Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Researchers Claim Facebook Is 'Dead and Buried' To Many Young Users

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the no-room-for-an-emoticon dept.

Social Networks 457

JoeyRox writes "The recent decline in Facebook's popularity with teenagers appears to be worsening. A Global Social Media Impact study of 16 to 18 year olds found that many considered the site 'uncool' and keep their profiles alive only to keep in touch with older relatives, for whom the site remains popular. Researches say teens have switched to using WhatsApp, Snapchat, and Twitter in place of Facebook."

cancel ×

457 comments

Who would believe it? (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about 7 months ago | (#45809821)

People actually still use Facebook and Twitter? Facebook's problems are well know, and Twitter is too wordy.

#sittingonporch
#sippinglemonade

Re: Who would believe it? (4, Informative)

iamhassi (659463) | about 7 months ago | (#45809835)

Unfortunately researcher is almost right. I have a teenage relative that only uses instagram and snapchat. She has a Facebook profile but that's only because myself and other "older" relatives use Facebook.

Re: Who would believe it? (5, Interesting)

Moridineas (213502) | about 7 months ago | (#45809977)

Funny, I just had a conversation with the same answer from my low 20-somethings sister. She never uses Facebook and chats with instagram and snapchat. Seems inefficient, but maybe that's just me!

She does have a twitter account--a marketing course in one of her college classes required all the students to open a twitter account. If THAT'S not the death knell of a social network (professors ordering students to open an account!), I don't know what is.

Re: Who would believe it? (4, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | about 7 months ago | (#45810019)

She does have a twitter account--a marketing course in one of her college classes required all the students to open a twitter account. If THAT'S not the death knell of a social network (professors ordering students to open an account!), I don't know what is.

I don't think a professor can demand that of the students. What if a student cannot accept the EULA of Twitter? Will the school refund the tuition and other expenses incurred before knowing about this requirement?

Re: Who would believe it? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810155)

She does have a twitter account--a marketing course in one of her college classes required all the students to open a twitter account. If THAT'S not the death knell of a social network (professors ordering students to open an account!), I don't know what is.

I don't think a professor can demand that of the students. What if a student cannot accept the EULA of Twitter? Will the school refund the tuition and other expenses incurred before knowing about this requirement?

No different than if an engineering student felt they couldn't accept the EULA of Matlab. These are the standard tools of the profession and if a student is unable to bring himself to use a profession's standard toolset then it is much cheaper to find out after paying for a few courses than after completing an entire degree program.

Re: Who would believe it? (2)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 7 months ago | (#45810159)

Twitter is a professional tool in some field?

Re: Who would believe it? (5, Informative)

gapagos (1264716) | about 7 months ago | (#45810171)

Yes. In Marketing / PR management.
It is also a useful supplementary tool to monitor the impact of some emergency initiatives / disaster responses.

Re: Who would believe it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810175)

marketing.

Re: Who would believe it? (4, Interesting)

Derec01 (1668942) | about 7 months ago | (#45810029)

I think the inefficiency is part of the point, honestly. I personally dislike Facebook exactly because it has tried to be where you contact everyone you know, regardless of the context, and I simply don't want to spend the time to curate a stark divide between sharing with coworkers and friends when I don't share that much on Facebook in the first place. At this point in my life, it's like my contact list, except that it posts cat videos.

The old Facebook dismissal is that if you want share something with your real friends, you pick up the phone. I think that's the slightly wrong way to look at it, but it has a point. It's a bit of signaling, actually, that is accomplished by using the phone or any more involved means of contact. If I take the time to learn your details in a completely new or inefficient contact system, it means that messages from me are more likely to be significant because there's a greater barrier to me contacting you and I clearly put more effort into it that pulling up your profile on Facebook.

Re: Who would believe it? (4, Insightful)

jd (1658) | about 7 months ago | (#45810031)

If efficiency was cool, Linux would have been developed in the 1960s, all airlines would be blended-wing, with waveriders being next year, minimum gas mileage for new cars would be 100 mpg at 100 mph, fast food would be fast (and healthy), the Tea Party would be banned by law, teenagers would have memorized everything published on the Blue Zones and ebooks would be in LuaLaTeX format, not a subset of HTML.

