I joined Twitter at the beginning of this year to see what all the fuss was about and it didn’t take long for me to see just what I‘d been missing. All this tweeting, following, and hash-tagging has gotten me fairly addicted a mere nine months into my Twitter career.
I quickly learned that this thing was much better than Facebook. Since having Twitter my status updates have dropped by around 50%. I sometimes don’t even log in at all. For a start, with Twitter you follow people who are interesting, you don’t have to put up with that guy you went to school with who you barely spoke to then let alone now.
Journalism is an ever evolving profession that is becoming increasingly competitive day by day. Technology has changed the way that we receive our news. Gone are the days when the only sources were the broadsheets and television news bulletins. Now there is rolling news broadcasting around the clock, countless digital radio stations, and of course the internet.
The world wide web has changed the way journalism works. The scope has suddenly been vastly expanded with users able to access their news wherever and whenever they want to and even broadcast their own news.
It was revealed yesterday that the footballer who holds one of the famed super injunctions is attempting to sue the Twitter users who have been revealing his name on the social network site.
Well good luck to him, because he’s going to get nowhere.
Twitter is a United States company operating in the state of California, therefore they are not under the jurisdiction of the high courts of the United Kingdom. Even so, the high courts have given Twitter seven days to reveal the names of those pesky users who’ve been committing that heinous crime of saying whatever the hell they want.
Upon watching the FA Cup match between Manchester United and Liverpool at the weekend you may have heard the commentator say the following when Ryan Babel came onto the pitch:
“Here’s a real chance for Ryan Babel to impress his new manager, all be it they’re down to ten men and a goal down, but it’s still a great chance for him.”
I’m sure he’s impressed his new manager no end! Because yes, as you might have heard, after the match, in which Liverpool lost 1-0 thanks to a dubious penalty and a stone-wall sending off, Ryan Babel decided to log in to Twitter and take his frustrations out on referee Howard Webb.
“And they call him one of the best referees? That's a joke. SMH”
Along with this outburst he posted a link to a mock-up photo of Howard Webb in an old United kit clearly stating he felt the experienced official was a biased referee. He couldn’t even be bothered to Photoshop the latest kit onto him, what a muppet.
What went through his head? What imbecile writes that on Twitter and goes into enough thought for a picture and thinks they’ll get away with it scot-free. Ryan Babel apparently.
Obviously he didn’t get away with it and the FA have charged him with improper conduct, and rightly so. If you ever find yourself on Ryan Babel’s twitter page you’ll see that he’s been banging on about being sent to Twitter jail. Maybe it will do him some good, if he spent more time actually training than tweeting nonsense all day long he might actually become an average player yet!
But that’s not even the worst thing, what’s annoyed me the most is the fact that the PFA have actually defended him! No! You just don’t do it! Gordon Taylor, a man so out of touch with the game he still thinks managers are allowed to smoke in the dug-out, has come out and said Babel shouldn’t be reprimanded:
“So long as it's not vitriolic, so long as it's taken in the right way and it's a little bit of fun then we've got to be able to smile at these things.”
This guy’s a bigger idiot than Babel. First of all Gordon, a quick definition of the word vitriolic from Chamber’s dictionary: extremely bitter or hateful, especially with reference to speech or criticism. Yeah, I think we can just about say that Mr. Babel had a slight bitterness to his apparently innocuous tweet.
I highly doubt Howard Webb will see the funny side to it to be honest Gordon. He’s a professional referee and calling him biased is pretty much the worse thing you can say about him! That would be like calling a fireman a secret arsonist! I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if someone questioned your professionalism Gordon, how would you feel if someone said you took a bung from a multi-national news corporation? You wouldn’t be seeing the funny side to it would you?
Football is currently the worst sport for showing disrespect to officials. Referees in football get nothing but abuse from fans, players, managers, and journalists, and yet funnily enough without them we’d have no game to play at all. Players show no respect for match officials, swearing at them, surrounding them, slating them before and after games. What message does that send to the young kids out there? It’s alright kids, abusing the referees is just part of the game, according to Gordon Taylor it’s all a bit of fun!
In rugby the referee stands at about half the size of the cauli-eared behemoths running around the field and yet they command more respect than a football referee could ever dream of! Players address him as Sir, listen to what he has to say, and take decisions on the chin, whether they’re right or wrong. So why is football so different? Well youngsters playing football aren’t being taught to respect the referees while young rugby players are. That’s where it has to start, at a young age. Teach them to respect officials no matter what, their decision is final. If it’s gone against you, man up and get on with it. But that’s easier said than done when every Match of the Day interview is filled with one manager praising his team whilst the other bemoans the referee.
Ryan Babel’s tweeting is but a drop in the ocean. But that ocean is made of tiny droplets that over the years have created a mass of water so big it will probably never be able to be drained.
Babel’s not the one to blame here, he obviously thought it was okay to do what he did. He has since apologised on Twitter, it’s unknown if he has apologised to Howard Webb directly though. The people to blame for all this are the FA, who year in year out allow this to happen, and the morons like Gordon Taylor who apparently say it‘s alright.
And they call him chief executive of the PFA? That's a joke. SMH
Happy New Year one and all! Yes 2011 is now in and already the all important questions are being asked. Is this the start of a new decade or not? The BBC seems to think it is, so maybe we celebrated the millennium a year early, or perhaps the last decade was eleven years long instead in some sort of weird baker’s decade. Who knows.
The most important question we want answers for is this: what exactly are we calling this year? Twenty eleven, or two thousand and eleven? See, last year didn’t really make its mind up on what it wanted to be called, and I was kind of hoping this year would be a little less indecisive about it. But no one seems to know.
When people talk about the London Olympic games they say twenty twelve, so is this what we’re supposed to adopt? I’m so confused! Do we have to suffer with another year of indecision only for 2012 to put its foot down and demand the word twenty followed by the next two digit number? I sure hope the world doesn’t end otherwise that would be really annoying.
So yes, whatever it’s called, the new year has officially begun, it’s always quite a mixed occasion looking back at the year that has been and looking forward to what we hope to happen in the year to come. And what would New Year be without a song and dance and of course, the good old resolutions!
Every year I get asked what mine is and every year I tell them I don’t have one, mainly because I’m obviously perfect and wouldn’t need to change my life in any way, but also because it‘s a stupid and pointless thing to do, shouldn‘t you just be making positive changes all year round? I digress. However, this year, just to keep it fresh, I decided to make one. The resolution was simply this: to get with the times.
It’s been about a month now, and I’ve been avoiding it. That’s right, the new Facebook profile. Oh it fills me with such sorrow just thinking about it. I used to love Facebook it was just so handy to use and so very tempting to sit and waste time on. But now, now it’s just plain awful. Of course, Facebook has had many a facelift over the years it’s existed, and by-and-large I’ve liked the changes that they’ve made. But this one feels like such a step backwards.
Ever since I laid my poor innocent eyes on it I was disappointed, I didn’t have to change mine right away, but the knowledge that one day I would have to pained me greatly. So yes, on January 1st, New Year’s Day, I decided to do it, I mournfully changed my old faithful Facebook profile to the new one.
And I hate it.
Alright, I don’t hate it, it’s a step back but I’m slowly getting used to it. It’s pretty much the same only now it’s become less accessible. On new Facebook you have to literally press ‘status’ to post a status, or ‘post’ to write on someone’s wall; the tabs are now aligned vertically down the left rather than along the top, along with your friends; there are mini-pictures along the top putting less value on a profile pic and more on random Mr Men charts you happen to be tagged in; it looks really cluttered; and the text, don’t even get me started on the text. It’s tiny! I’m considering going to the opticians it’s that small!
There’s no one big thing I dislike, just a mixture of small changes that has me miffed. I just want it back to how it was, it was better, at least that’s my opinion. The main annoyance of all the wee ones is the unfortunate existence of advertisements.
Facebook used to be cool. Remember that scene from The Social Network? Facebook without ads is cool, with them it’s not. Now, Facebook has had averts for a while but four of them down the right hand side of my profile? Is that really necessary? It’s slowly getting full of them now, and it just adds to the all round tacky aura that it is recently getting. Seriously not cool! Timberlake was right.
Facebook is useful to me, so I’m not exactly going to get rid of it because they changed the layout. Unlike everyone else who sit and join groups in some sort of pathetic protest against a layout change, I don’t really care that much. I’ll deal with it, and so will everyone else. Until they change it again of course, then I’ll be out on the streets!
You may think my resolution madness would stop there, and it would be a reasonable thought to have, it is quite a lot of effort for one year. But no, I went one step further! Zuckerberg probably didn’t intend for this to happen, but upon looking at the new Facebook in the past month I’ve been considering its younger sibling and all round nemesis, Twitter.
Now, I’ve never understood Twitter. I’ve been on it a couple of times, on a few profiles and whatnot, and I don’t get what’s happening on it. Anyway, as of the first of this month I have taken the horrible plunge into the deep end and I can safely say that I still have no idea what is going on! Like a floundering child with no arm bands I’m attempting to navigate around the site trying to figure out how to do it and what it’s for.
From what I can tell it’s like Facebook, only it’s just purely status updates from the users, and you can talk to these users (I think) by putting an @ symbol before their name in one of your tweets. Maybe. I haven’t done that yet. It’s all a bit strange, when you view a profile I never know who is talking, it’s just @this and @that followed by RT and the hash key. What’s the hash key all about? Is that so you can fax the user? Still none the wiser on that one.
Regardless of the confusion, in terms of coolness Twitter kicks Facebook’s ass, maybe it’s the lack of adverts on it, I’m not entirely sure, but there is definitely something about it that makes it cool. If Facebook is like that advert where a grandfather gives his grandson a Werther’s Original, then Twitter is that James Bond-esque Virgin Atlantic advert.
Your social network’s either got it or it hasn‘t.
*** If you want to check out or 'follow' my twitter page my name is crumpledpapyrus or @crumpledpapyrus, I'm not totally sure... here's the link:
It came to my attention this weekend that Facebook had a good ol’ fashioned shindig involving its profile pictures. Yes, to aid awareness of child violence someone thought of a pretty nifty idea: for everyone to change their profile photo to a picture of a cartoon character.
This was a general success, quite a few people, including myself (Avenger from Harvey Birdman, hell yeah!), changed their photos. Why? Well to raise awareness and have a bit of nostalgic fun along the way. But of course for every happy man or woman enjoying him or herself in the world there is a killjoy. And there is no Xbox achievement for this kind of killjoy, not at all. Only a big rubber stamp that simply says :’(
Why have people actively gone out of their way to condemn this? I mean, c’mon guys it’s just a bit of fun. Enjoy your life. It’s okay we know the world done ya wrong, but come now, join us and let’s have some fun.
But no, I’ve seen many a status update over the weekend with disgruntled party poopers exclaiming how absurd this whole thing is. “What good will it do?” I hear them say. Well it could do a lot actually. Maybe some people will say: “yeah, you know what? I think I’m going to give a donation to the NSPCC.” If one person did that then it was all worth it. And so what if it did nothing, it was a bit of fun, I remembered the Moomins, what more can you want?
Some people have just gone way too far in opposing this. You’ve probably seen it all for yourselves. I found it especially funny to see people moaning about conformity, saying they refuse to do it. I saw one person have a cartoon on Saturday, but because one of our mutual friends proclaimed their distain for the idea he commented in support and changed it back to his original photo. Sigh.
It’s such a shame to see that a lot of people I know have grown up.
Well I did it, I went back to the cinema. The film? The Social Network, the story about the founding of Facebook. I didn’t really think much to this movie back when I saw the trailer a while ago, it didn’t seem too interesting. But I can confirm that I was so wrong. So painfully wrong. There… I said it.
It’s a good movie, mainly because the story is interesting more than anything else. Now, I went to see this movie because recently I read the book The Accidental Millionaires by Ben Mezrich, and I found it to be an amazing insight into some of their lives.
The story focuses on Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg and those around him, namely his best friend Eduardo Saverin, Napster creator Sean Parker, and twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss. From what I can gather, Mezrich compiled the story using interviews he did with several sources, with his closest source being Eduardo Saverin. He states early on that he never spoke to Zuckerberg once, even though he persistently attempted to contact him.
So with that in mind you may have figured that this story may well end up slightly biased. But Mezrich does well to portray the facts in his own little way. It’s hard to tell how accurate he is being seeing as he produces a disclaimer before you even get to page one admitting that this story has mashed together some dialogue, moved locations and all sorts. He tries to sell the book as non-fiction, but as the reader you have to read this as if it were fiction. Because it is.
It’s just an interpretation of what happened. Some of the events are real, some are just fantasized. In his writing Mezrich delves into the thoughts and feelings of the characters. Something he obviously wouldn’t know about, with the exception of maybe Eduardo. He’s had no contact with his main character, Zuckerberg, so how does he feel he can accurately write a non-fictitious piece on him, delving into his character, things that he did and why he did them?
Likewise the movie, which is based on Mezrich’s book, is largely the same, with some subtle differences here and there to add some drama, and some changes which are done for unknown reasons. Things such as Zuckerberg’s business card reading ‘I’m CEO - Bitch’, according to the movie Sean Parker blurts out this handy tagline, according to Mezrich that was part of Zuckerberg’s sense of humour. Who’s right? Who knows? Could be neither really.
Oh yeah. Spoilers.
Some other changes in the movie include Eduardo not yet being in the prestigious Phoenix club when Facebook goes live. In the book he’s already in, and the film makes out that Mark takes advantage of Eduardo’s social stature. When in the book Eduardo offers to e-mail the website link to his Phoenix friends. The movie also makes out Mark could have set-up Eduardo in the student paper, telling them he fed fried chicken to a chicken. When the book, although it mentions the furore towards the beginning, doesn’t make a big deal of it at all. Zuckerberg did this apparently because he was obsessed with clubs and was jealous of Eduardo’s Phoenix membership, this ‘obsession’ isn’t in the book at all really. If anyone was obsessed it would’ve been Eduardo.
Mark Zuckerberg talks a heck of a lot in this movie. In the book he is a man of very few words. His catch-phrase “could be interesting” isn’t even said once in the whole movie, which I find completely bizarre. He is still awkward in the movie, but to a lesser extent, probably because it would have been a tough watch considering the movie is focussed on him.
So the movie does credit Zuckerberg with the creation of Facebook, even if it does try its utmost to make it look like he stole the idea from the Winklevoss twins (something the book doesn’t play up as much), and it credits Eduardo with the business side of the site. The company is split 70/30 at the beginning with Zuckerberg taking the bigger cut. All well and good but according to the book Eduardo does have some input towards the site’s features. The wall, for example, is credited to Eduardo in the book, yet Mark creates it in the film. I’m not really sure why it does this as surely it would have made the betrayal more hard-hitting knowing Eduardo did have input into the site.
Another moment in the movie that contradicts the book is the fact that Zuckerberg creates facemash.com because he was dumped by his girlfriend Erica. From what I remember he doesn’t necessarily get dumped but just rejected by some girl. The movie sets out this whole scheme that Facebook only exists because he was trying to get even with Erica. Even Sean Parker gets in on the act, talking about a girl he wanted at school, so he created Napster. Like you do. I don’t remember that in the book.
The book basically says Facebook ends up being invented because two guys wanted to get laid. The film on the other hand, makes out it’s all for revenge. Fair enough but they’re quite happy to keep the mild sex-scene part-way through, I wonder why.
Anyway, the general premise is based on the book. Which, in turn, is based on real events. So take the book with a pinch of salt and the movie with a small handful. The movie starts off with Zuckerberg getting himself dumped for being ‘an asshole’ so he runs off on his revenge mission to hack into all the schools’ face books, pasting female students photos up onto a comparative site called facemash.com, which becomes a huge four hour long hit. During all this we are introduced to Eduardo, and we just have to assume they are friends. Even though there is no explanation as to how they ended up as friends. Do they take the same class? Did they go to high school together? Did they take a trip to the moon with each other? No one knows. Unless you read the book of course which helpfully starts off with Eduardo at his first ‘punch’ evening at the Phoenix and later goes on to show how these two people of different backgrounds and social abilities end up as best friends.
This might seem a minor niggle, but it’s actually quite big in the grand scheme of things. The book shows their first meeting and builds up their relationship from scratch and shows how they develop and how ultimately they fall out. This is used to great effect. The film on the other hand loses that effect, firstly by not showing you how they met, and secondly by revealing fairly early on, with the use of non-linear storytelling, that Eduardo ends up suing Mark.
