Usable in the “I run it in Mosiac” kind of 90′s website. Just like MySpace. they don’t fool me with their “API”.
I think you have to be a teenager to understand Facebook.
I use Vox.
You have to register to join a livejournal community.
Anyway, the point is not to supercede other channels of communication, it’s to supplement them. Facebook has a very different population of users than lj (though there is some overlap), so it makes sense to have a BSFA presence there.
I think what puts me off Facebook is the need to commit to registration before being able to have a look round to see if you like what you’re looking at, which isn’t the case with LJ – though there are probably sound reasons why Facebook has that level of security, if they don’t have the further privacy protocol levels on LJ.
Still, if we’re not careful this is about to become prime candidate for Silliest Internet Slapfight of the Year, so I’m gonna just walk away …
A further vote against Facebook from me. I’d have thought that if the aim was to publicise the BSFA, then making the site, uh, public would be a start. And, frankly, getting the BSFA a Facebook page is not the most important thing the organisation needs to do about its web presence…
Tony: as you say, Facebook has a different security model than LJ.
Graham: As I commented above, this is not a replacement for a better public web presence (which I agree the BSFA needs) it’s additional. Facebook has a (very) large population of users who wouldn’t touch livejournal, or internet forums in general, with a ten-foot barge pole. A BSFA group on Facebook is far more visible to those users than the main BSFA website.
Niall: well, I will be interested to see how successful it is in pulling in those users. You appreciate, at the very least, that there is a certain amount of irony present in a website-which-can-only-be-viewed-at-all-(unlike-say-Livejournal)-by-those-who-are-registered-and-logged-in being “more visible” to some group than a website-which-can-be-viewed-anywhere-by-anyone.
What people seem to be missing is that it is a service for Facebook users.
There seems to be a misunderstanding that is meant to replace or supercede some existing BSFA outlet. I’m puzzled how anyone could think this to be honest. It is clearly additional and therefore a vote against something that is purely positive sticks me as absurd.
At the risk of, oh, being utterly fatuous I suppose, I myself wasn’t at any point saying that the BSFA shouldn’t have a Facebook – merely that once I found I had to register to see what was linked to, the fact that the BSFA has a Facebook no longer was of any interest to me personally. I read Chance’s comment as saying the same, which is why I agreed with her.
Martin: my vote was not against the idea of using other forums, but against the effectiveness of a closed community in doing this. People need to know something is there in order to look for it, Facebook’s security prevents the accidental chance discovery.
I discovered the BSFA via an ad in a book. I could have seen that ad by browsing in the bookshop without buying that particular book. The Facebook model would have meant the book was shrinkwrapped until I purchased. So it limits its value as a promotional vehicle immediately.
Kev, while that’s true in principle, given that Facebook has 25 million members — twice as many as livejournal — in practice it doesn’t strike me as much of a limitation.
I agree that there’s actually no harm in having a BSFA group on Facebook, or MySpace, or Vox or anywhere. Why not? Especially if they are really just pointers to the wonder that is the BSFA website. Some people may hang out on one or the other, maybe, it probably doesn’t matter.
June 21, 2007 at 10:02 pm
You have to log in to see it? FAIL!
June 21, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Clearly you’re still stuck in the 20th century.
June 21, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Because I still have taste?
June 21, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Quite frankly, I’m with Chance on this one …
June 21, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Make that 3 votes against you Niall.
June 22, 2007 at 1:10 am
Facebook scares me. But not as much as Faceparty.
June 22, 2007 at 8:38 am
… Faceparty?
It’s not like it’s Myspace, you know. Facebook is actually usable.
June 22, 2007 at 9:23 am
Usable in the “I run it in Mosiac” kind of 90′s website. Just like MySpace. they don’t fool me with their “API”.
I think you have to be a teenager to understand Facebook.
I use Vox.
June 22, 2007 at 9:31 am
Facebook is actually usable
Not if you have to register it’s not.
June 22, 2007 at 9:36 am
You have to register to join a livejournal community.
Anyway, the point is not to supercede other channels of communication, it’s to supplement them. Facebook has a very different population of users than lj (though there is some overlap), so it makes sense to have a BSFA presence there.
June 22, 2007 at 10:00 am
I’m down with the hep cats and cool kids!
Communication “by any means necessary!”
