Blogs and Stories
Facebook's Fatal Error
At 12:01 a.m. Saturday, 200 million Facebook users began a mad scramble to claim a user name. This was also the moment, says Douglas Rushkoff, when Facebook could become obsolete.
The minute that last night turned into Saturday morning, if all went right, Facebook's servers were overloaded by millions of people racing to register their personal usernames with the social media Web site, so that their friends—and anyone else in the known universe—will be able to find them even easier. Instead of trying "Douglas Rushkoff" in the site's search window, or laboriously tracking me through your own friends and groups, my name will easily show up on Google, and you'll be able to find me through a simple Facebook URL that I can trumpet to the world.
That is, if I manage to stake a claim to my own name. The personal stakes here are obvious. Doug Rushkoff is relatively unique, but pity the few thousand Robert Johnsons out there. If they’re lightning quick and fairly lucky during in the wee hours, they’ll get something sporty like www.facebook.com/RobJohnson. More likely, their overarching Facebook persona is doomed to RJ1167 or Mynameisrobertjohnsonyesitis.
This is more than 200 million users, already engaged, simultaneously scrambling in the greatest territory dash since the Oklahoma Territory's land run of 1889.
It conjures memories of the way the original Web's many possible domain names were bought up by "domain squatters" who then sold people's names back to them. (I still haven't bought DouglasRushkoff.com for $2,000 from the company that purchased it for no other reason than to sell it to me.) This weekend’s name race won’t be as commercial—it’s one name per person, with no apparent way to sell it—but it will be far more frenetic. The domain-name gold rush slowly unfurled over months and years, as did the chase for desirable Gmail addresses. This is more than 200 million users, already engaged, simultaneously scrambling in the greatest territory dash since the Oklahoma Territory's land run of 1889, albeit with fewer shotgun injuries.
But Facebook's new page-naming scheme actually brings up other memories for me, ones that hold bigger stakes for the company itself. It reminds me of the moment that AOL, formerly a completely closed network with its own content, allowed its users onto the greater Internet for the first time. Internet USENET boards were filled with what we called "newbies" wandering around and asking anyone they could find how to download pornography. Formerly high-level conversations were quickly brought down to the lowest common denominator as a huge population of people uninitiated in basic Internet etiquette flooded the networks faster than we could educate them.
The impact was far worse for AOL. By opening itself to the greater Internet, AOL revealed itself as something of a wading pool. A mini-Internet. Once people could use AOL as a portal to the true, unadulterated, global net, the company was reduced to an ISP. AOL became series of phone numbers you dial to get online, and little more. Steve Case knew his moment was over, and used his inflated stock price to purchase some real assets like Time Warner. We all know how that turned out.
Facebook must be hoping the name change will not only make the site more user friendly, but also get people to start thinking of their Facebook pages as their public faces for both personal and business activities: true home pages.
That’s a problem. Facebook's relative detachment from the Internet is not a bug, but a feature. Its only competitive advantage in the Internet space—its only reason for being—was that it was more personal, more closed off, and arguably more private than the Internet itself. Even then, the biggest problem has never been how to get people to find you, but how to not friend many of those who do. Now that we'll be quickly findable via Google, what's left to distinguish this social-networking site from the social network that is… the Internet?
Moreover, by turning Facebook pages into real Web pages, the company reveals to its users just how close to the real Internet they've been all along, while removing the last few illusory boundaries between the mini-universe of Facebook pages and the greater ecosystem of the Net.
Facebook’s only competitive advantage in the Internet space—it's only reason for being—was that it was more personal, more closed off, and arguably more private than the Internet itself.
That shift, I believe, portends the beginning of the end for this social network. That may sound preposterous, but the short history of the Internet is littered with quickly fallen giants. They all appear to be permanent features of the digital landscape—Friendster, MySpace, Orkut, Napster, CompuServe—until they're not. A minute after midnight on Saturday may just be the moment 200 million more people find themselves thrown firmly onto the Internet, and in the process make Mark Zuckerberg’s digital wading pool obsolete.
Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of media studies at The New School University and producer and correspondent for the PBS Frontline Digital Nation project, is the author of numerous books, including Cyberia, ScreenAgers, Media Virus, and, most recently, Life Inc., released this month by Random House.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Sarah Drops the Act
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
Palin's Gold Mine
Duff McDonald is a contributing editor at New York magazine and a former contributing editor at Condé Nast Portfolio. His book, Last Man Standing, about Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was published by Simon & Schuster in October.
Murdoch to Google: Search This
Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of media studies at The New School University and producer and correspondent for the PBS Frontline Digital Nation project, is the author of numerous books, including Cyberia, ScreenAgers, Media Virus, and, most recently, Life Inc., released this month by Random House.
Google Declares War on Facebook
Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of media studies at The New School University and producer and correspondent for the PBS Frontline Digital Nation project, is the author of numerous books, including Cyberia, ScreenAgers, Media Virus, and, most recently, Life Inc., released this month by Random House.
Google's Velvet Rope
Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of media studies at The New School University and producer and correspondent for the PBS Frontline Digital Nation project, is the author of numerous books, including Cyberia, ScreenAgers, Media Virus, and, most recently, Life Inc., released this month by Random House.
You make a strong case. I know personally, that I'm too lazy to race to gain exclusive rights to my generic name. And that will be that. No more facebook for me. Honestly, I have a facebook account, but part of me hates myself for having one.
ObamaLover,
I concur!
Self-loathing and all.
I completely agree! Every time I log onto Facebook, I have this little voice in my head going "Close your account!". Maybe this is my excuse to actually follow through. Who knows, maybe face to face contact will make a comeback...
I really enjoy FB. It is so easy to stay connected with friends and family stretched out all over the world. But...I will not likely be in the race to claim my generic name....
I de"Faced" my Facebook account a couple of months ago. When I realized that I had emailed, telephoned, or actually pressed the flesh of only 3 of my 175 friends within the previous year. I found it peculiar that all of our capability to contact each other has actually moved us further apart. I'm working my way back to person to person (and a smaller circle of real friends).
Dude, you are totally, one hundred percent right. Somehow face book, twitter, and the rest of these juvenile savants' creations found the perfect way to cash in on time wasting exercises, raise ad revenue, and give lonely people the delusion that they exist. All that, just to give a little, insignificant guy like me more what passes for a life.
What amazes me is that President Obama and Anderson Cooper use it.
Stay enlightened m'brutha (fist to chest)!
This further illustrates my point that facebook should have been strictly for college students to organize events and keep track of contacts. But, you cannot avoid face time at college even if you tried. For college kids, I believe facebook increased interaction. Once you're out, what's the point? My parents have been substituting phone calls with facebook messages to their old pals. They clearly miss the point.
No, Douglas.
Letting AOL users out of their sandbox is not the same as letting the Internet into Facebook. It's actually, if anything, the opposite.
And, since we don't have a private avenue of communication, I'll leave it at that.
Douglas, nice history lesson but I remain unclear on what you're suggesting we need to worry about.
No one is required to have a facebook username. Facebook pages become no more accessible to the public (unless, as before) you want them to be.
Are you sure you fully understand the facebook username feature?
i don't think anyone really does. apparently no one read the actual (poorly titled) blog post, and now everyone is complaining about some imaginary facet of facebook's new "usernames" - apparently it'll completely obsolete the social network's uniqueness, usability, and individuality.
all you have to do is read the announcement and understand that it pretty much changes NOTHING about how you will conduct yourself on facebook. they made a huge, unnecessary furor by mislabeling a minor superficial update as a "username".
Myspace is pretty similar to facebook and they have always offered the user their own personal URL. I agree with CartyBoston, you may not fully understand the username feature.
Just another marketing attempt by facebook to overtake the world. Ha!
"and we are not saved..."
