1. I just don’t get the appeal. No offense intended to the multitudes of my Facebook friends already on this bandwagon, but how is this any different than that old, oft-forwarded email “how well do you know me” survey? I didn’t like that either.
2. I’m pretty used to talking about myself online already. Maybe that’s where I’m having difficulty with the concept of this being anything new?
3. It’s sort of spammy. Technically speaking, this isn’t that different from the type of email I filter from my inbox everyday.
4. “You’ve been tagged in a note.” No way? Really, a text-based note?!? I do have all these pressing Lil Green Patch invitations to deal with… but count me in! Seriously, folks, passing text files around online is SO last millenium. Why not just fax it?
5. After being tagged, I’m supposed to tag another 25 innocents. It’s only missing the threat of quick death or tragic luck if I don’t comply.
6. I hate being told I have to do something. Not the best way to motivate me.
7. Tagging isn’t even an appropriate term. Tagging, especially on Facebook, implies the person is included in the item (like a photo or video). Targeting is more accurate.
8. If you want comments on stuff you write why not start a blog? I guarantee it will be more fulfilling.
9. I like Artist/Celebrity/Politician X. This isn’t that different from the stuff in the rest of your Facebook Profile. It’s also not a “random” fact about you.
10. I don’t like Artist/Celebrity/Politician X. See #9.
11. Most of the lists break down after the first 10 things. Then it’s all downhill.
12. It takes too much time. Let’s say that composing this thing and choosing who to tag takes an average of 10 minutes. That’s a conservative estimate. Time reports that an estimated 5 million of these notes (125 million facts) have appeared within the past week. That’s about 800,000 hours wasted!
13. Can’t we find a better use of our time? Pick up litter, play catch with an orphan, fix the economy… Anything?
14. It’s hard work. Memes are supposed to be fun and easy to replicate. That’s why they become memes in the first place.
15. I don’t use Facebook for this sort of thing. Outside of the bounds of certain Facebook Applications, I don’t really us the network to communicate with small groups of people simultaneously. Notes sent to a handful of people (compared with just posting it to your profile for all to see) are a sloppy way to share information. To paraphrase George Michael, “Facebook is natural. Facebook is fun. Facebook is best when it’s one on one.”
16. It doesn’t leave much opportunity for further discussion. What am I supposed to say, “Wow, I didn’t know you got arrested for THAT? Cool.” Despite the ability to comment, it’s still a fairly one-sided exercise.
17. TMI. I really don’t need to know some most of this stuff.
18. It blurs the already blurry line between professional and personal followers. Haven’t we learned about the pitfalls of sharing too much on Facebook? After carefully removing all the photos of your college keg party adventures, do you really want a written account of intimate, personal confessions for future employers to find?
19. Why is this even being called a meme? Simply because millions of Facebook users are doing it? Does that mean status updates and profile pic changes are memes too? Perhaps we’re overusing this very specific term.
20. If 25 of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you follow suit? Didn’t think so.
21. OK, I’m looking for filler now.
    
22. I got tagged in 5 more of these things while writing this post. Honestly.
23. This is exhausting.
24. Seriously?
    
25. 25 things is a lot. Who came up with that? Whatever happened to the good-old top-10 list?

What do you think? Comment below, then copy and paste into a word processing document, photocopy and hang on every telephone pole within a 10 block radius of your primary residence.

UPDATE 2/7: I’m not alone here. It seems more coverage of this phenomenon is starting to emerge. Case and point: ValleyWag (’25 Random Things’ Lists Are Last Vestige of American Literacy), Washington Post (We Never Do Random Things. Until We Do), Baltimore Internet Examiner (25 Things – The modern day chain letter), and the Dallas Morning News (Millions expose themselves online with ’25 random things’).

Al Gore may not have invented the internet, but he’s doing a hell of a job to make it better. Gore’s cable network, Current TV has mashed together two of my favorite vices: politics and Twitter.

Hack the Debate is an innovative use of the two mediums. During each debate (last week’s vice presidential debate shown above), they show tweets in pretty close to real-time on the lower portion of the screen. As a new one appears, the previous tweet moves up, slowly breaks apart and fades away. The animation is quite beautiful and actually less distracting than I had anticipated.

Twitterers from both sides of the aisle took part last week, and I must say it’s quite addicting to watch and participate in. Anyone on Twitter can join in by simply adding the hastag #current to tweets during the debate. It’s become my preferred way of watching. Find Current TV in your area.

Other broadcasters take note: this is how you do it right. No frills, elegant execution, using the data in a contextual way to add value and encourage participation, minimal filtering. Well done Current TV!

