The assertion that Facebook can protect its market leading position by entering into the smaller-is-bigger philosophy or going async (a la Twitter) is nifty, but not the answer to “what’s wrong on the Internet”.

After reading Dave McClure’s post, subtitled “How to Take Down Facebook”, I think that, between all the f-bombs and Generation Z three-letter acronyms, Dave makes a few good points.  For example, Twitter is better for following famous people (to which I would counter, Facebook is better for enabling fame).

Dave wants to see Facebook become an enabler of more private communities.  To his burrito point, we could say that Facebook alerady does this through threaded, instant mail messaging.  We could also respond to his friend overload point that perhaps Dave doesn’t know how to manage his profile privacy settings, or that perhaps Dave should start a Fan Page and whittle down his friend relationships to the bare essentials.

Bottom line is, true intimacy in relationships cannot be fostered by an inorganic structure like Facebook, in my opinion.  Intimacy is about mutual experiences, not a mutual sounding board.  We all have telephones–does this make us more intimate in our relationships than when we’re together, shoulder-to-shoulder, or working on the same outcome as a team?  Hardly.  Facebook is merely a platform for communication, and while it plays a role in enabling quality relationships, it is certainly a subserviant role.

My advice to Dave McClure is, you probably don’t have 2000 actual friends, so fix it. Delete. Delete. Delete.

But to give up those synchronous connections on Facebook is to give up the influence that comes with having a large audience.  And herein lies the real challenge, if I can rephrase what Dave is saying here into something a little more succinct: Facebook is mediocre at protecting the privacy of celebrities, while Twitter is very good.

The effect of this can be seen in Facebook’s inability to provide more intimate connections, and in Twitter’s ability to prevent celebrities from having to spill anything more than they’d like to on their profile.

Friend Mike at Chronic Dawgs put up a post last week about how Joshua Cribbs, the best football kick returner of all time, is feeling under-appreciated by his team, the Cleveland Browns.  To put it in perspective, Josh had four return touchdowns and nearly broke the all-time pro football record for all-purpose yards this season.  No small accomplishment.

So the guy’s a big deal.  Anyway, he makes about a million a year and was insulted by a contract modification offer the Browns made for 1.4 million a year.  (As an aside, I’d be pretty happy making half that if my job was to play a game and stay in top physical shape using the best gyms and trainers in the world, but I digress.)

The din around Cleveland surrounding Josh’s contract has been constant and obnoxious the last few weeks. It all started when the new team president Mike Holmgren came in and started hiring coaches.  Fans feel that management has turned their back on Cribbs and are ignoring his request for a contract (never mind he has three years left on his current one) while they build up the white-collar staff in preparation for next season.

It’s amazing how much Twitter action I’ve seen on this subject. People are tweeting, from as far away as Kuwait, using the #payjoshcribbs hash tag. There are Facebook fan pages called “Pay Josh”, and I myself have received 7 to 10 separate invitations to support Josh’s cause.  Of all the causes to worry about.

Yet public opinion doesn’t influence an NFL owner’s bank account. Just ask the Browns, who just put the finishing touches on their ninth losing season since returning as an expansion franchise.

Hey when a celebrity has 50,000 followers and is following 4 twits, it seems pretty obvious that Twitter has graduated in a service paradigm with secondary markets.  In particular, the wrangling class of the celebrity handler. 

Take William Shatner, for example.  Now here’s a guy whose charisma and silly selfless sense of humore could go vast distances on Twitter–much like M.C. Hammer (whose tweets are frequent and awesomely down-to-earth).  Yet the Shat only follows 4 people.

Why?

Well, because it’s not the Shat.  It’s one of his agency people.  I’d be surprised if the Shat and the majority of folks in his ilk even use a computer on a daily basis. 

If I sound let down, it’s because I am.  Guy Kawasaki tweeted a list of Hollywood elite on Twitter. Turns out most of them are merely professionally managed, third-person twits with no more personal touch than one of their attorneys or public relations experts.

I saw Luca’s tweet about EventBox, and he’s absolutely right.  This program is super cool.  It’s for managing tweets, rss updates, facebook updates, etc etc all in one place.  So far I’m loving it. Growl notifications for updates, heads-up display.  Really cool.  Grab a copy yourself if you’re running OS X 10.5 and let me know how you like it.

Well, it’s the time of year again.  Time to look back, and forward.

2008: the harbinger year for a revolution in the telecom industry?  No, not exactly.  Nor was 2008 the year of action of for end-to-end VoIP.  But 2008 was a good year for me.   I more or less quit consulting on VoIP, as the majority of clients who need help with VoIP are too small for my firm, and the top 5% of clients available in the field are too big for it.  The in-betweeners are dominated by a group of recruiters who beat each other up and submit VoIP candidates to internal employment positions I can’t be interested in.

Twitter was an interesting subject, retrospectively, in 2008.  On one hand it’s dying at the hands of Facebook. On the other hand, it’s got so much vigor and a following, too.  Twitter is one of those things that, even as an objectively expert witness on the subject of social media, I still struggle to grasp.  I wonder what the sex appeal is, minus all the fluff of a LinkedIn or a Facebook, of Twitter.

Sony launched a social network for the PS3.  The world essentially yawned, already beaten to death with the concept as previously implemented by things like Second Life, Sims Online, and World of Warcraft.  Now, if Nintendo had launched a social network along the lines of Animal Crossing–now that might be cool.

I received a pool table and air hockey table for Christmas and have nowhere to put either of them. At the moment my basement is full.  My son wants me to move the foozball table to the living room. A-hem. Kids take a while to develop decorating taste, I guess. Maybe in 2009.

Well over a year ago, I wrote in this post:

Cell phones are going to become the dominant means of social networking. They’re already the best tool for it and the only reason PCs are dominant in the social net arena is because PCs have always been OPEN ENOUGH to participate social nets in a meaningful way. Cell phones haven’t been. Today I’m thinking about the nexus of mobility, identity management, and social networking.

So my point then was the, eventually, when a cell phone with enough functionality and usability finally shows up, users at large will fall into preferring cell phones over PCs for social networking over the web.  This is a point that didn’t get enough attention until iPhone 2.0 showed up last Friday. Now, it seems the web is abuzz about the potential of cell phones and social networks. Here’s a snippet from ZDNet’s Jennifer Leggio:

Think about it. Two of the big iPhone application announcements centered on location-based social networking sites Loopt and Whrrl. Both allow users to determine the locations of their friends and both provide microblogging and hyperlocal reviews, all using a GPS-powered application.

Jennifer goes on to say that social giants MySpace and Facebook have an advantage over upstarts like Loopt and Whrrl because, well they’re already giants. Touche. But MySpace is an incredibly stupid company with an incredibly poor base of core technology.  So, if social nets on cell phones are going to thrive in a lasting, meaningful way, my money’s on Facebook.