I just wrote a short reply to this article.
http://heloise8.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/enter-username-from-facebook-fi nd/. Not sure it will show up as a link but at the Trough I wrote: Enter Username -- From Facebook Find.
And the point being, besides the rush to do it--it won't really change anything. It will be tough because no one has dibbs on a name, unless they want to buy it from whomever bought.
It will be a sprint-like marathon if a lot of users push to get a username. But that's always been a part of the madding Net crowd.
Heloise
Oh god, Daily Beast, another fluff piece that fails to understand Web 2.0. It's this on the heels of the alleged "Google killer" that failed utterly to report on the emergence of Bing. Did you need a tech reporter, Daily Beast? I am about to actually throw my hat into that ring if you don't stop failing to understand how the internet works.
This user is no longer registered.
I only have Friends on Facebook. People I know and associate with. I'm not out to collect a lot of people, but I love staying in touch with those who I haven't seen in years or who are part of mutual interest. Making a web page does seem to defeat that purpose. I love looking at my nephews' pictures, but is it really idea for them to be made public? I won't be as open about my status if the world can see what I write!
hellOOOO PEOPLE. PLEASE. go read the facebook blog post for yourself. the ONLY thing that will be changing is the url for your profile. instead of some randomly assigned number, it will be your chosen user name. as of right now, anyone can already find your facebook profile by googling your name. whether or not they can view it is based on your privacy settings which WILL NOT BE CHANGING.
As someone who was arbitrarily thrown off Facebook (with no possibility of appeal) two months ago for "accumulating too many friends" -- even though I had less than 300 at the time, far below the limit of 5,000, and had received no warnings from the site -- all I can say is this potential comeuppance couldn't happen to a nicer company.
My facebook page is already the first return when google-seaching my name. I imagine this the case for many (or most) facebook users who are not public figures in some way. Mr Rushkoff, your FB profile is the 43rd return when searching your name. I fail to see how this change is going to make users any more "quickly findable via Google" than they already are.
is this guy serious? he clearly knows nothing about fb. comparing it to aol, on the brink of collapse.... a little premature i think.
I use Facebook to keep in contact with actual friends - people I've connected with at some point during my life. It's not a popularity contest for me, and I like the sort of walled garden. I like the idea of one easy to create/maintain site to face the world - saves me the trouble of having to design/code/host/maintain. I think the Username basically amounts to me giving out a URL you can find me at. Big deal.
I do wish that Facebook would spend more time devoted to giving users more fine-tuned control over who sees what. The guy 3 offices down knows a completely different Whitebreadtoast than my best friend. I love having one central place to stay in touch with everyone, but I'd like to manage my brand a little better. It would be fabulous if I had more granular control over who saw what posts etc. simply by adding them to a group, then typing something like #groupname after the post (a la twitter) which would allow or exclude that group from seeing that post. As it stands now, there are groups but I have to lock that group out to the broader category of posts (link, status, etc.) than simply to one post which might be nsfw. I think when Facebook provides that functionality it will become an even more indispensable tool (at least until The Next Big Thing).
Like judyjetson, I'm only Facebook friends with people I've actually connected with in real life. It's not a popularity contest. I do like having one central, easy to use tool, that lets me keep in touch with everyone from coworkers to childhood best friends. To me, the Username is nothing more than handing out a URL where you can find me. Big deal.
What I wish Facebook would spend more time on is providing users more granular privacy controls. The whitebreadtoast Bob in Accounting knows is tamer than the whitebreadtoast my best friend knows. I manage my brand in real life, I'd like to be able to do it online as well. I would love a Twitter-esque solution for Facebook privacy - I set up groups of people (not unlike what Facebook does now) and then on an individual-post-level, I type #groupname which includes/excludes that group from that particular status update, link, photo, etc. It could even work as #friendname. When I can use Facebook as the hub of my social connections - without censoring myself wholly, but selectively - it will become much more useful to me (until The Next Big Thing at least).
