Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
At the time of the comic's release, Google+ was a new social network announced by Google on June 28, 2011. When it launched there were many tech articles written about G+, which appears to look and/or function similarly to Facebook. In the first panel, Megan describes G+ as 'not Facebook'. Facebook is a popular social networking site. She then describes G+ as being like Facebook.
After Cueball thinks about it in the second frame, he comes to a realization in the third frame that a social network like Facebook, but not related to Facebook is all he really wanted. This is in reference to the backlash that happens every so often wherein people grow tired of Facebook, its arcane policies, its cavalier attitude toward user privacy and/or its general disdain for end users, and people want to leave Facebook, but have no comparable platform to move their social networking to.
The title text uses "you'll never be able to convince your parents to switch" as both point and counterpoint in an argument, since this fact has both negative (your parents won't see posts you want them to see, and won't be able to post things for you to see) and positive (your parents won't see posts you don't want them to see, and you won't have to worry about keeping up with their posts) implications.
- Megan: You should join Google+!
- Cueball: What is it?
- Megan: Not Facebook!
- Cueball: What's it like?
- Megan: Facebook!
- [Cueball considers.]
- Cueball: Oh, what the hell.
- Cueball: I guess that's all I really wanted.
add a comment! ⋅ add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ refresh comments!
I really don't mind Facebook. It's not like they look at my data specifically, they're just using my data in an aggregate to better target adverts at me, and I don't have any issue with receiving ads that I actually care about. Davidy²²[talk] 01:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Is that you, Mark?? 126.96.36.199 06:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- 99.99999% of facebook's problems are PR. They take the "you're holding it wrong" approach, and this is what creates a spiral. Sorry, if you're online, it's public. If facebook simply said that it had to do this for the features to work, allowed people the ability to disable any feature, and geared features so that they aren't co-dependent (or if they are dependent, the setting cascades) then they'd be fine. The, it's our way or the highway approach is effective because, who's not going to use facebook, but it's derogatory and creates demagoguery and unnecessary panic. This is bad for the public, and for no reason at all. Cflare (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that I am not now, nor have I ever been, on Facebook. Although i have of course viewed pages, I do not have one myself, and only use the site when absolutely unavoidable. Nor do i use Google+ (although the more they support anonymity the more likely it is i will at least entertain the notion). For the most part I agree with Cflare, but take exception to 'who's not going to use Facebook' and the assumptions behind it: in fact it was the desire to provide details about this disagreement, to leave a comment here, that prompted me to register with this wiki (ironic though that may seem). Something about Facebook always feels overwhelmingly destructive to the human spirit, at least to me: as if just getting used to ignoring what you will be needing to ignore to make the service usable would have an irreversible deleterious effect on creativity.-------A female faust
) 03:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)