Facebook Is Wrong, Text Is Deathless (kottke.org) 189
Facebook is seeming shifting its attention to video -- first by allowing people and publishers alike to upload videos on the social network, and then by Facebook Live, with which people are able to broadcast themselves to their friends and followers. Recently, an executive with the company said that Facebook will be probably all video in five years. "The best way to tell stories in this world, where so much information is coming at us, actually is video," Nicola Mendelsohn, who heads up Facebook's operations in Europe, the Middle East and Africa said. "It conveys so much more information in a much quicker period. So actually the trend helps us to digest much more information." Tim Carmody, a reporter whose work has appeared on Wired, and The Verge among others, makes a strong case for texts, and why it is always going to be here. He writes: Text is surprisingly resilient. It's cheap, it's flexible, it's discreet. Human brains process it absurdly well considering there's nothing really built-in for it. Plenty of people can deal with text better than they can spoken language, whether as a matter of preference or necessity. And it's endlessly computable -- you can search it, code it. You can use text to make it do other things. In short, all of the same technological advances that enable more and more video, audio, and immersive VR entertainment also enable more and more text. We will see more of all of them as the technological bottlenecks open up. And text itself will get weirder, its properties less distinct, as it reflects new assumptions and possibilities borrowed from other tech and media. It already has! Text can be real-time, text can be ephemeral -- text has taken on almost all of the attributes we always used to distinguish speech, but it's still remained text. It's still visual characters registered by the eye standing in for (and shaping its own) language.
I'll believe text is dead... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll believe text is dead when facebook replaces their logo with a video. And not a video *of* text. In the meantime, there's lots of text on facebook, whether they like it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
They like it.
They like any activity that gets you in view of their advertisers.
And as soon as people get tired of video's, they'll be pushing text again.
Facebook's push for video doesn't mean their platform will never ever be able to do anything except video ever again, it's just about meeting current market demands.
Re: (Score:2)
I think putting ads in videos seems less intrusive than having big blocks of text in the middle of the page that either a) We've trained ourselves to totally ignore or b) is so large that the S/N of the site drops lower than it inherently is.
Re:I'll believe text is dead... (Score:5, Insightful)
When I click on a link for a news story or some other item which seems interesting and it turns out to be a video, I click the back button instantly.
Video is a stupid medium for this. It's a devolution. People started getting their news -for example- online, because you get what you want instantly, you don't have to sit through a long broadcast to find the items you're interested in.
The point of digital media is supposed to be instant quick access. Not to mention how annoying video is and how it's rare that any video in your FB timeline is something you actually want to see.
Re:I'll believe text is dead... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't tell Facebook this; I really want to see them push this all-video strategy, and ASAP too.
Hopefully it'll finally get everyone to abandon that POS site, turning it into the next MySpace.
Re: (Score:3)
Get TOS'd (Score:2)
If you're sharing pictures, then a typical home broadband connection has enough spare upstream bandwidth to share them with pretty much anyone who might be interested (unless you 'go viral' or are DDoS'd).
Or you get TOS'd. The acceptable use policy that many last mile ISPs impose on their home broadband customers prohibits running a publicly accessible server over the connection.
Re:I'll believe text is dead... (Score:5, Insightful)
On top of that, usually when I want to check the news, I do so from work; kinda rude to my coworkers to have some random whiny news anchor blathering on in the background (when it even works, since they block most major video hosts to save bandwidth).
And FWIW, this applies to a million other gratuitous uses of video as well, from tech tips to video game walkthroughs to DIY/HowTo guides. It has gotten so bad that I wish I could just have "-youtube" included by default in all my Google searches, since I need to add it half the time anyway.
Re:I'll believe text is dead... (Score:5, Insightful)
This. I have zero interest in watching a five minute video just to get the same content I could read in thirty seconds.
THIS.
Perhaps the two most important features of text which aren't mentioned in TFS -- (1) we generally read faster than we speak, so we can usually gather information faster from text, and (2) text is much more skimmable.
Trying to get information from a video often drives me nuts: you can try to fast-forward or skip ahead (then wait for it to buffer each time), only to find you went too far, or maybe the person doesn't talk about what you want in that segment or whatever. It's a pain in the neck. Video is good for what it is: showing visual stuff in time. If you need a tutorial on how to do some physical skill, then sure, make a video. If you want to explain an abstract concept, video just slows down things for your audience.