Re: Who would believe it? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810145)

And yet pricks would still feel the need to take cheap shots at others with different political views than themselves, often in the name of tolerance and progress. Great future.

Re: Who would believe it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810185)

If efficiency was cool, Linux would have been developed in the 1960s, all airlines would be blended-wing, with wave riders being next year, minimum gas mileage for new cars would be 100 mpg at 100 mph, fast food would be fast (and healthy), the Tea Party would be banned by law, teenagers would have memorised everything published on the Blue Zones and ebooks would be in LuaLaTeX format, not a subset of HTML.

And yet pricks would still feel the need to take cheap shots at others with different political views than themselves, often in the name of tolerance and progress. Great future.

This shot was in the name of comedy so grow a thicker skin.

Re: Who would believe it? (4, Insightful)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 7 months ago | (#45810193)

If efficiency was cool, Linux would have been developed in the 1960s ...

Of course, you realize that Unix development [wikipedia.org] started in the mid 1960s.

The history of Unix dates back to the mid-1960s when the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, AT&T Bell Labs, and General Electric were developing an experimental time sharing operating system called Multics for the GE-645 mainframe. ... On this PDP-7, in 1969, a team of Bell Labs researchers led by Thompson and Ritchie, including Rudd Canaday, developed a hierarchical file system, the concepts of computer processes and device files, a command-line interpreter, and some small utility programs.

Re: Who would believe it? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810067)

I assume you had this conversation with your sister in between bouts of fucking? Because that's all me and my sister do. None of this talk crap you Americans are so fond of.

Re: Who would believe it? (3, Informative)

amiga3D (567632) | about 7 months ago | (#45810091)

Hell, I still use IRC.

Re: Who would believe it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810157)

Folks on IRC are most likely an order of magnitude smarter than Twitter twits or Facehookers.

Re: Who would believe it? (5, Funny)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about 7 months ago | (#45810165)

I use talk.

Not all the "older" folks use Facebook ! (3, Informative)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 7 months ago | (#45810139)

... only because myself and other "older" relatives use Facebook

Sorry.

Not all the "older folks" use Facebook.

I for one, don't.

Yes, I do have a FB account. I signed on to FB when it was brand new (just like I sign on to /. when it was brand new) but I do not like what people do there --- they TELL EVERYBODY EVERYTHING ABOUT THEMSELVES.

I am not interested to know who eat what at where, nor interested to tell anyone what I do at what place in what time either.

I logged on to my FB account for 2 times since I signed on. Yes, exactly two times, and no more.

Re:Who would believe it? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45809865)

Agreed.

I'm 25, I stopped using facebook about 2 years ago (suspended my account even, email spam is annoying).

I signed up to twitter, I still have my account, but honestly I don't think I ever looked at twitter after creating an account, I'm not even sure what my username is.

Communication is personal, not "lets spam the world with my words". I have a phone, I text and call people I actually want to communicate with. I have skype and IRC for online / casual discussions with people who aren't in my immediate world. Forums and mailing lists for more technical and important things. Email covers everything else.

Needless to say, with the above tools at my, far more appropriate disposal - there's literally no need, want, or remote desire for facebook, nor twitter. Nor was there ever.

Re:Who would believe it? (5, Funny)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 7 months ago | (#45810027)

WOW, full circle. welcome back to my lawn!

Re:Who would believe it? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 7 months ago | (#45810173)

Naw, a real grumpy old man like me wouldn't bother with skype, IRC, etc. Email is good enough for almost everything, voice phone calls covers the rest. Occasionally google+ to see what some people are up to (at least you can divide people into groups, though it still lacks the vital -1 button).

Re:Who would believe it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810035)

Well Done. You are well on the way to becoming a grumpy old person.

Re:Who would believe it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810183)

I think that is the saddest thing I have heard in a long time.

Re:Who would believe it? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 7 months ago | (#45809933)

The answer is obvious: Facebook should buy Twitter. Or the other way around, the way things are going...........

Re:Who would believe it? (2)

lxs (131946) | about 7 months ago | (#45810003)

Merger could result in an Axis of Drivel with disastrous consequences. Are you ready for the Tweetocalypse?

