So how does Miranda explain this apathy among us college students? Brilliantly:

I call it an inflexible system. Education has a fresh cornucopia of potential tools that have not been utilized to potential. That is a shame, and a failure on the part of the system to adapt.

As a student of marketing and public relations, one of the first things any budding professional is taught is to identify your audience. Identify your audience. Professors now have a very different audience today than professors even 10 years ago. My generation was raised with toys. With gadgets. My generation has a high processing speed and a low tolerance for filler. My generation learns in bullet points and status updates of 140 characters or less. Most importantly, my generation is endlessly engaged with a wide online community. This is the audience.

And moreover, this should be any professor’s dream. You have a venue for innovation!

She’s right. And it’s not just social media. As many of you know, I’ve made social media in education a big priority in my college life with the AU Social Media Club, but this isn’t just social media we’re talking about. It’s a simple failure to acknowledge passion and creativity, and a massive failure to help student unlock those passions in innovative ways.

Let me put this in some context. I’ll be blunt—I’m not a fan of my international business course. It’s not because I don’t like business; In fact, I love business. One of my degrees is a B.S. in Business Administration and the Kogod School of Business has been an outstanding place for me to unlock my business potential. But this one class is a failure, largely because our professor is deaf and blind to the needs, wants, and passions of our generation.

So far, the course has consisted of long—as in two and a half hour long—lectures, very little homework, two exams, and a significant group “business plan” project in which we develop our own international business. Sounds cool? Sort of. The problem is that it’s boring and honestly, couldn’t unleash the passion of even the most hardened and fascinated international business major. Our professor tries to be “hip” by encouraging us to text him (+ points), but then fails to grasp even the most basic functions of BlackBoard (- points). He tries to discuss current events (+ points), but then fails to mention anything about the state of the media (- points), how we’re receiving this news (- points), or what this news means in the context of our real lives (- points).

But I don’t mean to single out this one class. There are numerous classes—at every university, I’m sure—that can benefit from a more modern approach. An approach that utilizes modern technology, encourages discussion and debate, asks students where and how they get their information and why they get it where they do. An approach that allows students to express their knowledge in whatever way they know how—whether that’s building a website, tweeting a thousand times a month, starting a group on Facebook, or putting together a good old-fashioned scrapbook.

Miranda nailed it right on the head—our education needs flexibility. It needs to adapt not just to modern students, but to each and every one of us.

This might sound like we’re asking a lot, but really, we’re not. We’re asking that our professors use the time and the resources at their disposal to unlock our passion in new and innovative ways. We’re asking that they step outside of their comfort zone as we step outside of ours. We’re asking that as we work our asses off for that perfect grade, they do the same to not only help us reach that grade, but reach it in a way that gets us excited about the next course in that subject area.

I want to walk out of every class—regardless of the topic—feeling like I should major in it. I want to be that passionate about my classes. I want to care. I really, really, do.

So see? It’s not that we don’t want to care. I think I speak for most of us when I say: yes, we want to care, we want to be passionate. But unfortunately our education isn’t always stepping up to the plate.

Want to know more about the AU Social Media Club? E-mail us at smcedu@american.edu. Are you a student at AU and want to get involved? Sign up for our mailing list here.

Privileged Straight White Male Technology Executives

Tynan points out Danah Boyd’s fun little acronym, PSWMTE, to refer to Zuckerberg right off the bat–because evidently pulling random demographic stereotypes into a long unwieldy acronym solidifies an argument about privacy–indicating that these PSWMTEs simply don’t care about your average Joe.

Let’s try a new acronym: BASJOSSI.

Baseless Accusation by So-called Journalist with an Overinflated Sense of Self Importance.

Grow up, before you attempt to kick off a long rant that you actually want people to take seriously. And, without further ado, begins my long rant.

Those Stats Are Irrelevant

Tynan points to some new conclusions in a PC Tools and Harris Interactive poll as support for his argument that users still care about privacy:

• Four out of five Americans want to keep files on their computers private from others — whether it’s their coworkers (48 percent), boss (42 percent), friends (40 percent), children (29 percent), parents (26 percent), or spouse (17 percent).
• Nearly half (45 percent) say they’d be embarrassed if those other folks saw some of the stuff they have on their PC, smartphone, wonder tablet, etc.

