Both sites are full of spammers and fake profiles. They are becoming less and less about peoples expression and connection, and more more about commercial exploits for profit. When the sites first started people were much more friendly and having more fun. Now the sites are OLD NEWS. And you know how young people are, they get bored easily and outgrow things. Youtube is more fun, and so are MMOs. Silly for those people to buy the site, it's like purchasing a sinking ship.
- 1
- 2
Social Networking And Class Warfare
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Boyd's essay triggered a firestorm of criticism. Facebook was too cool to comment, turning down my request as abruptly as a cheerleader nixes a nerd's prom invite. But MySpace founders Tom Anderson and Chris DeWolfe were eager to dispel what they considered a wrongheaded take by a researcher they respected. For one thing, the sheer number of MySpace members (many of whom are also Facebook users) makes it hard to talk of a divide: "How are you going to put 70 million people in a box?" asks DeWolfe. (Facebook has 28 million.) He also notes that class has nothing to do with all those who access videos and music on MySpace. (Boyd says she's focusing on which one teens use for their core socializing.) Anderson adds that people go to MySpace for the freedom to design their page the way they want it, while Facebook's more-stringent template enforces a spartan design ethic. Boyd argues that upscalers like Facebook's clean style, while the nonelites prefer the blinglike cacophony that is MySpace. As Boyd writes, "The division around MySpace and Facebook is just another way in which technology is mirroring societal values." If she's right, the Facebook and MySpace debate will be more than a choice of online destination. It will be a hard look into a societal mirror.
© 2007
- 1
- 2









Discuss