Mixed feelings. Interesting and relevant stuff about the Faceboard.
But there are two kinds of successful Internet company – the giant and the bubble, and I think Facebook will be a bubble. Today’s cool 11 year olds will go somewhere else.
More troubling to me is that, while I sympathize with some of the author’s problems with online living, I don’t see any way in which online is going to be less of our lives in ten years than it is now.
Someone who writes that René Girard is only able to keep reapeating that people are sheepish, and blind to ‹‹ art, beauty, love, pleasure and truth ›› could very well say anyone is a nazi: it won’t make it true, nor even likely.
News flash: VC are libertarian right-wingers! How come they don’t subscribe to Communist party “Tax anyone beyond a million in asset”? Why would someone who’s job is to give large amounts of money to early entrepreneurs beleive in individual enterprise?
And saying anyone with ties to In-Q-tel is CIA is like saying anyone using electricity from nuclear energy (basically anyone on the American or the European grid) supports nuclear warfare. Has the US Army any interest with network models? Yes — Does it make anyone with a social network around them a spy? Please!
alan
Mr. Hodgkinson has stretched the historical detail to shrink-wrap like tension, but his basic observations are very close to the core.
These statistics on the demographics of social networking are interesting, I was always under the impression that age defines the love or hate factor!
There’s one very obvious hole in Mr. Hodgkinson’s conspiracy theory. He says “After 9/11, the US intelligence community became so excited…that in 1999 they set up their own venture capital fund.”
I remember 9/11 pretty well, and it happened in 2001. Makes the rest of his argument weaker than it already was.
Glad I skipped past those awful opening paragraphs to find that scary background info.
I never liked Facebook. I registered to grab my name but that was the end of the line for me.
He nailed it.
-t
[whistling innocently and pretending that the following isn’t pure self-promotion….
http://basiscraft.com/notes/personal.html
(and the site as a whole points towards how to implement it — patent pending :-)]
Mixed feelings. Interesting and relevant stuff about the Faceboard.
But there are two kinds of successful Internet company – the giant and the bubble, and I think Facebook will be a bubble. Today’s cool 11 year olds will go somewhere else.
More troubling to me is that, while I sympathize with some of the author’s problems with online living, I don’t see any way in which online is going to be less of our lives in ten years than it is now.
Someone who writes that René Girard is only able to keep reapeating that people are sheepish, and blind to ‹‹ art, beauty, love, pleasure and truth ›› could very well say anyone is a nazi: it won’t make it true, nor even likely.
News flash: VC are libertarian right-wingers! How come they don’t subscribe to Communist party “Tax anyone beyond a million in asset”? Why would someone who’s job is to give large amounts of money to early entrepreneurs beleive in individual enterprise?
* whose (not who’s)
* whose (not who’s)
And saying anyone with ties to In-Q-tel is CIA is like saying anyone using electricity from nuclear energy (basically anyone on the American or the European grid) supports nuclear warfare. Has the US Army any interest with network models? Yes — Does it make anyone with a social network around them a spy? Please!
Mr. Hodgkinson has stretched the historical detail to shrink-wrap like tension, but his basic observations are very close to the core.
These statistics on the demographics of social networking are interesting, I was always under the impression that age defines the love or hate factor!
http://www.jamesbeldock.com/?p=30
Tom, there was no need to whistle!
Alan
There’s one very obvious hole in Mr. Hodgkinson’s conspiracy theory. He says “After 9/11, the US intelligence community became so excited…that in 1999 they set up their own venture capital fund.”
I remember 9/11 pretty well, and it happened in 2001. Makes the rest of his argument weaker than it already was.