This week, America’s financial system faces an historic crisis. If we do not address this crisis, we will be forced to borrow from other countries and relatives we haven’t seen since the last family reunion. This will be incredibly awkward as well as have devastating consequences for our economy. Politicians will no longer be able to buy multiple homes and “contributions” from special interest groups may be lost. Businesses will not have enough money to outsource their employees. If we do not act, every single corner of our country will be impacted. Even Alaska. We simply cannot allow this to happen.

It has become clear that no one in their right mind supports the Administration’s proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.

Therefore, I will suspend my blog until I am able to solve this economic crisis.

I will travel to Washington D.C. and hang out at the Starbucks on 16th & K street. I will keep you posted as to my progress in tackling this important issue. God bless America.

Adele McAlear wrote a great post this week about ICANN’s decision to remove restrictions on top level domains (TLDs). Essentially this means that .com and .net could soon be replaced by .anything and .everything. This started me thinking about how I have been using web addresses/URLs lately. More specifically, how I haven’t been using them very much at all.

For the average user, typing a full web address is probably a common occurrence. I’ve even resorted to the “type-in” technique to find a new site occasionally. However, I find myself visiting the address bar much less as the primary means of navigating the web. Yet I discovering new sites all the time. What changed?

An over-reliance on Google search probably accounts for much of this shift (I even use it as a spell-checker). All the blogs I frequent are already in Google Reader, new ones are just a subscribe click away. I’ve filled my bookmark toolbar with links to the social networks I’m most active in. Anything without an RSS feed that I want to refer to gets added to del.icio.us. Most of the new sites I visit are via hyperlinks in something I’m reading or referrals from other “trusted sources.”

Twitter’s 140-character limit has increased the popularity of a number of URL-shortening services like TinyURL and is.gd. StumbleUpon, and other sites that collaboratively filter links, are built around the concept of browsing without the address bar.

Given the sheer number of domains currently in use and the prospect of an unlimited number of new TLDs to contend with, how much longer before the address bar becomes irrelevant (or relegated to a much less prominent location in the browser)? What about the rise of the Semantic Web, where all kinds of data, not just web pages, is interconnected? Are we at the dawn of a new way to experience the web? I’d be interested in your thoughts.

It all started a few weeks ago. I had recently given into the hype and begun using Twitter. I quickly became addicted to the micro-blogging platform and a bit of a zealot, trying to convert everyone I met into a user. But this isn’t about that. I’d like to focus on the day I realized how powerful the twitterverse (yes, people call it that) really is.

One evening while watching CNN I tweeted (people call it that too) about Anderson Cooper. Not 24 hours later, Anderson Cooper was following me on Twitter. Now, as of this writing he’s following 1,498 others. But what stuck with me was that he had been listening. He took the time to set up an alert. He gets it. Not many other journalists do right now. After reading his tweets, I discovered that he’s actually very funny too.

Lightning struck again this week when I tweeted a link to a thoughtful piece about Zappos that Tim Brunelle had written for talentzoo.com. The article mentioned Zappos and their innovative use of Twitter for customer service. Less than 5 hours later Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh was following me. Again, he’s listening. He’s also a voracious Twitterer. He gets it too.

Slowly the potential power of this platform is sinking into mainstream America. Comcast, of all companies, now has a dedicated staffer monitoring Twitter and blogs for complaints. They’re beginning to get it.

How about your company? Are they listening? Do they get it?

There’s something about this post from Minneapolis Metblogs earlier today that fascinates me. It’s not the subject matter per se (a scoop on the latest venture of a recently fired local weather man) it’s the story’s sources. They cite a tweet by local blogger and entrepreneur, Graeme Thickins (go Graeme!), and the meterologist’s LinkedIn profile.

Twitter and LinkedIn? Why not? Both can be valid sources of certain types of information, both are public, and, most importantly for journalists and bloggers alike, they are readily accessible.

I see this a trend that will continue to grow as more people become engaged in social networking. It wasn’t that long ago that the the New York Times shared information about Eliot Spitzer’s high-priced “escort” gleaned from her MySpace page. I remember watching CNN coverage of the mob of reporters camped-out in front of the woman’s NYC apartment building. In liew of other story developments, they turned to social networks once again. One correspondant had it on good authority from someone “inside MySpace” that she had logged in recently but made changes to her profile.

If CNN and The Times consider the social web a worthwhile source, can we be that far away from other industries taking advantage of this information? It’s not uncommon for employers to Google potential hires. Isn’t searching social networks a logical escalation of this practice? Even current employees are at risk. What about checking FriendFeed for any activity on a sick day? Are we close to a day when law enforcement won’t consider someone a missing person until their Facebook status hasn’t been updated for at least 48 hours?

As we put more of ourselves out there on the web (which I strongly support), are we really thinking about the implications this could have on our real life interactions down the line? Bigger question: What do you think of social networks as news sources?