Facebook, the new twitter, a whole lotta sex and celebrities

I do not hide my dislike for twitter. To me, it is the greatest waste of time EVER. Sure, there might be some good uses for certain businesses. By and large, though, it is full of celebrities, or celebrity wannabes, offering little or no content of real interest to humanity.

A lot of titillation, sexual innuendo, waste of grey matter. No real interaction is offered. And people are deceived into thinking that most celebrities are actually posting things, when it is really PR people. What a waste!

The problem is that Facebook is becoming the same.

A few years ago, before twitter began to be promoted as the "next" internet thing, Facebook was a place where there was true interaction among real people.

The problem is that now it is cluttered by a celebrities galore, some true, others fake. Plus the hundreds of thousand (millions?) sexy profiles that were supposedly prohibited, but spring about all over.

People are so silly. They believe that the celebrities are really posting things, when in most cases, it is PR people. Silly, silly, naive people! Celebs are out having a ball with the money you give them, not interested in what you think about their supposed latest action!

When a celebrity "writes" an update in Facebook, immediately, dozens if not hundreds of likes, comments and shares ensue.

If you are a nobody, forget it, unless you put a silly picture, a baby, animal or sexy woman photo, you get no feedback.

Thus, celebrities have by their sheer volume, destroyed another good Internet platform.

It may be time for me to just walk away from the thing.

Understanding Facebook subscriber suggestions

I am sorry. I am old school, I like to understand things. I still believe that things are done for a reason. Are we not in the age of reason and knowledge?

Apparently not.

I would like to understand the criteria used by Facebook to suggest people (?) I should subscribe to.

I suppose the subscription deal is supposed to work like a twitter. I am no big fan of twitter, in fact, I find it the worst waste of time ever. We are made believe celebrities are actually writing most of the stuff, when handlers, secretaries, public relations actually do. It is mostly planned, folks.

So, I have no use for twitter. Facebook theoretically offers interaction.

The worst thing is, who are these people? I get something like dozens of suggestions a day, I do not know a single one of these persons. Why I am supposed to be subscribing to them?

No rhyme and reason. Curious that I am, I began to look into these profiles, and again, I saw no rhyme and reason.

Some of these people have not visited their profile for more than two years.

Some of them have 30 friends!

A lot of them are no more than soft porn profiles, with women (and men) clad in skimpy outfits, or totally nude but covering strategic parts with hands, toothpicks, some of them covering almost nothing. The idea is to portray huge silicon infused mammaries, or photoshop treated derrieres barely covered by thongs. Some of them are clear violation of FB's own policies, but upon writing them, they say the infringing profiles are OK!

Not only that, some of these profiles contain sexy pose photographs of girls who are obviously underage, and others refers to external sexy sites.

One of them actually promoted "encounters" among the adult members.

A large number are not even people, they are clearly companies, which, again supposedly violates FB policies. Others have pictures of celebrities on the cover photo, another policy violation.

At the end of the day, nothing makes sense. These sites supposedly have algorithms that service ads, suggestions, etc based on my interests, and what I have been serviced thus far are things I am not interested on.

Therefore, if this latte-ecstasy fueled idea is to create a twitter-buster, I suppose the company should fire whoever thought of this "gem".

It is definitely creating a more negative FB experience...