Google Mastermind Gets Poached by Facebook

Aussie Lars Rasmussen is the new employee of Silicon Valley's Facebook. After receiving a rather relaxed message from young founder Mark Zuckerberg, encouraging him to come over and 'see what happens' Rasmussen has left Sydney's Google HQ for San Francisco.
Read the whole story here.

A Lacy White Veil of Ambiguity

A funny thing happened on the way to the bathroom. I had a revelation. Why do you look so disappointed? What did you think I was going to say? That I felt a warm sensation? That I had a sudden urge for Shepherd’s Pie? Grow up.

Moments before my call of nature, I’d logged onto Facebook and engaged in a rather self-slanderous conversation with a friend, via status updates. I’d revealed to all my 460 closest friends, that I thought Shakira was a slag (cryptically conveyed through a rather ingenious garden hoe analogy), that I had an affliction for Beyonce and her hourglass figure, and that sometimes - I was a lesbian. I was a lesbian specifically with ‘said’ friend, and especially because I had failed to buy her a celebratory birthday gift.

So I’m  bi-curious, Beyonce gets me off and if I’m skint I’ll turn lesbo solely to give my ladies a taste of what money can’t buy? Wow I’d like to meet her. What a chameleon.
Oh wait. We were talking about me, weren’t we?

Yes I like Beyonce - but she’s not a boy so I don’t like her that much. And Shakira’s recent foray into the unadulterated world of the Pussy Gentleman’s Club (see She Wolf) probably stems from poor album sales and the limelight-stealing Lady Gaga, K West ‘relationship’ in tow. (By ‘relationship’ I loosely refer to a tour that was cancelled before it even had a chance to inhale our lovely Carbon Monoxide. HA!)

But dear reader, rest assure I do not harbour any disdain for the Latin American lady whose breasts are ‘small and humble’. I honestly believe that Shakira’s record label probably gave her an ultimatum: ‘act like a tart on camera, sticky wet lips et al. or burn in hell’ and her decision mirrors that of any self-respecting artist. Just look at ‘talented’ model/singer Cassie who is a great advocate of burning her soul, and her clothes (see NSFW nude photos) to boost sad sales.

Every fickle announcement that formulates on my Facebook wall is merely a mutation of that clandestine concept known as the ‘truth’. Upon typing in my username and password and eagerly awaiting a successful page load, I am consciously aware of the perils that lie ahead; of the bare-it-all nature of Facebook and the knowledge-enhancing tool it so graciously provides. So in an act of reverse-psychology I take on a persona; a character that is crass and abrasive, while meticulously maintaining correct grammatical structure. I’m not afraid to mislead people but I am afraid to reveal too much and a lacy white veil of ambiguity seems to be the perfect antidote.

A Facebook page is merely a glorified online resume; an account of you, your life and your friends. It allows visitors to gain a perspective of your titular character and from this they are able to deduce A LOT. True photos are an impervious element but just because the words on your page aren’t ‘smoking a bong’ or providing an up-and-close view of the ‘canyon between your breasticles’ doesn’t mean they expose any less. However, you have complete control over what is bequeathed upon the wall of your Face! It’s called selective reality. Facebook is a place where you can create your desired reality. Take on that promiscuous character that lives deep within or feed those narcissistic tendencies by ‘re-touching’ photos prior to the public blood-bath.

Self-effacement allows me to ridicule your sensibility while leading you in the wrong direction. I ain’t providing you with a yellow brick road. If you really wanna know what I’m like come and stand outside my window. It’s a massive motherfucker that lives on the ground floor. The transparent mass is framed with velour curtains that will never know the true meaning of their soulless existence.

The truth is Facebook scares the shit out of me.. I guess Jasmine’s Fool (a pseudo name which further justifies this charade) is my doppelganger. She is better looking, has bigger balls and doesn’t give a fuck what people think.Despite all this nothing can compete with the ‘real’ version because no matter how much we immerse ourselves in social media, 'reality' will be the prevailing factor constantly lingering over you; sticking its wet finger in your ear and gnawing at your subconscious. 'Reality' is handing you a shovel so you can dig your arse out of that crater before exposing that pastry white to the brightest star of all - the sun. So don’t bother flicking through my albums or deciphering my wall - just PICK UP THE PHONE because sarcasm doesn’t transpire so well via text; it falls flat where intonation should take charge.

And let me tell you, I am one sarcastic motherfucker.

Facebook leaves Myspace lagging behind.

In May 2008, Facebook’s total number of unique visitors surpassed that of MySpace and social media organisations the world over were silenced. Facebook had surfaced with a total of 123.9 million unique visitors. What had become of the social network that had a three year head-start? What had it done wrong?

