I Just Got Google+ and These Are My Thoughts About What It Might Be. Also, if You Want an Invite, Let Me Know.

I haven’t tried it yet, but I’m excited.

Two days ago, I did a 15 minute video blog about why I thought Google may have finally found a way to do social and to drive a wedge in the Facebook monolith.  The video quality wasn’t great, so I’ll summarize here:

The Circle:

From all the previews I’ve seen, the Circles feature looks really promising. I’ve always wanted an easy, intuitive, built-in way to share certain things to specific groups, and I feel like Facebook’s lists and groups are too cumbersome, mostly because they were an afterthought.  By all accounts, Google+ was built around the Circles concept.

Nativism:

Google users don’t need to opt into Google+ or rebuild their entire social graph.  Google+ is a social layer, the big picture of all the other services combined (see black bar).  If you’re already on Google, you’re already on Google+ (once it rolls out to you).  Because so many of us who work in creative fields or freelance use Gmail as a professional address, Google+ is a natural place to begin drawing circles around what we want to share privately, with friends only, with family, and with bosses, coworkers, and clients.  This may mean that adults who are already using Gmail will be the early Google+ adopters and will use it for easy sharing to their professional and social graphs. Which leads me to the next piece:

Grown-ups:

If creatives and other professionals in their 20s-40s make Plus their own, the Facebook demographic  might get much, much younger  This is what happened to MySpace.  Maybe it sounds far-fetched, but Facebook was built for college kids and has been retrofitting for adult use ever since.  Google+ was designed the managing of adult relationships (business, personal, and so on) as a core concern.  It’s different by design.  I’m going to hop on soon and see if I am right.

It’s Still Too Soon for the Ironic Use of “Not” on the Front Page of a(ny) Newspaper

When I was in college, I believed my life’s work to consist of two major projects: 1) fundamentally questioning the epistemological prejudices of the 17th-century philosphes (pompous jerks) and 2) bringing back the ’80s.  By the time I graduated, I’d seen the US beat Russia in hockey and Hulk Hogan regain the WWF championship. Goal #2 totally nailed. Goal #1 turns out to be a longer deal.

Almost ten years later, the ’90s revival is in full swing like clockwork.  I like to think I play a part in this, however small (watching The Fresh Prince on TVLand totally counts).  I know I can be a bit of a nostalgia snob, but without nostalgia snobbery, how will the world know it’s not too soon to dust off Hypercolor?  That was a trick question, friends.  It’s never too soon for Hypercolor.  See what I mean?

It is too soon, Morning Call, for this:

Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea behind the headline.  There’s definitely a MySpace joke in the mix here somewhere.  Can you come up with a better headline sticking to these central elements: nostalgia for 2005, MySpace’s current woes, nostalgia for 1991, and something funny about a municipality throwing away everybody’s snow chairs?  Do so in the comments.  Hint from a nostalgia snob: the (NOT) construction is very, very tricky.  As the root of everything snarky and ironically detached about our society, can it ever actually be satirized?  Herein lies the problem with this headline.  It’s much too late to use (NOT) in a sort of topical way, but as the original of the ironic species, (NOT) also seems somehow immune to further satirization. I’d say it’s the Chuck Norris beard of snarky catchphrases, but not even a roundhouse kick from the Chuck Norris of snark (Jay and Eric, I want you to wrestle for that title) can touch it its lovely whiskers.  (NOT) is an untouchable, the great Source Wall of everything we wink about.  You leave MC Hammer out of this.