Wednesday, 2 July 2014

FB Protocol

Web 2.0 has risen like a giant tsunami, the kind where the 't' is pronounced. That's the meanest of tsunamis. While you people praised the revolution, I recognised the possible terrors possible. If it doesn't strike you immediately (and it won't!), I shall break it down.

WEB 2.0: User generated content. That means everyone gets to say what they want and put it on the net. Just imagine if you gave someone with mildly wild, unnatural ideas a blog. Imagine the kind of nonsense you might have to read! Oh and seventeen is an evil number.

SOCIAL NETWORKING: The word networking makes people happy for some reason, but it won't if you think about it. There's nothing particularly exciting about nets and nobody likes working, plus both these things are made to trap people. Ever wonder why you are on facebook all the time? That's why!

Before getting down to the itty bitty nitty gritty (always fun to say!) we must look to the always marginalized; the required background.

The Wicked: Social networking can be wicked in a very required background kind of way. There's a sea of philosophy related marginalized/background jokes to be made here, but I'll spare you. To display the extent of evil-ness, consider a pen lying on a table. Now turn it in your mind. No, anticlockwise. How'd that feel? Now think about the weirdness inflicted by social networking.

~ The Lies:  You are actually friends with 40% of your friend list. Don't lie, because this is true, plus people burn in hell for that shit. Lying is bad. You would be acquainted with 35% more (this is a generous statistic).

The remaining 25% of people are not your friends. But they are on the internet, not in the sense that they're doomed to exist forever only in cyberspace, but rather the fact that they are your friend, is limited to your social networking site of choice. You don't talk to them, but both you and them have acknowledged that you are in fact, friends. What does this mean? The internet makes you a liar, and didn't I tell you people go to hell for that shit? Do you want to go to hell? Do you? You don't?


Taking a longwinded path back to our topic, I present you once more with our hitherto unresolved issue. Since the combo of web 2.0 and social networking enables you to tell everyone what you wish, I feel I should lay down some rules (if you think I might be a bit late in this regard, remember this - It is never late). Do you know one? I thought so! So I'll write them down.

1. Having a picture of a celebrity as a profile picture will not fool people into thinking that you look like Gerard Butler. Simply because you don't. Just stand in front of the mirror and yell "THIS IS SPARTAA" and kick it with your foot. All you will feel is pain, and if you don't, kick harder.

2. Liking someone else's misfortune is cruel and sadistic, but can be passed off as funny, provided that it is.

3.  Do not tag people in photos in which they are not present. This is a detestable act. Imagine the existential crises you impose on someone by tagging them in a picture of table, a signpost, some Goddamn cartoon, or some other asinine object.

4. If you feel the need to ask someone to "make friendships" with them on any social networking site, resist it. This will not work. Because -

a) You can't be many friends with the same person.

b) It's creepy as hell.

c) See b)

5. Emoticons and/or Smileys: This is of extreme relevance not with respect to only social networking sites, but with respect to any text-driven form of communication. I don't know who invented them, but the reason is simple enough; to convey the tone of words in your text.

For those of you who don't know the difference between emoticons and smileys, refer to Wikipedia. 

The emoticon trap is the worst trap of them all; here's how it goes -

- You start out innocently, sending a smiley face with your message. But the tone of your message doesn't relate to you smiling at all, you're just being polite, so you pop a smiley in there. It isn't hurting anyone, and look, it just added that little zing to your message.       eg: Hey, what's up? :-)

You sent other neutral message, but now the basis for neutrality has been established. A normal level of happiness, is associated with that one smiley. So you're continuing casual conversation, but you can't leave that smiley out otherwise the other person might think somethings wrong. Now the smiley is on all your normal messages.     eg:  Nothing,  just passing time! :-) 

An event occurs and you wish to express happiness. You smile, but a smiley is already present in your message, conveying neutral tone. So you add another smiley, now you're actually smiling.     eg:  Yup, he fell straight down the stairs :-) :-) :-)

- Now you've been putting the smileys at one standard place, but you realise different sentences in the body of your text require different associated degrees of smileys. Now the smileys are all over your message.    eg: yes, I'm also thinking about hair implants :p :-) She says I'll have shinier hair :-) :-) :D It made me happy enough to get a haircut :D :D :D

The degree of happiness increases, you use multiple smileys, it's getting ugly, but there's no way around it. You're screwed.      eg: omg, I love commenting on this afewkeystrokes blog! :D :D :D I love those references to the lack of comments on the blog!! :-) :p The blogger just comes across as desperate! :P :D :-) :D

Please leave a comment, otherwise I'll tell everyone how much you really really want to go to heaven.

Think the ending is abrupt. Go on, add me on facebook. Oh, you can add me on facebook here.



  1. well well..!!! got a problem with "the 5th point" whatsapp cntxt may not be u hv witten....uska funda alag h..:P :P

  2. Yes anonymous good person, but I can't generalize whatsapp smiley sending code! Everyone has their own style.

  3. ok..still 5th point is not universally true aftrol...sum1 with a genuine..single smiley face maybe happy too..:P

  4. Someone genuine with a single smiley face can be happy but the person on the other end may fail to realise that. So we often tend to use many smileys!

  5. but in that case ..y wud a persn send a msg to sum1 ...?? like uve mentioned in ur point 5 a.)

  6. #ganga shud nt write ol...ganga lost #

  7. #ganga!! that your name devashish? what it means?

    1. Sshhh.. don't say that anonymous revealer. Devashish sounds way cooler! I guess I'd have to do something about the anonymous commenting system.