File this one under “Reasons we all need editors and fact checkers looking over shit before it gets published on the Web”. Today’s example comes from a Fast Company “Expert Blogger”. Whatever that is.

“Technology has rapidly changed the way many of us interact with the world. Think about it—10 years ago, nobody had heard of Facebook, Wikipedia, or YouTube.”

That’s because ten years ago we had services that did the exact same thing that were called Friendster, Everything2, and ShareYourWorld.com. Same shit, different company. Your point is Kardashian (retarded).

“It’s hard to imagine life without those online tools today. In fact, today, one out of every nine people on the planet is on Facebook—and collectively, mankind spends 700 billion minutes per month on the popular social platform.”

Really?

Source?

Or how about this: Facebook has 700 million users worldwide. Only half of them log in to the service once a day, and of that half, it’s not exactly clear what they do. Facebook says they “interact with objects”, but that’s really, really vague. Unless you know something we don’t, and I doubt it because you’re not a Facebook employee, any number you spew out concerning Facebook is suspect at best, and a total fabrication at worst.

“These technological innovations have had a lasting impact on many industries, and the world of publishing is no exception.”

Wait, what innovations are we talking about? The three sites you listed? Because all that shit is as old as the Internet. You know that, right? Wikis have been around since ‘94, social networks since ‘98, and ShareYourWorld (the first YouTube) started in ‘97.

“The speed and widespread availability of the Internet, combined with devices such as smartphones and tablets, has decimated traditional bookstores. Just ask Borders. This summer, the book retail giant closed its doors, primarily because of competition from online retailers like Amazon.com.”

Actually, no. Borders closed because of over expansion and poor management at the executive level, not to mention the recession (books are luxury items, what do you think is the first thing to go in a recession?), and yes, a failure to innovate on the technology front. But that’s a really, really minor point compared to the other things.

Did you ever notice that none of the people blowing the Internet ever talk about the Recession?

“And that’s not all—social media, blogs, and the emergence of e-books are having an impact on the way content is produced, marketed, and read. Where could the industry be heading—and what could the changes mean to you, as a business owner?”

Wait, doesn’t social media include blogs? This is further proof the term is bullshit. People just use it to use it without ever really going, “Wait … what does it actually refer to?” Hint: Nothing.

The odds are? These “changes” mean absolutely nothing for business owners. Until you can show otherwise (the burden of proof is on the person making the claim), you’re just selling hype.

“Author John Green may have recently given us a glimpse of the future. Green was able to achieve bestseller status for his book The Fault in Our Stars…before it was even published.”

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. You mean an ALREADY ESTABLISHED AUTHOR was able to hit the top of the charts for books (which, really doesn’t take all that much. It’s maybe 10,000 copies sold, if that), before his book even came out?

Whoa. It’s like the Internet has furthered empowered celebrities or something.

“As Mashable explains: “His latest book, The Fault in Our Stars, is riding high on the charts. It recently landed the number-one spots on Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com.”

Stop right there. If you quote Mashable, you lose. Seriously. If you were to quote the homeless guy on the corner who was marking his territory this morning and singing “O Come All Ye Faithful” while he did, you would have more credibility than you’d have saying “As Mashable explains”.

They have NO credibility on ANYTHING. 

“But here’s the thing—his story won’t be published until 2012. Green promoted the book to his 1.1 million Twitter followers, according to The Wall Street Journal: On (a) Tuesday afternoon, he posted the title of his new book on Twitter, Tumblr, and the community forum YourPants.org. An hour later, he upped the stakes by promising to sign all pre-orders and the entire first-print run, while also launching a YouTube live show.

Got that? Green’s social media strategy was powerful enough to land him the top spot on major bestseller lists—despite the fact that the book hasn’t even been published.”

And … ?

That sounds like book marketing 101 to me (if we’re being generous and skipping over the fact that the guy already has a loyal audience.) You know what I’m doing for my book? When pre-orders start in March, the first thousand people to pre-order the book in the US and Canada, I’m going to come to their house to hang out with them.

None of what Green is doing is new, and it speaks more to Green’s intelligence than it does using the Internet for marketing purposes. Most authors just sit around and cry when their book comes out and bombs. The smart ones do every conceivable thing they can to make it a success.

“As Green has shown, the potential of social media as a means for promoting books and other content cannot be overstated. Can you think of other ways social media can have an impact on society? “

All Green has shown, as does every “social media success story” that these Kutcher (douchebag) marketers roll out, is that it’s empowered the well connected, affluent, and famous. That’s great, if you’re any of those three things.

But the odds are? You’re not.