Poll: Should I accept Facebook friend requests from strangers?

I've had a few interesting friend requests on Facebook lately. All have come from people I've never met or worked with. I've never interacted with them in any way. And I've never even heard of them, to the best of my recollection. They put the "Total" into "Total Stranger". (I'd say they put the "Strange" in there, but I'm reserving judgment.)

Friends of mine may have recommended they contact me and ask to be friends. Or, maybe not. Maybe they just think I'm globally influential. Or really hot.

These people range from someone who went to the same college as me (within a year of me), to a record company executive with an impressive resume.

I may have been recommended to the former by some mutual alum, but I never got a Facebook notification about it... just the straight-up friend request.

The latter — the music industry man — has something like 2,300 people on his Friends List. Now, although I happen to have a couple of shiny sales awards on my wall, I really doubt I can be of any business-networking aid to this fellow... since I haven't done anything musical in something like a decade. And I never was "in the business." Which makes me wonder why he would send a friend request to this particular stranger. I mean, my profile page isn't one of those "celeb" things where people collect "fans". On the other hand, we do have 6 mutual friends, from two totally different circles in the entertainment industry. Again, no friend referral notice... just the out-of-the-blue request.

My notion of the Facebook profile and the Friends List has always been that you only add people you know personally. And people who are willing to tolerate your idiosyncrasies — or the flip side of that coin, people with whom you're probably relaxed enough to be yourself.

If I expand my FBFL sphere to allow anyone who asks — spammers excluded — should I / will I have to start editing my profile to make it super-businesslike, for fear of random funny posts besmirching my ever-so-serious [*koff*] industry rep?

So my poll question is this: Who do you accept as a Facebook Friend? And/or what would you suggest I set as my standard?

1) Only the people who know where the bodies are buried— and brought a shovel.
2) Fellow gravediggers, plus hearty party partners.
3) Gravediggers, party partners, plus anyone who can pimp my career.
4) Gravediggers, party partners, career pimps, plus casual hand-shakers
5) Anyone who has enough computer skill to click on my name— except spammers.
6) Every Tom, Dick or Harriett who sends the word "Friend" to within a 1,000-mile radius of me.

What say you? Insular, promiscuous, or somewhere in between?

On a Subscription-Based Web

Originally posted by me at The New Digital Cinema group on Facebook:

All pr0n aside, subscription-based web sites have been all but dead for quite some time now... Their passing isn't a result of the recent economic downturn. Content providers learned a while back that the subscription model doesn't work-- or at least didn't work while there/are were plenty of comparable ad-supported alternatives available.

Salon tried a subscription model for a year. The New York Times held out longer. But both of these and many more have torn out the toll booths between users and content.

There are very few audiences who are willing to pay directly, possibly because we've gotten so used to broadcast TV's long ad-based availability. (Those of you who remember the Beeb's Big-Brotheresque monitoring vans rolling by, with subsequent fines being levied may be exempt from this mindset.)

Then again, you might think that paid services like cable and satellite television would have cured us of this sense of entitlement. But we have to consider that cable and satellite are probably more often considered to be semi-agnostic delivery services rather than content providers, since they bundle such a large [sic] selection of networks and services. While a few networks are found exclusively on one provider or another, the majority are available on all.

This may be a clue to a viable future model; large numbers of sites banding together under a single subscription price. In the near-term, lots of general-interest, or financial or sports sites bundled into separate subscription packages. Later (or maybe sooner than later) more consolidation could take place, with variety packages offered, much like the collection of networks and channels provided with basic cable.

Much as Philip was saying, porn producers are already there, offering several sites for a single price -- or so their bot-net spammers tell me.

All this bundling would be a throwback to the days when services like AOL, WebTV, Prodigy, @home, et. al. provided connectivity and content. But users of Der Intertuben are more sophisticated now, and prefer a neutral ISP, along with access to anything and everything. And look where users have left those services...

Because of this, bundles that are limited in scope by media conglomerate ownership might not be as appealing; we're used to cable and satellite delivering a variety of networks owned by a variety of parent companies (Viacom notwithstanding).

ISPs on the other hand, could provide neutrality, but still offer special co-branded packages of bundled content. Some do today, but the content seems to be delivered by B-grade providers, or limited deals with individual media giants, or their own in-house operations that pale in comparison to third-party offerings. These packages are no more than perqs, rather than real attempts at providing a serious selection of content.

I think one of the keys to profitability might a tiered service, with some ad-supported content available to all users, and premium content available only to subscribers. But only if those subscribers are able to access premium content on many different sites with that one subscription.

Naturally, this could also encourage producers to improve their game, in order to create a real difference between free-access content and the paid stuff.

So... maybe a second generation of bundled content providers would understand that they may not be able to filter and control everything a subscriber sees and hears... but that they can still make a buck if they can play nice with others, and provide enough premium content at a price users are willing to pay.

If consumers can have a net-neutral ISP and access to the whole Width of the Wide World 'O Web, while also getting one or more packages of varied, high-quality premium content, across multiple sites and from multiple providers, the subscription model might actually work for everybody.

Majel is in the house, and all is right with the world

According to Variety:

Majel Barrett-Roddenberry will reprise her role as the voice of the starship Enterprise computer in J.J. Abrams' upcoming "Star Trek" feature. She's voiced the role in four "Star Trek" TV series and three films.

While I'm not sure I agree with J.J.'s choice of a super-sleek, bright-white starship interior design, he's definitely on the mark when it comes to casting this role.

Thank you, J.J.. Clearly, you are a righteous dude.