25 Things I Didn't Want to Know About You
time.com"This recent bout of viral narcissism has sent roughly 800,000 hours of worktime productivity down the drain...But it's just so stupid...I can't believe I'm saying this, but I've finally found something more stupid than Twitter."
I think the only thing worse than sharing mundane details about yourself for the world to see is to be the TIME writer that has sunk so low as to whine about it in a front-page article (yes, it made it to the time.com home page). Really? This counts as journalism these days?
Really? This counts as journalism these days?
No, but it counts as selling eyeballs to advertisers, which is the business Time is in. It's the same business all magazines are in.
The sad thing is I found the list far more interesting than the article. Hint: If your going to rant about something as a waste of time don't let it upstage you're job.
Yeah, the journo didn't show any hint of clever/snide/haute/arrogant/dry/slapstick humor.
Capote. Sedaris. Darling. Sweetie. Patsy, darling.
And "25 things" is great for eyeballs.
My 25 things post on my blog has ended up #2 in Google for "25 things about me" and I am getting 200 or so visits a day to that post.
Now, I am not monetizing my blog and don't gain anything from the traffic, but it is interesting to see how much attention this meme is getting all of the sudden. Especially since it is nothing new.
The online demographic for newspapers and magazines is quite a bit different than their ink and paper counterparts. Right now traditional journalism sources are floundering in the online environment. They've gotten so used to their name-brand advantage that they have forgotten why they became a respected name in the first place: providing a higher quality of research, analysis, and writing than others.
In order to survive the transition these organizations are going to have to build respect from scratch, once again becoming authoritative sources. Yes, aggressive editorials is an easy way to attract clicks. But it will kill your business model in the long run.
Before the web people took what these publications said for granted. Now anyone can go investigate prime sources with a few clicks. This raises the bar for journalistic integrity. It remains to be seen if the traditional publications rise to the challenge or sink to the level of tabloids.
Well, the link made it to the front page of HN...
Yet another article that complains about Facebook or something on Facebook ... that has a button on bottom to post the article on Facebook.
I hate facebook!
Press here to post this message on facebook!
I took a bit of a more unorthodox approach when I got tagged. I figure it's better to make notes worth reading: http://unalone.tumblr.com/post/75897218/continuing-my-facebo...
Most people aren't funny, they aren't insightful, and they share way too much. Facebook is a loose social network; a "friend" on Facebook might translate to someone you'd barely recognize in real life.
This is a problem inherent with any group. In real life if you paid this much attention to all of 600 people you'd have the exact same problem. It reminds me of the Internet stalker problems that people've started to be warned against. You need to treat the Internet like you would anything else - and offline, you'd never have a party with hundreds of people and pay attention to all of them. If you want Facebook to get better, limit yourself.
If your friends bore you, get better friends. I've only seen a few of these, but the ones I've read were actually really fascinating to read. Writer friends are the best.
When did magazines get this awful? I commented this on the Newsweek article yesterday, too. Weren't these both good magazines two years ago? Why've they turned so pulpy?
My opinion of Time and Newsweek has been consistently low for about 15 years. When I was in high school, I thought they were "serious" newsweeklies. I went so far as to keep a crate of them my library was discarding, with some vague idea of having them around for 'future reference' (mind you this was pre-web). Then, sometime in college, I picked one up and realized that it was essentially just a printed version of TV-caliber news. Out went the crate.
Point of story: could it be you who have changed, not Time or Newsweek?
(Though maybe they really did change -- media quality is a hard thing to deal with quantitatively or objectively.)
Very possibly - my time frame is junior year high school to freshman year college. :-)
Though Newsweek didn't use to have a "humiliated people of the week" column, and "conventional wisdom watch" used to seem interesting rather than just sniping. And I did like the quotes of the week page.
How rude of someone to have _forced_ the author of this article to read Facebook notes that he hates... ...
I can't believe how much I enjoyed reading the 25 things my friends posted. As time goes on, people lose track of friends, but my friends shared enough for me to remember why they were my friends. Their personalities came out in ways you never see with the boilerplate profiles and status updates.
I was hoping for a discussion of the security implications of sharing 25 bits of personal information online with hundreds of people, but there was nothing about that. It's basically a rant against the little things that she doesn't want to know about her friends.
Has every sentence on Time site have a suggested link???? Some arent even related to the article. What annoyance!. The article??? oh, a rant as this comment. (at least this one is shorter)
I couldn't decide if it was quaint or annoying. When these dead tree magazine/paper types figure out that hyperlinks can go to other servers we're going to enter a whole new age.