I first realized the problem with video (and audio) with audio podcasts that have transcripts available online. I'd start listening to a podcast, and realize I didn't care so much about the delivery, but I wanted to know the gist of the topic... and if there's an online transcript, I can often skim an hour-long program in a few minutes and find the relevant bits to read in depth. MUCH more efficient. Sure, it's fun to listen to a podcast when I'm busy doing something else that's rather mindless, but if I actually want information efficiently, text is FAR superior as a delivery method.
But beyond the efficiency, what concerns me more about this trend is the potential for manipulation that comes from video. I remember seeing a couple of studies years ago showing the difference between people who watched an opinion/news report on something vs. reading a short passage about it. When they were asked to express opinions, a number of disturbing trends came out. (For example, video viewers expressed a higher confidence in their understanding, even though it wasn't better than those who read text.) But most worryingly, the people who watched the video were less able to critically evaluate the information that was presented to them. That is, if they watched a news anchor present an opinion on a controversial issue, they were more likely to be persuaded by a weak argument from a video than they were from text.
That last part doesn't surprise me at all -- after all, we love TV news "personalities," who dress up and look attractive as they tell us the news. Why wouldn't we trust what they say? And with video, it's harder to go back and review parts that maybe weren't quite thought-through. If you're reading an argument, you can stop and think over parts that don't make sense, perhaps even go back a few sentences and re-read. With a video, you're forced to listen at the pace of the speaker, and they obviously will alter their delivery in ways to emphasize their positive points while downplaying or muddling the negatives.
So, a move toward video isn't just decreasing efficiency of content delivery -- it's potentially making the population stupider, more malleable, and less capable of critical thought. That's NOT a good trend overall.
Re:I'll believe text is dead... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is narrated audio, which is directly analogous to text. You can only speed up audio by about 2x before your brain's speech recognition hardware starts to have trouble converting it into words. So searching a 1 hour audio recording for the part you're interested in takes a really long time. Your brain is much quicker at processing images into words. A larger part of your brain is devoted to vision than sound. And even in AI text recognition has been much easier to solve than voice recognition. So it's much quicker to scan a transcript of the audio to find the part you want, than it is to search the audio itself.
Re: (Score:2)
I just dislike autoplaying video adverts for the audio. It's irritating to visit a text page only to have the advertising equivalent of "goatse" blaring out "I'm looking at advertising porn" from every audio port.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you experienced tabbed autoplay yet?
Re: (Score:3)
My first instinct would be, people won't post as much if it's all video, because they often post from public places and they would be too self-conscious to talk out loud about personal stuff when surrounded with strangers.
But then I realize that people have no shame in taking selfies and suddenly I can tell that Facebook guy is probably right. Remove inhibitions and what's left is the path to convenience, and it's a lot easier to speak than it is to write.
Only roablock is search, and you can bet there's bus
Re:I'll believe text is dead... (Score:5, Insightful)
My first instinct is that someone as highly paid as her ought to have a functioning brain, and realise that video is never going to replace text or even come close.
Take videocalling. Back in the 90s we thought that once we could video call, that's all we'd do. Not exactly true is it.
Re:I'll believe text is dead... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People don't type about where they are or what they are doing. They just take photos of themselves and post them. Their friends' replies are emotes enacted by illustrations of kittens.
Facebook are being 100% perceptive about where this is headed.
Re: (Score:2)
PC keyboards (keyboards attached to PCs) have been abandoned for cameras (selfie-stick attachments) which double as games consoles and phones. People don't type about where they are or what they are doing. They just take photos of themselves and post them. Their friends' replies are emotes enacted by illustrations of kittens. Facebook are being 100% perceptive about where this is headed.
Stupid people prefer videos to text when looking for information. I'm 100% behind Facebook going video-only, as that will hopefully keep out those idiots who make "tutorials" consisting of themselves talking at the screen. Most 10-min videos have about 45 seconds of actual information.
Re: (Score:2)
In the future, you'll be able to input text by using pen and paper and snapping a picture of it.