Launched in August 2003, Myspace was the pioneer of social-networking sites, offering a free platform with no obligations. It encouraged users to customise their profile pages by entering HTML and musicians went a-wall when given the opportunity to share 6 MP3 songs. Currently over 8 million artists have been discovered on Myspace and there are those select few such as Lily (granted she does have a famous dad) and M.I.A who managed to propel themselves from Myspace haven to the global music domain.

Facebook had its inception in 2007 and offered many of the same features as Myspace including: banner ads, creating customized profiles and the ability to increase or decrease the level of visitor restrictions. However, it also features the Wall, Pokes, Photos, News Feed, Facebook Notes, Chat and Gifts and an ever-expanding number of applications. Eventually Myspace caught on to the photo tagging frenzy and were quick to add the option.

The most significant difference between the two websites is the level of customisation. Facebook presents a rather simple and easy to use interface which only allows plain text as opposed to HTML and CSS. Its ‘dummy-proof’ approach was a big winner with those less technologically inclined, who assumed Brazilian band CSS had collaborated with Myspace. It is especially popular with the adults.

In April 2009, it was found that a greater percentage of visitors aged between 25 and 34 and 35 and 49 were logging onto Facebook. In contrast, the highest indexing demographics on Myspace.com were people aged 18 to 24 and 12-17.

According to web information company Alexa, Facebook's ranking among all websites went from 60th to 7th from September 2006 to September 2007. In Indonesia it holds 1^st place, in the United Kingdom it is at 2^nd place and both the United States and Australia rank it at number 3.

The social influx from Myspace to Facebook is evidence that every social networking site is disposable and unless you stay relevant you will only get left behind.

Watch your back Twitter.

Freemium - Getting More Than We Deserve

Free media begins with: Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Bebo, Google, Blogger, Youtube, Myspace and every news and information website, yet it certainly does not end there.

The big question is: Do we take these gratuitous services for granted?

Do we still respect what is on offer, when the cost is nil?

The majority of people can afford to buy a newspaper yet decidedly choose not to. But then again, why would you when you can get the same thing for free, in digitalised format? Yet, although this media comes at no price, consumers still expect to receive top quality services. Therefore, in this day and age where these said media services are financed by endless advertising, the new transaction is time.

We are now basing our decision on whether a product is worth our 'time'. Time is the new form of currency that we consumers are safeguarding and sharing with those who manage to impress us, with those whom expect no financial benefits.

Time has become a pretty important factor, one of which many different companies are vying for.

So who is worthy of your time? Or more to the point, who is not?


Check out Harriet Denny's article on free media and the public's expectations at Media Week.

Picture also from Media week

Is Ashton Giving Pharrell A Run For His Money?

BLAH GIRLS- An episode from Husband & wife team, Ashton and Demi, et al.

First it was the 5 reality tv shows then there was the recent Twitter fiasco, in which the 'small man' (pfft Ashton) sticks it to the 'big media company' (CNN) .. and now the Twitterer with 1 million followers, & counting, proudly calls BLAH GIRLS his own.

Let's hope Pharrell has got something cooling in the oven.

Facebook - 2009's Pageant Winner, Wants Its Cash Prize

On 8 April, Facistbook's user content hit the big 200 million & it is feeling pretty smug.

However, over the past month there have been rather loud whispers concerning the company's plan to charge it's ever-growing fan-base a fee. That's right, very soon the currently free social networking service may be vying for your penny purse. Of course, there has been much skepticism about this diirty rumour, especially highlighted by the Facebook groups, which are dedicated to prematurely putting an end to any nasty behaviour.

Unfortunately, this month Facebook's chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, indirectly alluded that such an occurance may be closer than, many of its 200 million socially savvy users, may think. Like a true business woman she referred to the success of the current advertising strategies, which are 'cash flow-positive', -Microsoft invested 240 million dollars- and firmly denied any future plans to charge 'a basic fee for its services'. She attributes the current concerns of Facebook's users to its fast growth, and again stresses that the company can 'finance their growth' without 'charging for basic services' [Business Week].

Right, so Facebook will not be charging users, for its BASIC services. So BASICally, Sandberg is covering all ends by choosing her words very very carefully. So the real question is: Please define 'basic services'. Although we are yet to be clear on this definition, one thing we can be sure of, is that those non-basic services which Sandberg ambiguously refers to, are the ones us 200 million devotees should be concered about.

An educated and informed guess would lead many to believe that although Facebook will not charge a subscription fee, there is a great chance that it will charge for those non-'basic-services', such as applications. Currently, there are some 50,000 applications cluttering our Facebook spheres and in March 2009 the alliance between social media site Facebook and Zuora, a company that provides an on-demand subscription billing and payment service [TechCrunch], was announced. I guess if the creators of the applications are making a bit of doosh, Facebook thinks it only fair, that it too should benefit.

