Why girls need facebook? Facebook stats

Why girls need facebook?

Women Post More on Facebook to Boost Self-Image

Facebook Vanity Shows Signs of Insecurity

Facebook Photo Sharing Reflects Focus on Female Appearance

Narcissists+people with lower self-esteem=Facebook addicts

Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance, need for admiration, extreme self-involvement, and lack of empathy for others. Individuals with this disorder are usually arrogantly self-assured and confident. They expect to be noticed as superior. Many highly successful individuals might be considered narcissistic. However, this disorder is only diagnosed when these behaviors become persistent and very disabling or distressing.

A person with narcissistic personality disorder may:

• React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation
• Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals
• Have excessive feelings of self-importance
• Exaggerate achievements and talents
• Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love
• Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment
• Need constant attention and admiration
• Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy
• Have obsessive self-interest
• Pursue mainly selfish goals

source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001930/

In a new study published in the journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, University at Buffalo researcher Michael A. Stefanone, PhD, and colleagues found that females who base their self worth on their appearance tend to share more photos online and maintain larger networks on online social networking sites.

Panel group? Female living in US between 18-30 years old.

A new study of social networking shows that women who upload a ton of self-snapped photos of themselves are having trouble with self-esteem issues and are using the social sites to garner attention for themselves.

In Janurary 2011 Facebook reached 600 million users according to socialbakers.com and its growing with speed of nearly 8  new account registrations per second.Predictions are that 50% of US Users will be Facebook in 2013.  Facebook is even more popular than pornographic websites, according to new figures from Experian Hitwise.

Extreme Facebookers – the real “Social Network” movie

“They used to tank cod from Alaska all the way to China. They’d keep them in vats in the ship. By the time the codfish reached China, the flesh was mush and tasteless. So this guy came up with the idea that if you put these cods in these big vats, put some catfish in with them and the catfish will keep the cod agile. And there are those people who are catfish in life. And they keep you on your toes. They keep you guessing, they keep you thinking, they keep you fresh. And I thank god for the catfish because we would be droll, boring and dull if we didn’t have somebody nipping at our fin.”

watch trailer here

This is a story of extraordinary friendship? Story that might shock you. Facebook, YouTube and Google providing complex ability to manipulate people on one hand, and on another creating escape from difficult reality. One might say it is psychological problem, others might call it cruelty of reality. But it all comes from very same problem as always. Fake or rather idealistic perception. Who we think we are, who we want to be and facing facts who we really are. Internet is easy way to create bubble, “improved” image of us. Escape. Happy place. Easy and quick fix “solution”. As I was mentioning in number of articles in “humanities” section, it is very dangerous area we are stepping into…

Quo Vadis (written by mankind)

Abnormal psychological dependency, porn, drugs, social networks maybe?

Unplugged (Students in media black-out experiment) 2011

Social networking sites are “exhausting” our humanity deposits

Labeling people with brands – latest Facebook advertising idea

Facebook criticism

———-

Internet as a tool allowing people to climb the ladder of hierarchy of needs

True about “cool” facebook people – 1 in 10 regularly fake where they are in a bid to improve their social status!

A third of Gen Ys confessed to downloading quirky iPhone apps designed to be seen by others rather than be actually used.

The same number admitted to claiming Facebook or Twitter posts passed on to friends as their own in an effort to appear clever.

Almost 70% of those surveyed believed their friends use Facebook Places and status updates to appear cooler than they really were.

source: http://in.news.yahoo.com/oz-youngsters-facebook-twitter-look-cool-not-communicate-20110220-223452-792.html

See related post  Narcissists+people with lower self-esteem=Facebook addicts

Labeling people with brands – latest Facebook advertising idea

System which can be desribed as “You are what you buy“. They call it “Sponsored Stories“.

According to mashable.com Sponsored Stories are new ad format that turns your Facebook friends’ actions into promoted content.

“Sponsored Stories is “a way for marketers to sponsor activities that happen throughout the News Feed,” Facebook Product Marketing Lead Jim Squires told Mashable. Companies can choose to take certain user actions — such as checkins or actions within Facebook apps — and feature them in the column on the right side of the News Feed.”

“The advertiser is not controlling the message; it’s about actions,” Squires said.

Here’s an example of an action that could potentially be sponsored:

Will that idea bring them profits – yes. Will it do anything good to you and me ?

Read more about Online Adverstising Market, sociological aspects, and Facebook criticism here.

Facebook addictions – solution for the problem!

I have one suggestion for Facebook. Magic formula, fix, response to public voice, sign that they are listening.

Since most of the bad words toward Facebook is regarding how it changes and isolating people, because their excessive Facebook usage. There was no record of any changes or damages done to people, who used this online networking site as its purpose, to contact real friends with whom they lost contact. It doesn’t take 5h a day 5 days a week to catch up – does it?