Now maybe it’s just me, but I’m really failing to see what the hell this has to do with privacy. Last I heard, even those pesky Facebook privacy settings can’t force you to reveal the entire contents of your computer’s hard drive, nor does it blast an LCD projection of your phone everywhere you go. These numbers are absolutely meaningless for the sake of this argument.

“…ignoring how people really feel about their privacy… is a recipe for disaster.” Sure.

That statement in and of itself is ridiculous. If that were true, then please explain to me, Mr. Tynan, how not only is Mark Zuckerberg now the 35th richest man in the world, but Facebook’s valuation has approximately tripled since 2009 and they continue to grow at a phenomenal rate. That sure tells me that people care a lot about their privacy… please note that sarcasm.

It’s All About the Illusion

When it comes right down to it people like Mr. Tynan and Danah Boyd are complaining about privacy because they legitimately think it’s a legitimate concern, and because they just want to be sure that it’s not really an emergency. It’s like screaming “fire” and hoping the sprinklers come on, just to make sure they work. Everyone wants to know those privacy safeguards are there, whether or not there’s actually a reason for them. So they constantly complain about how dangerous our lack of privacy is, despite the fact that there’s certainly no emergency–in fact, most Web privacy concerns are just plain wrong.

Why? Because deep down inside, way down, our culture is way over privacy. We (and I mean a collective “we”) passed up privacy in the 90s. We share everything–often, too much information about everything (the acronym TMI didn’t come out of nowhere, folks)–and the idea that now, of all times, we should actually be concerned about privacy… well, give me a break.

We’re no more concerned about privacy on Facebook now than we are buying textbooks on Amazon.com. We care less about what people know about our personal lives than we do care about how much milk is in the fridge. And we could care less what anyone does with the information we give them, as long as they pretend like it’s nice and safe and secure.

Eventually, we’ll be over that illusion of privacy, too. That’s probably a ways off, but boy I’m sure Zuckerberg dreams about that every night. What a world it would be if people stopped bitching about how secure their information was, and just learned to live as better people who didn’t have to worry about embarrassing secrets getting out. Think about that one.

Mashable, God love ‘em, is convinced that if (and that’s a BIG IF) AT&T loses exclusivity on the iPhone, they’ll see a major decrease in income and revenue. This just proves, once again, that just because you’ve got a big microphone doesn’t mean you understand the business or the technology behind the mobile industry.

To their credit, the author explains some of the caveats–sure, AT&T isn’t going to lose all it’s iPhone subscribers over night, but then, naturally, he goes right back and contradicts himself:

If, on the other hand, Verizon got the device next year, the incentive to switch to AT&T would go up in a puff of smoke. The number of new wireless subscribers would drop like an iPad thrown out of an airplane.

You are just. wrong. And including juvenile and unrelated Microsoft paint graphics about how tethering means losing your unlimited data plan only exacerbates the fact that you don’t get how this business works.

Harsh? Maybe. True? Yes. Here’s the deal, folks.

If (once again, that’s a big IF) AT&T were to lose exclusivity on the iPhone–which I’m still not convinced will happen until at least 2012 (not to Verizon anyway, to T-mobile is a whole other, much more rational and likely possibility)–then yes the market would change. No, AT&T would not suffer and die because they are just soooooo dependent on the iPhone. That’s nonsense. There’s a couple factors at play here:

