Falling Foul of Twitterati

The award-winning novelist Jonathan Franzen has kicked up a Twitter storm, after complaining on BBC Radio 4's Today program about the impact of social networking on writers' lives.

In an interview with Today presenter James Naughtie, Franzen said the literary world is now so obsessed with Twitter that agents refuse even to look at manuscripts by writers who don't tweet.

"What I find particularly alarming from the point of view of American fiction is that [social media] is a coercive development, agents will now tell young writers: 'I won't even look at your manuscript if you don't have 250 followers on Twitter'," said Franzen. "I see people who ought to be spending their time developing their craft, and people who used to be able to make a living as freelance writers, I see them making nothing and coerced into this constant self-promotion."

It's not the first time the author has hit out at modern techno-fuelled culture's effect on literature. In a Guardian article last month, Franzen asked:

What happens to the people who became writers because yakking and tweeting and bragging felt to them like intolerably shallow forms of social engagement? What happens to the people who want to communicate in depth, individual to individual, in the quiet and permanence of the printed word, and who were shaped by their love of writers who wrote when publication still assured some kind of quality control and literary reputations were more than a matter of self-promotional decibel levels?

Franzen's latest attempt to put the case for struggling writers was met with disbelief and derision on Twitter.

Francesca Main, editorial director at Picador – publisher of the Booker prize shortlisted novels Burial Rites, by Hannah Kent, and Harvest, by Jim Crace – tweeted: "Franzen says it's alarming that agents turn away writers for having too few Twitter followers. It's alarming J-Franz believes this nonsense."

She added later: "Most of the authors on Twitter have a book out far more frequently than those who spend loads of time grouching about it."

The Sunday Times columnist and novelist India Knight tweeted: "Lighten up, Franzo."

Franzen's latest book, The Kraus Project, is a study of the works of Viennese satirist Karl Kraus, a relentless critic of dehumanising technology and the popular media's twisting of reality.

Franzen said: "It [technology-driven culture] gnaws away particularly at my soul because I'm a fiction writer. For something like literature it's maybe not such a great model. You see this in any number of ways – very directly you see the demolition of the independent book business and the brick and mortar book business by Amazon. But also this crowd-sourcing model, everything shared, communal, it doesn't really work, not to pay freelance writers; and most important, the whole definition of literature is that people go off by themselves, develop a distinctive voice. It's not a communal enterprise."

by Liz Bury

pic: Jonathan Franzen speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme

@Guardian

دلم به شدت برای نفس عمیق تنگ شد... از نفس عمیق تا لرزاننده چربی؛ گفت و گو با مریم پالیزبان http://t.co/VpQF4AfYw2
— Pedram83 (@Pedramr83) October 14, 2013

An Iconic Visit

"Had a tour around The White House. Unfortunately never met The President as he was locked in meetings but a great experience all the same."

Michael Owen on twitter

@Manutd.com

Facebook raises new funding at $50B valuation

Facebook is now worth $50 billion,according to a report in The New York Times that says the company has raised $500 million in new funding from Goldman Sachs and Russian firm Digital Sky Technologies.

Goldman invested $450 million, while DST (which has already invested about $500 million into Facebook) provided the remaining $50 million. Goldman also plans to create a “special purpose vehicle” to pool its clients and invest another $1.5 billion in Facebook without triggering the Securities and Exchange Commission’s 500-shareholder threshold, The Times says. (Companies that break the threshold are required to disclose more information publicly.)

Facebook’s valuation has been climbing steadily on the secondary markets where shares are sold. (The SEC is now investigating those markets.) Early Facebook investor Accel Partners recently sold off some of its shares at a $34 billion valuation.

Facebook is expected to have its initial public offering as soon as 2012, although the company hasn’t said anything specific on the matter. It reportedly brought in $2 billion in revenue in 2010, and chief Mark Zuckerberg has said that the company is barely profitable, because it’s not focused on profits yet.

Last month, the second-hottest social networking company, Twitter, raised $200 million at a $3.7 billion valuation.

by : Anthony Ha

@VentureBeat

How Facebook Eclipsed Google In 2010

Facebook beat out Google as the No. 1 most-visited site in the United States in 2010, according to Internet analytics firm Hitwise.