Obviously people exceeding time spend on FB are those with huge number of fake friends. Simply it is not possible to have 1000 real friends and know all their names and have time to visit them, to meet for a drink, or to ask what’s new. So what I’m suggesting is to strip Facebook from its fakeness. How? Well there is away which makes money and do something good to people.

That is something I spotted when using online data sharing systems, like HotFile, FileServe, MegaDownload etc. They using simple system, it is free if you are minor-usage participant. But when you want more traffic/space/bandwidth you have to pay for it.

Why not introduce similar system on Facebook. It is quite simple to monitor pretty much everything what you do online by them. Their original system was SocialEngine. This is large PHP CMS system. It has plenty of ready-to-go solutions, where obviously they expanded it a bit. But I worked with that system several times, and it is possible to set user-session-time-out for instance. There isn’t ready to go widget to do what I am proposing, but a little bit of programming and it can be done. But I don’t think that’s the problem. Problem is if they want to do it.

You might say “it’s ridicules”, I’m not paying for Facebook. Well you don’t have to. Let’s say you one of 400 000 000 facebook users and you have 140 friends. You using it maybe 1h a day, sending emails, chatting or watching your friend’s pictures etc.  You are pretty active but average Facebook user. You will be using it exactly same way as you used to for free.

Now I would implement two limitations, one regarding number of connection, second time spend. So there you go, if you have let’s say 300 friends, and you want to have 1000, you have to pay let’s say 50$ once off. If you spend 2h a day on facebook and you want to spend 10h/day, you have to pay 50$/month, 2000 = 100$/month. Those are not huge charges. That is not the key. What that will do, it will get people wondering about their Facebook usage. Before you spending any money, you always have a though – do I really need this. And that is what I would like to see to be achieved.

Get people realize that spending too much time and effort- too much of their assets on something entirely fake. Where they should be spending it on important things in life – other person.

What do YOU think?

Thanks for reading

Zbigniew

View all 5 comments

Brow

I really like when bloggers are expressing their opinion and thought. So I really enjoy your writing style

5 February 11 at 17:52

Stephanie Cox

I backtracked through your previous posts as well and was quite impressed with them as well. You have quite a ...

14 February 11 at 01:47

Social networking sites are exhausting our humanity deposits

Social networking sites are “exhausting” our humanity deposits

Facebook or Twitter not supposed to be replacement for face-to-face socialising; it supposed to be addition or enhancement.

Read more

Social networking sites are "exhausting" our humanity deposits

Social networking sites are “exhausting” our humanity deposits

Facebook and Twitter (most popular social networking site today) are like wholes in container full of water. When container leaks, obvious fact is that water level is lowering. Bigger hole, faster water level drops.

It is the same with facebook and twitter, if more time you spending “socializing” online then bigger hole is, and your resources needed to socialize in real world. So after spending hours chatting on facebook you finally getting up and go out, you might wake up in the middle of the room or club feeling that actually you don’t have desire to listen to your friends, meeting new people or even talk to your friends. After repeating this several times you will stop going out, because what is the point right?

This is because “water in your container is gone”. You might not realize this, but interaction with other people gives and takes energy. As I was writing in post Online networking ‘harms health’ face-to-face contact has its biological consequences aswell. It is making us stronger. As Dr Aric Sigman presented evidence in his research that lack of face-to-face networking could alter the way genes work, upset immune responses, hormone levels, the function of arteries, and influence mental performance.

So by spending time online on Facebook you loosing you assets, energy, but you not getting anything back to recharge yourself. Over usage of Facebook or Twitter (or any other social networking site) might be leading to addiction, isolation and depression. Simply because you run out of your natural resources of prime factors evolving to our social behaviour. It is more complex chain on interactions, where one process influences other, but simplifying, that’s what it is.

Recent book by Sherry Turkle sociologist from Massachusetts Institute of Technology is another stamp on this theory. Book titled “Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other”.

Sherry brought several interesting facts. Starting from people interrupting sexual intercourse to check facebook or twitter updates, through “friend-collectors”, up to recent committed suicide by Simone Back in UK. Questions she raises are also accurately chosen. For instance how come that simple process of exchanging links or random chats with person you never seen or spoke to face-to-face is enough to call him/her a friend?

Just to support this, let me do some “copy-paste” job here from dictionary.

friend -  dictionary results:

–noun

Profitability will destroy Facebook. Why “corporate capitalism” kills its own creations?

Profitability will destroy Facebook. Why “corporate capitalism” kills its own creations?

I cam accross article of Sebastian Stodolak - jurnalist from weekly “Wprost” magazine predicting the end of Facebook.

How is that possible you might ask. Well it is well known that social media are not quite good way to generate direct sales, rather brand awarness and viral/gossip around some product.

