If you could only live with one social network, which would you choose? Facebook? Twitter? Google+? LinkedIn? Pinterest?
Despite filing public offerings and having an estimated value of $100B, Facebook showed it is not the powerhouse it thinks it is this week.
Where did the conversation happen about the IPO? Where did the news break? Where were the links to comments and analysis?
How many of you saw detailed discussions of the happenings of the day on your Facebook wall? Not likely. My Facebook feed was clogged with pictures of battleshots and Super Bowl ad teases.
Twitter is a flowing river of news and no matter how "active" Facebook's news feed has been made to be in the past little while, it can't keep up to the pace of Twitter.
I can follow hashtags to track conversations, I can breadcrumb conversations between influentials. I don't know about you, but even though I can "subscribe" to different feeds on Facebook, I've done none of it. Facebook is a personal place where I go to talk about my kids, see what my sister is up to and converse with colleagues.
Twitter is where I go to get news and to interact and engage. It was no wonder that when the IPO was filed this started being passed around:
Without Twitter, where would we talk about the Facebook IPO?— Chris Sacca (@sacca) February 1, 2012
It's true. Even Bill Gates, engaging in a Facebook chat the day after the IPO news, took to Twitter to publicize the event.
Twitter is fluid. Facebook is static. I like my social news to move.
You must be a registered user to add a comment here. If you've already registered, please log in. If you haven't registered yet, please register and log in.