Most hardware sold today with 2 cams, no keyboard (Score:2)
I'm all for text for text. I'm on Slashdot right now, a text-based site. I use a CLI text interface for most of my work on the computer. That said:
> when PC keyboards are abandoned for cameras
That happened a few years ago. Most computing hardware sold today comes with two cameras and no keyboard hardware, only a fake virtual on-screen keyboard.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Smartphones and tablets don't have physical keyboards because there's no room for them. As you yourself note, they come with whatever means to enter text the constraints of the form factor permits built-in. That they happen to have cameras is irrelevant.
Text is never going anywhere because with text, if I wa
Re: (Score:2)
What is this... P... C... thing you speak of?
Re: (Score:2)
and PC ROMs no longer implement ASCII, but instead have native video codec support.
For what it's worth, the last new graphics cards to have hardware support for ASCII were released over 15 years ago. In modern cards, it's all done in firmware and with EFI the native interface is a framebuffer with text rendering layered on top. A typical GPU has hardware acceleration for a number of video CODECs, but no acceleration for text (though antialiased text rendering makes heavy use of the compositing engine).
That's nothing to do with demand though, it's entirely as a result of the different
It could be possible (Score:3)
Text can be real-time, text can be ephemeral -- text has taken on almost all of the attributes we always used to distinguish speech, but it's still remained text.
Consider what kind of people make the majority of facebook. They surely don't slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
Consider what kind of people make the majority of facebook. They surely don't slashdot.
It's still more informative and concise to leave a badly spelled text message than a rambling video that nobody wants to watch.
Re: (Score:3)
Ore is it
Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
The narcissist's toolbox
As a wise philosopher once said... (Score:4)
"Print is dead."
RIP Egon
Re: (Score:3)
"Print is dead."
RIP Egon
I swear the stack of printouts on my desk are laughing.
Re: (Score:3)
I swear the stack of printouts on my desk are laughing.
You're lucky. The stacks of printouts on my desks are conspiring to kill me. They're going to make it look like an "accident".
Death by paper cuts.
Re: (Score:2)
I swear the stack of printouts on my desk are laughing.
You're lucky. The stacks of printouts on my desks are conspiring to kill me. They're going to make it look like an "accident".
Death by paper cuts.
A thousand of 'em
No shit (Score:5, Funny)
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
It's quicker to consume text than video. Just an FYI
Note: Unabashed repost from yesterday because that was the stupidest thing I'd heard all day and work had a Trump segment on in the background
Re: (Score:3)
It's also quicker to create text than video.
Re: (Score:2)
After a lifetime of text anyone should be able to wield it efficiently. "Speed reading" is really just targeted skimming, scoping out where the good info is and chewing on those areas, so you can ignore all the "HI I'M JAMIE WITH TECHCHANNELNOW AND I'M HERE WITH GARY, A NETWORK ADMIN AT NOVELL SYSTEMS, GARY WHY DON'T YOU TELL US A LITTLE ABOUT YOURSELF"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is nice is lots of text with a few pictures or diagrams if needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A picture *is* worth a thousand words (so moving pictures are at least a thousand).
But that doesn't mean that every set of a thousand words can be represented by one single picture.
Re: No shit (Score:2)
Some pictures really are worth a 1000 words, but a video may contain 1000 words of content, 800 of which are BS, just like a comparable text article, but much harder to skim through.
Re: (Score:2)
I's also easier to generate text than a video. Sure you can make an off-the-cuff video without a script and post it but 9 times out of 10 it'll look and sound like garbage. With text, you need to write your words, edit them, and then post. With video, you need to write what you're going to say, edit it, set up the video environment (is the lighting right, etc), video it, do-retakes when you flub your words, stitch the videos together, perhaps do further re-takes as needed, and then post it. I could have
Re: (Score:2)
For those of us who can't be bothered with all that text:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
Of course it is, remember radio? (Score:3)
Of course text are deathless. This debacle make me remember when TV appeared and everyone were foreseeing the death of the radio. Well guess what? It's still there and it'll be remain for a long, long time because it's main flaw it's also it's biggest strength : It have no screen. There's time where you just want to listen while your eye can do something else.
In this case, it's more or less the same thing where with text. More and more people use their cellphone for social media and most of the time you just want to use it without sound and just want to read quick social update.
We've come to this (Score:2)
The assertion is inane and the rebuttal is wordy. Some comments on the original thread had it correct, it's just a brain fart from some higher up at a brain fart of a company.
Facebook will die, at least in its current relatively (and I mean relatively) benign incarnation. It's a matter of time. They have managed to remain where they are in social because they just up and buy any potential competitor. One day someone will say, no thanks.
