Fast-forward a few years to my freshman year at BYU when my roommate introduced me to Facebook. I was reluctant to join since I already had a MySpace account, but I joined because all our new friends had an account and it was a great way to organize daily social gatherings. Needless to say, my MySpace account quickly became a redheaded step-child to me. With Facebook as my new love, my social life hasn’t been the same since.

If you can remember around about this time last year, the media people were all predicting the fall of Facebook as a result of the older generations becoming involved. They had the notion that old folks would make Facebook lame. However, we (the younger generation) adapted and learned how to censor ourselves or use the privacy controls. (Well, at least some of us.) As for the prophecies of Facebook’s decline… well, they couldn’t have been more wrong.

Facebook is becoming more and more indispensable as it transforms communication and social interaction. On Monday, Facebook announced its plans to offer email to its 500 million plus members. With this new email system, Facebook will be able to intertwine personal email — and text messages — with its knowledge of your personal relationships. (Seriously, Mark Zuckerberg knows too much about me and my relationships, it’s uber creepy. Check out the new feature of creepiness Facebook offers where you can view you and a friend’s complete Facebook history, or even two other friend’s entire history). Branching out from its current internal-only messaging system, Facebook will likely become the largest email service on the web.

When Google went public with Gmail services in 2007 it quickly gained momentum and now has 193 million users. You don’t have to be a math genius to know that Facebook will automatically demolish Gmail’s comparatively meager numbers. Google is facing a lot of pressure. It’s just been a crappy time lately for Google, what with the legal issues over the Street View and Buzz features’ privacy problems, and the leak about its desperate attempts to retain employees (raises across the board and other incentives) who are leaving Google for the hot new thing on the block — Facebook. But will Gmail become another ghost town of the web like MySpace? I honestly don’t think so.

We are witnessing an epic battle of Internet giants. Google and Facebook are duking it out for the title of The Ultimate Titan of the Internet Communications Industry. Right now, Facebook is in the lead with a monopoly that is revolutionizing business, advertising, communication and social interaction on the web. This is a new era of technology, innovation, and culture unfolding right before our eyes.

Are you as excited as I am?

Why is all this important? It’s probably obvious I’m about to tell you that Aaron Sorkin is one of the finest screenwriters alive. He has a knack for bone-breakingly brilliant dialog and dizzyingly complex characters. His previous work is spare but indisputably significant. You’ve certainly heard of A Few Good Men (“You can’t handle the truth!”), and perhaps you’re at least somewhat familiar with the critical sycophancy that followed all seven seasons of The West Wing. This man can write in a way that few mortals can.

As for director David Fincher, well, let’s just say he’s more than capable of great work. He’s had his misses, but I think they’ve mostly been due to weak material. Once again, it all comes back to the writer. So when I found out that Sorkin had written the screenplay for The Social Network with Fincher set to direct, I was sold on the film’s potential for greatness.

If you haven’t seen it, see it. There have been a lot of small-brained arguments over whether this movie “gets the story straight.” Facebook came out against the film and said, basically, that it had no bearing on reality. That Facebook as an entity so strongly disavowed the film suggests, to me, a greater veracity here than a simple silence might have communicated. But that’s beside the point.

Because “the Facebook movie” is not a documentary. It’s an expertly told story. It is fiction, the same way some of the stories we tell about ourselves are exaggerated here or downplayed there to take full advantage of their narrative potency. I don’t care much about the nature of this film’s historicity. Network is true in a way only good fiction can be. It speaks to human ambitions, weaknesses, desires, longings, hopes, fears — it forces its audience to recognize that everyone is admirable in some ways and despicable in others.

Mark Zuckerberg, the creator of Facebook, is a totally enigmatic figure in real life, and a realistically enigmatic character in this story (as played by Jesse Eisenberg). As strange and intellectually alienating as Sorkin paints him, I have a feeling that he’s probably even less likable in real life. But regardless, Sorkin’s Zuckerberg is a fascinating study of extremes. He has no friends. Why? Not because he’s very, very smart. And not because he ends up making absurd amounts of money. He has no friends because he’s a jerk. He misses the point, so to speak. I don’t think I’m giving anything away when I say that by the end, one could reasonably argue that he’s figured it out, to some degree. But through most of the story, he somehow sets himself at odds with everyone.