Sadly, I gave in and did mine last night. Can somebody make a facebook app already that quizzes you about which random facts belong to which of your friends?
I enjoy reading these about my friends. If you're bored by them, you should be less permissive about who you add.
Actually this is an interesting exercise. Maybe one should not share it with the rest of world, but for oneself I can see how it could help.
"Here's an organically evolved thing that is really resonating with people. Clearly it's dumb." Sweet.
Strangely enough, I got tagged (thrice in the last two weeks). I was just making up the list, and realized, its actually a great exercise. I really enjoyed writing that list (still working on it though).
Though if this is mainstream journalism, and this is from Time.com, I am sufficiently confident that I am not the only one wasting my time (assuming I even agree with the author)
Give me a break. If you don't want to read 25 things about your friends, don't read them! I'll echo harpastum saying the most ridiculous thing about this is that it made it to the front page of TIME. What will the topic of the author's next article be: the viral narcissism of "about you" email chain letters? That's SO 1998.
As much as I used to hate those chain letters I mentioned above, I surprised myself and took part in the 25 things meme on Facebook. I actually found it pretty edifying. I wrote some things I didn't realize I was going through at the time and learned some things I didn't know about my friends.
Did I need Facebook to do this exercise? No. But the fact that Facebook facilitated it is far from "stupid," as the author suggests it is.
my favorite list i've seen so far:
1.) I don't usually fill out chain lists. 9.) I've made People Magazine's most beautiful people list 6 years running. 13.) I really like 30 Rock. 16.) I've never tasted my own urine. 17.) David Blaine is actually just a character in my imagination. 19.) I was half of the men at the million man march. 22.) Four of the things on this list are true. 23.) #22 isn't one of them. 25.) I really, really hope someone sends me $25.
Cussing about the internet: not only for blogs now... Also, I think he failed to see some humorous references in many of those posts.
Oh well, that's how people are I guess.
Oh no, people are having fun on the internet! Quick, somebody write an article on time.com and stop them! If people enjoy sharing random things about themselves, then let them be. I personally think the 25 Things fad, while maybe a bit 'lame', is interesting. It allows me to feed the narcissistic side of myself, while learning random things about my friends. The horror.
I tried to start a chain like this as a Facebook application called Four Things, One Lie. The idea was for people to post five things, one of which wasn't true, about themselves: http://www.jgc.org/blog/2007/07/stop-me-before-i-code-again-...
I guess most people have no imagination.
I can't believe how much I enjoyed reading the 25 things my friends posted. As time goes on, people lose track of friends, but my friends shared enough for me to remember why they were my friends. Their personalities came out in ways you never see with the boilerplate profiles and status updates.
Hypothesis: Your opinion of friend based social networks is a direct reflection on the people you surround yourself with, and thus a reflection of your opinion of yourself. I rather like Twitter...
How is this different from the various chain emails sent?
Lately I have been thinking exactly that. Facebook really is nothing more than a slightly 'structured' form of e-mail. Or at least that's how people are using it. Your Friends list translate into your address book, and it enables you to send around all kinds chain messages, stupid powerpoint presentations and fart videos. I have been ignoring these emails for years and years, why would things be any different on FB?
I have only one friend on Facebook, but I found her list interesting. I have known her for 20 years and most of the things on the list I didn't know.
I don't know, I enjoyed reading the majority of the lists I encountered. I also enjoyed writing mine. Why are we so uptight?
Because certain people believe that because we're spending time writing these lists, it's a sign that we're not being productive.
On the contrary: we're more productive than any other generation. We have instant communication, incredibly powerful tools for computing information, and creating things is easier now than it's ever been before. Because of that, people have more time to unwind. Possibly it's even necessary to keep our minds relaxed. Those things get ignored by Time Magazine, which likes sensationalism and negativity because it sells.
I just hope that guy who tears gummy bears limb from limb and then eats the heads last isn't a coworker.
v funny that Time magazine is reporting on the latest buzz on fb. the viral nature of this "25 things" meme is pretty insane. maybe Time is hungry for a little of that pg view action so they thought they would jump in. trouble is, who reads Time anymore(?).
22. I once ran into New Kids On the Block's Joey McIntyre in the lobby of an off-Broadway show. I told him he was the first boy I ever loved. He laughed and kind of smiled. This was the most gratifying moment of my life.
JOEY WAS MY FAVORITE, TOO!
"I like to tape my thumbs to my hands to see what it would be like to be a dinosaur."
This article seemed to be the carrier for a bunch of link bait
I didn't RTFA, but just from the headline, it's pretty obvious why any church can't ignore science: Because it contradicts their bronze age dogma.