Burningbird

I watched with some interest the fooflah about Facebook's Beacon.

On the one hand, I think the application serves a useful purpose–it provides a dose of reality for those who have been extolling the virtues of the 'social graph' in all dewey eyed innocence. It's hard to ignore that purchase of Depends showing up for all your friends to see. Hard for your friends to miss, too. Yes, it's nice to actually see the snooping that's happening without having to indulge in guesswork: am I, or am I not, a commodity. Now we know for sure: just stick us on the shelf between the sardines and the peanut butter.

On the other hand, how rude.

Now Facebook has come out with a new plan: the stores will still track you, still send your purchase information to Facebook, but you have to actively OK the first story for the site. This still means that the information is sent to Facebook. As proud as you are buying that new Nikon D300, how do you feel about information being sent to Facebook about the good deal on that…oh oh.

Users must click on “OK” in a new initial notification on their Facebook home page before the first Beacon story is published to their friends from each participating site. We recognize that users need to clearly understand Beacon before they first have a story published, and we will continue to refine this approach to give users choice.

(emph. mine)

Uh huh.

Of course, I expect those people who signed the petition and protested such an invasion of their privacy and trust to quit the service. Why else would people get so uptight but still continue? Unless, like the young lady quoted in the New York Times, they also feel they don't have a right to privacy.

Indeed.

Am I quitting Facebook? Well, one doesn't quit Facebook. One deactivates, leaves, never to return, and hopefully hunts down and eradicates every Facebook cookie stored on any and all machines, promising to never, ever, buy into the hype on Techmeme, ever again. It's not quitting, per se, as much as throwing up barricades. After all, when I go shopping for … it's none of your damn business.

updated

Oh, look, the Manz R sayin de same thing. Well, that's a relief. I wouldn't want people to have to rely on the opinion of a girl.

Speaking of email, how absolutely idiotic to pronounce the death of email because today's teens aren't using their email accounts.

Today's teens are also wearing their pants around their ankles–does this mean, then, that civilization will eventually lose its waist? I'm sorry, dear people, but frankly I'd rather not see most of your underwear clad butts.

We seem to be desperate to be the first to 'spot trends' that we take an audience that is known to have certain behavioral characteristics, and extrapolate what this means into the future. This is silly, as history shows us that teen behavior does not a forecast for the future make.

For instance, from my own youth, extrapolating our behavior into the future, one would assume the phone would be dead by now, because we spent all of our time in each other's 'pads': smoking weed, dropping acid, and painting flowers on our bell bottoms, as we contemplated revolution and free love with equal passion. The phone was The Man.

From what I can see of drivers wherever I go, not only is the telephone not dead, it's used more now than at any time in the past.

Focusing on what teens want has already ruined television. You can't watch a show now without some blurb showing up obscuring half the screen with instructions about how the person watching can make the experience more 'interactive'. Why add these to shows? Because marketing has deemed that today's youth insist on such a barrage of noise in order to grasp and hold their attention.

Now, we're ready to hold requiem on email, and other longer, thoughtful communications, because kids have the attention span of gnats. Welcome to the brave new world. Oh, excuse me: BRV NW WRLD. LOL.

update

An anonymous response in another weblog to the "email is for old people" pronouncement:

To be fair, what is a more efficient method for communicating "I AM WATCHING TELEVISION" or "I JUST TOOK A POOP AND IT STANK UP THE BATHROOM" than through something like twitter? It's too frivolous for an email.

But likewise, am I going to communicate an action plan or discuss something with a customer via AIM or twitter or myspace? Fuck no. IM is for instant communication. Twitter is for pointless, self-involved drivel. Myspace is for idiots who want to consoladate their entire internet experience into a single website (and a single point of failure) just like the good old BBS days, before they were born —- and email is for people who need to convey important information, delicate information, detailed information or otherwise engage in an actual conversation.

I use IM constantly in my line of work. I'm a developer and our entire company of 45,000 people globally requires that everyone use our own developed commercial messenger (uses XMPP, much like jabber and is for all intents and purposes — jabber). Most of my colleagues are not even within driving distance. And even if they were, a lot of us telecommute full time. So IM is absolutely a necessity.

But for every IM message, there are a few dozen email messages. Whether it's discussions on an internal list or another. Whether it's communicating with customers or field engineers or team discussions and management discussions to touch base or regarding staffing or action plans.

So yes, young people may just use twitter, IM and myspace today . . . but if they plan to ever have discussions that go beyond what color their crap was and what they're doing at that very instant (OH MY GOD, WE'RE ALL EAGERLY AWAITING YOUR NEXT TWITTER!) and beyond self-involved attention-whoring on myspace or trying to get off with some loser on instant messaging, they'll eventually find themselves forced to gravitate toward email. And if they don't - they'll be shark food for the rest of us in the workforce.