Re:Who would believe it? (4, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 7 months ago | (#45809969)

I don't think there's any one place - yet - that has the cachet Facebook (and MySpace before that) once had. Among my daughter's circle of friends (all in their early 20s), though, it appears Tumblr is the new Facebook. And she's told me before the only reason she has a Facebook account at all is to keep in touch with her older relatives.

Of course I like to respond that I quit Facebook before it was cool. :-P At which point she invariably rolls her eyes and says "DA-ad..."

Re:Who would believe it? (2)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 7 months ago | (#45810023)

#sittingonporch
#sippinglemonade

#rollindownstreet
#sippingginjuice

Yogi Berra (5, Funny)

gmhowell (26755) | about 7 months ago | (#45809823)

Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded.

And trust me, it's not because it's "uncool", its because the little shits are afraid of getting caught.

Re: Yogi Berra (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45809843)

I agree 100 percent. It can't be cool if your parents hang out there.

Re: Yogi Berra (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45809869)

this.

I'm surprised about snapchat honestly. so apparently tweens sext more than they actually talk?

I think part of it is that kids typically don't have distant family whom they care to keep in the loop. Once you get kids it's pretty obligatory to post pictures when they do something cute or funny

Re: Yogi Berra (4, Funny)

TheRealHocusLocus (2319802) | about 7 months ago | (#45810039)

I'm surprised about snapchat honestly. so apparently tweens sext more than they actually talk?

Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com]

Re:Yogi Berra (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45809871)

the little shits are afraid of getting caught.

Can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it horrible for the kids?

Get Off My Lawn (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 7 months ago | (#45809885)

I've always considered Facebook to be a little "transient", short, not for real conversation. But WhatsApp, Snapchat, and Twitter? Is this an indication that kids today have lost the ability to have meaningful communication? If it can't be said in 140 chars or less it's not worth communicating? There is a discussion at Balloon Juice [balloon-juice.com] about the current way of raising kids: Apparently face-to-face social interaction is passe* with the kids these days, and school shootings are up.

*According to Google, the use of the word "passe" was really big in 1800 and again in 1900, but has steadily decreased since then.

Re:Get Off My Lawn (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45809973)

I've always considered Facebook to be a little "transient", short, not for real conversation. But WhatsApp, Snapchat, and Twitter?

Who cares? FB got enough users to go IPO and exit. In the time it took for that to happen, its users migrated to other services, just in time for them to create profitable exits for their founders and ultimately fuck over their retail investors when the userbase shifts to the next cool thing.

The only business model is passing notes in class. Email and USENET let you fuck around while looking like you were working. Then came GeoCities, profitably exited to Yahoo. Then came Instant messaging systems, same sort of pump/dump deal. (Somewhere around here phone companies discovered there was money to be made in texting, which was just another way to pass notes in class.) Then came MySpace and Facebook, and Instagram. Then came Twitter, basically a way to monetize texting and take it back from the phone companies. Now it's Snapchat, who promises to let NSA and anyone clever enough to rename a misnamed .JPG back to ".JPG" keep archives, but since most of its userbase (see above -- passing notes in class!) doesn't care, because they don't know enough about technology to see beyond "the client app autodeletes after viewing".

The more it changes, the more it stays the same, and the less I want anything to do with this industry anymore, except to daytrade the stocks in it. You can't invest in it, because fads only last 3-5 years, and it takes 2-4 of those years to go from startup to IPO exit. (Any bets on when GitHub IPOs, jumps its shark, and everyone switches to Mercurial? Fuck, maybe there's a fad/pendulum effect there, and in ten years we'll abandon DVCS for centralized versioning systems once thought obsolete, sorta like how we moved from decentralized application hosting of local executables on personal computers back to SaaS and the fuckin' cloud.)

Re:Get Off My Lawn (5, Insightful)

g2devi (898503) | about 7 months ago | (#45810077)

The more it changes, the more it stays the same, and the less I want anything to do with this industry anymore,

Why are you so jaded? If email works, then stick to it. It's not as if anyone is forcing you to follow the fashionistas? One of the beauties of Unix is that you can take a Unix programmer from the 1980s and drop him in 2014 and he'll still be productive. True, he wouldn't know anything about GUIs (which change with time) but the core has remained largely the same. The same can be said about all core technologies around today.