Then they will become a government contracted data mining operation for
Motivation behind push for Video (Score:5, Insightful)
So here you go, this isn't philosophical debate about the future of communications - it is classical foot-in-the-door technique in a move toward streaming video commercials to Facebook users.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong because lack of high-speed internet (Score:5, Insightful)
It's truly amazing to me what an ivory tower Silicon Valley has become. Seems like everybody there assumes that everyone has blazing fast internet that is SYMMETRICAL!!! Sorry, but lack of symmetry is one reason why using the cloud for everything fails. That and speeds that most people are willing to pay for pales in comparison to what Silicon Valley likely averages. Further, they assume that everyone has that kind of speed wherever they go which to them means from the hipster coffee bar, to their fancy-shmancy all-expense-paid offices, to their hipster clubs, to their trendy loft apartment. Newsflash, people, there is a big world out there and it doesn't have 4G access.
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree. I have had blazing fast internet at home and at work for about 18 years now. I have a personal data recorder that can take video an upload it quite easily and watch other's video even easier.
Yet here I am replying to you with text. Text is just easy and fast and you are more likely to understand my text than my slurred morning speech. Also my boss would probably be pissed off if he knew I was replying to you rather than working.
No amount of high speed connectivity is going to reduce the utility
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And not with pants on head, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome! What new non-shit-tier phone does not have a front-camera?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. I had better internet speed in Europe than I have now in silicon Valley for twice the price.
Stop commenting a stupid comment from a stupid guy from a stupid company.
Re: (Score:2)
Further, they assume that everyone has that kind of speed wherever they go which to them means from the hipster coffee bar, to their fancy-shmancy all-expense-paid offices, to their hipster clubs, to their trendy loft apartment. Newsflash, people, there is a big world out there and it doesn't have 4G access.
They assume this because their worldview is small. Their worldview is small because they don't own their own car and will only ever travel to where the mass-transport takes them.
If it can't be reached by buying a ticket, they assume it doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
"They assume this because their worldview is small. Their worldview is small because they don't own their own car and will only ever travel to where the mass-transport takes them."
This appears to be exactly what "urban planners" have been aiming for. I wouldn't want to do it, my son wouldn't, my wife. Interestingly enough, my other son lives in the NY urban area and tends to like it. It takes all kinds, I guess.
He had an $UV there and liked having it; able to take his band gear around,etc.; but, when it bro
Re: (Score:2)
Text will outlast Facebook and human civilization (Score:2)
If their execs think they are immune to a Myspace-level drought turning Facebook into the latest internet desert.
There will still be chunks of concrete and stone with text on it when the human race has either moved on from Earth or died out.
The key to technology (Score:2)
I wonder if text is why we haven't detected other advanced alien civilizations. Our extraordinary ability to apply our advanced language skills to a totally different medium and sense, allowing us to develop advanced technology because we can store knowledge outside our brains, achieved without any additional evolution. What are the odds that other intelligent species had the wiring needed listen with their eyes?
Text (Score:2)
I think a part of the Internet's appeal to some is the ability to post their opinion without personal judgement on the character. You can voice an opinion or ask a question quickly and mostly anonymously.
We have been used to text with newspapers and the digital world for a really long time and it's certainly not going away.
A good example of this is forums. I don't imagine forums being turned into video clips of you responding to replies. It's just too personal and involved (my hair has to be nice, have to b
Re: (Score:3)
Forums would be useless with video clip posts. Just look at a typical forum thread: it can have several hundred posts. It'd take you hours and hours to watch them all, but in text form you can skim through them in minutes.
TFA does make a nice point about how well our human brains work with text, especially considering that text is not a natural thing that we were evolved to read. We can process textual information absurdly quickly.
How will people comment on the videos? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about a graphic of the appropriate finger being extended. :)
Re: (Score:2)
It's about the Signal:Noise stupid! (Score:2)
Text or Video?
How many videos on YouTube have you seem where someone rambles on for 5 minutes with uh, *sniff*, uh, *sniff* before getting to the fucking point which could be summarized in a few lines of text that takes 30 seconds to read?
Text is _extremely_ efficient and compact for S:N -- video usually isn't unless you have a GOOD speaker. Considering that you can say a lot with 140 bytes that requires 100x more bandwidth with video, text isn't going away anytime soon.
