"Mrs. Gardiner tagged Elizabeth Bennet in her note Yes, Mr. Darcy Arranged Everything (and I think he likes you)."
Why does Tumblr think we want them to be more like Twitter or Facebook? If we want those, we use those. We want Tumblr to work like Tumblr.
Tumblr’s getting a dashboard redesign today, which will allow people to post straight from the dashboard rather than a separate interface. You know, like Twitter. ”Now you’re making posts the same way you’re reading them,” the company says. Thoughts?
I hope nobody was planning on posting anything with the broken mess Tumblr is inevitably about to become
Exactly. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel when we’re just as happy to walk.
“ Publishing is heavier on Twitter, though engagement on Facebook is higher. Companies are publishing an average of 50 messages per day on Twitter as compared to 16 messages per day to Facebook. However, Facebook yields 549 engagement interactions for every message published while Twitter yields 60. ”
“ One reader named Joachim Schipper wrote to me with a devious plan to trick Facebook into removing his “deleted” photos from the CDN. The theory involved transferring the US rights of the photo to a friend (complete with notarized document and payment), and then having that friend send a DMCA takedown to Facebook in order to have the photo removed from the original poster’s account. I was unable to confirm that this strategy would work, but when your users are resorting to this level of inconvenience in order to make sure their photos are really offline, you have a serious user experience problem. ”
BAHAHAHA this is hilarious. I wonder if this would actually be effective.
“ To obsess over the offline and deny all the ways we routinely remain disconnected is to fetishize this disconnection. Author after author pretends to be a lone voice, taking a courageous stand in support of the offline in precisely the moment it has proliferated and become over-valorized. For many, maintaining the fiction of the collective loss of the offline for everyone else is merely an attempt to construct their own personal time-outs as more special, as allowing them to rise above those social forces of distraction that have ensnared the masses. “I am real. I am the thoughtful human. You are the automaton.” I am reminded of a line from a recent essay by Sarah Nicole Prickett: that we are “so obsessed with the real that it’s unrealistic, atavistic, and just silly.” How have we come to make the error of collectively mourning the loss of that which is proliferating?The notion of the offline as real and authentic is a recent invention, corresponding with the rise of the online.
In great part, the reason is that we have been taught to mistakenly view online as meaning not offline. The notion of the offline as real and authentic is a recent invention, corresponding with the rise of the online. If we can fix this false separation and view the digital and physical as enmeshed, we will understand that what we do while connected is inseparable from what we do when disconnected. That is, disconnection from the smartphone and social media isn’t really disconnection at all: The logic of social media follows us long after we log out. There was and is no offline; it is a lusted-after fetish object that some claim special ability to attain, and it has always been a phantom.
Digital information has long been portrayed as an elsewhere, a new and different cyberspace, a tendency I have coined the term “digital dualism” to describe: the habit of viewing the online and offline as largely distinct. The common (mis)understanding is experience is zero-sum: time spent online means less spent offline. We are either jacked into the Matrix or not; we are either looking at our devices or not. When camping, I have service or not, and when out to eat, my friend is either texting or not. The smartphone has come to be “the perfect symbol” of leaving the here and now for something digital, some other, cyber, space.
But this idea that we are trading the offline for the online, though it dominates how we think of the digital and the physical, is myopic. It fails to capture the plain fact that our lived reality is the result of the constant interpenetration of the online and offline. That is, we live in an augmented reality that exists at the intersection of materiality and information, physicality and digitality, bodies and technology, atoms and bits, the off and the online. It is wrong to say “IRL” to mean offline: Facebook is real life.
Facebook doesn’t curtail the offline but depends on it. What is most crucial to our time spent logged on is what happened when logged off; it is the fuel that runs the engine of social media. The photos posted, the opinions expressed, the check-ins that fill our streams are often anchored by what happens when disconnected and logged-off. The Web has everything to do with reality; it comprises real people with real bodies, histories, and politics. It is the fetish objects of the offline and the disconnected that are not real. ”
“ Ann Marie Kennedy found that when we tried to select Effin from a list of places on her Facebook profile, it had been blacklisted by the social network for being too offensive. In the UK, Ireland and other English speaking countries, the term ‘effing’ is a contraction of the F-word (in case you were wondering). Not happy with Facebook’s outrageous ‘placism’, Kennedy immediately tried to set up a new Facebook campaign page entitled: “Please get my hometown Effin recognised”. As you might expect, Facebook wasn’t having any of that either. ”
“ Just as Instagram makes bad photos look good and good photos look great, Facebook makes you look happy and loved if you’re not, and joyous and adored if you are. Self-brand and share. Filter, and share. Share the edited stuff, the varnished stuff, the stuff with the halo around it. Take a step away from truth for the sake of beauty. ”