1. There’s no such thing as a finite market. This is the number one rule of business, marketing, and well, it’s important and you need to get this. We will never reach a point where every single person on earth is just so satisfied with their cell phone and wireless coverage that they will never ever want to switch or buy a new phone. It’s never going to happen. EVER. Which means that there are always customers to market to, and always new people to buy phones, iPhones or not, AT&T or not. If AT&T loses exclusivity? They’ll keep selling the iPhone to millions of people, along with other networks, and they’ll continue to sell millions of other inferior phones to ignorant customers who don’t understand they’re being ripped off by the quality of their device.
2. Moving to Verizon would be a huge pain in the ass for Apple AND Verizon. On the surface, most people probably don’t see any downside at all to Verizon adding the iPhone to its mobile product line. They’re missing 80% of the substance in this argument. For Apple, they would have to create an entirely new iPhone. Not just a slightly different one, but an entirely different one. Switching to CDMA is not as simple as simply switching out a chip in the phone. With CDMA they would have to rework the entire infrastructure of the iPhone 4, since it’s antennae is specially designed to work on AT&T’s GSM network–meaning this would have to be reconfigured and re-tested, thousands and thousands of times, before they’d let it see the light of day on Verizon’s network. They’d also have to change the software, as the CDMA network will not allow phones to access both the voice network and the data network simultaneously. So all you AT&T customers who enjoy browsing the Web as a distraction while talking to your parents on speakerphone? Kiss that blessed distraction goodbye. For Verizon, they would lose the best mobile partnership they’ve ever, ever had–Google. No, they wouldn’t lose it straight out, but you can bet Google isn’t going to be happy about it. Verizon has now spent over two years all-out marketing the Android operating system and phones (even directly attacking the iPhone on occasion), and going back on all those millions of ad dollars is just about the biggest, most hypocritcal, “f*#$ you” to Google they could pull. Would that stop them? Maybe not alone, but if Android surpasses the iPhone in market sure in the next two years, as has been projected, then Verizon might be crying a little when AT&T starts making bank on both Android and iPhone phones, while Verizon has to catch up by spending millions of dollars in advertising to remind customers that “Oh hey, we have the iPhone now, too! We’re five years late, but trust us, our network can handle it!”
3. Verizon does not have a stronger network, and it won’t take long for customers to figure that out. Regardless of how much the “I’ve got a map for that” ads might be drilled into your brain at this point, Verizon simply doesn’t have a stronger network. They have a better quality network because there is less strain on it. If they get the iPhone, you can kiss that goodbye, too. You think AT&T is bad? Just wait until Verizon unleashes the iPhone on the pitiful networks of San Francisco and New York. AT&T has learned their lesson and is constantly bolstering their network to correct for the insane amount of data usage iPhone customers manage. I’m willing to bet Verizon has underestimated just how much strain the iPhone would put on their network. And if they try to roll it out on 4G… it’ll be like going back to the EDGE network.

But what do I know. I’ll firmly admit I’m not a mobile technology industry expert either. But I’ve spent enough time watching this and learning about it that I think I get it better than most people now. Does it mean that I’m 100% sure of everything I just wrote? No. But ridiculous doomsday theories for AT&T and fanboyish journalism for Verizon is just getting out of hand.

Chances are, nothing will play out like almost anyone has predicted it will, including myself. Chances are I’m wrong about something in this post, just like Mashable is almost certainly wrong in theirs. So let this be your disclaimer before you go off ranting online or in the comments (although feel free, really, I don’t actually mind) about how I don’t know what I’m talking about.

It’s been a rough day.

It started out about as bad as it gets. Shenanigans from the previous evening left me unable to find my sunglasses. My brand new, one-week old, nice pair of sunglasses. They remained lost until about 3 p.m. when the restaurant I left them in called back to tell me that yes, indeed they had them. At least that was some good news.

But unfortunately it just wasn’t meant to be. When I arrived home I turned on my Xbox 360 to put an episode of 30 Rock on, only to see it give me one big “eff you” with three blinking red lights. Online support checked, tweets sent to @xboxsupport, I was then forced to conclude that it’s pretty well dead as dead gets.

I can’t say I didn’t expect it–I purchased it on launch night, November 22, 2005, and I don’t think I know anyone who had an Xbox 360 that lasted as long as mine did (they have been plagued by hardware failures). Now I’m faced with a dilemma: I can pay $99 and wait three weeks to send it to Microsoft, have them repair it, and send it back (it’s obviously not under warranty). OR, I can try to save up a little and splurge for one of the new ones, $299, which is almost certainly not going to fail again anytime soon, and includes a much larger hard drive and built in wifi. I’ll probably do the latter–I was going to buy one at some point anyway. Just hadn’t planned on it this soon.

On top of that, we were hit by a massive storm and, as fate would have it, many of our apartment windows were open, and laundry was still “drying” on the deck. Needless to say I’ve been drying floors and walls for an hour and the clothes outside are probably not going to be dry anytime soon.

The cherry on top? People. Just dealing with some frustrating things right now. But that’s more than I want to get into with this post.

But despite this terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day, I saw something on the bus today that reminded me to stay happy, regardless of the crap I have to deal with on one particularly bad day.

