« Using Important Keywords in Press Releases |
Main
| Picking a Proper Home Selling Price »
Do You Own the Content You Create Online?
I tend to prefer blogging over participating heavily in sites like MySpace, Facebook, or Twitter, but hadn't put much thought into why that is.
Luckily, I no longer have to since Brian Clark from Copyblogger nailed it:
Are You Someone’s User-Generated Content?
For me, there’s really no appeal in spending a lot of time creating “user-generated” content via a social networking application. That’s like remodeling the kitchen in a house you rent.
Exactly. Why should I spend time creating content within a social networking site when I can just as easily - actually more easily - create content on a property I own and control?
What happens when a social networking site dies? Or, more realistically, continues one but my firends and colleagues have moved on? Can I easily retrieve my content? If I publish blog posts to MySpace, the answer is No.
Can you pull content that you've created in Facebook out of it? What happens to your WhereIveBeen or Cities I've Visited data? Do you have to start over at the next hot spot?
If you publish the same content to your blog or other site that you control, you don't have to worry about starting over since you maintained control of your own data.
This is why I've been a lazy Facebook user for the past year. I simply syndicate in headlines from blog posts I've written elsewhere rather than contribute content greater than status updates directly into the system.
If social networking sites gave me greater control over the content I create I'd reconsider. Until then, don't expect much support from me.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.technologyevangelist.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.fcgi/1240
2. Posted by: Ken Montville on December 18, 2007 9:22 PM:
This makes a lot of sense. I'm not a big Facebook user either but only because I'm not a 20 something and I'm not really sure how to use it to full advantage.
I am pretty steady on Active Rain, though, because I'm a Realtor and the hope is to connect with other real estate professionals that could possibly lead to referrals or learn neat techy things that can make my life easier or more fun.
I hadn't really thought about my content vaporing but since blogs are so dynamic I don't think it matters much anyway. Just my $.02
3. Posted by: woz on December 19, 2007 2:12 AM:
So how would you go about getting other people to help you 'fill' your site with usefull and current articles?
4. Posted by: Suggestion on December 25, 2007 8:55 PM:
To each their own, I guess. I am (er, used to be) a blogger. It is great to produce your own content, etc ... the full control is wonderful. However, Facebook is the ultimate time-waster, but in a good way. To those under 30, it is a God-send. Here's five reasons why.
First, I cannot tell you how many dates I have gone on via Facebook. Not because I've poked someone (which I have never done, actually), but because I can see which of my friends have single friends who share the same interests. Then we "happen" to go to parties, etc. Creepy? Maybe. But it's sure saved a lot of time.
Second, it's a step down from email. Have a quick thing to say about tomorrow's study group? Send away. There's no fear of "filling up the inbox."
Third, it's voyeuristic. Everyone wants to know what other people are doing. It's reality tv, but without the cheese. Cindy the preacher's daughter got knocked-up! Johnny the high school football QB works at Jiffy Lube! It is great entertainment.
Fourth, it allows for easy planning. Everyone I know is on Facebook. Have a party to plan for New Years? It's easy to see if it's going to be a bust, because no one's RSVP'ed. Evite? Too confusing -- everyone has Facebook.
Fifth, there's less geeky-ness. Facebook is "cool." Blogging is still in that "whoa, whoa, do you work in IT or web design or something?!?!?!" phase. To most people, blogging seems like you have to be a computer wiz. Facebook allows you to show your interests, etc, and not know a thing about computers.
So, yes there's no content that you're producing -- but that's not the point. It mirrors social interaction and makes such interactions easier. It's a way of communicating (and watching others communicate) rather than a way to produce content. Once it's gone, and OpenSocial takes it's place, the not-very-in-depth information Facebook contains can be easily replicated elsewhere.
5. Posted by: ryanol on December 26, 2007 12:54 PM:
So, yes there's no content that you're producing -- but that's not the point. It mirrors social interaction and makes such interactions easier. It's a way of communicating (and watching others communicate) rather than a way to produce content. Once it's gone, and OpenSocial takes it's place, the not-very-in-depth information Facebook contains can be easily replicated elsewhere.
I'll let you in on a little secret...content is currency!
you can bet your sweet ass...Zuckerberg knows it.
6. Posted by: Suggestion on December 26, 2007 2:27 PM:
Or, it's merely creating new and more interesting ways of communicating. Google will overtake Facebook not because of its ease of providing outside content (although that's important) but because it'll be easier to communicate and watch others do so.
| 
1. Posted by: Moe on December 18, 2007 9:41 AM:
I'm assuming that most people use Facebook and other social sites as a time waster, and not as a content creation tool. I'd imagine that Jenny College Student couldn't care less if she owned her "Yo yo yo, what's up" post.
But the idea of having more control over social media posts would be welcomed. It might be nice to have a tool like facebook for sharing ideas, especially if it meant that the creator had control of it.