Tag Archives: Facebook

Claim: “Facebook knows when you’ll break up”

Posted on by

There is an interesting chart going around that is based on Facebook data and claims to show when people are more prone to break-up. Here is a quick description of the chart:

British journalist and graphic designer David McCandless, who specializes in showcasing data in visual ways, compiled the chart. He showed off the graphic at a TED conference last July in Oxford, England.

In the talk, McCandless said he and a colleague scraped 10,000 Facebook status updates for the phrases “breakup” and “broken up.”

They found two big spikes on the calendar for breakups. The first was after Valentine’s Day — that holiday has a way of defining relationships, for better or worse — and in the weeks leading up to spring break. Maybe spring fever makes people restless, or maybe college students just don’t want to be tied down when they’re partying in Cancun.

Potentially interesting findings and it is an interesting way to present this data. But when you consider how the data was collected, perhaps it isn’t so great. A few thoughts on the subject:

1. The best way to figure this out would be to convince Facebook to let you have the data for relationship status changes.

2. Searching for the word “breakup” and “broken up” might catch some, or perhaps even many ended relationships, but not all. Does everyone include these words when talking about ending a relationship?

3. Are 10,000 status updates a representative sample of all Facebook statuses?

4. Is there a lag time involved in reporting these changes? Monday, for example is the most popular day for announcing break-ups, not necessarily for break-ups occurring on that day. Do people immediately run to Facebook to tell the world that they have ended a relationship?

5. Does everyone initially “register” and then “unregister” a relationship on Facebook anyway?

The more I think about it, it is a big claim to make that “Facebook knows when you are going to break up” based on this data mining exercise.

Race as a lesser factor in forming friendships on Facebook

Posted on by

A new study in the American Journal of Sociology finds that a shared racial identity was less important than several other factors when making friends on Facebook:

“Sociologists have long maintained that race is the strongest predictor of whether two Americans will socialize,” said Andreas Wimmer, the study’s lead author and a sociologist at UCLA…

In fact, the strongest attraction turned out to be plain, old-fashioned social pressure. For the average student, the tendency to reciprocate a friendly overture proved to be seven times stronger than the attraction of a shared racial background, the researchers found…

Other mechanisms that proved stronger than same-race preference included having attended an elite prep school (twice as strong), hailing from a state with a particularly distinctive identity such as Illinois or Hawaii (up to two-and-a-half times stronger) and sharing an ethnic background (up to three times stronger).

Even such routine facts of college life as sharing a major or a dorm often proved at least as strong, if not stronger, than race in drawing together potential friends, the researchers found.

Interesting findings – perhaps Facebook is a new world or younger generations don’t pay as much attention to race.

Additionally, it is interesting to read about the methodology of the study which took place at a school where 97% of students had Facebook profiles and the sociologists measured friendships in terms of photo tagging (and not who were actually listed as “friends”).

A couple of questions I have: is behavior on Facebook and choosing friends reflective of actual social patterns in the real world? Is there a selection issue going on here  – not all students or people of this age use Facebook so are college students who use Facebook already more likely to form cross-racial friendships?

Of “non-genius” and gratitude

Posted on by

In a previous post, I commented on the surreality of watching The Social Network, the recent movie about the founding of Facebook, at a movie theater just off the Harvard University campus.  Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg is getting a lot of scrutiny in the movie’s wake, including over at the NYTimes where Robert Wright suggests that–contrary to the movie’s portrayal–Zuckerberg may not be a genius.  Wright asks rhetorically:

[C]an you be considered a genius, a visionary, if the globally dominant network you built wasn’t the fruit of far-reaching vision — if, indeed, the network’s internal momentum was such that it was almost destined to build itself, and the question was only which driven and capable entrepreneur would happen to be standing at the right place at the right time when it started to unfold?

I think that Wright’s observations are relevant–if familiar to anyone who’s ever gotten advice about finding a job.  The platitudes about “making your own luck” and “something will turn up eventually if you keep trying” may have played out on a vastly larger scale for Zuckerberg than they do for most of us, but the difference is in degree rather than kind.  Deep down, we all know that the race is not always to the swift (sorry Orkut, Friendster, et al.) and that the real world is less of a meritocracy than we delude ourselves into thinking.