I wish I had a picture of him, but on the bus, I saw the most unhappy, mean, grumpy, and rude old man I have ever seen. And he muttered. Boy, did he mutter.

“I just don’t understand…” he started. It was a phrase I got to know well by the time I stepped off the bus, as he must’ve said it ten or 15 times.

“I just don’t understand why you would take the bus if you have a bike. Shouldn’t he be on the bike? Lazy kids these days.”

“Lazy kids” of course, meaning me. Me who biked ten miles through the city, had an important phone call at 8 p.m., and didn’t feel like biking up the largest hill in the city.

“I just don’t understand why they let people talk so loud on the bus,” he continued a moment later. This time he was referring to a quiet–literally, I could barely hear them–group of young Asian students talking in the back of the bus.

“I just don’t understand why this kid is practically sitting on me,” he said referring to the man standing politely in front him, standing close due to the crowded bus–ya know, because this is rush hour.

It got to the point where I almost couldn’t stand it anymore. Really, I almost freaked out. I started to turn to him and say, Hey, you know we can hear you. And it’s pretty damn rude. The woman sitting next to him muttered “be nice” a couple times under her breath, but she clearly didn’t care enough to stop the obnoxious comments from flowing.

But when I got off the bus I smiled. I smiled at every person I passed on the sidewalk on the way to my apartment building. And I smiled at the woman waiting inside our doorway, and I hugged my cat when I walked in my front door. Because yea, I had a crap day, but I’m also not that man.

I see good things in the world–despite all the bad. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I try not to let my personal emotions offend other people when I’m out in public. I smile at strangers, and say Hi, how are you? even to people I’ve never met before. In my humble opinion, my way is a little better way to go.

I will never be that man. I will never succumb to that kind of hate and sadness. And I’ll never give people such dirty, mean looks as that man did to me today. Because no one deserves that, regardless of how terrible, horrible, no good, very bad my day has been.

For those of you who haven’t heard, Dave Weigel is human, with thoughts, emotions, and feelings, like most of the rest of us.

Let me explain. Until yesterday, Dave Weigel was the Washington Post blogger covering the conservative movement. One caveat: he’s not all that conservative. Does that make him a bad blogger? A poor journalist? No. Does it mean he might not have been the best person for the job? Maybe. But that’s missing the larger point here.

The point is that our media is fundamentally flawed. Journalism in the 21st century is facing overwhelming forces, and yesterday’s fiasco at the Washington Post only underscores the futility of trying to fight them. The idea of objective journalism is a myth, for three reasons:

1. News moves faster than people.
2. “Unbiased journalism” is no longer a unique selling point, nor one that consumers are willing to pay for.
3. Journalists have opinions, and hiding them only misleads the public, preventing them from properly interpreting the news they read, hear, and watch.

News moves faster than people.

In the 1990s we saw the advent of the 24/7 news cycle, as dedicated cable news channels like CNN and Fox News Channel emerged on the scene. Little did they know, the media was only witnessing the beginning of a rapidly accelerating news cycle, one that has now accelerated far out of their control.

Today we have social media. Social media doesn’t drive the news cycle–events drive the news cycle. But social media has placed the control of the news cycle squarely in the hands of the information consumers themselves, leaving television and newspapers struggling to keep up.

Lost amidst the battle between corporate media conglomerates and the “little guy” citizen journalists, of course, are the paid, professional journalists. These journalists are overworked, underpaid, underappreciated, and forced to hold themselves to outrageous and unrealistic standards of “objectivity”–standards that are simply impossible to live up to the 21st century hyper news cycle.

“Unbiased journalism” is no longer a unique selling point, nor one that consumers are willing to pay for.

In case you haven’t noticed, newspapers are dying. There’s lots of theories as to why they’re dying, and likely more than one accurate explanation. I tend to favor the Strategic Dissonance Model, created by former Intel CEO Andy Grove.



The model, above, basically states that at a recent point in history there was an inflection point in the business of information. As consumers of information and new media–i.e. blogs, social media, etc.–moved one direction, progressing towards an open, generally opinion-based, consumer-generated style of news, old media regressed toward a more closed, more staunchly “objective” style. This, in turn, created a dissonance gap between the two, resulting in old media’s decline and new media’s rapid success.