Re:Get Off My Lawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810149)

Zzzzzzz...

Re:Get Off My Lawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810051)

'Passe' has given way to 'Meh' and 'Whatever' is teen chat according to my grand kids.

I prefer to use 'un-cool'. When you get to a certain age you become 'cool' because of the things that you do that are un-cool to others.

Now where's my fountain pen? I have a letter to write.

Re:Get Off My Lawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810167)

"Whatever" was popular by 1989 when I started junior high, but it didn't refer to things being passe -- it was closer to a way of conveying resigned, disdainful awareness that somebody elseis determined to be an idiot and/or pain in the ass.

OTOH I didn't hear or see "meh" anywhere until the early-mid 00s, and then it was from a bunch of young twentysomethings.

Re:Get Off My Lawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810169)

Apparently 'cool' iis out because of predictive texting on dumbphones. The new word is 'book'.

So now to be (old) 'cool' young people are learning to un-book off of FB. This can only be good for society...

Re:Get Off My Lawn (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 7 months ago | (#45810095)

Or maybe, if it's going to take more than 140 characters to say, it's worth saying in person?

Re:Yogi Berra (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 7 months ago | (#45809895)

That is the definition of uncool.

Re:Yogi Berra (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 7 months ago | (#45810053)

When "everyone" includes your parents, grandparents, your aunts and uncles, your SO's parents, your teachers, and the pastor who baptized you as an infant, then "that thing everyone else is doing" suddenly stops being cool and becomes the thing to scorn and stay away from. Getting caught or not has nothing to do with it, based on the teens I've seen and the stories we all see circulating from time to time. It's simply a matter of it not being the place where teens hang out since it's the place where everyone else is hanging out.

Give it a few more years and it may become retro, but until then, this change makes absolute sense, and it's likely to only get worse since Facebook has defined itself as a social company. What are they going to fall back on? At least Google isn't defined as a social company, so when they finally give up on G+ as a failed venture that very few people are willingly signing up for, they can simply make something new, just like they did after Buzz failed.

Good. (4, Funny)

starX (306011) | about 7 months ago | (#45809825)

I hate it when those damn kids start playing on my lawn.

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45809867)

I hate it when those damn kids start playing on my lawn.

You call THAT shit a lawn?

Damn, have your standards been lowered by social media...

Re:Good. (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 7 months ago | (#45809971)

*ahem*, I believe you mean "your wall," right gramps?

No loss (2, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | about 7 months ago | (#45809833)

All I've ever seen contributed by teens is slang and whining and posts of crap they claim is music.

Now get off my lawn!

Re:No loss (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45809911)

All I've ever seen contributed by teens is slang and whining and posts of crap they claim is music.

Now get off my lawn!

All I've ever seen contributed on Facebook is utterly pointless drivel, of which 95% no one has use for.

The kids have a point, and it's about damn time the de facto authentication mechanism of the Internet gets a reality check. I'm rather tired of trying to visit (any random) site to sign up for their services only to find a fucking Facebook login box. Get out of my face with that shit already.

Happy mowing.

Fuck... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45809845)

I'm old :(

Newspaper (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45809853)

I read about this in the newspaper.

Too complicated (5, Interesting)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about 7 months ago | (#45809861)

Personally I find that Facebook has too many features. It sort of reminds me of Microsoft Office with this endless parade of new tiny and mostly useless features.

I think that this is where the snapchats and twitters do so very well. With a very simple core feature set it is not hard to keep focused on what works. But with facebook it almost seems like they don't want to leave anything out just in case some competitor comes along and eats their lunch.

I think it all boils down to the question: what is Facebook? With the highly successful recent upstarts that is an easy thing to answer. But with facebook the question is actually quite complex. It is very difficult for facebook to be so much to so many.

To sum it up they have lost their 30 second elevator pitch. But maybe with this information Facebook will realize that their core audience aren't teenyboppers but adults and thus will focus their feature set in that direction.

Re:Too complicated (1)

Kevin Fishburne (1296859) | about 7 months ago | (#45809935)

It's more now what it's always been; a clusterfuck. From a usability standpoint it's like GT5's main menu but scrolling to infinity. I deleted my first account long ago and my second one only echoes my Twitter feed. Google+ isn't much better, sadly. A clean, intuitive interface would do wonders for both services.

