CNET Journalist claims Facebook changes “ruin” sharing     —     This article brings up a number of interesting points about the so-called “frictionless” sharing facebook has been slowly rolling out. The author claims that if all of the articles and songs one consumes are shared passively, it ruins the notion of curation, which is key to social sharing. For example, if I listened to s a song on Spotify to check it out and thought it sucked, this would still appear in the same way as a song I checked out, loved, and wanted all of my friends to hear. This quote was particularly interesting: 

“Let’s say all of us jump on the Open Graph bandwagon and allow app after app to passively post our every Web move. We’ll simply have opened the door to a horde of zombie posts that will overwhelm our interest and deaden us to the possibility of organic discovery.

Sharing and recommendation shouldn’t be passive. It should be conscious, thoughtful, and amusing–we are tickled by a story, picture, or video and we choose to share it, and if a startling number of Internet users also find that thing amusing, we, together, consciously create a tidal wave of meme that elevates that piece of media to viral status. We choose these gems from the noise. Open Graph will fill our feeds with noise, burying the gems.”

Do you agree with her assessment? Will “frictionless” sharing, once adopted widely, destroy the value of social sharing and just create data overload on your newsfeed (which could jeapordize facebook’s business model as even Sean Parker has admitted)? Will it also destroy the notion of link curation?



2 thoughts on “CNET Journalist claims Facebook changes “ruin” sharing

  1. I think the idea isn’t so much to share opinions as much as it is to share interest. The assumption going in is that nothing sucks, because it is in fact, interesting to you!

    The article is spot on about the open graph concerns, however. Industries that have been struggling to get money for their content in recent years are now in the information game. Installing an app to read a newspaper article is now the price of admission. Is it worth it? I’m unsure. I don’t know if friction is the issue at hand here, but as long as users are willing to put up with it it will continue.

  2. This article actually dives into the topic thats been on my mind most recently in regards to social media. This new trend of “update everywhere” and on anything in real-time… well, it’s a bit TMI for me. I’m starting to get annoyed by seeing all the songs that people are listening to, and also seeing all the articles people are reading (for those that belong to the yahoo, WSJ, etc- social readers).

    1) I just don’t care enough to go through every article and song that my friends are listening to
    2) I would rather invest my time in reading an article/listening to a song that they actually recommend

    I think this new feature could possibly portray people in lights that they don’t want to be in… friends could easily judge and make assumptions based on what they are reading and listening to. I feel the real power of social media is sharing the things that matter and mean most to you…. not every piece of content/media you get your eyes/ears on over the course of the day

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s