My point here is that consumer’s dont give a shit about objectivity. Not only do they not care, but they sure as hell don’t care enough to pay for it. The only people subscribing to old media today are people who either a) just like the feel of the newspaper, or b) rely on very factual, researched articles for research of their own.

Journalists have opinions, and hiding them only misleads the public, preventing them from properly interpreting the news they read, hear, and watch.

Finally, the obvious point. Journalists do have opinions. That is an obvious fact, and one that every single person on earth should know. If you think that journalists are robots and have no opinions, don’t agree or disagree with politicians, and don’t feel certain ways on certain issues, then you clearly don’t understand the way the world works.

So here’s the situation. We have a hyperspeed news cycle that is out of corporate media’s control, consumer’s that don’t care about unbiased journalism yet business models still founded on selling it, and journalists with opinions working for businesses that refuse to acknowledge their humanity.

See any problems there?

Not only is this a fundamentally flawed system, but this misleads news consumers. When you read an article on the Huffington Post, you know that it’s going to have a liberal bias. When you watch MSNBC you know it’s got a liberal slant. And when you watch Fox News they make no efforts to hide their conservative bias. These media organizations are some of the few in the world that are being (relatively) honest with their consumers.

The ones claiming objectivity are lying to you. I’m looking at you, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and, for that matter, the AP, NBC, ABC, CNN, and any number of other organizations. Each of these organizations has biased journalists, producing biased work, yet they insist over and over that they are objective and unbiased. When relatively uninformed readers and watchers consume this content, they interpret it as objective. Informed and experienced information consumers recognize the political bias inherent in these organizations and journalists and interpret it as such, taking in the actual facts and the rest with a grain of salt (as it should be).

In other words (and thanks for sticking around through this long entry), Dave Weigel should never have been fired, and journalists should never feel the need to keep their personal opinions and bias secret from the public.

Think about it. How can we change this? What will it take to convince traditional media that they are simply going about the business of news the wrong way?

Sound off in the comments or tweet at me. And don’t forget to retweet and “like” this post on Facebook using the links below.

]]> http://alexpriest.com/2010/06/26/the-myth-of-objective-journalism/feed/ 5 http://alexpriest.com/2010/06/11/the-twitter-revolution-wasnt-a-revolution-for-iran-it-was-a-revolution-for-the-world/ http://alexpriest.com/2010/06/11/the-twitter-revolution-wasnt-a-revolution-for-iran-it-was-a-revolution-for-the-world/#comments Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:38:24 +0000 Alex Priest http://alexpriest.com/?p=884 Continue reading →]]> I just wanted to post a quick response to this article in Foreign Policy. The author, Golnaz Esfandiari, like so many others, seems intent on discrediting the impact of Twitter on the revolution in Iran. Was Twitter the cause of the attempted revolution? No. Was it the most important communications medium? No. But the article misses the point. The attempted revolution in Iran in 2009 wasn’t a revolution in Iran, it was a revolution in the media and how those of us outside these conflict zones perceive the world around us.

Here’s Esfandiari’s take on what she calls the “Twitter Devolution”:

But it is time to get Twitter’s role in the events in Iran right. Simply put: There was no Twitter Revolution inside Iran. As Mehdi Yahyanejad, the manager of “Balatarin,” one of the Internet’s most popular Farsi-language websites, told the Washington Post last June, Twitter’s impact inside Iran is nil. “Here [in the United States], there is lots of buzz,” he said. “But once you look, you see most of it are Americans tweeting among themselves.”

She’s just missing the point. Of course there wasn’t a Twitter revolution inside Iran. It was a revolution outside Iran. It alerted millions and millions of people in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere that there are serious problems in Iran that need to be fixed. It made the world wake up and realize that the people in Iran aren’t particularly happy with their corrupt and, dare I say, evil government. It showed that the world has become far more interconnected over the past decade than anyone realized.

The article mentions @oxfordgirl, and it does her an incredible disservice. Take a look:

Oxfordgirl was ultimately more successful at gaining publicity for herself than at helping any protesters in Iran. Compare her 10,000 Twitter followers with the 300 followers of a Karaj-based Green activist (who prefers not to be identified or to have his Twitter page publicized). The activist tweets in Persian, which few Western journalists can read, and he is often a source of valuable information about the mood in the country.

