msg:

“Taking this a couple of steps further, the article points out that, to many people, Facebook’s “frictionless” sharing doesn’t enhance sharing; it makes sharing meaningless. Let’s go back to music: It is meaningful if I tell you that I really like the avant-garde music by Olivier Messiaen. It’s also meaningful to confess that I sometimes relax by listening to Pink Floyd. But if this kind of communication is replaced by a constant pipeline of what’s queued up in Spotify, it all becomes meaningless. There’s no “sharing” at all. Frictionless sharing isn’t better sharing; it’s the absence of sharing. There’s something about the friction, the need to work, the one-on-one contact, that makes the sharing real, not just some cyber phenomenon. If you want to tell me what you listen to, I care. But if it’s just a feed in some social application that’s constantly updated without your volition, why do I care? It’s just another form of spam, particularly if I’m also receiving thousands of updates every day from hundreds of other friends.”

—

The end of social - O’Reilly Radar (via juliangutman)

Def agree!

That’s why i’m long curation platforms such as Tumblr, Instagram, Pinterest, etc.

I disagree. There’s great room for discovery in both methods of sharing, just different. I’ll take a lot more deference to someone recommending me a specific item directly, but in seeing what they’re listening to I also have found wonderful articles. I just don’t care enough to look though their history. It’s kind of like twitter vs instapaper. I go though and read every single thing in my instapaper. Twitter i just dip my toe in every once in a while.

There is no best, there is only best for this circumstance or person.