All facebook incomes are from advertising. Becouse they have 500 000 000 advertising addressees, quite easily and pricisly targeted, they are today’s “place to be” for any advertisier.

What Mr Stodolak claims is those are only believes and good wishes in Facebook abilities to generate huge profits. And as it turns out investors are not happy with Facebook results. Looking on amount of money invested into the company and profits it is still not satisfying balance.

And what is happening when investors are not happy? Well money stops flowing and as in recent movie “The Comapany Man” organisation seeks downsizings (fireing people) to keep the price of shares to sell it eventualy for couple of billions dollars. Just to make rich richer, and poor poorer. The corporate capitalism of Wall Street “how to do things”.

Is this what money does to the people? Capitalism – a love story.

Will that happen? Well not in next 5 years that is for sure.  Looking from econimic angle, Mr Stodolak is right. It was proven by number of organisations. When you are not profitable, it it time to change, true everyone knows. But looking on public interest in Facebook, it is difficult to ignore 500 000 000 voices. Well maybe they will go to one of the competitiors? Maybe facebook will find a way to return investments?

Looking on other source they increasing their profits, so did our banks and developers before bailouts.

Seems like they need good fresh ideas and good strategy,  Don’t you think?

View all 16 comments

mi.tea

Hello there, You have done an incredible job. I will certainly digg it and personally suggest to my friends.

27 August 11 at 12:03

jeleba

This is exactly what I was looking for, thanks

21 November 11 at 15:14

Zuckerberg's (Facebook) portends one that is all thumbs and no brains! – theory saying that Facebook will make us stupid!

America’s favorite boy genius, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, has announced a new form of messaging. E-mail, the last Internet link to traditional, epistolary, interpersonal communication, is, he said, outmoded. Young people, by which he meant younger than his own 26 years, desired something more nimble for their iPads, mobile phones and other devices. What he proposed was a “social inbox” where users could readily access messages from friends and then sort them — sort of a cross between instant messaging and Twitter.

We are so accustomed by now to declarations of new technological revolutions that another one hardly gets noticed, especially when it comes to finding new ways of minimizing how we communicate with each other. And it is entirely possible that this proposed geological change will be no more geological than all those other alleged game-changers. But whether his messaging system really transforms how people communicate or not, Zuckerberg issued what amounts to a manifesto that in its own terse way conveys what is already altering our lives — not only how we interact but also how we think and feel. It may even challenge the very idea of serious ideas. Call it Zuckerberg’s Revolution.

It qualifies as a revolution because how we communicate largely defines what we communicate. You know: “The medium is the message.” When Johannes Gutenberg invented the first movable-type printing press, it was rightly considered one of the signal moments in human history. By allowing books to be mass produced, Gutenberg’s press had the immediate effect of disseminating ideas far and wide, but it also had the more powerful and less immediate effect of changing the very construction of thought — through typography.

The social theorist Marshall McLuhan, in his book “The Gutenberg Galaxy,” posited that the printing press resulted in what he called “typographic man” — humans with a new consciousness shaped by the non-visual, non-auditory culture of print. He felt that print’s uniformity, its immutability, its rigidity, its logic led to a number of social transformations, among which were the rise of rationalism and of the scientific method. In facilitating reason, print also facilitated complex ideas. It was no accident that it coincided with the Renaissance. Print made us think better or, at least, with greater discipline. In effect, the printing press created the modern mind.

Writing scarcely 20 years after McLuhan, in 1985, Neil Postman, in his path-breaking book “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” saw the handwriting — or rather the images — on the wall. He lamented the demise of print under the onslaught of the visual, thanks largely to television. Like McLuhan, Postman felt that print culture helped create thought that was rational, ordered and engaging, and he blamed TV for making us mindless. Print not only welcomed ideas, it was essential to them. Television not only repelled ideas, it was inimical to them.

One wonders what Postman — who died the same year Facebook’s precursor went online — would have thought of Zuckerberg’s Revolution. Facebook is still typographically dependent. Its messages are basically printed notes. But contradicting Postman, these bits of print are no more hospitable to real ideas than the television culture Postman reviled. Indeed, in making his “social inbox” announcement, Zuckerberg introduced seven principles that he said were the basis of communication 2.0. Messages have to be seamless, informal, immediate, personal, simple, minimal and short.

As Zuckerberg no doubt recognizes, these principles are all of a piece. The seamless, informal, immediate, personal, simple, minimal and short communication is not one that is likely to convey, let alone work out, ideas, great or not. Facebook, Twitter, Habbo, MyLife and just about every other social networking site pare everything down to noun and verb and not much more. The sites, and the information on them, billboard our personal blathering, the effluvium of our lives, and they wind up not expanding the world but shrinking it to our own dimensions. You could call this a metaphor for modern life, increasingly narcissistic and trivial, except that the sites and the posts are modern life for hundreds of millions of people.

