Saturday, June 4, 2016
Facebook Pushing Users to Messenger By Disabling Mobile Web App Messaging
At TechCrunch, Devin Coldewey reports that
Facebook is disabling messaging in its mobile web app to push people to Messenger.
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
New Emoticons Replace Syntax And the World Wonders
Amit Chowdhry has the story at Forbes in Facebook Emoji 'Reactions': Are There Ulterior Motives?
Emily Dreyfuss at WIRED quotes linguist Geoff Pullum of the University of Edinburgh -- who also contributes to the blog Language Log -- as saying:
So -- of course -- we expected to find other options such as "interesting", "inspiring", "thoughtful", "trite", "motivating", "blessed", "disrespectful", "educational", "enlightening", "valuable", "moving", "useful", "brilliant", "disgraceful", "believable", "unbelievable", "lies", "truth", "I understand", "I share the feeling", "painfull", "disgusting", "made my day" etc. The range of human emotions and feelings is immense. NONE OF THESE!
Rather, there are only FIVE new emojis, one worse than the next. If these badly designed infantile symbols are intended to cover the emotions that mark the major reactions that people have to Facebook postings, then they should close down Facebook today as an offense to the human race.
LOVE is pictured by Facebook as a white heart on a red background. A white heart is not something we affiliate with love. We just had Valentine's Day. At least there the people are clever enough to put a red heart on a white background. Besides, we think "love" is something wonderful and not as widespread as it should be. It is hardly something you can express by pushing a Facebook button as regards whatever someone has posted. It waters down this important emotion and makes it trite -- which much of Facebook is. Our grade for this emoticon is an F, FAILED, for which a special emoji should be created, i.e. a FAILED emoji to cover the many cases in which things have not met up to expectations.
HAHA is represented as a yellow (?) head with a mouth consisting of 3/4 red tongue, a 1/4 black roof of a mouth and two point-facing wide-set black arrows > < as squinting (?) eyes. We are not sure which emotion this represents - laughing with or laughing about or being tickled pink at what one has just read or seen. Where is the nose, the ears, the neck, the hair? Our grade for this emoji is WHAHAHAT??, WHAT a joke, another failed emoji.
WOW is again a yellow head with black eyebrows up so high they are nearly on the crown of the head, with black large vertically elliptical dots as eyes and an even larger black elliptical mouth longer vertically than horizontally. Our grade for this emoji is OW-OW, what a PAIN. It looks too much like one of those wOWful paintings of a "scream" that people have paid millions for. wOWful.
SAD is once again a yellow head with black only features, including black outwardly downward curving eyebrows, this time near the eyes, which are two small black circles, a downward curved black mouth, one overly large blue teardrop on the right-hand side facing the user -- perhaps this is a "hemi-tear", a new one-sided sadness of which we are unaware. SAD is the correct description for this SADLY designed emoji. Definitely worth crying ABOUT.
ANGRY is once again a yellow head but here with a reddening upper head hemisphere and totally black facial features on that same yellow background as before, with "sailing" eyebrows curved upwardly directly over the now even smaller black eye dots and a black horizontal mouth. We feel IRE when we see something this badly designed for an emotion that ought to be very seldom when merely reading online postings. People can be CONTRA, they can be IRRITATED, they can say that something is BAD or HURTFUL or, far more prevalent than anything out there is the label JUNK, which describes 50% of what is posted online at least, which should be among the five new emojis. We are ANGRY that JUNK has not been included and that EMOJI should be a totally bright red circle with the word JUNK inscribed on it.
We ourselves have the capacity to like many things, so that to LIKE something is no big differentiation for us. An emoji for OK, actually, would be better in many cases. Often LIKE is used for THANK YOU. Now that would be a sensible emoji. THANK YOU. Try it, people at Facebook. Just two words in symbol form. Why not have a contest about it. That would drum up users.
LOVE we find is a wonderful emotion that has almost nothing to do with Facebook postings and assuredly is not correctly represented by a "white" heart. We would LOVE to see this emoji removed as an option for people to push when commenting on trite Facebook JUNK.
The FACES in OUR world have NOSES and EARS and we usually add a NECK too if we are doing an abstract stick drawing of a person's face. TEETH and HAIR are also possible. Faces consisting only of a mouth, round pupil-shaped or similar eyes and eyebrows have little to do with the real world. YELLOW is by no means a facial color for anyone, unless you are a freak for PAC-MAN, who is more similar to these emojis than humans.
