The Network

[Torchwood]

All the above is why I don't use Facebook. Whatever their disclaimers, privacy is completely antithetical to their business model, and will not be respected. There is also a cultural difference here, which explains the constant run-ins of American software companies with EU data protection laws. Heck, I even object to Google Earth posting my back garden for all to see, but seemingly cannot do anything about it.

If you want to publish your details, in the business world there is LinkedIn, which merely gives a quick bio then (business) contact details for any follow on. I also regret the decline of previous social media models like Live Journal, which has a forum type structure, where you can hide behind a handle. Yes, that invites trolls, but a lot of Facebook accounts are under false names.

[Apollonius]

Twitter followers are up for sale - CBC News, 28 December 2012
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2012/ ... owers.html

In an age when having a strong social media profile is a mark of success, some comedians, musicians and artists are turning to services that sell Twitter followers.

It’s a new business geared to the digital era – with companies that sell “bots” or computer-generated accounts that pose as Twitter followers. Also on the rise are professional followers, who are paid to tweet and re-tweet for the stars.

Lady Gaga, Mitt Romney and even Barack Obama have all been accused of buying followers, though all have denied it.

As Deana Sumanac reports, many social media experts oppose the practice, saying it is an abuse of Twitter and Facebook’s power to represent grassroots popularity. ...

[Doc]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhen ... a-in-2013/

3 Reasons You Should Quit Social Media In 2013

As an experiment, I quit the internet in September. I started with Twitter, I moved on to Facebook and ended by shuttering my blog. I didn’t stop freelancing or responding to emails, but I dropped social media and my participation in it like a hot potato and I haven’t looked back. I held a client meeting at Dunkin’ Donuts. If I wanted to see adorable pictures of my nieces, I had to email my sister to request them. I had more room in my schedule for the gym. The less time I’ve spent working on my online brand, the more offline opportunities have come my way. Here are three reasons you too should disentangle yourself from the social web in 2013:

It harms your self-esteem

While evidence for Social Media Anxiety Disorder is largely anecdotal at present, a UK study from the fall found that over 50% of social media users evaluated their participation in social networking as having an overall negative effect on their lives. Specifically, they singled out the blow to their self-esteem that comes from comparing themselves to peers on Facebook and Twitter as the biggest downfall. It seems trite, but you can’t feel anxious about the achievements of your old college roommate or your MIT fellow cousin if you don’t know about them in the first place. And forget about social media stalking your ex; it’s as unhealthy as you’d guess.

Your blood pressure will thank you

Social media a hotbed of bad behavior – flame wars, bragging, bashing and crimes against grammar, among other misdeeds. If you find yourself getting unduly irritated by, say, entitled Millennials tweeting their displeasure at being denied iPhones by Santa, or falling victim to Godwin’s Law while arguing with cyber strangers, it might be time to take a timeout. And make sure that break is a legitimate one – none of this downloading an app to manage your social media obligations for you.

Online is no substitute for offline

Almost a quarter of Americans say that they’ve missed out on important life moments in their quest to capture and memorialize them for social media. Think about that the next time you’re Instagraming your anniversary dinner at P.F. Chang’s. With the ubiquity of communications technology in our daily lives, it’s easy to convince ourselves that the digital world is where all the action is and that the effort we put into building our online empire directly correlates to IRL benefits such as scoring a new job or landing a new mate. In fact, over 90% of job hunters of all ages look for work online, but less than 5% are conducting offline job hunting activities such as attending networking events or setting up information interviews. And guess what? A full 70 – 80% of job vacancies are never posted, so all that job board scouring is likely for naught. If the only benefit you’ve derived from flexing your social media muscle was free anti-antiperspirant samples from the folks at Klout, it might be time to direct your energy elsewhere.

[Typhoon]

All the above is why I don't use Facebook. Whatever their disclaimers, privacy is completely antithetical to their business model, and will not be respected.

Hard to imagine how they would not sell one's data.

My browser is set to "Do not track" and I have several tracking blockers installed.

There is also a cultural difference here, which explains the constant run-ins of American software companies with EU data protection laws. Heck, I even object to Google Earth posting my back garden for all to see, but seemingly cannot do anything about it.

A similar situation in Japan. If one uses one's real name, then there is the social obligation of replying to everyone . . .

If you want to publish your details, in the business world there is LinkedIn, which merely gives a quick bio then (business) contact details for any follow on. I also regret the decline of previous social media models like Live Journal, which has a forum type structure, where you can hide behind a handle. Yes, that invites trolls, but a lot of Facebook accounts are under false names.

Google, Rakuten, and Amazon are useful. Google exceptionally so. Although I've never clicked on a paid ad. Don't even see ads with ad-blocking installed.

Facebook is optional. Wonder how viable Facebook [and Twitter and . . . ] will be longer term.

[Doc]

All the above is why I don't use Facebook. Whatever their disclaimers, privacy is completely antithetical to their business model, and will not be respected.

