Column: Netflix remedies our sharing shortage

Yes, my life SEEMED complete -- I was already sharing every song I listened to on Spotify and every book I read on Goodreads, so that the full breadth of my cultural savvy could be consumed instantaneously by all my friends and acquaintances. No need to thank me -- your awed admiration for my good taste is all the appreciation I need.

But I couldn’t help but feel like something was missing, and as soon as I got the press release from Netflix,  I knew what it was: a “new Netflix/Facebook integration” that “lets Netflix members see what their friends have watched.” That sound you just heard was thousands of closet “Bridalplasty” watchers fainting from embarrassment. (You know, the show where brides-to-be compete for free plastic surgery. And no, that is not a typo.)

I’ll admit I was skeptical at first, given that most Netflix press releases involve them charging you more money for less service and expecting you to thank them for it. But this time they’ve hit it right on the head: What Netflix needed was a way to share its users’ every preference, rather than, say, movie choices that are better than these actual films featured on my Netflix Instant homepage:

“Bad Ass” (2012): “Loosely based on a true incident, this tale follows a lonely Vietnam vet who bravely takes on two menacing hoods on a bus.”

“Fire When Ready” (2011): “A firefighter becomes an avenging angel when he challenges New York’s underworld with his bare hands and a hose.”

“Iron Sky” (2012): “The Nazis retreated to the moon in 1945. Now, they're launching an invasion of Earth!”

OK, one of those was fake -- but probably not the one you think. Regardless, we’ll now have the opportunity to let our online friends know the minute we’ve watched one of these fine movies, or inadvertently clicked on one of them, an occurrence familiar to anyone who’s ever accidentally watched 45 minutes of “Extreme Couponing.” (Er, not me ... other people.)

I of course signed up for this new feature immediately so that my online friends would have the benefit of seeing my “Recently Watched” queue, which currently contains the following:

1) 10 old “Walking Dead” episodes

2) That’s it.

Unfortunately, though, my friends are apparently embarrassed about their viewing habits, or inexplicably opposed to broadcasting their every move, because almost none of them have gotten on board. As a result, my ability to “connect with friends over TV shows and movies” has been sadly limited to one guy, we’ll call him Jeff, who apparently likes pretty much all the same stuff I do. So ... Way to go, Jeff!

Meanwhile, while I wait for my other friends to sign up, I thought I could suggest some additional services that could be useful if we’re really going to reach our full sharing potential as a society. For instance, something that broadcasts our prescription medications as soon as they’re filled, so people can compare notes on their ailments and treatments. (“OMG, I’m on clindamycin phosphate too!” etc.)

Or maybe our supermarket purchases, so we know whether or not our friends are buying store-brand cereals (seriously, “Crispy Hexagons”?). Or something that posts all of our bodily functions in real time, because my 11-year-old son would find this hilarious. Or how about sharing every article we read the minute we read it? Wait, they already have that? (Note to self: Stop taking those online Cosmo quizzes.)

All of these would definitely come in handy, because let’s face it: At the end of the day, we’re JUST NOT SHARING ENOUGH. If people don’t get with the program, I’m going to have to do something crazy, like make my movie decisions based on my own personal tastes. Well, and Jeff’s.

Wonder what he would think of “Bad Ass”? Er ... I just clicked on it accidentally.

Column: Faking it on Facebook

You may have sometimes wondered why certain people spend so much time on Facebook. There are several possibilities, including:

1) To get as many pictures of your children onto the Internet as possible, so strangers know what they look like;

2) To let people know the awesome word you just played in online Scrabble;

3) To keep up with friends who you’d cross the street to avoid if you saw them coming;

4) To suffer acute feelings of misery and loneliness, not necessarily in that order.

If we’re to believe a new university study, that last one may be more likely than you’d think. According to Reuters, the study found “one in three people felt worse … and more dissatisfied with their lives” after viewing their friends’ profiles on Facebook. Those people are clearly doing it wrong.

After all, the only way your Facebook friends are going to have more appealing lives than you is if you fail to keep up with their level of meticulously crafted fraudulence. Because, as Mark Zuckerberg often says, Facebook isn’t about the life you have, it’s about the life you PRETEND to have. (OK, he doesn’t actually say that, but I’m sure he’s thinking it.)

Take this finding from the study: “Vacation photos were the biggest cause of resentment.” This jealousy is completely unwarranted, because no matter how awful your vacation is, you can usually get your family to look happy at least long enough to snap a few pictures — perhaps because you’ve bribed or threatened them, or because they just saw Grumpy fall off the Mickey’s Soundsational Parade float. (Which, admittedly, would be funny.)

People then post the pictures on Facebook with the caption, “Another great vacation day with the fam!” This is code for, “Here are the three minutes when we didn’t look miserable,” which you should remember before starting into your spiral of depression.

Here’s another one: “Women were more likely to envy physical attractiveness.” Next time you find yourself jealous of how good someone else looks on Facebook, please remember we live in the age of the digital photo. That means people can consider dozens, even hundreds, of pictures of themselves before finding that very special one that — thanks to a quirk of lighting, shadow and the fortuitous placement of a potted plant, and possibly Photoshop — makes them look like a vaguely blurry Gisele Bundchen.

That photo is immediately posted on Facebook, and the others are deleted with prejudice, having committed the crime of being, you know, accurate. (I’m told this problem has spilled over into online dating, because instead of posting pictures that show what they actually look like, many would-be daters are posting pictures of Gisele Bundchen. And that’s just the men.)

Then there’s envy over “How many ‘likes’ or comments were made on photos and postings.” This one is tougher, because while you can pick your friends you can’t make them like you, or your photos of your very special children, or that thing you found on the Internet with the angry cat on it. (Which, admittedly, is pretty funny.)

Your best bet here is to try to inspire the “guilt like” (and its corollary, the “guilt birthday greeting”) by liking as many of your friends’ posts as you can, thus making them feel obligated to like you back. Barring that, some people have been known to create fake Facebook profiles and use them to elevate their like counts. (Er … Not me. Other people.)

I suppose the other thing to keep in mind is that the respondents in the study were from Germany, where misery and loneliness are recreational activities, like whist. But no matter where you’re from, I would think a good remedy for Facebook depression might be to shut it down, go outside, and try to “like” a few things in the real world.

Or on Twitter. I hear Kim Kardashian’s on there.

Column: My local congressional race, by the (Face)book

Here in Massachusetts, the Sixth District congressional race between Democratic incumbent John Tierney and his Republican challenger, former state senator and lieutenant governor candidate Richard Tisei, is certainly heating up. Press releases from the campaigns are coming fast and furious, and there’s no shortage of vitriol — witness Tierney’s response to Tisei’s latest poll claims, in which the words “deceptive,” “outrageous” and “desperate” all make early appearances.

But press releases are so, well, pre-Facebook: We all know the real electoral battle will be raged across the social media landscape, amidst the Farmville updates and videos of shark attacks. So how are the two candidates doing on that front? It’s subjective, of course, but here’s my evaluation of their campaigns’ respective Facebook pages.

Frequency: Both candidates seem to be posting about twice a day, and let’s face it, any more than that could get pretty annoying. Advantage: Neither.

Personality: Most of Tierney’s posts feel staff-generated, except for a few standouts like one marking the anniversary of same-sex marriage’s legalization in Massachusetts. Tisei’s feed, on the other hand, seems to have been handled for some time by the candidate himself, or at least someone who does a very convincing Tisei impersonation. Advantage: Tisei.

Cover photo: You can’t judge a candidate by his Facebook cover photo ... or can you? Tierney’s cover shot is a smiling, sunny campaign-trail pic; whereas Tisei’s moody, blue-tinted image, accompanied by text asking (in big block letters) “ARE YOU READY FOR A NEW DIRECTION?” is, frankly, a little scary. Advantage: Tierney.

