Douglas Rushkoff seems like a really smart guy. He's written some great pieces for the Daily Beast, and he seems to know a lot about the Internet. So I'm having trouble understanding why exactly he's so freaked about a URL update destroying Facebook. Seriously, that is what he is saying. I'll allow him to explain in his own words:
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. 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?But we are quickly findable via Google. Look, I just found Douglas Rushkoff's Facebook page on Google. Here's (I believe the same) Douglas Rushkoff's Facebook profile. That wasn't very hard! And Douglas still hasn't quit Facebook even though I, and presumably thousands of other searchers, have theoretically shattered his privacy, and Facebook's "only reason for being" has already been completely abolished.
His conclusions are even weirder:
The end of the social network! 200 million people adrift in a sea of bandwidth! The horror! I truly don't want to be dense here, but huh? Facebook users don't know that they're on the Internet? What do they think this Facebook thing is, a mind meld? An opium dream? An actual book? I mean, how ridiculous a rationale would one have to make up to defend the statement that changing your URL makes one feel thrust into the open sea of the Internet, and caused you to stop using Facebook? That's an open question. I am at a loss.
That shift, I believe, portends the beginning of the end for this social network....A minute after midnight on Saturday may just be the moment 200 million more people find themselves thrown firmly onto the Internet.
But I also don't want to shirk my responsibility to the public, so listen: If you're on Facebook, you must know that it means you are also on the Internet. The Intenet. Yes, that's the one with the Google. Good luck, and happy searching.
Is this guy for real? Facebook->privacy settings->"make my facebook profile searchable on public internet?"->check "no"
Damn! Anyone who doesn't already have their facebook privacy settings customized to their liking already deserves any breach of "privacy" they incurr.
Is that the case for sure? If your name is actually part of the URL, rather than just appearing on the page, is it more vulnerable to Googlizability? I assume the Google searchbot doesn't index it either way if the privacy setting is checked to no, but can someone say for sure?
Anyway, Rushkoff's analysis might make more sense than you'd think -- I wouldn't be surprised if there was a large number of Facebook users who spent more time there than on the Internet proper. I agree it's a bizarre-sounding case he's making, but weirder predictions have come true.
Forbidden Donut...
Brewer Caldwell is going to make sure to try and secure their name tonight.
Godspeed you, Brewer Caldwell.
Wow! If that guy thinks you're not on the internet when you're on Facebook, he is in serious need of a reality check. He and others are making way too much of this, it's just a change over from a bunch of meaningless numbers to an easier to remember url, a personalized url. I have my privacy settings set well, so am not worried about it, also I'm not the type to do something stupid and video tape it and post it up on Facebook anyway, so no worries about being googled and found out for anything. I don't and won't even give out my Facebook url to anyone unless I already know them. The reason? Facebook still displays your full name on the profile page. When Facebook comes out with the option to be found within Facebook search only, by full name, but w/o having your name displayed right on your profile page, then I'll consider giving my url out, whether it's named or numbered. And no, my personalized FB url is not my first and last name or a varient of it such as first initial&last name.
People need to calm down. It's just a site on the internet.
Having followed Rushkoff's previous works and also being one of the smallish number of GenX'ers who got online before it was cool (1986), I understand whwere he's coming from. I'm not sure he necessarily thinks that it's the actual named URLs that could be the potential demise of Facebook, but it could be the moment that Facebook has jumped the shark.
Facebook has increasingly been about influencing the way people access the general Internet as it is about the dot-com era Shangri La of "stickiness" and being the destination that sucks up everyone and keeps them there. This is a double edged sword. They could continue to live a very long life, but their days as one of the royals would be limited if they kept with their old model of being a better social network than MySpace.
I only half agree with Rushkoff that Facebook may be in danger of jumping the shark. Facebook is retracing the history of AOL, but for different reasons. AOL was backed into opening up because the Web started beating AOL at its own game-- delivering cheap and easily available content.
Facebook is pressured to do something, but unlike AOL, they're not working out of desperation. They're opening up their site in a way that could influence the way the Web is accessed, which is at the same time exciting to some, dangerous to Facebook, and dismaying to a loyal legion of people who were there because it was the ideal experience for them.
Facebook will either change the way a large segment of the population *experiences* the Web or they will become a utility that is second fiddle to the power it was attempting to harness. So far in the short and accelerated history of the Web, history has a cruel preference for the latter outcome, but it also has shown a habit of rewarding in serendipitous fashion, those who picked the right time to take a chance.