Re:Too complicated (2, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | about 7 months ago | (#45809967)

A clean, intuitive interface would do wonders for both services.

Be careful when asking for "clean".
The newer generation of "UI designers" (and I use that phrase lightly) thinks that clean means adding more whitespace and blowing everything up full screen.

Re:Too complicated (2, Interesting)

mlts (1038732) | about 7 months ago | (#45809955)

To me, FB was becoming too much of an "all eggs in one basket" type of site. It handles authentication for third parties, a gaming platform, messaging, calendars, contact lists. None of this is something unique to FB, because other applications or websites have been doing this.

Then there are the concerns about privacy. At least SnapChat offers the illusion of privacy which people are wanting since there have been stories and stories about FB data falling into the wrong hands [1].

To boot, I don't know anyone that really _likes_ FB. At best the service is tolerated because it is expected. However, G+, VK, and other social networking sites offer virtually the same thing, so there isn't anything other than critical mass that makes FB stand out to a subscriber base [2].

[1]: One example personally was someone tagging me while I was browsing a humidor in a FB pic. A week later the health insurance company I had at the time then sent a demand letter that I either go for a physical or pay smoker's rates.

[2]: Advertisers and their backend are different, as FB is extremely good, but this isn't as visible to the product (i.e. accountholders.)

Re:Too complicated (5, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 7 months ago | (#45809987)

[1]: One example personally was someone tagging me while I was browsing a humidor in a FB pic. A week later the health insurance company I had at the time then sent a demand letter that I either go for a physical or pay smoker's rates.

That claim I find rather hard to believe. So much so that I don't, without it being backed up.
Does anyone have any evidence for this happening?

Re:Too complicated (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 7 months ago | (#45810143)

I was about to ask the same thing. If it were try then it could be an incredibly powerful weapon in the war for privacy. A massive and crippling lawsuit could finally put some kind of limit on how far privacy violation can go.

Unfortunately, like 82% of anecdotes and 94% off statistics on Slashdot it is probably made up.

Re:Too complicated (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 7 months ago | (#45810181)

Google+ has the ability to disable tagging, despite it's other flaws. If facebook doesn't allow opt-out too then it again points to it as a site for kids who don't care about privacy.

Re:Too complicated (3, Insightful)

Derec01 (1668942) | about 7 months ago | (#45810065)

Whoa, footnote [1] is a little too egregious for me to let it pass unremarked. Why in the world could the insurance company see the picture? How long was it from posting to reaction? Which company was this? (I'm not inclined to reward this kind of behavior)

For one, the logical leap they made is huge, and for another, that's some serious monitoring of online traffic for this to be true. I have to admit I'm a bit skeptical, not that I'm sure they wouldn't love to do this.

Re:Too complicated (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 7 months ago | (#45809983)

I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to intrusive ads and the selling of your personal information as "features".

(Couldn't resist...)

Re:Too complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810161)

I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to intrusive ads and the selling of your personal information as "features".

(Couldn't resist...)

You've never read or listened to Eric Schmidt?

Re:Too complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810025)

Personally I find that Facebook has too many features. It sort of reminds me of Microsoft Office with this endless parade of new tiny and mostly useless features.

I think that this is where the snapchats and twitters do so very well. With a very simple core feature set it is not hard to keep focused on what works. But with facebook it almost seems like they don't want to leave anything out just in case some competitor comes along and eats their lunch.

I think it all boils down to the question: what is Facebook? With the highly successful recent upstarts that is an easy thing to answer. But with facebook the question is actually quite complex. It is very difficult for facebook to be so much to so many.

To sum it up they have lost their 30 second elevator pitch. But maybe with this information Facebook will realize that their core audience aren't teenyboppers but adults and thus will focus their feature set in that direction.

AOL 2.0

Don't think I'm joking, FB doesn't need to be replaced by anything, it can just suffocate under its own weight and be reinvented under a new name years later as a revolutionary way to waste time and "talk" to "friends". This is bound to repeat.