Other photos: Tisei’s page has a mere 23 wall photos, many of them actually ads touting Tisei or attacking Tierney — along with the requisite picture of Ronald Reagan, accompanied by a note that Tisei interned in the Reagan White House. (One degree of separation!) Tierney, who of course has years as a sitting congressman under his belt, has 41 wall photos and 27 shots from “around the district.” Oh, and one of those wall photos is of a doe-eyed bald baby with a giant Tierney sticker on his arm. Jackpot! Advantage: Tierney.

Comments: Not all that many on Tierney’s page, and the ones that are there tend to be of the “John, you are a true leader” variety — one gets the sense that someone may be spiking comments that are anything but complimentary or bland. Tisei’s, though, offers a little more back-and-forth among his followers, and there are even some comments speaking out against Tisei’s particular stands — one post about fishing regulations has a multi-faceted debate that goes on for 10 comments. Advantage: Tisei.

Likes: In the post-Facebook world, doesn’t it all come down to likes? As of this week, Tisei had 4,120, and Tierney had racked up only 2,616. Advantage: Tisei.

The final analysis: Looks like Tisei’s got the edge in the social media campaign, at least as far as Facebook’s concerned. (We’ll save Twitter for another column.) The congressman better get his supporters clicking their “Like” buttons in addition to getting out their checkbooks. And playing Farmville, of course.

At Large Fake News Monday: Zuckerberg Still Checking For Ex-Girlfriend Friend Response

PALO ALTO (CAP) - Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, whose company suffered a surprisingly lackluster initial public stock offering last week, is reportedly still distracted by the lack of a "Friend" response from the girlfriend who dumped him in college, an event that prompted him to invent the hugely successful social network.

"She hasn't accepted it, but she hasn't rejected it either," Zuckerberg told a close acquaintance who spoke to CAP News under condition of anonymity.

"Our research has shown that means I still have about a 28 percent chance of her responding in the affirmative," he told the acquaintance, who had actually asked about the decision to raise Facebook's projected stock price to a range of $34 to $38 from the initial $28 to $35.

Instead of answering the question about the stocks, Zuckerberg simply noted that "until that rejection comes, I'm still in the game," before misting up briefly and then turning icy and sarcastic.
 
The Social Network, the 2010 David Fincher movie about the founding of Facebook, famously ends with Zuckerberg sending a friend request to the girl - a BU student called "Erica Albright" in the movie - and then refreshing his screen repeatedly as he waits for an answer.

"That's pretty much how he spends every day, still," said another anonymous source within Facebook, who noted that people will often approach Zuckerberg with questions about the business or the latest revenue figures, and he'll just look out the window distractedly as he refreshes his screen over and over.

"I'd say he's giving the business the minimum amount of attention," said the source.

Zuckerberg's distraction has reportedly proven especially problematic given the initial public stock offering, not to mention his recent marriage to longtime companion Dr. Priscilla Chen.

"He just kept refreshing his Facebook page on his smartphone, and she just looked frustrated," said a waiter at the exclusive Caribbean resort where the couple honeymooned. "On the plus side, he accidentally left me a $400,000 tip. Cash!"

[Read the rest at CAP News.]

AT LARGE Fake News Monday: Facebook Fined For Violating Privacy Of Stupid People

WASHINGTON (CAP) - The Federal Trade Commission has levied steep fines against Facebook, alleging that the social media powerhouse has unfairly violated the privacy rights of millions of stupid people.

"Facebook knowingly took advantage of the fact that a large percentage of its users are idiots," read the commission's report.

The report continued, "Facebook's privacy settings virtually guarantee that when a moron uploads a picture that no thinking human being should be sharing, or makes a comment that someone of even rudimentary intelligence would know was dumb or embarrassing, that person is bound to suffer ill effects."

Not surprisingly, the decision was met with approval from imbeciles all over the world.