A "belly laugh" HA-HA is much rarer in real life than a SMILE or a GRIN or a HUMOR WINCE. The old LOL "laughing out loud" is much closer to the truth than the infantile HAHA, which covers the whole range of raucous laughter to laughing out of disgust. Who comes up with this nonsense?
The number of truly "awesome" WOW moments in a lifetime can be counted on one's hands and fingers, whereas many things are capable of true SURPRISE, INSIGHT or POSITIVE or NEGATIVE REACTION or INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY. Yes, even AMAZEMENT is a possibility. WOW was a term big in the last century that was used when people apparently did not have the facility to express their positive feelings in proper words. They EMOTED.
SAD might better be replaced with "OH DEAR". Sadness is not an emotion that is always accompanied by tears. Rather, sadness is RELEASED by TEARS. If an emoji is needed to express condolence, "sadness" is not the right expression. Maybe EMPATHY should be tried in symbol form, or, "I UNDERSTAND", or "WE ARE WITH YOU". All preferable to a one-teared SAD PAC-MAN.
Back to the drawing board at Facebook.
Crossposted at LawPundit.
Emily Dreyfuss at WIRED quotes linguist Geoff Pullum of the University of Edinburgh -- who also contributes to the blog Language Log -- as saying:
“It looks like syntax is being thrown out the window here and being replaced by grunts like animals would make.”"Facebook has released new emoticons so that people can show more "reactions" than simply LIKE (THUMB UP), which is viewed as being too limited.
So -- of course -- we expected to find other options such as "interesting", "inspiring", "thoughtful", "trite", "motivating", "blessed", "disrespectful", "educational", "enlightening", "valuable", "moving", "useful", "brilliant", "disgraceful", "believable", "unbelievable", "lies", "truth", "I understand", "I share the feeling", "painfull", "disgusting", "made my day" etc. The range of human emotions and feelings is immense. NONE OF THESE!
Rather, there are only FIVE new emojis, one worse than the next. If these badly designed infantile symbols are intended to cover the emotions that mark the major reactions that people have to Facebook postings, then they should close down Facebook today as an offense to the human race.
LOVE is pictured by Facebook as a white heart on a red background. A white heart is not something we affiliate with love. We just had Valentine's Day. At least there the people are clever enough to put a red heart on a white background. Besides, we think "love" is something wonderful and not as widespread as it should be. It is hardly something you can express by pushing a Facebook button as regards whatever someone has posted. It waters down this important emotion and makes it trite -- which much of Facebook is. Our grade for this emoticon is an F, FAILED, for which a special emoji should be created, i.e. a FAILED emoji to cover the many cases in which things have not met up to expectations.
HAHA is represented as a yellow (?) head with a mouth consisting of 3/4 red tongue, a 1/4 black roof of a mouth and two point-facing wide-set black arrows > < as squinting (?) eyes. We are not sure which emotion this represents - laughing with or laughing about or being tickled pink at what one has just read or seen. Where is the nose, the ears, the neck, the hair? Our grade for this emoji is WHAHAHAT??, WHAT a joke, another failed emoji.
WOW is again a yellow head with black eyebrows up so high they are nearly on the crown of the head, with black large vertically elliptical dots as eyes and an even larger black elliptical mouth longer vertically than horizontally. Our grade for this emoji is OW-OW, what a PAIN. It looks too much like one of those wOWful paintings of a "scream" that people have paid millions for. wOWful.
SAD is once again a yellow head with black only features, including black outwardly downward curving eyebrows, this time near the eyes, which are two small black circles, a downward curved black mouth, one overly large blue teardrop on the right-hand side facing the user -- perhaps this is a "hemi-tear", a new one-sided sadness of which we are unaware. SAD is the correct description for this SADLY designed emoji. Definitely worth crying ABOUT.
ANGRY is once again a yellow head but here with a reddening upper head hemisphere and totally black facial features on that same yellow background as before, with "sailing" eyebrows curved upwardly directly over the now even smaller black eye dots and a black horizontal mouth. We feel IRE when we see something this badly designed for an emotion that ought to be very seldom when merely reading online postings. People can be CONTRA, they can be IRRITATED, they can say that something is BAD or HURTFUL or, far more prevalent than anything out there is the label JUNK, which describes 50% of what is posted online at least, which should be among the five new emojis. We are ANGRY that JUNK has not been included and that EMOJI should be a totally bright red circle with the word JUNK inscribed on it.