Re:Too complicated (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about 7 months ago | (#45810123)

The way some have raved about FB's supposedly dirt simple website design, I thought I was the only one who found FB's interface poor and confusing. Somehow, reading an invite or message doesn't always clean up the list of new things FB likes to nag you about, and logging in doesn't always take you to a home page. Terminology is a bit misleading. I've frequently ended up in the interface for searching out and adding new friends while hunting around for something else entirely.

I don't feel too trusting of FB's intentions. Always feels a little dirty to use FB for sending messages to friends and family.

A meme returns (4, Funny)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#45809863)

Only old people use Facebook.

Re: A meme returns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45809881)

Lol wasn't that the point of this article? And every comment afterward??

Re: A meme returns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810179)

I'm old and not on FB, or Twitter. Never plan to be either. If you have a life you just don't get time for these online distractions.

Re:A meme returns (2)

arth1 (260657) | about 7 months ago | (#45809945)

Many old people prefer methods of communication where they decide exactly who the recipients are, each and every time. And where the history is available no matter how much time has passed, or what service you now use, because it adheres to open standards.
Like e-mail.

When, a couple of years ago, I predicted that Facebook would face the same fate as Myspace, Livejournal and others, I was ridiculed. Facebook was the best thing since sliced bread. Well, folks, do you still think the same now?

Re:A meme returns (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 7 months ago | (#45809957)

Join the club, I was downmodded when I said the Ghz race would end someday.

Re:A meme returns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810037)

Tablets are a fad. Someday we will look back at Android the same as we do Palm OS.

There. I said it.

Re:A meme returns (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#45810197)

Email is my personal preference for exactly the reasons you give. Facebook has nowhere to go but down. Honestly, I'm surprised the Facebook bubble has gotten as big as it has.

Re:A meme returns (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 7 months ago | (#45810109)

I'm old and I don't use facebook. I had an account about 3 years ago and after about a year I had logged in maybe 5 or 6 times. I kept getting all this ridiculous spam from everywhere so I just deleted it. What the fuck is up with the farm game anyway? People actually play that?

Re:A meme returns (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 7 months ago | (#45810151)

Turns out young people are fickle. Fashions change quickly, there always has to be something new. Who knew?

My FB strategy is working (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45809873)

I ignored it... and it's going away.

So, let's make the circle complete... (1)

Fishchip (1203964) | about 7 months ago | (#45809879)

Back to MySpace we go.

Follow the money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45809883)

Follow the money. Check to make sure the study was not funded by hedge funds who are short FB. Get back to us. No, I'm not saying that's what's going on. I don't know one way or the other. Somebody fact-check it for us. I don't trust these journalists to track down the source of funding for us. It's not my job. It's theirs. Did they do it? That's all I'm asking.

Whenever you see studies, you gotta follow the money. How do we know this isn't like a "diesel particulates are good for what ails ya'" study paid for by oil companies?

Re:Follow the money (1)

Fishchip (1203964) | about 7 months ago | (#45809897)

I LOVE diesel particulates.

The REAL cool kids are all using IRC (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 7 months ago | (#45809907)

What the heck do these WhatsApp and Snapchat chatter programs have to do with social networking, anyways?

Re:The REAL cool kids are all using IRC (3, Insightful)

Derec01 (1668942) | about 7 months ago | (#45810079)

I'd imagine the lack of social networking elements is the draw. People assume that today's kids don't care about privacy, but I get the sense that most of them want their social connections to be more ephemeral than Facebook encourages. With Facebook, defriending someone could be slightly embarrassing, so I just accumulate a pile of people I used to know and may not identify with anymore, with potentially added stress if I delete them. With a messaging app, I message you, or I don't. You can add all the privacy features you want to Facebook, but the possibly preferable alternative is not putting all the effort into maintaining a profile.

Re: The REAL cool kids are all using IRC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810099)

What's a WhatsApp anyway?
Yes I am too lazy to Bing it. :)

Communication online is a fungible commodity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45809919)

Fungible: The source doesn't matter, only the price. In this case the price is that of ads, and a reliable interface, and social cost, and etc.

It's true! (1)

ApplePy (2703131) | about 7 months ago | (#45809923)

Just the other day, I heard an 18-year-old tell his mother that she spends too much time on Facebook.