"It's about time," said Josh Elkind, 21, a Tufts University senior who uploaded pictures of himself in bed with a girl in his dorm room while his roommate was sleeping, and posted a status update about the "hot boobs" on the actresses in the '80 sex comedies he was watching on Netflix.

"My girlfriend was so pissed! Facebook should have told me that she might see those," said Elkind, whose girlfriend, "Donna," is Elkind's friend on Facebook, where the couple actually shares more than 150 mutual friends.

"He's such a stupid idiot," said Donna, adding, "It wouldn't have been so bad if I was the one in the pictures."

Marc Fenderson, 17, who was fired from his job at the Hardees in Effingham, Ill., when he posted on Facebook that he had put his own bodily fluids into the fry vat, also cheered the decision.

"Facebook never told me that if I posted that my boss would read it, and my mom, and my priest, and everyone at my school," said Fenderson, commenting that he was lucky that at least potential future employers wouldn't see it.

Told that any potential employer would most likely be able to find the post in a matter of seconds, he balled his hands into fists and screamed to the heavens, "FACEBOOK!"

For his part, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg seemed contrite in the wake of the controversy.

"Overall, I think we have a good history of providing transparency over who can see your information," he wrote in a blog post. "That said, I'm the first to admit that we've made mistakes. For instance, we never realized that people would be stupid enough to upload photos, videos and statements that could damage their relationships, reputations and careers.

"Our bad," he added.

[Read the rest at CAP News.]

COLUMN: A Facebook privacy primer (they know where you live)

Dear Facebook member:

It has come to our attention that certain users have raised concerns over our privacy policy. We’d just like you to know that here at Facebook, it’s extremely important to us that your information is kept private, to be shared only among your friends, networks, fans, people who “like” the same things you do, and users of applications you don’t realize you’ve signed up for.

It’s true that it’s in our best interests, for growth and advertising purposes, to make as much of your personal information as possible freely available over the Web. But we make a promise never to share what’s on your profile unless you have expressly authorized us to do so by not un-checking an arcane series of hard-to-find boxes, some of which don’t exist.

So just to make sure you understand your privacy rights as a Facebook user, we’ve put together the following easy-to-follow guidelines:

1) Default settings. Just to make things easier, our default settings make your personal information, photos and videos accessible to everyone on the Web, including your mother, your second-grade teacher and the guy who, at this very moment, is Photoshopping the heads of strange children onto the bodies of centaurs.

However, you can easily modify these settings. For instance, you can make your information visible only to certain networks, certain friends, or “only you,” if you want to be just as much of a lonely loser as you were before you joined Facebook. Your call.

2) Photos. We understand why you might have concerns over who can see photos of you that you’ve posted, or that are posted by your friends, or by an old boyfriend or girlfriend who swore the pictures were just for their own personal viewing. Boy, did we find out about that the hard way.

But the rumors that embarrassing pictures of you hunched over a toilet or wearing a Sexy French Maid Halloween costume are automatically visible to your boss and your priest are entirely untrue. Assuming you’ve checked and/or unchecked the right boxes, they can only be seen by friends, friends of friends, friends of friends of friends and all the other people who play Farmville.

3) Personal information. We want to state unequivocally that we do not sell your personal information to third parties. In fact, we give it to third parties in exchange for drugs. Ha ha! Just a little Facebook humor there. (Just the part about the drugs — the part about giving your information away is true.)

4) Instant Personalization Pilot Program. This is the program that allows other websites, like Yelp and Pandora, to access your profile information. However, you can opt out of this program, and at this very moment we have a team of engineers trying to determine how one might go about doing that.

“But Facebook, why would you ever presume that we’d want you to share our information with other websites without our permission?” you might ask. To which we’d respond: “Shut up and play some more Farmville.”

5) If you’re embarrassed about people seeing your “Like” list, maybe you should stop liking things like Barry Manilow and “Jersey Shore.” You know who you are. And so do we.

