I'm not really against blogs, Facebook, and Twitter. But what's wrong with using your own non-blog website? Are Facebook, Twitter, and blogs always preferable to them?
I don't think so. A ton of people went to a lot of trouble to create the world wide web, and for some reason, we've gone overboard with all of this Social Networking and Blogging horseshit to the point where we're abandoning a lot of other good options. (Oh yeah. I Hate Wikipedia, too.)
Why does everything have to be in reverse chronological order? Why are we supposed to just crowd out old content and bring in whatever's new? The internet isn't supposed to be like a newspaper or magazine. Not everything on it is supposed to just come and go.
It's like everything is some fad. The internet is obsessed with that.
And why don't people want some dang freedom? Blogs give you a little--but Facebook and Twitter are like jail cells. (And Wikipedia is worse.) They're jail cells. Why are we tossing ourselves in there?
Again, I'm not against blogging and using social networking sites--but come on now. Let's not go too far with all of that. Web 3.0 should be a little more like Web 1.0.
Instead of Blogging, Tweeting, and Facebooking most of the time, consider the world that exists outside of that.
But don't make a site like mine. That won't get you anywhere. I should know. I don't get any traffic.
Maybe I should get on Facebook. That should bring in some more people. Oh--and twitter. I should use that, too. But I'm going to draw the line at a blog.