We ourselves have the capacity to like many things, so that to LIKE something is no big differentiation for us. An emoji for OK, actually, would be better in many cases. Often LIKE is used for THANK YOU. Now that would be a sensible emoji. THANK YOU. Try it, people at Facebook. Just two words in symbol form. Why not have a contest about it. That would drum up users.
LOVE we find is a wonderful emotion that has almost nothing to do with Facebook postings and assuredly is not correctly represented by a "white" heart. We would LOVE to see this emoji removed as an option for people to push when commenting on trite Facebook JUNK.
The FACES in OUR world have NOSES and EARS and we usually add a NECK too if we are doing an abstract stick drawing of a person's face. TEETH and HAIR are also possible. Faces consisting only of a mouth, round pupil-shaped or similar eyes and eyebrows have little to do with the real world. YELLOW is by no means a facial color for anyone, unless you are a freak for PAC-MAN, who is more similar to these emojis than humans.
A "belly laugh" HA-HA is much rarer in real life than a SMILE or a GRIN or a HUMOR WINCE. The old LOL "laughing out loud" is much closer to the truth than the infantile HAHA, which covers the whole range of raucous laughter to laughing out of disgust. Who comes up with this nonsense?
The number of truly "awesome" WOW moments in a lifetime can be counted on one's hands and fingers, whereas many things are capable of true SURPRISE, INSIGHT or POSITIVE or NEGATIVE REACTION or INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY. Yes, even AMAZEMENT is a possibility. WOW was a term big in the last century that was used when people apparently did not have the facility to express their positive feelings in proper words. They EMOTED.
SAD might better be replaced with "OH DEAR". Sadness is not an emotion that is always accompanied by tears. Rather, sadness is RELEASED by TEARS. If an emoji is needed to express condolence, "sadness" is not the right expression. Maybe EMPATHY should be tried in symbol form, or, "I UNDERSTAND", or "WE ARE WITH YOU". All preferable to a one-teared SAD PAC-MAN.
Back to the drawing board at Facebook.
Crossposted at LawPundit.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
On Facebook Groups at Forbes
See Giovanni Rodriguez at Why Facebook Groups Are Better Than Facebook.
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Facebook Going Into News
Facebook is apparently going into NEWS in a big way.
See the report by Jim Edwards at Business Insider
in
Facebook Is Now Obsessed With The News Business
— And The News Business Should Be Grateful And Afraid.
News is always a hot topic, as people want to know what is going on.
Whether the mainstream news should worry is doubtful.
There are countervailing influences.
We ourselves use Facebook less and less.
It is simply too invasive, too chatty, and wastes too much of our time on marginal things that do not necessarily improve our life.
Facebook is not on our list of "serious" websites.
It's "historical" value to us has been in finding some long lost contacts and it functions as a kind of blog portal to people who otherwise might not be online or who were not previously interested in blogging.
See the report by Jim Edwards at Business Insider
in
Facebook Is Now Obsessed With The News Business
— And The News Business Should Be Grateful And Afraid.
News is always a hot topic, as people want to know what is going on.
Whether the mainstream news should worry is doubtful.
There are countervailing influences.
We ourselves use Facebook less and less.
It is simply too invasive, too chatty, and wastes too much of our time on marginal things that do not necessarily improve our life.
Facebook is not on our list of "serious" websites.
It's "historical" value to us has been in finding some long lost contacts and it functions as a kind of blog portal to people who otherwise might not be online or who were not previously interested in blogging.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Fascism in Action: GOP Extremist Conspiracy Changed House Rules to Prohibit House Vote on the Shutdown
Facism in Action and Democracy has been Suspended:
See the House GOP changed rules to prevent vote on shutdown.
See the House GOP changed rules to prevent vote on shutdown.
The Double Standard in Privacy at Facebook: Minyanville Wall Street Reports
Vincent Trivett has the story at Minyanville Wall Street, and says "goodbye to keeping your name invisible to gawkers".
Read the article at
Mark Zuckerberg Buys His Privacy For $30 Million While Yours Disappears.
Read the article at
Mark Zuckerberg Buys His Privacy For $30 Million While Yours Disappears.
Friday, October 11, 2013
New Facebook Privacy Infringements
Here are useful tips for your Facebook Privacy Settings in view of
the most recent and continuing Facebook privacy infringements:
See ReadWrite at:
Facebook Just Killed A Privacy Setting, So It's A Good Time To Do Your Own Checkup.