What I wish Facebook would spend more time on is providing users more granular privacy controls. The whitebreadtoast the guy 3 offices down knows is tamer than the whitebreadtoast my best friend knows. I manage my brand in real life, I'd like to be able to do it online as well. I would love a Twitter-esque solution for Facebook privacy - I set up groups of people (not unlike what Facebook does now) and then on an individual-post-level, I type #groupname which includes/excludes that group from that particular status update, link, photo, etc. It could even work as #friendname. When I can use Facebook as the hub of my social connections from any context - without censoring myself wholly - it will become much more useful to me (until The Next Big Thing at least).
"Manage your brand"?
Are you as much of a pretentious douchebag in rl as you are on the net?
Glad I'm a myspace user!
Re; Permissions - You can do what you're describing - but not down to the individual item. I find that the permissions and privacy settings in Facebook are phenomenal. You can get down to the individual user level with permissions... it takes some time, but its doable and worth it.
Strong points, though you almost lost me with the self-aggrandizing you fell into at mid-point with this snarker: "Formerly high-level conversations were quickly brought down to the lowest common denominator as a huge population of people uninitiated in basic Internet etiquette flooded the networks faster than we could educate them."
I'm willing to bet that even you once had training wheels.
What kind of "high level conversations" would those be - debating if Boba Fett would beat a Klingon in a fight?
Pretentious internet nerds!
What kind of debate is that? Boba Fett would kick any Klingons ass!
Ok, ok, General Chang could give him a fight, but Boba Fett would still emerge victorious.
boba fett would win, hands down
More hysteria from an expert ?
The sky is falling chicken little.
Take a chill pill.
Remember all the Y2K hysteria from the experts.
Our entire system would collapse.
The death of Google . . . blah ! blah ! blah !
Is there really going to be a mad scramble to Facebook,
or will people "get around to it" when they can.
People have middle initials, favorite numbers, etc.
Relax expert.
I am confused by this article. Right now, if you google someone's real name and they have a Facebook account, one of the first hits to come up will be a link to their account on Facebook. If you have your account set to Friends Only, the only way to see their page is to send a friends request. The only change being proposed by Facebook is to make the URL cleaner. It'll all still be Friends Only. What's the problem?
My sentiments exactly.
What a phenomenal article; great read!
I agree Iolanthe, you can easily google somebody's name and find their facebook account if it is public. If one wishes to not be found and maintain a private 'wading pool' atmosphere, all they have to do is set the privacy settings to do so.
Adding this feature will simply allow those out and about to connect through facebook more easily, and increasing the effectiveness of the social networking aspect.
I disagree that this is the end of Facebook as we know it. For one thing, if you Google someone now, their Facebook public profile, or an acknowledgement of their existence on Facebook will come up--the amount of detail shown depends on their settings. Mine shows my name, picture, and network. This is not the end of Facebook, just another vanity gimmick.
Sadly, you are spot on! The first step in Facebook's downfall was allowing anyone not belonging to a college network to use it. Then, old people caught on. When the old people started using it, Facebook lost most of its cache as a website strictly for MY generation (age 18-26). People out of my generation just didn't get it. It was an escape, an exclusive club for my generation to gather. I remember being so excited to get a college email address just so I could create a facebook profile! After using creepy-ass myspace throughout high-school, we finally had a place to be connected with friends without having creepy older people trying to friend us and look at our profiles. Now, those creepy older people are my parents and their friends! My generation is so different from the older ones because of our vastly greater exposure to technology. Call me ageist, but when people out of college networks started using it (instead of myspace where they should have been relegated) facebook barreled wildly downhill.
As a member of YOUR generation, I wasn't able to ever join Facebook because I, at 23, tried to join and did not have a university alumnus address because my university does not provide them. It was a classist site, too. And your professors, school administrators, and deans were all able to join long ago--and many early adopters did.
You are ageist - and a snob!
