Guilty as charged.

You are correct. Facebook is the new blogosphere. And I'm not sure that's a good thing.

I really have a love/hate relationship with Facebook. I check it way more than I should, and I'm constantly considering just deleting my profile. But that said, it is an amazing way to stay in contact with people that don't live near you or that you just don't see very often.

I think it'll be very interesting to see how social networking develops over the next decade.

My migration was the other direction. Started on Facebook but found it was not an easy medium for the type of blog entries I wanted to write. So now I have a blog, too. I do post a link on Facebook every time I blog, but a lot of my blog traffic is from people who are not in my sphere of Facebook friends. I don't see the two media as serving the same purpose.

Jack, once you move to Facebook I am officially done with the internets.

If you are not at Facebook....you may actually be there. I joined after finding out someone had been there already impersonating me for the last three years. I still have not been able to clear it up or figure out who is doing it.

I do not want to be on Facebook or any other social networking site.

Strangely enough, I seem to get better feedback and more substantive comments from complete strangers at my blog than from friends and friendly on Facebook.

In fact, I'd wager that the vast majority of my Facebook friends largely ignore anything blog-related that I do. Their overriding concerns are generally shampoo purchases and smelt recipes. They couldn't care less if I just posted a blog entry about the inverted hyperbole of Alfred Camus. (Unless it involves nudity, and even then, they really don't seem to give a s**t.)

Oops!

That should have read "from friends and family on Facebook."

Typos chafe my soul; they bring sorrow to my effete tendrils.

Typos chafe my soul

It could have been worse.

I'd go on Facebook, but they like to track everything (read the mice-type legal) - including what websites you visit.

I just had the misfortune to learn that you cannot hold or express an opposing view on facebook. I was a member of the group against renaming Beltline Rd in Eugene for the late businessman Randy Pape. Tuesday when ODOT unanimously voted in favor of the change I like many of the groups nearly 9,000 members commented. I referred to one of the major players as having the alias "checkbook". My facebook account was disabled with in an hour. Evidently you can do this, if someone doesn't like something you say, you're gone...... I can certainly understand this if one is being particularly obnoxious but this was really very minor.

Zach penned:
"I do not want to be on...any other social networking site."

Just wondering---are there any viable
anti-social networking sites on the Internets???

___ora et labora___

Hey Jack,

I would argue that Twitter has killed more blogs than Facebook and I'll use my blog as an example of this. Once upon a time, I was a prolific Portland blogger, posting anywhere between 5 and 12 times a week. Then along came Twitter and things on my (admittedly not all that fantastic) blog slowed to a crawl. It's just so much easier to put up a "tweet" and a Twitpic than go through the tedium and hassles of using Blogger's software.

Another problem: many of the people who once read my blog no longer have the attention span for long-winded concert reviews and self-indulgent ramblings about restaurants or local politics. They've all wandered off to Twitter or, yes, Facebook. Blogs run on comments and, once those stop coming in, that's even further discouragement to keep at it.

A further issue: Blogger is doing away with FTP publishing in early May, which may kill off a good number of blogs. The transition to using a blogspot address or another method is bound to be rife with headaches. It will surely be the final blow for Another Portland Blog. I have no desire to dump a dozen hours into figuring all that #$@!@! out. I've got midterms to worry about.

Very, very true. I miss being "discovered" by random people, but don't worry much about weirdos tracking me or my kid. (Interestingly, lots of blog-friends that I've never met in real life are Facebook friends.)

I don't do quite as many substantive posts as I used to when I blogged. Can't really gauge whether it's Facebook or having a child that's the cause of this. I often -say- I want to do a long-ish post on Facebook, but don't usually. I like the comments on Facebook a little better, though...mostly because so few people read my blog.

I just flat-out don't understand the appeal of Twitter. Maybe somebody can clue me in.

the appeal of Twitter

For me, it's consumption rather than creation. If you subscribe to news sources, you get headlines pretty fast — sort of an RSSS, with the extra "s" for "short".

The tears will roll if the blogsaints move off to the hinterland of Facebook and Twitter.

Twitter is so annoying because of its ubiquity and shallowness. Its only purpose is for people to get informed of exciting news from the poor schmucks who are always cluing in to it. Like a friend was on Twitter the other day and related to me the best news I've heard in a very, very, long time.

The Pope, yes, the Pope, hired a lawyer. Because he wasn't a Pope when he made his poor judgment calls on the pedophile priest who went on to molest dozens of kids. So his sovereign immunity gig might not quite cover him in this instance.

When the Pope is hiring a lawyer to protect his semi-devine rear end from an army of determined abuse victims, I feel the beautific rays of God warming my face.

Facebook is a place for families and friends to keep in touch.

Factual blogs, like this one, have no business on facebook.

The people that come over here come to read your posts, its not cluttered with "farmville" "claimjumpers" along with all sorts of "games" that they play over there.

I do my blog because I am interested in the subject matter, the people that visit also enjoy the subject itself.

Social networking? Forget it.

Bojack on Facebook?

Gettouttahere!