Something I've never competed for is to see if I can have more online friends than anybody else. I started seeing this way back with AIM buddy lists. Some would brag that they had 50+ contacts, but only regularly chatted with 5 (or less) of them. Then I saw it with MySpace where people would have thousands of "friends" but once again barely communicated with any of those people. And now with Twitter and Facebook, people are doing the same thing. Different year, different social platform, same b.s.
My standard practice on Twitter is that I only follow those I legitimately give a crap about. For those that follow me, if I have no clue who they are, I don't bother following back. And if from whom I'm following they post crap I don't like and/or tick me off, they get the can. If they really tick me off, I block them.
On Facebook I purposely don't "connect with" many people because it's much more private compared to Twitter. In fact upon recent inspection I was surprised my connect list was as high as it was (for me). Recently I've had to thin the list slightly because of people that post nothing but business b.s. about SEO and marketing and whatever-the-frig. These people post absolutely nothing personal and are always trying to sell something. Or worse yet, they're posting business/marketing crapola in an attempt to be social because they simply don't know any better. That's just plain sad, and if you're one of those types that was on my list, um.. yeah, you got the axe today.
I've always been somewhat of a xenophobe when it comes to social media. I describe myself as "somewhat" of one because I don't fear/dislike those different than me, but for those I have absolutely nothing in common with, I don't include them in my friend/buddy/whatever lists. Everybody does this to some degree.
Some people mistakenly label me as a sociopath. To that I respond with a question: Would a sociopath have a public blog with his full real name and contact information plastered all over it? I'll answer that for you. No, he wouldn't. As a matter of fact I'm more open than most bloggers because I actually list my IM and email address publicly.
If you said, "I don't list my email address in public on my blog because I don't want to be spammed", give me a break. Most of you have craptastic Gmail accounts - to which you brag that the spam filters are wonderful. If you're that confident in the email service, then you should have no issue listing it in public. Not doing so just proves you don't have faith in the service.
If you responded to that with, "Well.. okay, fair enough, but I don't list my email in public because I don't want certain people knowing my email address", then you're even more of a xenophobe than I am. GOTCHA! 🙂
In all seriousness, people generally speaking are pretty frickin' picky when it comes to who is on their social lists.
Another reason I don't fill up my social media stuff with a bunch of people is because I've detected a pattern. The pattern is this: For any social service you use, you will have to re-add every single person you know every three years when a newer, "cooler" one is introduced to the internet.
If you think about it in that way it's absolutely 100% correct. You put a bunch of effort into a social platform, add in all the people you know and then -blam-, another one comes along. Then you have to do the same crapola over again. Three years after that, -blam-, in comes another one.
This is why I put hardly any effort into existing social media now. If it's the case where it's going to change every 3 years to something else.. screw it.
More articles to check out
- You're not allowed to change a brake light in a new car?
- Unexpected surprise, Casio F201
- Why the Epiphone Explorer is better than the Gibson (for now)
- You should surround yourself in guitar luxury
- Forgotten Gibson: 1983 Map Guitar
- Casio MTP-V003, the one everyone missed
- Just for the look: Peavey Solo guitar amp
- Spacehunter, that '80s movie when 3D was a thing
- The Ice Pirates 1984
- A list of ridiculously accurate watches