I about fell off my chair. Maybe it gets better, after all! :)

Re:It's true! (5, Interesting)

Moridineas (213502) | about 7 months ago | (#45810001)

Like many slashdot users, for most of my life, I've been accused of spending too much time on computers.

As a child of the 80s, I've spent countless hours on BBSes, terminal internet, dialup internet, AOL instant messenger, battle.net, mmos, civilization 1, civilization 2, civilization 3, etc. ;-)

Today, however, I feel like a luddite. I don't use Facebook. I don't use instagram or snapchat or whatsapp. I read one or two twitter accounts, but don't have an account myself. My wife is totally hooked on Facebook, and I'm now I'm the one complaining about spending so much time on the computer!

It's a bizarre world.

I agree, I left 2 years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45809937)

I was one of the first adopters of Facebook. And also one of the few first to leave it.

Why? Here's why:

1) Gazillion stupid apps that tells me that my so called friends are posting cute images of some virtual pet in their image gallery.
2) Gazillion equally stupid ads that doesn't even relate to me in any way.
3) Constant need to filter out the new ways the apps have found to circumvent the filtering.
4) Do we really need to know when an ex-coworker you had 5 years ago, is AFK to go to the bathroom?
5) Do we really need to know that little-princess 4 months old have just learned to walk, in a family we don't even remotely know?
6) Do we really need to connect with one or several of our high school bullies that has the narcissistic need to connect with you to cover his/her past?
7) Do we really need to be "FRIENDS" with our boss (who's only mission is to monitor our every move)?
8) Do we really need....arh...you get the point.

Facebook - DELETED!

Re:I agree, I left 2 years ago. (1)

Jhon (241832) | about 7 months ago | (#45810113)

My "friends" are family and friends so close to be considered family. Thats around 30 people with a few "odd ball" old friends who "found" me. That tops off around 40 folks in my "friends".

I only see about 15 in my feed (by config). So I WANT to know that little-princess 4 months old just learned to walk in THAT group.

What I don't understand is the desire to have 100, 200, 2000 friends. That is just crazy and leads to the signal overload you describe above.

Is it a problem? (1)

nickol (208154) | about 7 months ago | (#45809939)

Obviously teens and older people have different interests and different views, so they need different forms of expression. It is good that the separation occured by natural selection and not by advertising.

more fads to ignore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45809947)

Facefuck ... twatter ... watsap ... snapcrap ... man, it's so hard to keep track of all these fads I'm ignoring.

Alternatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45809951)

They could start using Google+, no parents there, just Google employees.

A temporary fadbook (1)

godlessgambler (1274386) | about 7 months ago | (#45809959)

The end of Facebook is Generation Nothingness, whom are now looking for the next big thing. And we move on (well, we do but your data, if you've participated, is permanently written in stone and available to be inspected by security forces along with a few thousand twenty-something recent college grads with marketing degrees -- consume, obey, enjoy).

Kids don't have much disposable money (4, Interesting)

eric31415927 (861917) | about 7 months ago | (#45809965)

After spending all their money on cell phones, kids cannot afford to buy products advertised to them on Facebook.

The fact that Facebook's customer base is morphng into older folks only helps its business model of selling ads.

Get outta the house (1)

hambone142 (2551854) | about 7 months ago | (#45809979)

Perhaps they'll "get out of the door and out on the street all alone". The fresh air may kill them.

No Surprise (5, Interesting)

Evil Pete (73279) | about 7 months ago | (#45809995)

Teenagers want and need to find a place of their own, to form their own subculture. A new technology comes along, they jump on board because they are highly adaptable, their parents less, often much less, so. But after five years the teenagers are getting out of their teens and those entering the teens once again need to find their own space. Therefore, there can be no permanent place for teens unless it puts off older people joining or staying. Anyway, someone needs to beta test the new communications paradigms.

Re:No Surprise (1)

Jhon (241832) | about 7 months ago | (#45810127)

"...and then I found a job. Keeping people from hanging out in front of the drug store".

Privacy Settings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45809999)

I doubt the reliability of Facebook's privacy settings but I accept friend request from my relatives but I use the post settings to keep them from seeing most of my posts. Then again, I'm 22 so maybe I'm just too old to have left Facebook.

