#facebook

Justine Sharrock for BuzzFeed on Matt Jones (best known for his work with Pixar) working with Facebook on a new class of emoticons:


  Right now, Jones is experimenting with colors beyond the default yellow used in most other emoticons. He tried “Facebook blue,” thinking it might have become familiar enough to users, but said the emoticons just looked like they had hypothermia. He’s experimenting with multiple colors: red for anger, green for envy. “But you don’t want to offend anyone,” he explains. “Colors will be a racial issue.”


I was never a big emoticon user until about a year ago when I enabled them on my iPhone. Now I’m addicted. You can convey so much without typing.

(I also love that BuzzFeed has adopted the to-the-top button found on Tumblr.)

Justine Sharrock for BuzzFeed on Matt Jones (best known for his work with Pixar) working with Facebook on a new class of emoticons:

Right now, Jones is experimenting with colors beyond the default yellow used in most other emoticons. He tried “Facebook blue,” thinking it might have become familiar enough to users, but said the emoticons just looked like they had hypothermia. He’s experimenting with multiple colors: red for anger, green for envy. “But you don’t want to offend anyone,” he explains. “Colors will be a racial issue.”

I was never a big emoticon user until about a year ago when I enabled them on my iPhone. Now I’m addicted. You can convey so much without typing.

(I also love that BuzzFeed has adopted the to-the-top button found on Tumblr.)

lilly

lilly:

Look at that. Mobile hugely up, and personal computer usage for Facebook is actually down.

Take heed, and ignore this trend at your peril. Mobile isn’t the future anymore. It’s the present.

Right.

And I’ll just add that while there’s recently been quite a bit of talk about going back to “web first”, Facebook’s numbers are especially important here. Yes, a lot of early adopters are still heavy traditional web (meaning desktop/laptop-based) users. But Facebook is at full mainstream scale with a billion-plus users and the trend is clear. If you’re thinking big and for the future, you have to think mobile.

Josh Constine of TechCrunch on Facebook shutting off “Find Friends” access to an increasing number of apps/services:

After shutting down data access to several competing apps, Facebook today made two major clarifications to its Platform Policy, banning apps that use its data but make it easy for users to share back to Facebook, or that replicate its core functionality without permission. Facebook Platform Head Justin Osofsky tried to calm fears by noting the majority of developers should “keep doing what you’re doing”.

Essentially, Facebook is saying that there will be “no more free lunch” for these third-party apps. Either share back to Facebook in a major way — content which Facebook can then advertise against — or get lost. Obviously, it’s a pretty shitty stance to take, but it shouldn’t be surprising — Facebook needs to make money.

I’m more surprised to see Facebook screw “competing” apps, because, let’s be honest, at the billion-user scale, no one is really competing with Facebook. At best, this makes them look like bullies. At worst, it makes them look weak and afraid.

I also love the name of the new section in Facebook’s Platform Policy: “Reciprocity”. I can’t help but be reminded of the key operation in Tom Clancy’s Clear and Present Danger. My favorite back-and-forth from the film of the same name:

John Clark: “Reciprocity.” That’s a clever name for it. Revenge is a very, very, very dangerous motivation.

Robert Ritter: Are you able to handle this operation or not? What I’m looking for here is a simple yes or no.

John Clark: What you’re looking for is a political mess.

Robert Ritter: Yes or no?

John Clark: Is that what they want? Because that’s what this is.

Robert Ritter: They want what every first-term administration wants - a second term.

Anonymous asked:

The engagement level for both your FB and G+ posts are the similar.. (Similar number of likes and comments.) However what does not make sense is you have 265K subscribers in FB and 1.5M in G+. 6 times the followers in G+ but the same level of engagement !! I can think of only 2 explanations.. Huge Fake/Spam followers and a poor G+ engagement. !! ~ Arun

Right. And also the fact that very few people relative to Twitter and Facebook actually click through on links to read the content being shared. There’s some lightweight social activity basically masking a network that isn’t there.

Speaking of the Poke app, TechCrunch’s Josh Constine answered the big (and most obvious) question:

So essentially, Facebook only stores your Pokes for two days so if anyone reports you for offending them, like by sending unwanted images of what’s in your pants, it can see if the accusations are true. Then it effectively deletes the Pokes, and by 90 days after there’s absolutely no way to recover the contents of a message. Facebook is trying to cut down that window, which could help it appear just as secure as Snapchat.