Hard to imagine how they would not sell one's data.

My browser is set to "Do not track" and I have several tracking blockers installed.

There is also a cultural difference here, which explains the constant run-ins of American software companies with EU data protection laws. Heck, I even object to Google Earth posting my back garden for all to see, but seemingly cannot do anything about it.

A similar situation in Japan. If one uses one's real name, then there is the social obligation of replying to everyone . . .

If you want to publish your details, in the business world there is LinkedIn, which merely gives a quick bio then (business) contact details for any follow on. I also regret the decline of previous social media models like Live Journal, which has a forum type structure, where you can hide behind a handle. Yes, that invites trolls, but a lot of Facebook accounts are under false names.

Google, Rakuten, and Amazon are useful. Google exceptionally so. Although I've never clicked on a paid ad. Don't even see ads with ad-blocking installed.

Facebook is optional. Wonder how viable Facebook [and Twitter and . . . ] will be longer term.

CS Tracking blockers really are not of much use these days. There are so many way to configure a computer, as well as, configuration of your browser, along with an IP address that you are being tracked even if you disable cookies and block ads. Be sure that you have a unique ID online that is being tracked by some if not all of the companies that exist to do just that. There are ways around this, however they aren't so easy to do.

[Doc]

http://pandodaily.com/2013/01/30/andree ... ute-death/

Andreessen predicts the death of traditional retail. Yes: Absolute death

Sarah_Lacy_6x6 By Sarah Lacy
On January 30, 2013
Netsuite

mall comerceYesterday, when I spoke with Marc Andreessen about ShoeDazzle’s rapid decline and subsequent rapid turn-around, I asked if he’d seen anything quite so dramatic in the startup world.

His answer had less to do with ShoeDazzle than I expected, and it surprised me. “I think it speaks to the flexibility of ecommerce,” he says. “A lot of what [ShoeDazzle CEO] Brian Lee is doing is tweaking the website. That stuff can be done quite quickly, whereas a turn around at JC Penny takes many times longer.”

Later in the conversation, he picked back up on this thread when he talked about how the macro story of Ecommerce 2.0 is really only going to hit its stride in the next three to four years. That’s a dramatically different view from people who believe it’s petering out as innovations like flash sales and subscription commerce are becoming overused gimmicks.

Instead, Andreessen expects this wave to keep building and high drama to come by the end of the decade. “Retail guys are going to go out of business and ecommerce will become the place everyone buys. You are not going to have a choice,” he says. “We’re still pre-death of retail, and we’re already seeing a huge wave of growth. The best in class are going to get better and better. We view this as a long term opportunity.”

That somewhat extreme view could explain the bets the firm has made on companies like ShoeDazzle, Zulily, and Fab at extremely heady valuations, relative to their size and the multiples of a company like Amazon — not to mention weaker ecommerce companies. It might also bode well for the struggling eBay, which Andreessen is also on the board of.

“Retail chains are a fundamentally implausible economic structure if there’s a viable alternative,” he says. “You combine the fixed cost of real estate with inventory, and it puts every retailer in a highly leveraged position. Few can survive a decline of 20 to 30 percent in revenues. It just doesn’t make any sense for all this stuff to sit on shelves. There is fundamentally a better model.”

But what will really brings retail to its knees isn’t just the baggage of physical stores and inventory — or at least excess inventory that isn’t intelligently matched to what consumers want. It’s the shopping experiences that companies like Fab and ShoeDazzle are starting to create, he says. The fun, the browsing, the entertainment, and the social aspect were largely what was keeping malls and traditional retail alive. But Andreessen believes the online world is finally starting to compete. “Malls are going under, and there’s more to come,” he says. “These chains are much closer to going under than you think.”

This is a pretty bold prediction, given that Zappos was the last ecommerce company we saw exit for $1 billion, and Y-Charts says that US ecommerce sales are only about 5 percent of all retail sales.

And what about the excitement around massive new retail brands like H&M and Zara who have capitalized on modern supply chains, fast-churning sales and low costs to create some of the biggest entrepreneur success stories in traditional retail? Andreessen views their success as “more transitionary than permanent.” “I’d bet on the pure plays in ecommerce,” he says. “Software eats retail.”

The idea that in, say, another ten years we’ll all have to shop online whether we prefer it or not is a textbook Marc Andreessen bold futuristic call, reminiscent of when he said newspapers should go ahead shut down their printing presses long before any of them had to start closing their doors altogether.

If he’s right, the big question is what this means for Silicon Valley. Oddly enough, ecommerce is the one sector of the consumer Web where the Valley hasn’t been particularly dominant. eBay was an exception — and not surprisingly, it was more of a marketplace than a traditional etailer. Most of the top companies this time around are in New York, LA, and even Seattle.

Andreessen was a bit stumped on that one. But added this after a minute: “My core theory is that the best software companies will win at retail, so it’ll become increasingly important for these companies to have the best software programmers in the world. And there are a lot more of them in the Valley.”