To which I say:  thank goodness.  I think Wright’s right in his observation of the mechanics, but I disagree with his implication.  Zuckerberg may have benefited (unfairly!) from “positive network externalities,” but so have we all.  We all benefit from centuries of mathematical, scientific, and agricultural discoveries that allow us plentiful food and leisure.  Particularly in the U.S., we benefit from a long-running, stable democracy that few of us have made significant sacrifices for–and none of us started.

Thank God for positive network effects.  It doesn’t take a genius to remember that our response to the Zuckerbergs of the world must not be jealousy but gratitude for the unmerited, unearned gifts we ourselves have received.

Quick review: Watching The Social Network at Harvard

Posted on by

This weekend, the movie The Social Network, a disputed origin story about the founding of Facebook, hit theaters to nearly universal acclaim.  I had the opportunity to see the movie on the second day of release and can add my wreath to the many laurels heaped upon this Aaron Sorkin–David Fincher collaboration.  However, since so many others have dissected this film so thoroughly, I will refrain from a typical movie review as I feel I have little to add.  I will instead comment briefly on just how surreal it was to watch this movie at Harvard.

The AMC Loews Harvard Square 5 is located one block off the Yard at Harvard University, and the mood at the 6:30pm showing on Saturday, October 2nd was electrifying.  The audience appeared to be a mix mostly of college students and their professors, and they clearly had come to have a good time.  When the Mark Zukerberg character, played by Jesse Eisenberg, made a crack early in the movie about Boston University students not needing to study, there was a collective gasp.  When the exterior of The Thirsty Scholar made a cameo appearance, there were actual cheers.

This movie was about us–not as representatives of some abstractly-defined generation nor as students coming of age during web 2.0–but as residents of Mt. Auburn Street, two blocks away.  In the men’s bathroom after the movie, I overheard a conversation between two students debating the wisdom of trying to get into one of Lawrence Summer‘s classes now that he is returning to Harvard (after working as director of the White House National Economics Council).

Many of the best movies take us from our own specifics into the universality of the human condition.  While I am sure that The Social Network will do this for many people, it had quite the opposite effect on me.  For me, it took that most abstractly universal of all web phenonmenon–Facebook–and gave it a specific human face.  One that might well have been in the theater with me last night.

Prescient EW bullseye quote: “My generation…would never watch a show called My Generation.”

Posted on by

I’ve wondered who is the target demographic for ABC’s new show My Generation. Will the generation who the show depicts (people around 28 years old who graduated from high school in 2000) actually watch or is this show made by and made for the over 40 or 50 crowd who are curious about these kids are up to?

I’ll be curious to know how realistic this show is or whether it is just full of the typical high school archetypes (the geeks, jocks, cheerleaders types). Unfortunately, the trailer suggests it is full of these archetypes: “the over achiever,” “the nerd,” “the rock star,” and so on.

The changing meaning of eavesdropping

Posted on by

A number of academics comment in a USA Today story about how the concept of eavesdropping is changing. One change that I have noticed myself: one often can’t avoid eavesdropping on cell phone calls, particularly in smaller spaces like trains. A second change: compared to the past, more people are sharing more information on sites like Facebook.

Users spend more time on Facebook than Google’s sites

Posted on by

According to figures from August, web users in the United States now spend more time per day on Facebook than Google’s sites (which includes YouTube). This can’t be good news for Google – but it shows the power of Facebook:

In August, people spent a total of 41.1 million minutes on Facebook, comScore said Thursday, about 9.9% of their Web-surfing minutes for the month. That just barely surpassed the 39.8 million minutes, or 9.6%, people spent on all of Google Inc.’s sites combined, including YouTube, the free Gmail e-mail program, Google news and other content sites.

U.S. Web users spent 37.7 million minutes on Yahoo Inc. sites, or 9.1% of their time, putting Yahoo third in terms of time spent browsing. In July, Facebook crept past Yahoo for the first time, according to comScore.

Facebook appears to be growing more and more popular. Google can’t figure out a way to introduce social connectivity throughout their sites – whatever happened to Google Wave?

An interesting social experiment: restrict social media access at a college for a week

Posted on by

Social media is ever-present on college campuses. It appears that some institutions are thinking about ways to encourage thinking about using social media – by restricting it:

Professors have experimented with assigning technology fasts for their students—by discouraging gadget use for five days, for example, or rewarding extra credit for a semester without Facebook.