But you can’t hate him. Just like you can’t hate anyone you really come to know. He’s too smart. He’s too interesting. Sure, he does and says some things to some people that are nearly unforgivable, but the very first scene of the film helps us understand why he does those things. It is the audience’s privilege to see the seeds of his soul — and then to watch them grow. To watch the other conflicted and morally unstable characters interact with him without that privilege is what fuels the film’s dramatic drive.

Some have wondered about the timeliness of a movie like this. Isn’t it a little too early to be making a movie about a website that’s only about six years old? Absolutely not. This film needed to be made now, before the unending march of social technology renders Facebook obsolete — because right now is arguably when Facebook will have held its most dominant position in the world and attained its highest relevance.

But — and this is crucial — The Social Network stands on its own. Thanks to incredibly strong performances by a fantastic cast, a profoundly good script, and roundly solid filmmaking, you don’t have to care at all about Facebook, social media, or entrepreneurial business to understand and love this film. You probably will end up caring about those things by the end, because good stories can break their audiences into new worlds. But great films reveal what we’re like on the inside, with all our glorious contradictions and complicated moral dilemmas, behind the profiles we construct in our desperate attempts to be known as the people we wish we were.

Jim Dalrymple

In the past few days, I’ve noticed some of my friends joining a Facebook group called “Max Hall said what everyone was thinking.” Max Hall is, of course, BYU’s quarterback and the group refers to these comments (taken from the group’s page) that he made after the game last Saturday:

I don’t like Utah. In fact, I hate them — I hate everything about them. I hate their program. I hate their fans. I hate everything. So, it feels good to send those guys home. … I think the whole university and their fans and organization is classless. … I don’t respect them, and they deserve to lose.

This article gives more context, but unfortunately it doesn’t mitigate the inflammatory nature of the remarks. Now, before I comment on anything else, I should say that Hall made these comments right after a tough game during which there was undoubtedly a lot of adrenaline pumping through his system. I know that sort of situation can cause people to say things they would otherwise keep to themselves and, though I think Hall is an idiot for what he did, I can understand making a mistake. (On the other hand, Hall would no doubt like to go pro, but if the emotion of a game prevents him from controlling himself then he’s hardly NFL material.)

In any case, Hall’s comments were a mistake. He admitted as much and was also officially reprimanced for them by the Mountain West Conference. What is much more troubling than Hall messing up is the fact that BYU students have created a group to honor and perpetuate his mistake. Though Hall’s comments reflect poorly on him and his school (which is my own alma mater too), the Facebook group serves to further endorse this negativity and unsportsmanlike conduct. Hall at least had the weak excuse that he was riled up by the game. What excuse do BYU fans sitting at home on their computers have? That they’re ill-mannered jerks?

The comments posted by users on the group’s page vary. Some mention that the University of Utah’s football team was playing a dirty game. Others mention that U football players have said similarly insulting things about BYU before. However, that type of excuse is so flimsy it’s laughable. Both teams played a dirty game and, even if the U had worn brass knuckles onto the field, BYU students should have taken the high road once the game was over. Do they really hate U fans? Seriously? Isn’t BYU all about service and showing Christ-like love? Even to people who chose to get an education at a different university? Ultimately, this whole thing makes BYU look like it’s filled with mean-spirited bullies.

I think it might be useful to imagine this whole episode as an inspirational sports movie in the vein of Rudy or Remember the Titans. On BYU’s side, we have a fifth year senior who didn’t even play very well. Maybe the U deserved to lose, but Hall’s performance hardly justified a win. On the other side, the U had an 18-year-old freshman as their quarterback. As the announcers on the The Mountain said during the game, Jordan Wynn didn’t show that he was a freshman during the first half, but it was readily apparent in the second. Nevertheless, the Utes held BYU at bay the entire game until Max Hall finally got lucky and threw a complete pass to win. Then, despite the win, the much older Hall went on to ice the cake with an insult.