Which is where the revolutionary aspect comes in. Gutenberg’s Revolution transformed the world by broadening it, by proliferating ideas. Zuckerberg’s Revolution also may change consciousness, only this time by razing what Gutenberg had helped erect. The more we text and Twitter and “friend,” abiding by the haiku-like demands of social networking, the less likely we are to have the habit of mind or the means of expressing ourselves in interesting and complex ways.

That makes Zuckerberg the anti-Gutenberg. He has facilitated a typography in which complexity is all but impossible and meaninglessness reigns supreme. To the extent that ideas matter, we are no longer amusing ourselves to death. We are texting ourselves to death.

Ideas, of course, will survive, but more and more they will live at the margins of culture; more and more they will be a private reserve rather than a general fund. Meanwhile, everything at the cultural center militates against the sort of serious engagement that McLuhan described and that Postman celebrated.

McLuhan understood that print would eventually give way to electronic media, and that these new media would create his famous “global village,” though it is nevertheless ironic that typography, which he thought engendered isolation, would in digital form lead to tens of millions of people calling themselves “friends.”

Postman was more apocalyptic. He believed that a reading society was also a thinking society. No real reading, no real thought. Still, he couldn’t have foreseen that a reading society in which print that was overwhelmingly seamless, informal, personal, short et al would be a society in which that kind of reading would force thought out — a society in which tens of millions of people feel compelled to tell tens of millions of other people that they are eating a sandwich or going to a movie or watching a TV show. So Zuckerberg’s Revolution has a corollary that one might call Zuckerberg’s Law: Empty communications drive out significant ones.

Gutenberg’s Revolution left us with a world that was intellectually rich. Zuckerberg’s portends one that is all thumbs and no brains.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gabler-zuckerberg-20101128,0,7889675.story

Daniel

great post, thanks for sharing

17 December 10 at 20:21

Zynga: FarmVille and Mafia Wars transferring Facebook into Social Network Gaming platform

Zynga, as a company brand, has yet to reach the same levels of fame as its San Franciscan technology contemporaries such as Twitter or Facebook. However, now reportedly worth $5.5bn just three years since launch, and having almost single-handedly revolutionised online gaming, consumers and businesses alike are sitting up and taking notice.

Zynga is one of the first companies to take advantage of Facebook opening up its platform to developers in 2007, Zynga tapped into the highly lucrative market of social gaming and virtual goods three years ago. It scored its first major hit with FarmVille, a simple social game that allows people to farm land with their friends and buy virtual goods, such as tractors, to help improve their output.

Thirty-three million people around the world have now downloaded FarmVille, Zynga’s most popular game to date, and currently there are 60 million active players.

A series of other games followed, such as CafeWorld, Mafia Wars and FrontierVille.

Zynga now has more than 320 million users, where Facebook in general 500 milion, meaning half of people logging into the facebook are playing Zynga games.

However, with no warning, Zynga, and other developers who followed its hot trail, changed Facebook’s business overnight, making it the largest games platform online.

Zynga was founded by Mark Pincus

Source:

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Zynga-Farmville-creator-says-tele-2488842609.html?x=0

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8163151/Zynga-FarmVille-is-just-the-beginning.html

Read more: Baby Killed for Interrupting Mother’s Farmville Game on Facebook

FrontierVille, Latest Zynga Release, Is Quickly Losing Users

Zynga Faces Class-Action Lawsuit over Alleged Privacy Breach

Video chat on Facebook

After all, Facebook’s new messaging system is an attempt to make communication more seamless and synchronized across multiple platforms. It may very well be that video chat will be added to the mix or that Facebook is at least considering a Skype integration.

However, similar code was spotted all the way back in May 2009 and Facebook responded by saying it was testing such a feature but had no plans to launch it to users. The question of Facebook and video chat functionality seems less of an “if,” but more of a “when.”

Source: http://mashable.com/2010/11/28/skype-facebook-video-chat/

——————–

Read more articles about Facebook

Zuckerberg’s (Facebook) portends one that is all thumbs and no brains! – theory saying that Facebook will make us stupid!

Facebook makes people more social, shows research of University of Texas, presented by S. Craig Watkins

Tim Berners-Lee: The Web is threatened by Google and Facebook

Narcissists+people with lower self-esteem=Facebook addicts

Face-To-Face contact linked to biological changes in Humans

Online networking ‘harms health’

fre

Woah! I couldn't have said that better if I tried LOL. I totally dig your writing skills and your blog! ...

2 January 11 at 12:50

Elmo Mckiddy

I don’t even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was great. I don't know who ...

21 January 11 at 03:15