See The Telegraph at:
11 ways to protect your privacy on Facebook
Facebook is making it harder to hide by removing a feature that prevents your profile from appearing on searches. Here we look at how else you can maintain your privacy.
We continue to be amazed that the law has not clamped down heavily on these blatant Facebook privacy infringements, which are being introduced in order for Facebook to make more and more money through advertising by data mining private materials that were never intended for mass public availability.
See ReadWrite at:
Facebook Just Killed A Privacy Setting, So It's A Good Time To Do Your Own Checkup.
See The Telegraph at:
11 ways to protect your privacy on Facebook
Facebook is making it harder to hide by removing a feature that prevents your profile from appearing on searches. Here we look at how else you can maintain your privacy.
We continue to be amazed that the law has not clamped down heavily on these blatant Facebook privacy infringements, which are being introduced in order for Facebook to make more and more money through advertising by data mining private materials that were never intended for mass public availability.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Deletion of a Facebook Account
How to delete a Facebook account?
We found the requisite link today at our Facebook account site online after resorting to the Facebook "help" menu item and entering "delete account" in the keyword box.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Facebook (FB) Ads Work Says StreetInsider.com
You have to be careful about Facebook,
as StreetInsider.com writes
Forget the Nonsense, Facebook (FB) Ads Do Work.
We ourselves simply do not know.
The proof is in the pudding,
down the road of future experience.
My own opinion is that if the ads at Facebook were not working well,
it would in part be because they are not well placed on the Facebook pages.
Ads need not be overly intrusive to work,
but they have to be in the right place for users to see them.
Who looks way over to the right at ads? I would put the ads between postings.
as StreetInsider.com writes
Forget the Nonsense, Facebook (FB) Ads Do Work.
We ourselves simply do not know.
The proof is in the pudding,
down the road of future experience.
My own opinion is that if the ads at Facebook were not working well,
it would in part be because they are not well placed on the Facebook pages.
Ads need not be overly intrusive to work,
but they have to be in the right place for users to see them.
Who looks way over to the right at ads? I would put the ads between postings.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Facebook Redesign for Mobile Phones Makes Photos Much Larger
Daniel Terdiman has the story at CNET News
in
Facebook mobile redesign makes photos three times larger
in
Facebook mobile redesign makes photos three times larger
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Facebook Profits and Privacy
Derrick Harris at GigaOm Tech News and Analysis has the story
at
Facebook’s delicate balance between profits and privacy
Crossposted from LawPundit.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Instagram $1 Billion Purchase by Facebook For What?
At the New York Times, Evelyn M. Rusli reports that
Facebook Buys Instagram for $1 Billion
inter alia quoting a Facebook press release as follows:
"Facebook announced today that it has reached an agreement to acquire Instagram, a fun, popular photo-sharing app for mobile devices.At the same time at CNN, Molly Wood asks
“The total consideration for San Francisco-based Instagram is approximately $1 billion in a combination of cash and shares of Facebook. The transaction, which is subject to customary closing conditions, is expected to close later this quarter."
Facebook buys Instagram...but for what?
Read both articles to get the scoop.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Facebook as a Money-Maker for Some Early Investors
At the New York Times, Nick Bilton and Evelyn M. Rusli have the story at For Founders to Decorators, Facebook Riches.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
How Facebook's IPO Could Transform Marketing - Forbes
How Facebook's IPO Could Transform Marketing - Forbes: - Sent using Google Toolbar
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Facebook Use in Academics by Students
Alexandra Rice has the story
at The Chronicle of Higher Education
in Students Push Their Facebook Use Further Into Academics
Monday, October 3, 2011
europe-v-facebook.org | EUROPE versus FACEBOOK
europe-v-facebook.org | EUROPE versus FACEBOOK: - Sent using Google Toolbar
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Facebook Privacy Settings After New Rollout of Changes to Core Features
Ellis Hamburger at Business Insider give us 9 Critical Ways to protect Facebook privacy, especially in view of the Facebook rollout of changes to core features and a whole new set of privacy settings.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
OK, Who Really Owns Facebook?
John Egan at Technorati Blogging reports on the new website WhoOwnsFacebook.com.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Facebook and its Like Button Website Integration
Danny Sullivan has a thought-provoking Facebook impact posting at Has Facebook Become The Master Key To Unlocking The Web?.
We have added new buttons, they work!
We have added new buttons, they work!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
