On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:24:14 -0700 "H. S. Teoh" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 06:59:55PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > [...] > > > There is a general assumption by many applications/websites that > > > *everyone* uses facebook. > > > > I know! And it's not just software, it's all business in general. > > They noticed that it's popular so they think that means "nearly > > everyone uses it" when the reality is that even as popular as it > > is, it's still only a *minority* of internet users. Same with > > twitter. > > Huh. I must've been living in a cave. Last I heard, facebook must've > hit 90% market saturation, 'cos *everyone* I know has facebook (or > pretty close to everyone). I'm not among the 90%, though, and never > intend to be. :) > > Usually when I run into a website that asks for facebook login, I hit > ctrl-W by instinct and don't even flinch. When I run into an app that > asks for facebook login, 99% of the time I just delete it without > thinking twice. And it's not just facebook, it's anything that > *requires* signing up for some kind of social networking site. Making > it an option is OK, I don't care if other people want to post their > latest Doodle Jump score to their stream of inanity, all power to > them, but *requiring* it to use an app that doesn't logically need > it? Plonk. Nagging me about it after I said no the first time? Plonk. > Maybe I'm the one living in a cave, because I've never come across anything (besides maybe facebook itself) that actually *requires* social networking login. The closest I've seen is Stack Overflow which I don't post to because it requires OpenPhishing, I mean OpenID. > > [...] > > > Besides, my wife is on facebook, and if any important news happens > > > via FB, she'll tell me :) > > > > > > > Heh. Similar situation here. My brother and sister are both on it, > > so I'll catch wind of any family news from FB. My parents, like me, > > aren't on FB either so they get the same benefit, too, although they > > usually hear much sooner I do ;) > > Me too. My wife has FB, and that's good enough for me. > > Sad to say, though, I got suckered into signing up for Google+. Every > now and then (like once a month or less) I post something, but mostly > I don't even bother logging on. Most of the stuff on it is pretty > inane anyway. Y'know, your typical "what I ate for breakfast", "how > many hairs fell into my bathroom sink this morning" and other such > content-free posts that are a total waste of time to read. There > *are* times when it's useful, like when you're going abroad and have > friends who can let you crash in their place for a night or two -- > but generally speaking, the signal-to-noise ratio is very low. > Yea, that's also why I stubbornly refuse to call my...*ahem*...site with posts and articles, a "blog" (heh, usually I call it a "not-a-blog"). Because to me, what you've described is what a *real* "blog" is. Like LiveJournal.
