Live data from Hacker News

25 Things I Didn't Want to Know About You

time.com

1–10 of 42 posts

Re: 25 Things I Didn't Want to Know About You

#3
I was hoping for a discussion of the security implications of sharing 25 bits of personal information online with hundreds of people, but there was nothing about that. It's basically a rant against the little things that she doesn't want to know about her friends.

Re: 25 Things I Didn't Want to Know About You

#5
"This recent bout of viral narcissism has sent roughly 800,000 hours of worktime productivity down the drain...But it's just so stupid...I can't believe I'm saying this, but I've finally found something more stupid than Twitter."

I think the only thing worse than sharing mundane details about yourself for the world to see is to be the TIME writer that has sunk so low as to whine about it in a front-page article (yes, it made it to the time.com home page). Really? This counts as journalism these days?

Re: 25 Things I Didn't Want to Know About You

#8
I took a bit of a more unorthodox approach when I got tagged. I figure it's better to make notes worth reading: http://unalone.tumblr.com/post/75897218/continuing-my-facebo...

Most people aren't funny, they aren't insightful, and they share way too much. Facebook is a loose social network; a "friend" on Facebook might translate to someone you'd barely recognize in real life.

This is a problem inherent with any group. In real life if you paid this much attention to all of 600 people you'd have the exact same problem. It reminds me of the Internet stalker problems that people've started to be warned against. You need to treat the Internet like you would anything else - and offline, you'd never have a party with hundreds of people and pay attention to all of them. If you want Facebook to get better, limit yourself.

If your friends bore you, get better friends. I've only seen a few of these, but the ones I've read were actually really fascinating to read. Writer friends are the best.

When did magazines get this awful? I commented this on the Newsweek article yesterday, too. Weren't these both good magazines two years ago? Why've they turned so pulpy?

Post reply on HN