Finally, we want to remind you that, if you’re that concerned about people seeing the information you somehow thought would remain private just because that’s what we told you when you signed up, you always have the option of deleting your account.

Good luck figuring out how to do it.

Peter Chianca is a managing editor for GateHouse Media New England. This column appeared originally in North Shore Sunday. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/pchianca. (You can try to friend him on Facebook, but he’ll probably ignore you.)

Worst Facebook 'Like' Ever

They like me! They really like me!

What's up with this guy who wants a grant in 2010 on Facebook?

And why doesn't he have huge bosoms, like the people in all the other Facebook ads?

COLUMN: I can buy a little help from my friends

I’ve decided I need more friends. No, not real-life friends, the ones that you see in person and who occasionally ask you to help them move. That’s far too much work.

I’m talking about Facebook friends, those people with whom your interactions are basically limited to finding out which musical instrument they are (“the sousaphone!”) and whether or not they’ve murdered anybody in Mafia Wars. Well, and sometimes they also put up pictures of their families. Those are the ones you “hide.”

Ha ha! I kid my Facebook friends. Currently I am stalled at 243 of them; some are even people whose actual company I used to enjoy before I realized how much more time-effective it was to maintain all your personal relationships over the Internet. (Which reminds me … Mom, check your wall for a post about sending more money.)

It’s a relatively miniscule number compared to the maximum allowed friend count of 5,000, so you can imagine how happy I was to get an e-mail with the subject line, “Facebook Friends Go On Sale.” I haven’t been this excited about an e-mail since the one that said “WORLD’S GREATEST COLON CLEANSER — SEE PROOF!,” although in that case I decided to take their word for it.

The e-mail refers you to a site called uSocial, which notes, “Since the inception of Facebook, people have been feverishly trying to get as many friends as they can in order to market their product or services to.” I’m pretty sure there’s an extra word in that sentence somewhere, but grammar aside, it surprised me — all along I thought Facebook was a way to connect with actual, real friends, so you could share your embarrassing pictures of your other real friends.

“But you don’t have a large following on Facebook, do you?” uSocial then asks, somehow sensing that we are all losers who might as well be marketing our product or services to the two dozen cats with whom we share our apartment. That’s where they come in.

“On average … every Facebook fan or friend you have is generally worth $1 to you per month,” they claim, proving once and for all that Facebook friends are worth more to you than actual friends. After all, how many real friends do you have that spent $1 on you last month? If they invited you somewhere and you had to bring a bottle of wine, that means they cost you $6.50.

So they say with your purchase of 1,000 friends for $177.30, you’ll earn back your money five times over. It sounds terrific, but still, the offer raises some questions — for one thing, who are all these uSocial people willing to be friends with anybody who has a spare $177.30? They have no problem playing Bejeweled Blitz in front of thousands of strangers? It sounds trashy to me.

Also, is there any way we can make this work to buy 1,000 actual, flesh-and-blood friends, each of whom can come over my house once a month and give me a dollar? If they’re willing to do that, they can be whatever the heck instrument they want.

Well, as tempting as the offer sounds, I think I’ll continue to keep my Facebook friends primarily to people I at least sort-of know. For instance, I recently used Facebook to help set up a real, in-person meeting with some old college friends and their actual real-life kids — we got together in my backyard and talked, which is sort of like exchanging status updates, except less pithy. No products or services were marketed, but the kids played baseball, which was somehow fun even though nobody got murdered or bejeweled.

Seems to me that’s a good use of Facebook, even with 243 measly friends. And I was able to use it afterwards to post pictures of us all getting together, so the real-life friends who couldn’t make it would at least see those.

Um … Unless of course they hid me. Come to think of it, I haven’t seen many “Likes” from Mom lately …

Peter Chianca is a managing editor for GateHouse Media New England; this column appeared originally in North Shore Sunday. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/pchianca. To receive At Large by e-mail, write to info@chianca-at-large.com, with the subject line “SUBSCRIBE.”