It should not began.
It’s over. Facebook is down, Twitter is in chaos. Mark Zuckerberg’s empire has lost hundreds of billions of dollars in value and laid off 11,000 people, with his social media business in jeopardy and his fantasy in chains. Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter caused advertisers to increase their spending and the ability of users to avoid the platform (or at least tweet more about it). It has never been possible that the era of social media could end, and soon. Now that we have washed up on this unexpected shore, we can look at the shipwreck with new eyes. Perhaps we can find relief: social media has never been a natural way to work, play and socialize, although it has become second nature. This practice began with various mutations, so subtle that it was difficult to see what was happening at the time.
The revolution started about 20 years ago when networked computers became so ubiquitous that people started using them to build and manage relationships. Social media has its issues – bringing together friends instead of friends, for example – but it pales in comparison to what comes next. Slowly but surely, at the end of the 2000s, social media took its place. The change is almost imperceptible, but it has great consequences. Instead of facilitating the use of small existing connections – mostly for offline living (for hosting birthday parties, for example) – social software has turned those connections into latent distribution channels. Suddenly, billions of people thought they were famous, professional, and interesting.
A global media network where anyone can say anything to anyone at any time, and where those people have agreed that they deserve such permission, or even that the detention is equal to investigation or is a stop – it’s just a great idea to start. . And it’s a terrible idea that ties in with the idea of social media itself: a system built and used solely to provide endless content.
And now, maybe, it can also stop. The possibility of Facebook and Twitter (and others) is an opportunity – not to move to an equal platform, but to accept their failure, which is unthinkable.
A long time ago, many social networks roamed the world. Six Degrees was made in 1997, named after a Pulitzer-nominated play based on a psychological experiment. It closed shortly after the dot-com crash of 2000 – the world wasn’t ready. Friends rose from the ashes in 2002, followed by MySpace and LinkedIn the following year, then Hi5 and Facebook in 2004, the latter for students in selected colleges and universities. That year also saw the arrival of Orkut, developed and operated by Google. Bebo was launched in 2005; eventually AOL and Amazon will have it. Google Buzz and Google+ were born and killed. You’ve probably never heard of some of them, but before Facebook became ubiquitous, many of these services were very popular. 카지노사이트
Content sharing sites also act as a de facto social network, allowing people to view content posted by people they know or know, rather than from around the world. Flickr, a photo sharing site, is one; YouTube, compared to Flickr for video, is another. Blogs (and blog-like services, such as Tumblr) follow them, embracing “reflections” that few people see and little hands. In 2008, Dutch journalist Geert Lovink published a book on a blog and social network that summed up their numbers: Zero Comments.
Today, people refer to all of these activities and more as “social media,” a name so familiar it no longer makes sense. But twenty years ago, this issue did not exist. Many of these sites are marketing themselves as part of the “Web 2.0” and “user-generated content” revolution, offering simple tools that are hosted on websites and then quickly. mobile. They are designed to create and share “content,” a word that means “full” when pronounced differently. But at that time, and for many years, these things were created as social networks or, more often, social network services. Many SNSs have proliferated, and a playful acronym has emerged: YASN, or “alternative social network.” These things are everywhere, like dandelions in water.
As the name suggests, networking involves connecting, not sharing. By connecting your personal network of trusted contacts (or “strong ties” as sociologists call them) to other similar networks (through “weak ties”), you have ability to create a large network of trusted contacts. LinkedIn promises to make job hunting and networking easier by exploring your connections. Friendster was made for personal relationships, Facebook for college students, etc. The whole idea of social media is networking: building or increasing relationships, mainly with people you know. How and why this increase made the workers decide. 에볼루션게이밍