Yet again, she’s simply missing the point. Anyone who knows social media, communications, or even marketing knows that comparing number of followers is naive and immature, and insinuating that @oxfordgirl was doing it all for the “publicity” instead of helping the protesters in Iran is offensive to her and to her friends. I know her, respect her, and I understand her background. And if this journalist had done her research, maybe she would too, instead of sounding catty and accusatory.

Esfandiari recovers a bit with the following paragraph:

The story of Oxfordgirl gives a clue about the real role that Twitter played. There is no doubt that she helped spread news about the Iranian protests — often very quickly. Twitter played an important role in getting word about the events in Iran out to the wider world. Together with YouTube, it helped focus the world’s attention on the Iranian people’s fight for democracy and human rights. New media over the last year created and sustained unprecedented international moral solidarity with the Iranian struggle — a struggle that was being bravely waged many years before Twitter was ever conceived.

But that doesn’t make up for the downright misleading nature of the article. In the end, to me this sounds like a frustrated and desperate print journalist, all too self-aware of her impending irrelevance. It sounds jealous, naive, and uninformed. And the accusations pointed at @oxfordgirl are downright mean.

[Foreign Policy]

]]> http://alexpriest.com/2010/06/11/the-twitter-revolution-wasnt-a-revolution-for-iran-it-was-a-revolution-for-the-world/feed/ 1 http://alexpriest.com/2010/05/24/internet-meet-reality/ http://alexpriest.com/2010/05/24/internet-meet-reality/#comments Tue, 25 May 2010 00:45:38 +0000 Alex Priest http://alexpriest.com/?p=809 Continue reading →]]> It’s high time for this wake-up call. It is abundantly clear by the recent outrage at Facebook that the vast majority of the Internet–the social media crowd, in particular–still doesn’t get the business of social media. Social media is not a public service. It is not funded and managed by the government. It is not a nonprofit entity, out to change the world, regardless of the profit margin.

Social media is a business, and it amazes me how much social media users are, quite frankly, acting like entitled, spoiled brats.



Reality is striking the social media space and it’s hitting hard and fast. As we all know, it’s centered on the Facebook privacy debacle, set in motion by a changed privacy policy meant to help further the business–and the continued existence–of a growing international corporation. Couple that with some bad PR on Facebook’s part and a spoiled user base, and you’ve set the stage for a crisis of poisoned Tylenol proportions. But Facebook can relax, because they’re in the right on this one. People need to wake up and smell the roses, because there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Three things I want you to learn from this post.

1. Privacy is an illusion.
2. Social media is a business, and we should treat it as such.
3. The “customer” is not always right.

Privacy Is an Illusion

First, some contend Facebook needs to get serious about privacy. In Facebook’s defense, I’d argue that Facebook’s users need to get serious about their own privacy and stop posting stupid shit online they don’t want other people to know.

Don’t want people to know your phone number? Don’t put it on Facebook. And delist yourself from the phonebook, contact Google to get yourself removed from their database, and be sure to call up every company you’ve ever subscribed to, filled out a warranty card for, or enlisted in a loyalty program for to get your name off their lists, while you’re at it.

The thing is, privacy doesn’t exist. Not only is privacy dead, but it’s been dead for a long time. If I want to find you, I can. And I can almost guarantee you I can do it without the help of the Internet.

Social Media is a Business

Secondly, Facebook needs to make money, and advertising is how they do it. By taking usage statistics and the information that we, its loyal users, are posting on their site, owned by a private corporation, they are more than entitled to take our information and make those ads more relevant, targeted and profitable. And to be perfectly honest, I’d prefer to see an ad about PR and marketing services (as I often do on Facebook, thanks to my chosen career path) than an ad on nail polish or enlargement pills (circa 2001), any day.

Facebook is a business and if you’ve got a problem with the way they run their business, fine. But don’t act like you are entitled to anything, because you aren’t. They aren’t public, so you certainly don’t own any shares. They never signed an agreement with you–you signed an agreement with them. And they have a responsibility to themselves and their employees to make money and to continue to grow. Are they pushing the boundaries of privacy and the social web? Sure they are. Is it 100% morally right and something they should be doing? Maybe not. Is it their prerogative to do so? Absolutely.