June 22, 2007 at 10:06 am
I think what puts me off Facebook is the need to commit to registration before being able to have a look round to see if you like what you’re looking at, which isn’t the case with LJ – though there are probably sound reasons why Facebook has that level of security, if they don’t have the further privacy protocol levels on LJ.
Still, if we’re not careful this is about to become prime candidate for Silliest Internet Slapfight of the Year, so I’m gonna just walk away …
June 22, 2007 at 10:08 am
A further vote against Facebook from me. I’d have thought that if the aim was to publicise the BSFA, then making the site, uh, public would be a start. And, frankly, getting the BSFA a Facebook page is not the most important thing the organisation needs to do about its web presence…
June 22, 2007 at 10:15 am
Tony: as you say, Facebook has a different security model than LJ.
Graham: As I commented above, this is not a replacement for a better public web presence (which I agree the BSFA needs) it’s additional. Facebook has a (very) large population of users who wouldn’t touch livejournal, or internet forums in general, with a ten-foot barge pole. A BSFA group on Facebook is far more visible to those users than the main BSFA website.
June 22, 2007 at 10:25 am
Niall: well, I will be interested to see how successful it is in pulling in those users. You appreciate, at the very least, that there is a certain amount of irony present in a website-which-can-only-be-viewed-at-all-(unlike-say-Livejournal)-by-those-who-are-registered-and-logged-in being “more visible” to some group than a website-which-can-be-viewed-anywhere-by-anyone.
June 22, 2007 at 11:10 am
What people seem to be missing is that it is a service for Facebook users.
There seems to be a misunderstanding that is meant to replace or supercede some existing BSFA outlet. I’m puzzled how anyone could think this to be honest. It is clearly additional and therefore a vote against something that is purely positive sticks me as absurd.
June 22, 2007 at 11:39 am
*snorts*
I’m with Martin: this is such a silly thing to get all worked up over. Don’t like it? Don’t use it. Quite straightforward, really…
June 22, 2007 at 11:52 am
This is the silliest argument ever. Does the BSFA need a new website? Yes. Is the Facebook group a substitute for that? No, and it’s not aiming to be.
June 22, 2007 at 11:54 am
Surely the argument about the argument is sillier than the actual argument?
June 22, 2007 at 11:58 am
Chance: we’re missing an opportunity to have an argument about the argument about the argument.
June 22, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Graham: I disagree, I think we’re taking the opportunity by the horns.
June 22, 2007 at 12:33 pm
At the risk of, oh, being utterly fatuous I suppose, I myself wasn’t at any point saying that the BSFA shouldn’t have a Facebook – merely that once I found I had to register to see what was linked to, the fact that the BSFA has a Facebook no longer was of any interest to me personally. I read Chance’s comment as saying the same, which is why I agreed with her.
Or something.
June 22, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Graham, they are having that argument over on Facebook and you are missing it.
June 22, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Martin: my vote was not against the idea of using other forums, but against the effectiveness of a closed community in doing this. People need to know something is there in order to look for it, Facebook’s security prevents the accidental chance discovery.
I discovered the BSFA via an ad in a book. I could have seen that ad by browsing in the bookshop without buying that particular book. The Facebook model would have meant the book was shrinkwrapped until I purchased. So it limits its value as a promotional vehicle immediately.
June 22, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Kev, while that’s true in principle, given that Facebook has 25 million members — twice as many as livejournal — in practice it doesn’t strike me as much of a limitation.
June 22, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Surely silly arguments are the best?
I agree that there’s actually no harm in having a BSFA group on Facebook, or MySpace, or Vox or anywhere. Why not? Especially if they are really just pointers to the wonder that is the BSFA website. Some people may hang out on one or the other, maybe, it probably doesn’t matter.
June 22, 2007 at 2:55 pm
I’d just like to say that I agree with none of what any of you have said. Take it back!
Facebook is not bad as these social networking things go, but what the BSFA /really/ needs are its own Twitter and Xianz accounts.
June 22, 2007 at 4:19 pm
After all those posts about complex, intelligent critical questions … now at last a Torque Control post that gets people vigorously debating.
June 22, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I must join in!
“I think you have to be a teenager to understand Facebook.
I use Vox.”
Huh? Vox is teenager land (look at those templates for crying out loud, all hello kitty-type stuff and horses).
June 23, 2007 at 3:07 pm
If u get a myspace I will friendz you lols?