Social Media Influx

Illustration by Matt Hamm

Kyan Media

Social Media is Written in Stone

I feel this blog is becoming home to my rants on technology and its effect. It's sheltering write-ups that shed light on the ever expanding realm, that is social media and the ramifications that its users (ie. us) are ignorant to.

But hey, life's all about the equilibrium. Right?

After reading Adam Ferrier's 'Social Media is Anti-social Media' [Consumer Psychologist] it made me think about the written word and how popular it is becoming. When I say written word, I really mean the typed word, that enters cyber-space through whatever social media site you subscribe to. Such sites are becoming increasingly popular with today's technology enthusiasts, ie. the generation of the noughties, so much so that an individual is more than happy to make their mark, but neglects to think of the consequences.

Social media sites, such as Myspace, Facebook, Twitter and even Blogger enable opinions to be heard. They are port-holes through which one can voice their concerns and sometimes make a difference. Of course one would have to go a step further than merely informing Sally Tyler about 'all the crazy things she may have done last night'. What I refer to is Facebook groups that attempt to gather like-minded people together for the good of the cause. In Ferrier's article, he refers to a group of NSW Corrective Services Officers who formed a facebook group which 'opposed the privatisation of Australia's prisons' and in turn may be reprimanded for their actions.

The officers advocate that creating the group is no different to heading to the local pub and having a gripe. The key difference, unfortunately, is that unintentionally these individuals have created evidence that has the potential to work against them. Everything that they have discussed in the casually created group puts them at risk of being fired. In an age where every man and his dog is hastily typing away and pressing submit, it does not help that the internet is 'unconstrained and indeed unconstrainable by state' [ETA]. No doubt the defamation laws are in over-drive.

Ferrier believes that these days everyone should be vigilant with what they decide to publish on the web, stating that such a way of life 'fosters a culture of nervousness'. Although I agree that those who share their opinions via the web should choose their words carefully, I do not believe that enough attention is being given to cause any apprehension. Instead, we are constantly inundated with new and improved ways of cyberally expressing our opinions that we are forgetting to approach with caution.

We are like kids in a candy store, with a credit card to boot; filling our lolly bags with every colour of the rainbow before stuffing them in our big -opinionated- gobs. However, we negelct to pre-empt that upset stomach, that understandably, follows in suit.

Due to the vast and sometime unexplored territory that is the internet I do not believe there is much the government can do to regulate what is 'said'. Instead, it is up to the individual whose finger tips are skipping over the keys, to decide which words should not be 'said'.

Twitter Explorers

It's not just us mere mortals using it to propel our meaningless lives into other people's hemispheres, but those mega corporations looking to boost themselves up. These global conglomerates are stacking their yellow pages, one on top of the other, and sitting their little hiney's down. Comfortable? Apparently so.

Here's just a few:

1.Barack Obama



2. CNN Breaking News



3. Stephen Fry (UK comedian)



4. Kevin Rose (Founder of Digg)



11.Lance Armstrong


14. New York Times

Twitter Explodes

Twitter is going nuts.

Quite literally every man and his dog, and their dog, and their dog has jumped on board.

So here we are, promoting ourselves to our heart's content.

Sam Smith is contemplating his 'mere existence in this concrete jungle'

and

Sally Porter 'ate sooooo many dumplings that now, she thinks she might just be one', but what about the big guns?

Celebrities are madly twittering in the hope that someone is watching. And they are.

Earlier this month, before an appearance on the Jimmy Fallon Show, UK comedian Russell Brand revealed that he, aka Rusty Rockets, would be twittering live on air. However, upon learning of his dismal 78,000 followers, compared to Fallon's 200,000, Brand urged anyone and everyone to become a follower. Guess he didn't want to look like a chump on live air.

To date, Jimmy stands at a staggering 510,489 while Brand falls way behind with a mere 155,669 followers.

Better luck next time Rus.

Add Russell on: http://twitter.com/rustyrockets
And Jimmy on: http://twitter.com/jimmyfallon

During the show, under the guise 'The Bryan Brickman Experiment' an 'unsuspecting' (yea right) audience member was targeted.



Late Night host Fallon along with Brand and two other guests urged the world to add @bryanbrinkman, who at that stage held claim to 7 followers.


Although the plan was to beat the most followed 'Twitterer' out there, President Obama who currently has 649,699 followers, cartoonist Brickman managed 32,931 followers. Either way, that's more than most!

This 'tiny' boost will most definitely aid in the creation of his cartoonist future. Three years from now he'll be working for Disney. Watch this space.