Good that Facebook isn’t trying to use this app to get more data into their system. Though I do wonder if they’re noting information one-step back — that is, who is poking whom and how often? That’s potentially valuable social graph information.

Brian X. Chen for The New York Times:

I get some messages from other friends that promptly disappear as well. Most of them say something along the lines of, “What is the point of this?” or “This is so weird.”

Sounds exactly like people talking about Twitter five years ago. And basically every eventual breakout tech product. If it was obvious, it would be obvious.

I still not sure about the long-term prospects of Snapchat/Poke, but that’s exactly why these things interest me. Discount natural user behavior at your own peril.

shortformblog
shortformblog:

Facebook’s Snapchat competitor is called “Poke,” confirming what we already knew: The word “Poke” is innuendo for sexy time.

Fascinating just how close to Snapchat it actually is. 

There’s no question that the UI/UX is better here, but I’m not sure how much that will actually matter with the teenage Snapchat demographic. Many teens seem to use apps that look and may even perform awful, but it doesn’t matter. All that matters is the graph — that their friends are using it. 

And you might think, “but everyone is on Facebook” — sure, but that also doesn’t matter if the use case is different. Maybe teens are using Snapchat specifically because it’s not Facebook. 

Anyway, I’m not going to pretend to really understand Snapchat anyway. Compelling social, fun idea (the self-destructing message) — but high potential to be faddish. But I’m sure I’m missing something. 

I’m more interested here in Facebook’s continued march to make stand-alone apps. This seems like it should be a part of the Messenger app, but it’s not. And the deep iOS integration makes this approach really shine (“Sign in as MG Siegler?”). 

I also can’t help but wonder if maybe this is a message from Facebook: don’t want to come work with us? Fine, we’ll clone your service in a couple weeks and ship it to a billion users.

At the very least, Poke is a fun attempt to make use of an old part of Facebook in a way that actually makes some sense in the modern, mobile world.

shortformblog:

Facebook’s Snapchat competitor is called “Poke,” confirming what we already knew: The word “Poke” is innuendo for sexy time.

Fascinating just how close to Snapchat it actually is.

There’s no question that the UI/UX is better here, but I’m not sure how much that will actually matter with the teenage Snapchat demographic. Many teens seem to use apps that look and may even perform awful, but it doesn’t matter. All that matters is the graph — that their friends are using it.

And you might think, “but everyone is on Facebook” — sure, but that also doesn’t matter if the use case is different. Maybe teens are using Snapchat specifically because it’s not Facebook.

Anyway, I’m not going to pretend to really understand Snapchat anyway. Compelling social, fun idea (the self-destructing message) — but high potential to be faddish. But I’m sure I’m missing something.

I’m more interested here in Facebook’s continued march to make stand-alone apps. This seems like it should be a part of the Messenger app, but it’s not. And the deep iOS integration makes this approach really shine (“Sign in as MG Siegler?”).

I also can’t help but wonder if maybe this is a message from Facebook: don’t want to come work with us? Fine, we’ll clone your service in a couple weeks and ship it to a billion users.

At the very least, Poke is a fun attempt to make use of an old part of Facebook in a way that actually makes some sense in the modern, mobile world.

Nilay Patel of The Verge (once again) brings up a few good points about the Instagram TOS fiasco. As he points out, the new TOS was actually worded much better than the old one. But the tech press blew it and caused a panic over basically nothing. The end result is the reversion to the old TOS, which technically allows for more of the kind of shady stuff everyone was freaked out about in the new one. Nice work, tech press.

And I think he’s right about the lesson for startups: don’t mess with something no one is complaining about — and lawyers: be as vague as possible in your documents. Both of those things suck.

But…

The notion that Instagram may use this reversion to try to do shady stuff still reads as foolish. Does anyone really think Instagram would try to get away with any such actions — especially now? Why? They clearly stated that wasn’t the intention. Sure, intentions do change. But the story is the same: if Instagram actually does shady things, people will stop using Instagram. No one benefits.

Look, at the end of the day all you have to think about is this: do you believe the services you’re using are out to exploit you? If so, don’t use them. Sure, a good TOS may be able to protect you from some of that, but hardly from all of it. If a company wants to fuck you, they’re going to figure out a way to fuck you. You shouldn’t be using a service that you think is trying to fuck you.

I don’t believe Instagram is that service. Nor do I believe Facebook is. But if you do, it’s simple: don’t use them.