Peopl
I want less video (Score:3)
I guess that is one reason I like Slashdot.
I dislike the video content on CNN.com. I don't need a video of a reporter reading a story. I can read myself. In general would rather read a story and see a high-quality still picture than a tiny compress video.
Don't get me started on pictures or videos of text.
-Charles
Nothing more than executive puffery (Score:2)
You have to remember, tech execs are often falling over each other to make grand proclamations so they can appear visionary. This reminds me of a similarly absurd comment by a tech executive that "78% of small businesses have fully adopted cloud computing [twitter.com]".
Um, I think I'd call that number into question...
Not a prediction, but a choice (Score:2)
Ya'll are missing the point here (Score:2)
Summary? (Score:2)
Human brains process it absurdly well considering there's nothing really built-in for it
Who says so?
Mankind uses texts since roughly 6000 years, minimum.
And I would assume that what lets make us think is what also helps us to process text.
The summary is pretyy missleading anyway. Most people process text 4 to 10 times faster than a video (with spoken language).
And would wager that every videa that is "sofisticated" takes much longer to produce than writing the equivalent text.
What is next? I like to book a
In The Beginning Was The Command Line (Score:5, Informative)
The word is the only system of encoding thoughts—the only medium—that refuses to dissolve in the devouring torrent of electronic media.
—Neal Stephenson, In The Beginning Was The Command Line
Writing is harder than video... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Video might be the best way to tell stories... (Score:2)
...but how many people are actually good at it? That's why this isn't going to happen. I might be willing to read your 3 line quip about politics. I am absolutely not listening to some rambling uh, ah, filled nonsense rant about politics.
No no no, Facebook is right! (Score:2)
Facebook needs to believe that all video, all the time, is the right way to go. That way, when they wipe themselves out and go bankrupt, it will not only finally get Facebook out of... well... our faces, but it will demonstrate quite clearly that video is *not* the be all and end all of media consumption.
I personally despise how things are going more and more video. Especially supposedly professional video that is poorly edited, and even more poorly scripted where the person is saying "Um" and "Uh" all th
i predict the death of facebook (Score:2)
Thanks Internet (Score:2)
I really wonder where some of this shit is coming from.
"Email is dead"
"Internet of Things"
"Text is dead, everything will be video"
All of these things sound like some idiotic crap that someone "spitballed" in some sort of "what's the conventional wisdom going to be today" meeting at Gawker (or Facebook, or whatever), which is then breathlessly promoted as 'the next big thing'.
We're societally like a bicycle that's slipped its chain - pedalling ever-faster with no resistance but in fact slowing coming to a co
Text is DANGEROUS. (Score:5, Insightful)
With video, you can tell immediately whether the speaker is attractive or not, and ignore the ones who aren't. If you're reading text instead of watching someone talking, you're in mortal danger of paying attention to someone who isn't attractive . The horror.
Re:Text is DANGEROUS. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you're reading text instead of watching someone talking, you're in mortal danger of paying attention to someone who isn't attractive . The horror.
This is true. But it's not just attractiveness. It's body language. It's the whole framing and presentation of the thing.
It's not by coincidence that when the ancient Roman Cicero, one of the greatest orators of all time, was killed by political enemies, they cut off his hands and nailed them to the place he gave his speeches. While some have interpreted this to be a way of punishing the "hands that wrote his speeches," it's likely that at least one reason (if not the primary one) was because of the role of gestures in the delivery of orations at the time. Without microphones in ancient Rome, speakers who wanted "those in the back" to understand them necessarily made use of formalized gesture to emphasize points and to enhance argument. (You see the same thing in stage actors when they use enhanced gestures without microphones today.) Ancient treatises on persuasive speaking repeatedly mention the importance of body language and gestures. As Quintilian wrote: "As for the hands, without which all action would be crippled and enfeebled, it is scarcely possible to describe the variety of their motions, since they are almost as expressive as words. For other portions of the body may help the speaker, whereas the hands may almost be said to speak."
Anyhow, this could all lead up to a silly joke about Italians who 'talk with their hands." But even if most modern methods of expression don't use these stylized body motions, good persuasive speakers are very familiar with how one's body language and movements can impact the reception of an argument.