The best way to complain about a business is to leave. So do it. Just leave. Quit complaining about their privacy policy. If you don’t want to be as social as Facebook thinks you should be, perhaps you don’t belong on their social network. There’s nothing wrong with that, and that’s your decision. But making ridiculous claims like “Facebook’s invading my privacy” and that they are “stealing your identity for profit” is getting nothing done, and to be brutally honest, Facebook really doesn’t care about you. You don’t have a legal leg to stand on, and the thousands of lawyers they’ve had write their privacy policy know that.

The “Customer” is NOT Always Right

Finally, to those of you arguing that Facebook should “listen to its customers more”–I think you’re wrong, too. On more than one level. First of all, we aren’t customers because we aren’t buying anything from them. We’re users. Of their service. That they’re providing to us completely free of charge.

Secondly, where do you think Facebook would be today if it had always “listened to its users?” I’ll tell you. They would’ve abandoned the idea of the newsfeed–which single-handedly revolutionized the way we consume and share content on the web. They would’ve abandoned their latest series of redesigns, which undoubtedly make information on the service easier to access and digest. Oh, and they would’ve abandoned the idea of every leaving Harvard University, because I’m sure those users were enjoying having the service very much to themselves. If they abandoned their current line of development–specifically, sharing content and interacting with third-party websites–it would be a remarkable leap backwards in social media technology. They know that, and that’s why they aren’t going to do it.

Look at what happened to Myspace. Myspace didn’t fail because it “stopped listening to its users.” It failed because it listened too much. There’s a fine line to walk when it comes to customer service in social media and those boundaries are still being explored. However, by giving its users so much free reign over the service, Myspace collapsed into a jumbled mess of spammy-looking profiles and pedophile stalkers.

Facebook has succeeded because it took a hard line on what they thought was best, and what they thought would best propel the social web forward. They’ve done well, so far. It’s hard to argue with their kind of success–500 million users is nothing to balk at, and the innovation they’ve brought to the web (minus some feature-stealing from Twitter) can hardly be considered minor developments.

Now obviously this all just my humble opinion. I’m not looking for a fight, and I’ll gladly entertain other opinions and respect other views. But to be perfectly honest, I think this entire debate is just getting ridiculous.

P.S. Twitter is a business too.

]]> http://alexpriest.com/2010/05/24/internet-meet-reality/feed/ 5 http://alexpriest.com/2010/03/13/get-your-politics-off-my-education/ http://alexpriest.com/2010/03/13/get-your-politics-off-my-education/#comments Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:31:36 +0000 Alex Priest http://alexpriest.com/?p=705 Continue reading →]]> This is insanity.

- The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.”

- The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.”

I honestly don’t know what to say about this debate except that it’s absolutely ludicrous and it’s making the United States look foolish. By literally rewriting history to fit some radical conservative ideals, the state of Texas is making the U.S. look as if, instead of governed by a Democratic supermajority, governed by a strange group of radical right-wing nutcases.

Removing Thomas Jefferson from history books? HOW CAN YOU DO THAT?

]]> http://alexpriest.com/2010/03/13/get-your-politics-off-my-education/feed/ 0 http://alexpriest.com/2010/02/26/arguing-against-college-and-missing-the-point/ http://alexpriest.com/2010/02/26/arguing-against-college-and-missing-the-point/#comments Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:31:15 +0000 Alex Priest http://alexpriest.com/?p=668 Continue reading →]]> It’s hard for me to think of too many things that I’ve disagreed with more strongly than this article right here. Titled “The Case Against College Education” and published in Time magazine, Ramesh Ponnuru tries to argue that we’re pushing too many people to college who aren’t ready or fit for it. He says the value of college is “oversold.” But the kicker really comes when he tries to rationalize his argument:

To talk about college this way may sound élitist. It may even sound philistine, since the purpose of a liberal-arts education is to produce well-rounded citizens rather than productive workers. But perhaps it is more foolishly élitist to think that going to school until age 22 is necessary to being well-rounded, or to tell millions of kids that their future depends on performing a task that only a minority of them can actually accomplish.

Well, he’s right on that first point. It does sound élitist. It does sound philistine. But the sheer gumption of saying it’s élitist to encourage kids to get a college education? That’s absolute insanity.

