Tuesday, August 22, 2017

Are Facebook friending accounts really appropriate for news blogging?

It’s well to stop and think about how you use Facebook pages vs. normal Friends’ accounts.
As I explained some time back, I did set an author page, and I do find that  getting traffic to it is slow, unless I pay for promotion campaigns (which are inexpensive). 

I’ve used the regular account as a supplemental blogging platform, often providing links to controversial news stories, trying to use credible (not fake) sources.  It does appear that these posts attract some traffic outside the normal “friends’” list, which is what I expect. 

Some Facebook friends act as if they expect more personal interaction than I normally give.  

Sometimes this gets exploitative or questionable, such as someone who wanted help coming to the US and getting a job. 

Some friends “check in” and let everyone where they are most of the time.  I see this as a bit dangerous.  In fact, as I indicated on my retirement blog yesterday, there can be cases that where if you live in a condo and have an otherwise home-based business, you aren’t supposed to announce in social media where it is located (where you are).  But if you use social media the way it had originally been conceived, as a closed network that starts in the physical world, only for social purposes, you would logically only allow friends to see your normal account posts.  I don’t have enough social capital to make that effective, so I just don’t post PII at all, which could be an issue if, for example, inviting people to a home  for an event  -- dangerous if you don’t know everyone who can see the invitation.

When Mark Zuckerberg started Facebook in early 2004, he imagined it as connecting people within specific campuses.  He didn’t make it public until late 2006, and then all the news feeds and pseudo-blogs (and eventually fake news) with all the presentation algorithms followed. 

It’s also possible to set up groups and communities to be completely private, as the video above shows. 

No comments: