This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The BMC are looking to get more Facebook fans by 4pm this afternoon. If they reach 10,000 then they are going to donate £1000 to Porter's Progress, a charity that we at UKC think is a worthy cause. Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=67130
In reply to UKC News:
In what way is Facebook supporting the BMC in return for its promoting that commercial operation to thousands of its members?
In what way is Facebook supporting the BMC in return for its promoting that commercial operation to thousands of its members?
In reply to john arran: It's a mutual arrangement. Facebook gives the BMC some powerful tools to communicate with it's user base and the BMC gives to facebook by giving it's users another reason to use facebook.
In reply to remus:
Yes, I'm perfectly aware of the theory. Just that Facebook is steadily privatising the internet and it can't be a good thing to start relying too much on your customers signing up with a commercial operator in order to communicate with them. Thankfully for now there are still other viable channels in use, such as email and websites, which don't require people to adopt any particular commercial technology.
Yes, I'm perfectly aware of the theory. Just that Facebook is steadily privatising the internet and it can't be a good thing to start relying too much on your customers signing up with a commercial operator in order to communicate with them. Thankfully for now there are still other viable channels in use, such as email and websites, which don't require people to adopt any particular commercial technology.
In reply to john arran:
Yeah but even to access the BMC's own website you have to subscribe to a commercial service, so it's not much different to use facebook's platform.
Yeah but even to access the BMC's own website you have to subscribe to a commercial service, so it's not much different to use facebook's platform.
In reply to john arran: Yup, A climbing club I have a lot to do with have started using Facebook as the primary method of communication. I refuse to be on Facebook, so I miss everything.
I really dislike this trend of events being set through Facebook and "like" buttons popping on websites that are nothing to do with Facebook. It's forcing people in to a sole social network provider and lining some rich people's pockets.
I really dislike this trend of events being set through Facebook and "like" buttons popping on websites that are nothing to do with Facebook. It's forcing people in to a sole social network provider and lining some rich people's pockets.
In reply to Dave 88:
The important difference is that you subscribe to YOUR CHOICE of commercial service. Just like your choice of electricity supplier.
Imagine a world where you need to have your electricity provided by Npower (for example) in order to receive certain communications. Then imagine the BMC trying to get as many people as possible to sign up to Npower so these communications will reach more people. That's a closer analogy.
Email and self-run websites are effectively open source technologies and therefore accessible to all without them needing to subscribe to any one particular commercial service. I look forward to the day when open standards exist for social media so we can each choose a provider and still interact with others who choose different providers, but I'm not holding my breath.
The important difference is that you subscribe to YOUR CHOICE of commercial service. Just like your choice of electricity supplier.
Imagine a world where you need to have your electricity provided by Npower (for example) in order to receive certain communications. Then imagine the BMC trying to get as many people as possible to sign up to Npower so these communications will reach more people. That's a closer analogy.
Email and self-run websites are effectively open source technologies and therefore accessible to all without them needing to subscribe to any one particular commercial service. I look forward to the day when open standards exist for social media so we can each choose a provider and still interact with others who choose different providers, but I'm not holding my breath.
In reply to john arran:
I don't really think they're encouraging people to sign up if they haven't already done so, it's more the BMC trying to get people who are already on there to 'like' them, thereby increasing their visibility while donating some cash to a worthwhile charity.
I don't really think they're encouraging people to sign up if they haven't already done so, it's more the BMC trying to get people who are already on there to 'like' them, thereby increasing their visibility while donating some cash to a worthwhile charity.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
The charity thing is a bit of a red herring here. I have no problem with any organisation helping to raise money for worthy charities. The issue here is that the BMC is, in doing so, seemingly encouraging people to communicate via a commercial service rather than an open one. It isn't a big deal in this case, but it is definitely another pointer to the way things are heading with Facebook and unless at least one of these tiny incremental steps is questioned we'll soon find ourselves with little other option but to conform with whatever this particular commercial operator decides to require of us, having become increasingly dependant on it for much of our online activity.
The charity thing is a bit of a red herring here. I have no problem with any organisation helping to raise money for worthy charities. The issue here is that the BMC is, in doing so, seemingly encouraging people to communicate via a commercial service rather than an open one. It isn't a big deal in this case, but it is definitely another pointer to the way things are heading with Facebook and unless at least one of these tiny incremental steps is questioned we'll soon find ourselves with little other option but to conform with whatever this particular commercial operator decides to require of us, having become increasingly dependant on it for much of our online activity.
In reply to john arran:
I'm struggling with that one. One of the best things about the internet is that it is pretty much entirely privately run already. It's when it gets nationalised that you need to start worrying!
As soon as Facebook starts to charge its users, then it won't have any users left to charge.
> Facebook is steadily privatising the internet
I'm struggling with that one. One of the best things about the internet is that it is pretty much entirely privately run already. It's when it gets nationalised that you need to start worrying!
As soon as Facebook starts to charge its users, then it won't have any users left to charge.
In reply to UKC News:
I'm so gullible. I saw the title of this thread and thought the BMC urgently needed help with something.
I'm so gullible. I saw the title of this thread and thought the BMC urgently needed help with something.
In reply to Toreador:
The internet is currently in effect a publicly-available resource from which private companies benefit only by offering competitive services that people want. Facebook at the moment is one of the biggest winners in this commercial game. You don't need to pay them of course but you do need to provide them with commercially-valuable information and allow them use it pretty much as they wish. This seems to be a price many are currently willing to pay for the service.
By internet privatisation I was referring to the emerging possibility of replacing these competitive services with a single de facto operator which people have little choice other than to use, as they can no longer get the information they want through other channels. We're already seeing this with some clubs and special interest groups, as above.
Maybe privatisation isn't the best term for this. Maybe commercial stranglehold is nearer the mark?
The internet is currently in effect a publicly-available resource from which private companies benefit only by offering competitive services that people want. Facebook at the moment is one of the biggest winners in this commercial game. You don't need to pay them of course but you do need to provide them with commercially-valuable information and allow them use it pretty much as they wish. This seems to be a price many are currently willing to pay for the service.
By internet privatisation I was referring to the emerging possibility of replacing these competitive services with a single de facto operator which people have little choice other than to use, as they can no longer get the information they want through other channels. We're already seeing this with some clubs and special interest groups, as above.
Maybe privatisation isn't the best term for this. Maybe commercial stranglehold is nearer the mark?
In reply to john arran:
But the beauty of the internet is that once this starts to happen, someone will start up an alternative. Facebook and Twitter are currently ubiquitous, but fashions change in an instant - anyone here still use Myspace?
I'm on FB and have my privacy settings managed so the information cannot be used as they wish. I also treat everything I post as if it were available to everyone (including employers and burglars) and self-censor accordingly.
But the beauty of the internet is that once this starts to happen, someone will start up an alternative. Facebook and Twitter are currently ubiquitous, but fashions change in an instant - anyone here still use Myspace?
I'm on FB and have my privacy settings managed so the information cannot be used as they wish. I also treat everything I post as if it were available to everyone (including employers and burglars) and self-censor accordingly.
In reply to Toreador: It is undeniable that there is a danger with facebook, that was not there with Myspace. I still use Facebook (a lot) and think it's great. It's a bit like stealing 10p from everyone's bank account in the world- the individual will not care, but it's a pretty major crime- or in this case a pretty major business. Only time will allow us to see whether facebook was dangerous.
In reply to Toreador:
Two things. One is that I think your use of Facebook as described is unusual and in any case I'm not convinced your info won't be being used in all sorts of ways you aren't given boxes to restrict. But that's rather beside the point.
The other issues that MySpace and others never achieved more than a small minority of users and certainly I never heard of anyone relying on it for non-specialist information to a wide audience. There is likely to be a critical point at which one medium becomes so ubiquitous that competition is no longer a real option. If enough people recognise the downside to this they will vote with their mice but that will be increasingly difficult as more and more groups and organisations are requiring Facebook membership or nothing. That's where regulation needs to step in - ideally by requiring adherence to open standards of interoperability.
Two things. One is that I think your use of Facebook as described is unusual and in any case I'm not convinced your info won't be being used in all sorts of ways you aren't given boxes to restrict. But that's rather beside the point.
The other issues that MySpace and others never achieved more than a small minority of users and certainly I never heard of anyone relying on it for non-specialist information to a wide audience. There is likely to be a critical point at which one medium becomes so ubiquitous that competition is no longer a real option. If enough people recognise the downside to this they will vote with their mice but that will be increasingly difficult as more and more groups and organisations are requiring Facebook membership or nothing. That's where regulation needs to step in - ideally by requiring adherence to open standards of interoperability.
In reply to john arran:
Yeah, I see what you mean about the choice. I'd be interested to know how monopoly laws apply in these cases.
I suppose it comes down to user convenience. I have found with climbing blogs, keeping track of all of the ones I want to follow is time consuming, as they are all fragmented. If I were to get twitter, everyone just seems to post on there now so I would have all that information in one place. It gripes me that I would have to sign up to a service I do not want in order to view this information. So yeah, I suppose I agree with your original point. It's not for the best.
Yeah, I see what you mean about the choice. I'd be interested to know how monopoly laws apply in these cases.
I suppose it comes down to user convenience. I have found with climbing blogs, keeping track of all of the ones I want to follow is time consuming, as they are all fragmented. If I were to get twitter, everyone just seems to post on there now so I would have all that information in one place. It gripes me that I would have to sign up to a service I do not want in order to view this information. So yeah, I suppose I agree with your original point. It's not for the best.
In reply to john arran:
I was with you until you called for regulation!
I still think the position of FB is overplayed though. Some car manufacturer, I forget which, has stopped advertising there as they realised they made no sales through it. How many people buy things in response to FB adverts that they wouldn't have bought anyway? I've never even clicked on an ad, they're nicely out of the way so can be ignored; as soon as they try making them impossible to ignore, FB use will fall.
There's also the danger (for FB) that as it becomes used more by corporates, the young will steer clear. I've already read reports (probably sponsored by Twitter!) that claim young people are starting to desert FB for Twitter.
I was with you until you called for regulation!
I still think the position of FB is overplayed though. Some car manufacturer, I forget which, has stopped advertising there as they realised they made no sales through it. How many people buy things in response to FB adverts that they wouldn't have bought anyway? I've never even clicked on an ad, they're nicely out of the way so can be ignored; as soon as they try making them impossible to ignore, FB use will fall.
There's also the danger (for FB) that as it becomes used more by corporates, the young will steer clear. I've already read reports (probably sponsored by Twitter!) that claim young people are starting to desert FB for Twitter.
In reply to john arran:
Anyone who is refusing to join a group just because they communicate on facebook and the individual doesn't want a facebook account is just silly. There is no control over the information you enter on facebook, so you don't need to tell them the truth (make sure your age is over 12 ish, otherwise they stop your account,) and you stay as anonymous as you like. All that counts is that you can read what is said on the groups facebook page.
>
> more and more groups and organisations are requiring Facebook membership or nothing.
> more and more groups and organisations are requiring Facebook membership or nothing.
Anyone who is refusing to join a group just because they communicate on facebook and the individual doesn't want a facebook account is just silly. There is no control over the information you enter on facebook, so you don't need to tell them the truth (make sure your age is over 12 ish, otherwise they stop your account,) and you stay as anonymous as you like. All that counts is that you can read what is said on the groups facebook page.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
I'm sorry, you've lost me. Don't they have a website? Don't they have my email address?
> (In reply to john arran)
> I don't really think they're encouraging people to sign up if they haven't already done so, it's more the BMC trying to get people who are already on there to 'like' them, thereby increasing their visibility
> I don't really think they're encouraging people to sign up if they haven't already done so, it's more the BMC trying to get people who are already on there to 'like' them, thereby increasing their visibility
I'm sorry, you've lost me. Don't they have a website? Don't they have my email address?
In reply to Dave Garnett: Basically, if I "like" the BMC then it shows up in my friends' news feeds, so if I've got outdoorsy friends who aren't really aware of the BMC and what they do then seeing that might make them get curious and go and find out more about them.
I dunno if it's really value for money, but since the money is going to Porters Progress anyway, I don't really mind.
I dunno if it's really value for money, but since the money is going to Porters Progress anyway, I don't really mind.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
OK, thanks. I'm only half being facetious here, I really don't get all this.
I'm still only guessing what you might mean by 'news feeds'.
OK, thanks. I'm only half being facetious here, I really don't get all this.
I'm still only guessing what you might mean by 'news feeds'.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Oh sorry, presumably you're not on facebook then?
A news feed is the page you get when you log in that tells you all the inane crap that your alleged friends have been doing eg
Alice added pictures to the album "blurry pictures of my thumb"
Bob is attending the event "having a cup of tea"
Carol "likes" bacon
Dave wrote on Alice's wall: "lol omfg rofl"
etc etc
The general idea is that if it show's up that several of your friends "like" something then you'll start to wonder what you're missing out on and check it out yourself...
Oh sorry, presumably you're not on facebook then?
A news feed is the page you get when you log in that tells you all the inane crap that your alleged friends have been doing eg
Alice added pictures to the album "blurry pictures of my thumb"
Bob is attending the event "having a cup of tea"
Carol "likes" bacon
Dave wrote on Alice's wall: "lol omfg rofl"
etc etc
The general idea is that if it show's up that several of your friends "like" something then you'll start to wonder what you're missing out on and check it out yourself...
In reply to jonnie3430:
But if i was to be a member of a club that only communicated and arranged events through Facebook, I would have to support Facebook. There would be no way of gaining access to information on events without increasing traffic through my usage, creating a profile (even as a pseudonym) is adding validity to an organisation that I have serious moral qualms with.
Then there's the whole thing about attending events, that would be logged by Facebook, photos posted by the group, recording of conversation exchanges between users etc.
Would not communicating with the club via Facebook for the above reasons make me silly? Maybe, but morally I believe it's the right thing to do.
> (In reply to john arran)
> [...]
>
> Anyone who is refusing to join a group just because they communicate on facebook and the individual doesn't want a facebook account is just silly. There is no control over the information you enter on facebook, so you don't need to tell them the truth (make sure your age is over 12 ish, otherwise they stop your account,) and you stay as anonymous as you like. All that counts is that you can read what is said on the groups facebook page.
> [...]
>
> Anyone who is refusing to join a group just because they communicate on facebook and the individual doesn't want a facebook account is just silly. There is no control over the information you enter on facebook, so you don't need to tell them the truth (make sure your age is over 12 ish, otherwise they stop your account,) and you stay as anonymous as you like. All that counts is that you can read what is said on the groups facebook page.
But if i was to be a member of a club that only communicated and arranged events through Facebook, I would have to support Facebook. There would be no way of gaining access to information on events without increasing traffic through my usage, creating a profile (even as a pseudonym) is adding validity to an organisation that I have serious moral qualms with.
Then there's the whole thing about attending events, that would be logged by Facebook, photos posted by the group, recording of conversation exchanges between users etc.
Would not communicating with the club via Facebook for the above reasons make me silly? Maybe, but morally I believe it's the right thing to do.
In reply to jonnie3430: The issue with faccebook is not the data you enter yourself, but the data that other people enter about you.
And toreador, why would they charge to enter when they have grown without doing so to a around 100billion net worth?
And toreador, why would they charge to enter when they have grown without doing so to a around 100billion net worth?
In reply to Double Knee Bar: Yeah, I'm happy to use facebook to look at pictures, chat with people or stalk people sorry I mean keep up with old friends, but I'm generally resistant to stuff that can ONLY be done through facebook. I think for a club (say), making it essentially inaccessible to people who aren't on FB is a very scary way to go...
In reply to dunnyg:
The 100 billion is a figure that they've invented themselves. It'll be interesting to see what happens to the share price over the next few months.
And they're already running a pilot scheme to investigate people's reactions to fees. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18033259
> why would they charge to enter when they have grown without doing so to a around 100billion net worth?
The 100 billion is a figure that they've invented themselves. It'll be interesting to see what happens to the share price over the next few months.
And they're already running a pilot scheme to investigate people's reactions to fees. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18033259
In reply to Ramblin dave:
It happens. Certain announcements with big organisations only get made on Facebook too (eg, Facebook competitions with the BMC, ME announcing sales)
> I think for a club (say), making it essentially inaccessible to people who aren't on FB is a very scary way to go...
It happens. Certain announcements with big organisations only get made on Facebook too (eg, Facebook competitions with the BMC, ME announcing sales)
In reply to Double Knee Bar:
The BMC competitions aren't essential to be an active member of the organization, though. It's basically them giving away a bit of free stuff in exchange for (facebook) publicity. If they were only publicising area meets etc via facebook it'd be a bit different.
The BMC competitions aren't essential to be an active member of the organization, though. It's basically them giving away a bit of free stuff in exchange for (facebook) publicity. If they were only publicising area meets etc via facebook it'd be a bit different.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
No, I'm afraid not, although other family members are. I am aware that restricting myself to the occasional forum like this and writing emails to actual individuals with whom I want communicate is already the digital equivalent of sending letters written with a fountain pen.
I can see that FaceBook has potential as a technology but I'm still trying to think what it could usefully be used for.
> (In reply to Dave Garnett)
> Oh sorry, presumably you're not on facebook then?
>> Oh sorry, presumably you're not on facebook then?
No, I'm afraid not, although other family members are. I am aware that restricting myself to the occasional forum like this and writing emails to actual individuals with whom I want communicate is already the digital equivalent of sending letters written with a fountain pen.
I can see that FaceBook has potential as a technology but I'm still trying to think what it could usefully be used for.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Fair enough. I'm on it because for me the benefits outweight the privacy concerns, but I'm not going to hassle people who aren't.
Keeping up with what old friends are up to is a big one, I think. I've moved around a bit in the last ten or so years with universities and jobs and so on, so I've built up quite a lot of people who I'd like to keep in touch with and see occasionally and know how they're doing and stuff, and facebook makes it a lot easier to do that than having to maintain and update an email address book and a physical address book and so on.
It's also quite good for sharing photos and stuff. I guess there's no one thing it does that you couldn't do otherwise, but it does roll everything together in a fairly convenient manner.
> (In reply to Ramblin dave)
> [...]
>
> No, I'm afraid not, although other family members are.
> [...]
>
> No, I'm afraid not, although other family members are.
Fair enough. I'm on it because for me the benefits outweight the privacy concerns, but I'm not going to hassle people who aren't.
> I can see that FaceBook has potential as a technology but I'm still trying to think what it could usefully be used for.
Keeping up with what old friends are up to is a big one, I think. I've moved around a bit in the last ten or so years with universities and jobs and so on, so I've built up quite a lot of people who I'd like to keep in touch with and see occasionally and know how they're doing and stuff, and facebook makes it a lot easier to do that than having to maintain and update an email address book and a physical address book and so on.
It's also quite good for sharing photos and stuff. I guess there's no one thing it does that you couldn't do otherwise, but it does roll everything together in a fairly convenient manner.
