Time's Person of the Year and no, it's not YOU

http://www.pcworld.com/article/201650/facebooks_half_billion_users_fun_facts.html

The largest number of Facebook users live in North America with 35.4 percent of the continent actively logging on to Facebook every month, according to O'Reilly Radar. About 17 percent of Europeans are Facebookers,

Time being a U.S.-based publication, I would think the 35.4 percent is a more relevant measure. I don't know who the person of the year is in sub-Saharan Africa, however.

OK, Dick, this seems to happen on every you get on, so I've said what I need to say and you can now proceed with your flame war.

 

I guess my question is: Do you really think that someone not on Facebook is somehow being left behind? That was what you seemed to hint when you said that saying it's "not for me" these days is like riding a bicycle instead of driving a car. If I misinterpreted that, correct me.

In the midst of your tantrum, let's not forget who took issue with whose post first.

 

Journalists who reject social media are making a mistake.

 

Journalists who reject social media will be unemployed, if they're not already.

 

My wife is a Skype user.

Talks to friends and family 5,000 miles away.

What possible advantage could Facebook provide over this . . . unless, you know, you don't really want to see and hear and talk to these "friends" you found (which I suspect is most often the case).

Facebook allows you to keep up, and more important, keep your distance. Some choose to keep their distance by not signing up for the service at all. Doesn't make them Fred Flintstone. You could argue it makes them more honest (hence all the "pseudo" friends a typical Facebook user has).

Your favorite sports section is cutting its print section by another 12 pages per week . . . but promises to attack digital media more aggressively than ever.

I have $100 that says its revenue in 2011 will be less than 2010. Any takers?

 

I don't think I took issue with anyone's post in particular; several people said they didn't see the big deal about Facebook and I mentioned how silly that sounds. I don't particularly think bike-riders are being "left behind," although they do make some lifestyle choices about things they're going to miss just like non-FB users make. My point was that people who reject social media are not going to reduce the impact of the next technology on the world, just as cyclists aren't going to reduce traffic.

You are getting in so many e-fights these days that you're starting to see stuff that isn't there.

 

I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

I think that BTExpress just made the best post on this thread. He/she put into words what I was feeling but couldn't quite articulate when I was rambling about "boundaries."

 

Speaking of automobiles. Only about 8.5 percent of the world's population owns one.

 

So . . . you're predicting that a newspaper that has been cutting staff, and finally says in 2010 that it will embrace "digital media" will actually lose money next year?

Wow, you're really going out on a limb here! What balls you have!

 

What is Time Magazine?

 

It has been embracing digital media for years. It just never articulated that print was officially an afterthought until recently.

And print stlll signs 89% of the paychecks. Destroy the Golden Goose at your own peril, I say. Twitterbird isn't going to make up the difference.

And the paper, er, media company won't lose money. It will just make less.

 

Let's be honest here: Newspaper plans for survival are now just baling water out of the Titanic. Screaming about Twitter and the like is a waste of time.

Now, Twitter and such as a tool for disseminating and collecting information . . . if you're a journalist, and this tool is out there, it's foolhardy to reject it out of hand because you're not sure how you can turn it into a moneymaker.