The author seems to subscribe to the viewpoint that people are born with certain abilities. That some people are just destined for greatness, while others will be trapped in the lower-class culture of our society. He’s simply wrong.

I grew up in rural Kentucky. I come from an upper-middle class, pretty average family. I’ve been blessed–and a fair bit lucky–but one of the primary reasons I have been as successful as I’ve been is thanks to my education and my college experience so far, at American University.

And it’s not just me. I’ve seen friends from lower-class, lower-middle class, and even upper-class go from unsavory circumstances to college, and they’re achieving greatness as we speak. Will they be CEOs, Senators, Presidents or entrepreneurs? Not necessarily. But their advanced education is giving them the knowledge they need to keep pushing our country forward.

Let’s look at it from a macro-level. Look at the United States in comparison to Asian countries’ performance in math, statistics, engineering, and the sciences. We lag behind–sometimes by a significant margin. Sure we’ve got the economic advantage, the legacy of being the world’s largest superpower, and a fair bit of innovation under our belts, but who says that will last forever? And at the rate countries like China and India are growing, progressing, and, in many ways, catching up to us, shows that more advanced education is the only argument we should be making.

The bipartisanship on the need for education is one of the few bright spots of cooperation you can find in our government right now. Who in their right mind could argue against that?

Ponnuru is missing the point. Sure, there are some people in college right now who might not be able to handle it. But is the answer to just give up, an stop sending them to college altogether? Is the answer just to let them stop learning, to go work on the farm, to grab a job collecting garbage or clerking grocery stores? No, no, no, no and NO.

The solution to this problem is obvious. Ponnuru even says it flat out in his article: “We could probably increase the number of high school seniors who are ready to go to college — and likely to make it to graduation — if we made the K-12 system more academically rigorous.” But then he goes on to refute his own point, dismissively saying “college isn’t for everyone.”

College isn’t for everyone now because our high schools aren’t doing their job. College isn’t for everyone because our education system is up to par for the greatness of America. College isn’t for everyone because idiots like this are writing articles arguing against it, with absolutely zero rational, empirical, or substantiated points to base their argument on.

]]> http://alexpriest.com/2010/02/26/arguing-against-college-and-missing-the-point/feed/ 2 http://alexpriest.com/2010/01/01/my-anti-top-10/ http://alexpriest.com/2010/01/01/my-anti-top-10/#comments Sat, 02 Jan 2010 03:16:29 +0000 Alex Priest http://alexpriest.com/?p=387 Continue reading →]]> I, like any busy person, love lists. I love being able to flick through a news article or blog post, read a two-sentence introduction, and allow my eyes to flip quickly from bullet point to bullet point. I love numbered lists, where I can tell not only how far I am down the list, but how many more I have to go.

It’s a psychological thing. Anyone versed in business writing knows that it’s easier, quicker and simply more efficient to read lists and bullets than big long paragraphs. And nowadays, we’re all about reading short things, quickly (i.e. Twitter–140 characters, doesn’t get much shorter and quicker than that).

But I’ve just about reached my limit of end-of-the-year/decade/whatever top 10 lists. I just can’t handle it anymore! It seems like every where I’ve looked–starting December 1st and still ongoing–there’s another top 10 list for something. There’s lists of the top celebrities, top people on twitter, top books, top gadgets, top political scandals, top news stories, top movies, top albums… everybody and their brother has their top 10 list of [insert subject here] they want to share.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m guilty too. Even today, I’ve tweeted at least one link to a top 10 list (Engadget’s wonderful Top 10 Gadgets of the Decade). But there just needs to be some kind of restraint here, it’s overwhelming!

I like how Time Magazine does it. They put ALL of their top 10 lists in one place, a neat little index for you to flip through, nice and organized and not too much to handle. But for things like Twitter, I feel like the service is just swamped with everyone’s lists for this and lists for that. It’s drowning out the content. The breaking news. The #FollowFridays (it seems I’m not the only one who almost forgot about that today–it seems totally absent from my feed, at least).

Thankfully, this only comes around once a year. And in a way, it’s a bit of a guilty pleasure, reading all these lists. But when it gets to the point where all media is just saturated with it–like now–and the real content seems to disappear, I feel like it’s time to step back and ask: do we really need all these lists? What do you think?

]]> http://alexpriest.com/2010/01/01/my-anti-top-10/feed/ 2