So, let me get this straight: People _prefer_ non-private communications, with advertisers, site operators, and a vaugue sense of "friends and followers" listening in?
I don't buy it. Either he's focused on only one segment of the internet population (individuals, not businesses), or it's more wishful thinking regarding social networking.
Just what, exactly, is deemed so terrible about email? Shouldn't this be analyzed via mass correspondence vs. individual-to-individual? I think the author is greatly overgeneralizing, and thus drawing misleading conclusions.
This post doesn't make sense. It's comparing email to social networking all as time spent communicating. It doesn't classify that time though, is time spent reading emails really the same as any time I spend on social networking sites? How many hours of farmville equals one hour of emailing?
The major success factor is that social networks are by default one to many, while email is one to one. Think if you had to email all your friends to tell them you are in town...
If only email were one-to-one.
Unfortunately I have to keep on lots of blast-email lists... where I'm expected to filter through what impacts my responsibilities.
And sometimes I dare not ask to be removed from some senders' lists for political reasons.
Time-sucking. Soul-sucking. grrrr...
EDIT: forgot to mention that sorting through the krap via Twit, FB, etc, would not be much more fun.
So in 2007 we switched from the Republic of Email to the Kingdom of Social Networking. Where is the Rebel Alliance of open distributed social networking protocols?
In this case, the value vs. volume may be debatable.
Lately, I've been taking notes on this. These are not bad observations:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1223346 - Networking advices from legendary Silicon Valley networker, Heidi Roizen -
90% of my interactions are on email (and I will say that is the same for almost all highly efficient people I know)
I don't buy it. Either he's focused on only one segment of the internet population (individuals, not businesses), or it's more wishful thinking regarding social networking.
Just what, exactly, is deemed so terrible about email? Shouldn't this be analyzed via mass correspondence vs. individual-to-individual? I think the author is greatly overgeneralizing, and thus drawing misleading conclusions.