People like you are the reason I use myspace instead of facebook!
My point was that facebook and myspace are now interchangeable--so why use facebook? The same with AOl vs other service providers. Facebook has morphed into something else--which means those of us that used it in its original form have become frustrated with it, and will use it less. Obviously, though, FB has found a way to replace us.
I cannot wait until you get old. LOL.
As one of the many people of a previous generation that helped create the thing you think you own, your thinking sounds incredibly, sadly narrow and bigoted.
What exactly did you get from that college education besides a FB address?
As for exclusivity -- if you don't have the ability to say 'no' in a polite way and offer alternative ways for people to stay in touch with you, let alone appreciate people who are a different age than you and care about you -- those are problems that have nothing to do with FB.
"As one of the many people of a previous generation that helped create the thing you think you own..."
WHAT??? I'm sorry, the last time I checked, Mark Zuckerberg is 25 years old. He was a college student who created a social network for college students. Explain to me how "your generation" can possibly take credit for it. Stop bellyaching that you're one of the old people who missed the FB boat and now has to be defensive because the bandwagon got too full and those of us who were original 2004 Facebookers have decided to hop off.
Kambler is right. Facebook is so over and done. It's not our fault that things become more uncool as they become more popular.
@parthenia: "My generation is so different from the older ones because of our vastly greater exposure to technology."
That is what I was speaking to, not the creation of Facebook (btw a morph of old Bulletin Board Services, Friendster, Myspace). There would be no Internet or Web (do you know the difference?) if it weren't for the "creepy" parents and grandparents of 25 year olds who live and breathe technology.
Try making something, not just being a consumer. That's special.
I think you are the old person here. Your "stay off my lawn" mentality is pathetic and kinda sad.
Creepy older people? Kambler, you sound suspiciously like Timmy Turner from Fairly OddParents. I look forward to the day you become what you loathe, a creepy older person in a few short years, and then you can loathe yourself as much as you loathe anyone with more life experience and maturity than you have. Of course, this is assuming Wanda and Cosmo don't protect you from becoming a creepy older person!
"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years." -Mark Twain
I was in my 20's not too long ago and never had that "my generation vs. your generation" mentality you have. Needless to say, I knew many others who shared your views. You are such an original! I've come to realize that those who can only find understanding by employing simple binary systems such as "good vs. evil," "young vs. old," "black vs. white," "men vs. woman," etc.. tend to be, in general, unsophisticated and rather narrow-minded regardless of their age.
"Formerly high-level conversations were quickly brought down to the lowest common denominator as a huge population of people uninitiated in basic Internet etiquette flooded the networks faster than we could educate them."
I've always thought that the whole "internet etiquette" thing is bullshit.
Who decided that typing in all caps is SHOUTING?
And why is SHOUTING necessarily bad?
I've always thought that the best thing about the internet is the LACK of "etiquette" that here, unlike in real life, you can call a douchebag a douchebag, with no fear of retaliation!
You and the other people criticizing this quote obviously weren't reading Usenet when AOL first got connected to the Internet. It wasn't just "bad etiquette" in the sense that you would say today. There were huge numbers of posts from AOL addresses that said "Please send me everything you know about xxx." It gave the impression that everyone subscribed to AOL was not merely uninitiated, but unable to feed themselves. And of course since there were already plenty of obnoxious people on the Internet, there were loads of parody messages from fake addresses like imnidiot@AOL.COM.
"Internet USENET boards were filled with what we called "newbies" wandering around and asking anyone they could find how to download pornography. Formerly high-level conversations were quickly brought down to the lowest common denominator as a huge population of people uninitiated in basic Internet etiquette flooded the networks faster than we could educate them."
Wow. You know what you should have done? Given all the AOL "newbies" blankets infected with smallpox. That would have saved everyone a lot of trouble, including, apparently, your precious USENET boards.
At least now I know what my Facebook username will be: DouglasRushkoffIsAPretentiousNoob
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.