirely a failure in terms of meeting new people, making new friends, and so forth, its just that it at times, has turned into something of the extended family which might have made the next prospective family reunion a little less desirable. At least if not given for the differences that one supposedly had no inkling of in terms of things like social politics, its that the voices at times could be much the same in the same old fire brand ways of repeating things. I'd offer to my own self benefit (yes a bit personally self serving), that I have much less the voice given here, at least if one were irritated at times, I am actually much more personally reserved in person on any number of things in life, or at least writing for me is a way of setting some things aside, but especially in doing so amid much silence. Secondly, the extended family, seems to know a little more about you in knowing who you relate to or don't relate to...one hopes here that voyeurism has taken a turn for the better, for instance, lightening up this view that, 'Well that friend of yours is really a character!' But mostly I am afraid, that hearing in so many words, that social networking seems to be a place to engage in publicly shaming others, or by what given artificial nature that one were supposed to be given in projecting how similar oneself were relative to others, it seems also that some employers and college campuses might even expect others to participate and interact on social networking services in general. At least giving the world a psychological profile sense of what one were like...how articulate? How well educated? Too much of an activist? Too outspoken? Too much of an inebriate? Too little common sense? Here I sense in the future the seeds for a new counter culture potentially! Social rebellion must have its roots somewhere, and especially when such culture must feel stifled somehow, someway, although I wonder if this weren't given something by a western flair. On the other hand, it seems in this day and age, there is something stifling in the air in so far as every day commonplace social exchange? At least I wonder here personally...the day to day script could seem the same as in the rotation of, for instance, twitter followers, that seem to be at time very focally centered in communications. Then one should wonder that social networking at times might seem a landscape given to a minefield? It isn't either that I feel that it is this way, or at least neither in ascribing to any particular notion of sense in moving oneself for the sake of occupations or carefully constructing so much the image of oneself in light of others should seem fitting much to well understood notions, and certainly even if politics decries one thing relative the other, states can little afford to jail as they once had peoples in budgetary crunches...that I hadn't understood Star Trek as well as the other skinny fella next to me weren't so much the right for a good jailing (humor intended here for clarification by the way).
The long lived journey to social networking, one should imagine, were given to the much longer duration of refrain found somewhere between the intersections having been found in it. Likely in that intersection, one should wonder where this might have originated? It is much harder to imagine, at this point, so much of a relational point in the brief connection that others might have, although it seems in recent years anything such connection has been expressed much artificially, one should, suspect to an opposite degree, or if in precisely putting one's mind to a given mood that a voice arises, and is likely otherwise shrouded in some murkier secluded space. A voice is exactly received until believed having been well understood so much that potentially others tire in hearing. One tires in broadcasting oneself in a more exhaustive manner, all the more neither having felt stifled in saying. Refrain, on the other hand, seems in defining a different mind having arisen, which has taken up another world. If this were given by the pre occupation of painting, or other art, hobby, craft, living, or interacting with the world that were no longer so much possessed by writing, I've found it seems exactly that, and oddly when picking up the pen again (metaphorically speaking here) on a whim, at times strangely I've found myself for a loss of words. On the other hand, that other social sphere if it were much the same should seem as much given to pushing a stone up the hill only to watch it roll back down at times, or better yet (no offense to some that have been extremely thoughtful otherwise relative to others in posting), given to the same day to day condition of reaction and response. At some point disengagement gives way, or at least the tendency to condition and discipline oneself with the belief in tolerable allowance of what one may or may not be inclined to respond in saying. Adding to this likely potentially interfering with the flow of another world in mind, which were thoughtful to any number of things, social reaction is an investment of time and to what clear dividends yielding? The long lived journey speaks of much the synthesis of the physical world, old connections may wane in time. It seems if there were any seclusion to be had of this in such refrain, I am not certain if the world seems to relate less to one as one ages, or if one relates less to the world? That I know is a bit cliche but true.
I've followed more than half of, for instance, science and technology tweets, and had found myself skipping over a vast majority of anything related, and similarly offering the same for other subject matter. Perhaps, the average individual could provide something beyond the stale repetition of re tweeting other subject matter and having some self comments here, but usually one should imagine this were much time consuming to any daily lives in so far as personal take on things. Generally most of this social network could be left with those actually twittering in natural language, and at times rarely this would include the sort that hadn't so much the patience for spell corrections, and especially having done this when constrained to a smart phone for communicating which in my opinion absolutely stinks for efficiency in typeset language communicating as it turns out the QWERTY board would have more efficient counterparts, but natural button stroking with given two hand posture typified by a reserved space, is likely not to be completely replaced in so far as efficient communications productivity, or in generally compared to natural comfort using such a keyboard relative to a single hand cramped device given by the often hunt and peck procedures used. Supposedly radio interviewed research scientist on the subject matter likened this cutely to 'twitter' based language (i.e., in creating new words that included numeric phonemes for multiple characters replacement, or acronyms for instance), but one should wonder how far this communication set likely would extend beyond artificial promotions here. The inclination at least with a couple hundred follows were given likely to much daily tweet activity, and likely some 90 percent or more I'd likely never read, or merely skim over, adding to this, not only likely that I might have done the same with google +. Albeit maybe more likely if having come from more personally known acquaintances.