Whatsapp (1)

johnsie (1158363) | about 7 months ago | (#45810033)

1 on 1 chat for people who want to f--k around. At least with facebook there is a little bit of accountability.

Who needs facebook? (0, Redundant)

linuxpjohnston (3478397) | about 7 months ago | (#45810041)

My wife and I have set down some simple but effective rules.
1) They get 1 hr per day to use the computer for playing World of Warcraft or other various on-line games.
2) If they have homework that requires internet research, which seems to be all they get from their teachers these days, one of us must be around.
3) They are not allowed to have any email, facebook, twitter, etc. If they want to communicate or hang out with friends and family they can use the phone or ride their bikes over to the other person's house.

They actually get out of the house and socialize with their peers and learn how to interact and communicate.

We have our moments where they try to be sneaky and create an account. We catch them and then sit down and actually talk to them and ask why they needed to do such actions in the first place, and after the conversation every time we find a solution without having to create any on-line identity for our children.

They do not even have their own cell phone/smart phone/tablet. But main reason is they don't need it, whenever they go out of house they have either my cell phone or my wife's cell phone. And I have the phones set up where all you can do is use the text messenger or phone dialer unless you enter specific override password.

Will there come a day when they must have an account? The answer is yes. We already know my son will have to setup an e-mail account next year for a few of his high school classes but that is next year. But even then we will have restrictions and will be monitoring it like we do now.

But the only reason this works for us is because we take the time and effort to raise our children.

Big suprise (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810043)

So teens have 140 character and 10 second attention spans. Who would have guessed.

They'll either use Facebook as they grow up and start actually having social networks (in the sociology sense, not the "websites for chatting with friends sense), or there will be a market for a replacement method of finding people's contact info. More than anything, Facebook has become my address book for so many people that I don't have other means to contact.

Re:Big suprise (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#45810081)

More than anything, Facebook has become my address book for so many people that I don't have other means to contact.

This. Facebook comes with a lot of crap, but for contacting casually any person you know, it's a damn powerful tool. Because "everyone" is there, it's a quite comprehensive address book of the world.

Re:Big suprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810191)

Exactly. The spy-vs-spy bunch love this address book too. Keep on feeding it sheeple..

Only in your circle? (1)

John Da' Baddest (1686670) | about 7 months ago | (#45810057)

The concept of "everyone" meaning just a small circle of people is in evidence here. What about the so-called "third world" where modem dial-ups in a dingy cafe still common? Sometimes in these circles, Facebook IS the Internet and is still growing rapidly. Of course, "our youths" don't chat with this rest of the world who don't count in the coolness-factor of the survey above and discussions here.

My Newsfeed barely moves! (2)

Tasha26 (1613349) | about 7 months ago | (#45810093)

After hiding those who consistently (long-term) wouldn't participate on my posts, may it be in terms of comments or thumbs-up, I've proceeded to also hide friends who only "share" links such as those from 9gag or Youtube or Facebook pages. Problem now is that my Newsfeed looks nearly static for 24-36 hours! Facebook is indeed dead to me but that's after removing the selfish/narcissists and true time-wasters.

I'm now wondering why I even joined Facebook. It used to be ok and then one day the Newsfeed was changed to default to "Most popular" posts rather than chronological. So much for not putting a view-count on your Profile page or under your photos because somehow management didn't want Facebook to be some MySpace popularity contest sh***y website. That new Newsfeed is a true contradiction to that ancient moto.

Facebook was never for teenagers. . . (5, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 7 months ago | (#45810101)

There was never an abundance of teenagers on Facebook. It was initially for college students, and it branched out to older users. It has never been a good tool for young people living with their parents (for obvious reasons).

Know what would be really weird? (1)

thedrunkensailor (992824) | about 7 months ago | (#45810137)

I would be pretty freaked out to see people's faces. Some people have not been blessed in that way and I prefer them on their phone looking away so I can keep my lunch down. I think there are a few genres of social sites based on how a user can use them: user to user or user to group direct communication (akin to talking face to face), broadcast networking (more like terrestrial radio, you send info out and people may tune in), and stalking (whether familial research or otherwise, like a background check that you can do for free on persons of interest based on how and what they have made available) I don't know/care how most people will/do accomplish this, but for me, Google's product line covers all needs, but no one app cuts it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...