How was Facebook able to outplay the former Web champion? And can Google make a comeback in 2011 and beyond?
Let's begin by admitting that the Hitwise data doesn't represent the whole truth. For starters, Hitwise only measures unique visitors in the United States. What's more, Hitwise measures sites on a per domain basis: If the analytics firm were to include Google-owned YouTube in its calculations, Google's network of websites would outrank Facebook properties.
Nonetheless, there's a tectonic shift at work here: Facebook, once easily dismissed as the next social networking fad, has seemingly discovered Google's weak spots.
What are they, and can Google regain ground here?


Identity Wars
The first area in which Facebook has bested Google is online identity. Remember the days when trying out a new website required entering your name, username, password and other details into a form? Now sites can opt to use your Facebook account for one-click signup, making life easier for both websites and their users.
Facebook was able to make this move because the service was founded around the principle of real names. While this may have slowed Facebook's growth in its early days, the company now owns a massive database of more than 500 million identities, most of them real.
As a result, Facebook is becoming the de facto identity system for the Web. The social optimization service Gigya claims that Facebook accounts for 46% of website logins versus Google's 17%.


Social struggles
Where else is Google behind? How about "social," one of the biggest Web trends of the past five years? Understanding the connections between people is Facebook's core competency, but Google has struggled to compete in the social networking arena.
Google Buzz, widely considered a flop after a highly anticipated launch this year, unsuccessfully tried to turn Gmail contacts into social networking friends. Gmail users, it turned out, didn't need yet another social network, and didn't see their email contacts as synonymous with their real-life friends. That's a major hurdle for all of Google's social efforts: The company doesn't possess a "social graph" of our real-world connections.
More troubling is that social gaming, with such Facebook hits as FarmVille, has become a megatrend over the past few years. Google has few inroads here.
Google is expected to roll out a "social layer" uniting its Web properties in 2011, but the company has played down claims that it will launch a full social network, and expectations are low for Google's next social foray. Google could change its social fortunes through an acquisition, however: The purchase of social messaging service Twitter is the obvious move.


Search Rivalry?
Google is synonymous with search and continued to reign supreme in 2010. Surely this is the one area in which the company can maintain its lead in the coming years.
Google would indeed prove difficult to unseat in search, and yet Facebook may eventually gain a little ground here, too. Not only does Facebook possess a large database of every users' personal preferences, but its increasingly popular "Like" buttons allow members to express interest in particular Web pages.
If the company felt so inclined, Facebook might be able to provide a search engine that delivers highly personalized results. Better still: Facebook may stockpile enough personal information to recommend relevant content without the need for a search box.
Such a move is unlikely to unseat Google overnight, but this means of social discovery could lessen our dependence on search engines in the long haul.


Google's big gains: Mobile, video
Facebook is only "beating" Google if we limit the playing field to the Web. But in the rapidly growing mobile sector, Facebook is a minor player.
While the leading social network is attempting to bring social features to phones, Google owns an entire operating system: Android. What's more, Android is spreading like wildfire and proving to be a real challenger to Apple's iOS. Facebook, meanwhile, doesn't even have an iPad app.
What about watching online video, one of the Web's most popular activities? Yes, Google wins there, too: As the owner of YouTube, the company serves up the vast majority of online video views. In neither mobile nor video does Facebook look to be a threat to Google's position.
Google will always retain the lead, meanwhile, in professional life: From collaborative document creation to enterprise email, it's hard to see Facebook challenging Google's role in the workplace.


An uncertain victory
In 2010, Facebook challenged Google where it is weakest: Online identity and the social Web. Given that "social" is the Web's fastest-growing trend, it's hardly surprising that Facebook has benefited from the rising tide.
And yet Facebook only outranks Google on that very narrow metric: U.S. Web traffic. As mobile operating systems and app stores grow in popularity, is Web traffic really an accurate measurement of an Internet company's success?
and let's not forget that Google still crushes Facebook on the number that really counts: Revenue.


by : Pete Cashmore
@CNN