If this were a movie, BYU would — without question — be the bad guy. Most sports movies include some brutish, mean antagonist and BYU fits that bill almost perfectly. The only problem is that Hall will never have to face the U again, so there won’t be a rematch during which the older, more experienced bully is crushed by the resilient underdog. In other words, the U was Rocky. The U was Rudy. The U was every sports movie hero, and BYU ended up playing the part of a stock bad guy.

I think this movie analogy is useful because the Facebook group supporting Hall has 2,065 members at the time I’m writing this. It makes me wonder: does everyone want to come off as a vindictive bastard? Do people like perpetuating the worst parts of a dirty game? Does this group strike any of its members as being somewhat at odds with the values they claim to believe in? I’m not saying that BYU fans (and many of my friends) are bastards or hypocrites, but this particular group certainly makes our school appear to be extremely bad sports.

My guess is that most people aren’t thinking very much about this issue. Rivalries are fun and the conflict they allow can be a much-needed outlet for a lot of people. Perhaps BYU supporters who have joined the group simply feel like they’re showing school spirit. However, I hope BYU students and fans realize that sports rivalries are not worth being a fool over. Going to another school and (passionately) supporting that school’s team doesn’t make someone a bad person. One bad apple shouldn’t be used to generalize the bunch (which BYU must appreciate, in light of Hall’s comments and the unfortunate actions of some BYU fans after the game). This seems obvious, but the existence of a group like this makes it seem like BYU students have lost sight of things that really matter. If the world is actually going to be the campus of BYU students, there isn’t room for hate groups.

Jim Dalrymple is a regular correspondent for Rhombus and writes on various topics.

Like all Facebook revisions, this one has sparked a fair number of “change things back to the way they were” groups. And, like all revisions, this one will remain in effect whether people like it or not. Still, the Facebook execs’ indifference doesn’t mean that disgruntled users aren’t right: many of the changes genuinely aren’t particularly intuitive or logical. For example, users can now see a “Live Feed” that includes real-time information about friends’ activities, or a greatest hits-esque “News Feed.” Just who determines what makes it onto the News Feed is unclear but, in my case, switching between the different feeds produced two very different lists of information. Consequently, I now have to click back and forth to avoid missing something or, more likely, simply get used to the idea of missing stuff. Unfortunately, both options are annoying and dubiously mitigate old problems by adding complexity.

At the core of this latest revision (and all the others), however, lay much bigger questions about Facebook’s continued relevance and ubiquity. Of course, the site has a lot going for it: an easy interface, the largest network in the U.S., and outreach to new demographics. Still, it remains to be seen just how long people will stick with a social network. I remember when everyone I knew was on MySpace, for example — and I also remember when everyone I knew left MySpace. In the time since, MySpace has fallen so far that an insultingly mediocre movie like He’s Just Not That Into You can make fun of it and Glee seems immediately passé for using it as product placement.

Facebook’s frustratingly frequent revision cycle seems like a desperate attempt to avoid a similar fate. When Twitter started siphoning people away, Facebook responded by becoming more Twitter-like. Now, as that situation has begun to reach equilibrium, Facebook is backpedaling, apparently having realized the value of offering a unique product.

Yet, despite all these attempts, Facebook does in fact seem to be going out of style, if not out of business. The media has been making much ado about the recent surge in older users and, while I’ve appreciated connecting online with my parents (and even grandparents), I’m not sure that entices younger users to sign in more.

To be fair, Facebook is in some ways better suited to an older demographic. People with stable careers and families can use the site with less fear that past embarrassment will become public. In my case, however, I remember recently being glad that I didn’t have pictures online with old girlfriends, hairstyles, or my generally dorkier past. In that sense, older users whose associations change more slowly have more to gain and less to lose through social networking.