Obviously the movie is presuming you already know the story, or at least that Eduardo and the Winkelwoss twins sued Mark. To be fair it has been in the news, especially when the twins were in the boat race down in London a couple of years back. But I think it kind of ruins it a little. When reading the book I was wondering how it was all going to end up with Eduardo, as it was linear, and it was genuinely surprising reading what happened and how it happened. Incidentally the movie goes way over the top with the scene where Eduardo cruelly loses his shares in the company. Showing Eduardo smashing up Mark’s laptop and having a right old shout before Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake by the way, presents himself as a total pretentious arse rubbing it in Eduardo’s face and calling security. The book is a little more subtle, but subtlety doesn’t sell cinema tickets. At least not any more.
Speaking of Timberlake, I actually think he’s been cast quite well in this movie. He’s set out to portray a parasite. Latching on to Zuckerburg’s coat tails and riding along for a big cash-in. And he does it quite well. I think he played the character absolutely perfectly. His character is a bit more loathsome than he is in the book but, again, that’s to add to the movie’s drama. So even though I saw Timberlake’s inclusion in this movie and rolled my eyes, as really he’s in it to give ‘star’ factor to the otherwise no-stars movie, I do actually think he’s good in it. And no he doesn’t ‘like’ himself.
Other actors include Andrew Garfield (Eduardo), the next Spiderman in the upcoming reboots. He puts on a good performance, as does Jesse Eisenberg who captures Zuckerberg’s awkwardness brilliantly. There are some other familiar faces thrown in, Brenda Song has finally been cast in a movie that isn’t for kids, she’s the rich girl from The Suite Life of Zack and Cody and other shows sprinkled with canned laughter by Disney. She’s good, the movie didn’t really delve into her character too much though.
The director? David Fincher, of Se7en and Fight Club fame. He does a decent job directing this movie, I just wish he delved into the characters a little more. Zuckerberg, for example, is the main character in this movie, but do we learn a thing about his background? Only that he got perfect SAT scores and he made an app for mp3 players. A bit of a fail, and naturally this is the downfall for most the other characters too. Eduardo’s character is barely explored at all, it isn’t documented how he gets into the Phoenix, and we know barely anything of his past. Same for the Winklewoss twins, and Mark’s room-mates. Because of this it just takes the edge off the events that happen in the film. As you don’t really end up caring too much.
A lot of people are saying Zuckerberg comes out looking pretty awful in this movie. But I don’t really think that’s totally the case. Yes he screws over his best friend, but to be honest it looked more like Sean Parker was doing it, not him. The movie ends quite fittingly with Zuckerberg adding his ex Erica as a friend on Facebook. Which feels like a bit of a kop out. I’m not sure if they created the idea of the girlfriend at the start and said ‘let’s end it with them reconciling’ or they said ‘hey, I don’t have an ending to this, how’s about we just have him learn a lesson and make friends with a girlfriend that isn’t in the book, but that’s cool we can just add her to the start’. It just feels a bit tacked-on rather than integral.
Overall though this film is a good, dramatic watch. But it isn’t as powerful as the book. In this book vs. movie battle, the book wins. It’s more dramatic, more powerful, more in depth, and more exiting. The movie does a good job of portraying this interesting story, be it true, false, or a mixture of both. Also the book has a better title. The movie should keep the ‘The’ but drop the ‘Social Network’ and replace it with ‘Accidental Millionaires’. It’s just a better title and captures what the book is about, the accidental millionaires. That’s what they are: millionaires by mistake. The title ‘The Social Network’ suggests the film is about Facebook, when it isn’t, its about a couple of guys creating a website that ends up taking over the planet. I know why they’ve changed the title, to give it a broader appeal. But it doesn’t make it a change for the better.
I’d recommend this film to anyone. Especially a Facebooker. It’s interesting to know how one of the world’s most popular websites was born. Obviously I’d recommend the book over the film, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth a watch. It’s a solid three star movie and do you know what? I’m going to give it three and a half stars, because I think it deserves it. If you don't want to be bothered reading the book, go see the movie instead, it's a worthy alternative.
***
And if you’re wondering who the famous movie star the lawyer refers to is, it’s most likely Natalie Portman, Harvard graduate 2003.