Celebrity gossip site, Holy Molly, conducted a study concluding that celebrities were using the micro networking site as a form of promotion, rather than as a social site. Well, DUH!
The study proved that Brand -already crowned the 'the ultimate shagger'- was also the 'most self-obsessed Twitterer'. Singer Lily Allen followed closely behind.

As it seems Facebook is no longer the party favourite, the photo-lovin' networking site recently unveiled their new layout, which seems suspiciously similar to that of Twitter.

Snow White Eats Mac's Apple

You'd Think She Would Have Learned The First Time Around.

Savvy thinking by Christian from Deutschland.

LübeckerJung

Google(y) Eyes

There has to be a law against such invasions of privacy.

Apparently Google is the law.

Facebook Relationship 'Code of Conduct'

A very funny parody of the way Facebook has integrated itself into our relationships.

Found on Social Media Ltd.

Yadda Yadda Yadda

For those Twitter geeks there is a program which analyses the words you use the most! For those less technologically inclined head to your phone, open a new message and then wait for the predictive text to tell you what words you use most frequently.

Today I typed 'My' and it predicted the following word would be 'lover'.

Really says a lot about me and my habitual texting lexicon.

Oh lord.

Facist Book

Facebook has become a form of communication. It can be likened to other communicative verbs such as 'to text', 'to phone', and 'to write'. So these days a simple 'facebook me' is more than suffice.

Since its launch in Feb 04 it's slowly become the word on everyone's lips, it's integrated into their lexicon, and it ain't even in the dictionary, yet. Sooner or later when that time comes for the Oxford English Dictionary to update, to scrawl through our linguistics, and submit their final list, founder Mark Zuckerberg will be the proud father of his 'spawn'. Go figure.

[The general rule of thumb for the Oxford English Dictionary is that any word can be included which appears five times, in five different printed sources, over a period of five years.]

The world (currently 150 million users) is going crazy for this social networking site; a spin-off of a Harvard University program called 'Facemash'. Thousands of photos are being uploaded hourly; 'friends' are clicking through your photo albums and reading your wall posts. Others are obsessively trawling through 'friend lists' trying to 'up' their own.

A general belief is that, although your personal life is living on the World Wide Web, only you know the password and therefore only you are in control of your privacy. Wrong. As much as we'd all like to believe this idealistic mantra, it's so far from the true. The words 'private' and 'Facebook' are like chalk and cheese, an oxymoran if I've ever heard one. Once you've uploaded it, it's for the world to see.

And now things have gotten even more complicated.

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and presume that a small percentage, of the 150 million Facebook users, have never read its 'Terms of Service'. I'm going to take a step back and assume just as many, or more, don't even know what a 'Terms of Service' or 'TOS' is.

Facebook's Terms of Service (TOS) used to say that when you closed an account on their network, any rights they claimed to the original content you uploaded would expire. Not that long ago, this sentance was added:

"You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content."

As you can imagine there was a lot of protest against this, and in response Zuckerberg and co. reverted back to the original clause; that is until a solution can be found..

Joaquin Phoenix Quits & Turns to Rapping.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Unfortunalty the Joaquin Phoenix team have taken Phoenix's recent David Letterman interview off the web. It is now, no longer available for viewing. This is indeed a shame, because I would have liked to hear your sentiments on the issue.

On 11 Feb 09 Phoenix was a guest on the Dave Letterman Show. Unfortunately his mind couldn't make it, so his body took one for the team. He was supossed to be on the show promoting his new movie 'Two Lovers', but it seems even grutting was too much effort.

'Two Lovers' director James Gray, who also directed the 34-year-old star in The Yards and We Own The Night, is concerned that he played a role in Phoenix's recent behaviour saying that Phoenix's character experiments with rap in the movie, which is loosely based on Gray's own life experience.

James Gray:

"I found out he's built a recording studio in his house and he's working with Diddy. I tried to talk him out of it. He got very angry."

He's working with Diddy? P. Diddy? The artist formerly known as Puff Daddy? WTF.

After Phoenix announced his career change decision, on David Letterman, he was mocked by the host and studio audience.

Joaquin said: "I have been working on my music. I am doing hip-hop music.

"This isn't a joke. Why are they laughing?"

As the laughter grew louder, an upset-looking Joaquin insisted: "I am serious about this. What is it with this maniacal laughter in here? I don't get it. Is this supposed to be fun?"

While many believe the actor is mentally unstable others wonder whether the whole thing is a charade, a hoax set up by Phoenix himself.

Here is his brief interview with E! Entertainment Channel. Casey Affleck seems to be as confused as the rest of us.



Here is Joaquin's debut as a rapper.. in which he takes a rather sudden trip.. You know what they say about first impressions...