And whether you're dealing with audio or video, the SOUND of a speaker is critical in conveying meaning and tone (as we all know from that time we sent an email which was grossly misinterpreted).
TL;DR -- Video (or real-life speaking, for that matter) has the potential for MUCH greater manipulation of viewers than text. Politicians have known this and have exploited it for millennia. Even an ancient Roman could have told you that text was useful for serious study and critique, whereas oratory was all about manipulation of your audience.
Talkies will replace novels... (Score:2)
It's simpler than that, really: (Score:2)
Video is a waste of time. You can't effectively skim video, like you can with text. If the "author" can't spend the time to transcribe their idea, why should I waste MY time listening to their verbal tics to get to THEIR point?
Please don't tell them (Score:2)
Text isn't dead. But Facebook will be if they believe this. Reason enough not to correct them.
Wrong (Score:2)
> "It conveys so much more information in a much quicker period. So actually the trend helps us to digest much more information."
Incorrect.
I can't tell you how many howtos I've found only in the form of a video where they go on and on and take ten minutes to get to the meat of the matter, which could easily be condensed into easier-to-follow text paragraphs that I could read in half a minute and implement almost as quickly. Text is also vastly superior for studying at my own pace. For those of us whose e
Really (Score:2)
Nicola Mendelsohn is a 'tard.
"Facebook is wrong" (Score:2)
Silence (Score:2)
Text will obviously not die, this is just executive extrapolation about going from a few percent videos to a few percent more in a short time span.
I can read text with the sound off at work, in bed, while watching a movie, or while riding on a noisy train. Videos are only desirable if I am wearing headphones, or the rest of the family is busy in a separate room. Having the audio on often catches the ear of other folks who just have to ask what I am watching, which is very distracting (not just while watch
What can go wrong? (Score:2)
FB better start putting security controls and sincerely limiting access to minors or they will be in a world of hurt of having videos of minors online. FB will become a pedophiles wet dream.
Facebook will be irrelevant in 5 years (Score:2)
Thought Experiment (Score:2)
Text is Deathless, (Score:2)
and Death is Textless.
Effort to Create vs Consume (Score:2)
I've had this conversation with a number of content creators who are switching to video (and audio podcasts.) The most common complaint I hear from people about text content switching to video is that it takes more effort and more time to consume video; the equivalent of a 20-minute video takes maybe 5-minutes to read as text, and it's easier to read an article piecemeal around other activity (work). The video tends to consume 20 minutes straight. On the other hand, the most common reason I'm given by cr
i hate video (Score:2)
i am impatient. i can't skim a video. i can't instantly skip ahead, either (buffering .....)
i can't copy and paste a video.
i can't print out a video.
when i google how to do something, i skip right past all the video links. the text links get me my answer orders of magnitude quicker, and i can access and absorb information hundreds of times faster through text than through video.
Re: (Score:2)
same thing with news stories. if i click on an interesting headline and it is video-only, sorry, i'm not watching that.
ESPN does this all the time. in fact, usually it makes you watch a full 30 second commercial (NEVER a "skip ad" button) for a 25-second summary of a game that could have been *read* in under ten seconds.
Rather sick of... (Score:2)
If we want to know how many zeni a foozle costs in Bindeels Adventures, I want a simple number, not a long ass video of some bozo fumbling around in game trying to get to vendor and then shows a fuzzy purchase window that's a bitch to read because your video compression sucks almost as bad as you do!
(Yes, some people will probably recog
In ageless eons (Score:2)
No, Facebook is right, because... (Score:2)
Nah, Facebook is bang on the money. Don't you all remember how video messaging made SMS obsolete?
Surprisingly? (Score:2)
Text is surprisingly resilient.
Surprisingly?. Someone hasn't been paying attention to the last five thousand years of human history.
Nothing Built In? (Score:2)
Human brains process it absurdly well considering there's nothing really built-in for it.
A claim like that requires either a citation or a sound, persuasive argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Cat pictures are great, but Reddit is probably the best place for those. You're not limited to what your dumb family members post there, you can find a subreddit that's nothing but cat pictures and see all the best cat pictures the world has to offer. Facebook is a terrible place for that kind of thing, or anything at all really. It's nothing more than a site for narcissists to post pictures trying to prove to all their friends and family what wonderful lives they lead.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly my sentiment. I really look forward to Facebook going out of business and Zuckerberg becoming a has-been.