Social Networking Flood

Social networking is the big thing now. Talk to any internet-savvy individual, chances are, he or she uses at least one social networking site. I have gotten to know quite a number of people through these sites myself, I should have nothing to complain about technically. Being a part of a social network in itself, can sometimes lend a little bragging right.

Yet, growing in me is uneasiness instead of gratitude. More and more often, I questioned the gap between the intended objectives and the eventual nexus. The benefits were sung loudly, and for a while I thought it was a little too deafening. With a dozen of sites mimicking each other, the drawbacks are becoming more evident. A conscious assessment of famous sites also tells us how most networks are no different from one another.


Social networks, in today’s terms, depends heavily on user signups. Subsequently, they form a group and gather other users with similar interests. It sounds pretty decent for now, not until we realize how this defeats the whole idea of going “social” when groups begin to close themselves up. The other problem is, people with similar interests may gather but they do not necessary work together. Hence, users join groups with their own individual perceptions and also contribute based on what they perceived.

The current state of social networking sites is also heavily feeding on advertisements to draw their incomes. In layman’s terms, the more users signing up, the more advertisements being displayed and the more profits these sites will pocket. This also brings on the next problem of quantifying users instead of qualifying contents. The advertising earnings have since led us to focus more on hits and not the quality of these sites. General interest based on hits does not necessary rank the content qualitatively afterall.

Not least to mention, it’s easy to find the same person on various social networking sites these days. If I am looking at all the same people across various sites, how much difference will it make from concentrating on one site? Negligible, even if it’s targeted interest groups.

Social sites becoming too much of a good thing…

Ellen Lee
The San Francisco Chronicle - 2nd November, 2006

If that’s the case, then most social networking sites are nothing but sophisticated systems put together to collect, study and resell personal datas for profit. Here’s another example. That’s how targeted advertisements are delivered anyway, directly or indirectly. More often than none, the quantity of users is just one of the stocks pricing variables. A legitimate question now would be, who’s truly benefiting from these social networking sites?

At this point, social networking fatique is real. The amount of Facebook deserters who grew sick of poking one another or biting chumps of meat off each other virtually will surely tell you how useful (or useless) social networking sites can be when the quality of contents is neglected.

For now, social networking sites are just for the little trivial friends linking than adding real values to social networking. The burnout rate is just way too fast, with no real long term sustainability.

Do I mean social networking is useless? Of course not! With countless sites available but little differences between them, do we really need to rush a signup?



Related Reads:

Commercial Facebook Applications: Is There Hope or Only Hype?
Who Profited from the Latest Microsoft/ Yahoo Rumors?

By Ed | June 23, 2008

Filed Under New Media, Online Advertising, Social Networking

 


Comments

Leave a Reply