Harrisburg University of Science and Technology is going one step further with a “social-media blackout.” Starting Monday, the Pennsylvania institution will block Facebook, Twitter, AOL Instant Messenger, and MySpace on the campus network for a week. Faculty and staff members will be affected as well as students.

“Telling students to imagine a time before Facebook is like telling them to imagine living in a world with dinosaurs,” said Eric D. Darr, Harrisburg’s executive vice president and provost. “It’s not real. What we’re doing is trying to make it real.”

Ah, equating life with no social media with the age of dinosaurs – this is quite funny (though probably accurate).

When I first saw this headline, I thought this school might be doing this to help students to use the time they might spend on social media in other ways. To discover the world outside of Facebook. Alas, the school has other aims:

Mr. Darr said his hope is that people…would take the week to reflect on outside-the-box ways to use social media—such as for entrepreneurship or political advocacy.

So the goal in restricting social media use is to help people think about social media use? And I was hoping for a social experiment where students might discover other virtuous things to do with their time…

Quick Review: The Facebook Effect

Posted on by

Facebook, which went online in early 2004, is now old enough to be the subject of retrospectives. There is a new movie about the company, The Social Network, coming out this fall. There is also a recent book, The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company That is Connecting the World by David Kirkpatrick. I recently finished this book and have a few thoughts about the story of Facebook:

1. The idealism of Facebook comes throughout the story. Even from its early days, the founder Mark Zuckerberg was more interested connecting people than in just making money. This has driven many of the decisions made by the company and created friction between Zuckerberg and his coworkers as some wanted a greater emphasis on profits. At the end of the book, Kirkpatrick elicits some interesting thoughts from Zuckerberg regarding the differences between Google and Facebook. Zuckerberg describes Google as a passive company that tries to categorize the information that is already out there. In contrast, Facebook is a company that helps people express themselves and divulge information.

2. The growth in terms of number of users is remarkable. Kirkpatrick mentions several times seven or eight countries where 30% or more of the residents are on Facebook (not just 30% of Internet users).

3. The potential for profits comes from Facebook’s unique user database. With users voluntarily uploading information about themselves, advertisers can then target messages to particular groups. While most advertising is aimed at vague categories or misses its mark altogether, Facebook offers the opportunity to really reach certain segments.

4. While Facebook might have a unique mission, the story of its early history sounds similar to other tech companies. The founder has an idea that builds upon his previous work, he finds others to help him out, some of the key people drop out of college to focus on the company, and for years the company operates more like a frat house than a legitimate business.

5. Kirkpatrick recognizes that Facebook has had its issues and he points out when he disagrees with the company. However, several times he suggests that users ability to protest Facebook’s actions (like when privacy settings have been changed) is only made possible because of Facebook’s genius.

6. The main founders were from Harvard. There is little discussion in the book about how the advantages the founders had (generally wealthy families, exemplary educations, the connections one can make at a place like Harvard) could help make Facebook possible compared to starting a company like this elsewhere.

7. The big question that comes after reading about Facebook: how exactly does this or will this change the world? Does it improve the world? Kirkpatrick seems to buy into the big ideas of Zuckerberg: the book opens with the story of how a single man in Columbia was able to kick-off a nation-wide protest against the existing government through Facebook.

I am more skeptical. While this online world does seem to represent something new (people voluntarily giving up their privacy and forming communities), I don’t think it has yet translated into much real-world action. Does being open online (even though openness really is more often sculpting an idealizing image of oneself) necessarily lead to being more open in the real world? Perhaps greater results will be seen when younger generations who are always used to having Facebook around grow up.

In summary, this is an intriguing look at how Facebook has developed and about the ideals that motivate its founder.

Older Americans join social networking sites

Posted on by

Social network sites, like Facebook, started as domains for younger people. But Pew Research suggests more and more older Americans are joining this online realm:

Half (47%) of internet users ages 50-64 and one-in-four (26%) users ages 65 and older now use social networking sites.

Half of online adults ages 50-64 and one-in-four wired seniors now count themselves among the Facebooking and LinkedIn masses. That’s up from just 25% of online adults ages 50-64 and 13% of those ages 65 and older who reported social networking use one year ago in a survey conducted in April 2009.

While Twitter is not as popular among older Americans, this rush to Facebook and other sites is interesting. If more older Americans are on these sites, does it change the online culture? How many of these older Americans join such sites to interact with younger people, particularly children and grandchildren?