In reply to UKC News:
I'm with John Arran on this. As a BMC member I'm quite happy for them to donate money to this charity if they think it's a good idea, thats what they re either paid or voted in to do. I don't want to see every decision being subject to this sort of referendum, particularly a referendum on Facebook.
I they fail to get 10,000 followers is Porter's Progress suddenly less deserving of the BMC's patronage?
To the majority, it probably seems like its not a big deal but to those of us not on Facebook it sticks in the craw how invasive it's becoming even when not a member. It seems the BBC can't report a story without also reporting how 'a Facebook group was started and attracted x followers in the first hour'.
I'm with John Arran on this. As a BMC member I'm quite happy for them to donate money to this charity if they think it's a good idea, thats what they re either paid or voted in to do. I don't want to see every decision being subject to this sort of referendum, particularly a referendum on Facebook.
I they fail to get 10,000 followers is Porter's Progress suddenly less deserving of the BMC's patronage?
To the majority, it probably seems like its not a big deal but to those of us not on Facebook it sticks in the craw how invasive it's becoming even when not a member. It seems the BBC can't report a story without also reporting how 'a Facebook group was started and attracted x followers in the first hour'.
In reply to Tyler:
Philosophical questions about the inherent evilness of Facebook aside, there's the deal:
We've been on a Facebook campaign to get more likes. Partly because we're shallow and lonely, but mainly because it's a really effective way to get info out.
Whatever you think of Facebook, there’s no denying that it's a great communication channel - just like our website, Summit magazine, Twitter, our email newsletter, UKC, UKB. They'll all different sides of the same coin.
So we thought we’d try and boost our Facebook numbers. Originally we were trying for 8848, in a link-up with Kenton climbing Everest:
http://thebmc.co.uk/kenton-cool-everest-facebook-competition
But since the whole thing has worked so well (now 9,600!), and Kenton is still at basecamp, we thought we'd have a crack at 10,000 and raise some money in the process:
http://thebmc.co.uk/bmc-facebook-page-ticks-everest
If we get to 10,000 Likes, then Porters Progress UK get a donation.
If not, the puppy dies.
Philosophical questions about the inherent evilness of Facebook aside, there's the deal:
We've been on a Facebook campaign to get more likes. Partly because we're shallow and lonely, but mainly because it's a really effective way to get info out.
Whatever you think of Facebook, there’s no denying that it's a great communication channel - just like our website, Summit magazine, Twitter, our email newsletter, UKC, UKB. They'll all different sides of the same coin.
So we thought we’d try and boost our Facebook numbers. Originally we were trying for 8848, in a link-up with Kenton climbing Everest:
http://thebmc.co.uk/kenton-cool-everest-facebook-competition
But since the whole thing has worked so well (now 9,600!), and Kenton is still at basecamp, we thought we'd have a crack at 10,000 and raise some money in the process:
http://thebmc.co.uk/bmc-facebook-page-ticks-everest
If we get to 10,000 Likes, then Porters Progress UK get a donation.
If not, the puppy dies.
In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:
For the greater good and in the interests of striking a blow against Facebook I hope the puppy gets it! Sorry dog lovers
For the greater good and in the interests of striking a blow against Facebook I hope the puppy gets it! Sorry dog lovers
In reply to Tyler:
The puppy's looking a bit worried. We're at 9,739 now. Can we get to 10,000?
Also. A big well done to Rachel Slater, who has just won the main prize in the Facebook competition: a video shout-out from Kenton for her timeline, plus a Sherpa Adventure Gear Lithang jacket and an Icebreaker Quantum Hood.
The puppy's looking a bit worried. We're at 9,739 now. Can we get to 10,000?
Also. A big well done to Rachel Slater, who has just won the main prize in the Facebook competition: a video shout-out from Kenton for her timeline, plus a Sherpa Adventure Gear Lithang jacket and an Icebreaker Quantum Hood.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...