Still, these demographic changes aren’t always welcomed by long-time users and sometimes have exacerbated annoyance with recent infrastructure problems. Why, for example, does my inbox keep telling me I have messages, but then not letting me see the text of those messages? Why haven’t I been able to do a mobile upload since a week after I linked my phone to my account? Why am I locked out of some friends’ pages one day, but not the next? None of these glitches have proven fatal, but taken together they represent a sloppier site populated by people I don’t really care about. That’s hardly a winning recipe.

Consequently, just as Facebook has added millions of new members to its ranks, others have become less active. I was even surprised recently at how many of my own friends aren’t really signing in anymore. When that happens, I lose interest and Facebook loses potential ad revenue. It’s a lethal combination and one that has left the company struggling to adapt without looking lame or un-hip.

Of course, Facebook is far from dead. Waiting for a movie to start this weekend, I was surprised that one of the “First Look” commercials actually directed people not to the product’s website, but to the Facebook fan page instead. That sort of publicity proves that Facebook is continuing to adapt and persuade people that it matters. Nevertheless, the company is treading new water and will have to balance a capricious market that becomes more annoyed each time the site tries to get cooler.

Jim Dalrymple is a pop culture correspondent for Rhombus. Follow him on Twitter @jimmycdii.

For young entrepreneurs contemplating a leap into the business of new media, Pierce’s advice is to, “Just do it.”

Popular microblogging service Twitter crashed as a result of the increased activity caused by the news of Jackson’s death. Users reportedly sent over 50,000 tweets about the pop icon’s death in under an hour. Search giant Google received so many Michael Jackson hits that the company believed its servers were under attack and users “Googling” for Michael Jackson received an error message stating, “Your query looks similar to automated requests from a computer virus or spyware application.”

The way the news of Michael Jackson’s death reached our ears is a prime example of how the Internet has changed communication and the speed at which we receive our news. Long gone are the days of reading yesterday’s news in the morning paper or spending every night with your local news anchor. Real-time delivery of breaking news is the now the name of the game. Web services like Twitter take word of mouth to the next level, allowing us to instantly communicate what we know to a mass audience. Facebook allows us to distribute information to our network of friends who can then pass that info on to other friends, allowing news to travel faster then ever before. RSS feeds allow subscribers instant access to news from reputable sources, such as newspapers, magazines and television networks.

Not only is news being reported in new ways, it is also being generated in new ways as well. With mobile computing devices such as iPhones and Blackberries, individuals are not limited to sitting down at a computer to receive information. These devices can make us participators in the newsgathering and sharing process. From wherever I am, I can send out a tweet, update my Facebook status or receive text messages from my friends. With the iPhone 3G S now featuring a video camera with direct and instant uploading to YouTube, you can bet that we will see a huge surge in video news posted directly from locations where important events are taking place. Take, for example, the recent protests in Iran. As the government has cracked down, preventing traditional journalists from reporting on the conflict, many of the major news networks have been featuring videos taken in the streets with personal cameras or even camera phones. One of the most jarring images of the entire ongoing saga, a young woman named Neda bleeding to death in the street, was filmed by two people holding camera phones. Instead of hearing reports from professional reporters on-site, breaking news has come to global networks in the form of tweets and Facebook messages. The news networks are reporting what they see on Twitter before their reporters can uncover and pass along the info.

Of course, one must be wary of such reporting methods. Some months ago someone posted a story on CNN’s user-generated news service, iReport.com, stating that Apple CEO and founder Steve Jobs had died. The story spread across the Internet like wildfire and Apple’s stock plummeted before it was confirmed that Jobs was indeed still alive. Such are the potential tradeoffs of this information revolution.

With communication changing and progressing every day through the Internet, it is necessary that we become familiar with these new forms of communication. Services like Twitter and Facebook can be valuable tools, whether it be for communicating with old friends, promoting a business venture or receiving up-to-the-minute news. It’s up to us to figure out how to best use these services to fit our growing and changing needs — or the world may leave us behind.

Ben Wagner is a technology correspondent for Rhombus. When he’s not listening to “Thriller,” he tweets semi-regularly at http://www.twitter.com/ben_wagner.