Google + seems sedate in comparison to twitter on the matter of follower rotations here, and the vast majority of those doing the following seem to set up nothing more than 'bot' type accounts, or generally 'fake' accounts that seem to point to some interest or past time, but really have tweet advertising pointers that direct one off to a site that has little to no content, or merely is another site link redirect yet again. While some might claim to be an interest site, its also harder to characterize this as legitimate, if not having been more so in line with engaging in more subtle forms of social harassment. On the other google + may not be as advantageous, for such crowds, at least given that one can control following/follower broadcast information which means that little advantage might be provided for someone potentially engaged in such behavior. While twitter, for instance, does allow for account blocking, it is another formal step, that could be better nuanced in my opinion, or at least like Facebook back in its day if such is still not the case, user controls in certain ways may not be as best considered in so far as providing user customization of public interactivity. It seems that while some social networking platforms may be better slated in terms of handling better user customization to social interactivity, while traffic may be slower, on the other hand, this might also might have some correspondence between the statistics of legitimate versus less legitimate users (or those users that are entirely bots). This is not to say that by far, Facebook weren't ranking heavily for any usage base of actual humans using the service, or those at least using that weren't given to some sort of 'trolling', data mining purpose, social harassment, or any other socially malicious type purpose, but I wonder if there aren't disproportionately much higher levels given on some of these platforms?
Recently a personal discussion on the matter of social networking, considered that much of the inherent problems of Facebook related so much to the lack of being able to privatize a message, or constrain messaging to given groups of individuals, as opposed to availing this to a much broader audience and/or having little say or control, and instead, as I have at times outright complaints by others, letting Facebook's smart social communication algorithms decides who does or doesn't receive a given message which seemed to be suggested occurring informally. Obviously, for instance, social networking platforms, if one had an ear for conspiracy theories here, might have some vested interests in not letting too much certain broadcast dominance in so far as messaging, if it were likely to turn off more so a given user base, or it seems weighing the positives for negatives, restraining publications in terms of outreach could be advantageous for those likely better receiving a message. As it turns Facebook, in so many words, admitted at times to mood manipulation experimentation likely one should imagine for this sort of purpose. Although I'd refrain in laying at the sole doorstep of Facebook alone.
Its not that I consider social networking something that were entirely a failure in terms of meeting new people, making new friends, and so forth, its just that it at times, has turned into something of the extended family which might have made the next prospective family reunion a little less desirable. At least if not given for the differences that one supposedly had no inkling of in terms of things like social politics, its that the voices at times could be much the same in the same old fire brand ways of repeating things. I'd offer to my own self benefit (yes a bit personally self serving), that I have much less the voice given here, at least if one were irritated at times, I am actually much more personally reserved in person on any number of things in life, or at least writing for me is a way of setting some things aside, but especially in doing so amid much silence. Secondly, the extended family, seems to know a little more about you in knowing who you relate to or don't relate to...one hopes here that voyeurism has taken a turn for the better, for instance, lightening up this view that, 'Well that friend of yours is really a character!' But mostly I am afraid, that hearing in so many words, that social networking seems to be a place to engage in publicly shaming others, or by what given artificial nature that one were supposed to be given in projecting how similar oneself were relative to others, it seems also that some employers and college campuses might even expect others to participate and interact on social networking services in general. At least giving the world a psychological profile sense of what one were like...how articulate? How well educated? Too much of an activist? Too outspoken? Too much of an inebriate? Too little common sense? Here I sense in the future the seeds for a new counter culture potentially! Social rebellion must have its roots somewhere, and especially when such culture must feel stifled somehow, someway, although I wonder if this weren't given something by a western flair. On the other hand, it seems in this day and age, there is something stifling in the air in so far as every day commonplace social exchange? At least I wonder here personally...the day to day script could seem the same as in the rotation of, for instance, twitter followers, that seem to be at time very focally centered in communications. Then one should wonder that social networking at times might seem a landscape given to a minefield? It isn't either that I feel that it is this way, or at least neither in ascribing to any particular notion of sense in moving oneself for the sake of occupations or carefully constructing so much the image of oneself in light of others should seem fitting much to well understood notions, and certainly even if politics decries one thing relative the other, states can little afford to jail as they once had peoples in budgetary crunches...that I hadn't understood Star Trek as well as the other skinny fella next to me weren't so much the right for a good jailing (humor intended here for clarification by the way).
The long lived journey to social networking, one should imagine, were given to the much longer duration of refrain found somewhere between the intersections having been found in it. Likely in that intersection, one should wonder where this might have originated? It is much harder to imagine, at this point, so much of a relational point in the brief connection that others might have, although it seems in recent years anything such connection has been expressed much artificially, one should, suspect to an opposite degree, or if in precisely putting one's mind to a given mood that a voice arises, and is likely otherwise shrouded in some murkier secluded space. A voice is exactly received until believed having been well understood so much that potentially others tire in hearing. One tires in broadcasting oneself in a more exhaustive manner, all the more neither having felt stifled in saying. Refrain, on the other hand, seems in defining a different mind having arisen, which has taken up another world. If this were given by the pre occupation of painting, or other art, hobby, craft, living, or interacting with the world that were no longer so much possessed by writing, I've found it seems exactly that, and oddly when picking up the pen again (metaphorically speaking here) on a whim, at times strangely I've found myself for a loss of words. On the other hand, that other social sphere if it were much the same should seem as much given to pushing a stone up the hill only to watch it roll back down at times, or better yet (no offense to some that have been extremely thoughtful otherwise relative to others in posting), given to the same day to day condition of reaction and response. At some point disengagement gives way, or at least the tendency to condition and discipline oneself with the belief in tolerable allowance of what one may or may not be inclined to respond in saying. Adding to this likely potentially interfering with the flow of another world in mind, which were thoughtful to any number of things, social reaction is an investment of time and to what clear dividends yielding? The long lived journey speaks of much the synthesis of the physical world, old connections may wane in time. It seems if there were any seclusion to be had of this in such refrain, I am not certain if the world seems to relate less to one as one ages, or if one relates less to the world? That I know is a bit cliche but true.
No comments:
Post a Comment