<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"This morning I found out that Shaq is on Facebook, by way of a friend giving a \u201Clike\u201D to one of the NBA superstar\u2019s very amusing videos.  From there, I became roughly the 350,000th fan of Shaq and started poking around his Page, which, must be rather new, because updates only go back to April 19th. \nShaq was one of the first megastars to land on Twitter, and as we\u2019ve documented, a tidal wave of celebrity users soon followed, culminating in the recent arrival of America\u2019s mainstream measuring stick: Oprah.  But Oprah is also on Facebook, as is Ashton Kutcher (Twitter\u2019s top user), and a ton of other famous people.  \nAlthough both platforms are essentially broadcasting tools for engaging with fans, which is most interesting when it comes to following the famous? A few thoughts:\nFacebook: A Multimedia Experience\nThe thing you\u2019ll notice immediately about any of these stars\u2019 Facebook Pages is that they are rich with multimedia.  Videos and pictures are included on the Page, along with their more Twitter-like text updates, and by way of Facebook\u2019s new design, broadcast to user homepages as well.  Stars also share pictures and videos on Twitter, by way of services like TwitPic and 12seconds, but viewing them requires clicking off-site, and you don\u2019t get the all-in-one view you do on Facebook.\n\n\n\n\nTwitter: A Sense of Engagement\nOn Twitter, fans can @the_real_shaq or @aplusk (Ashton Kutcher) to communicate with their favorite stars.  Mind you, even though Shaq and Kutcher do respond to some people, it\u2019s unlikely the vast majority of followers will ever get a personal response, simply because the volume is too overwhelming (much like the fan snail mail you might've sent as a kid).  \nFacebook allows users to comment on each item that someone posts to their Page, as well as \u201CLike\u201D it and see other people that have done the same.  In some ways, this is a better experience, as it provides an easy way to see all the people that are interacting with the stars\u2019 content.  But because there is no way to easily reply directly to individual commenters, the chances of actual interaction with the star are probably about nil.  \nTwitter Probably Wins, But Maybe It Shouldn\u2019t\nThe sense that you\u2019re interacting with your favorite stars is powerful, and why Twitter probably wins, despite Facebook having a more engaging environment for actually keeping up with whomever it is you care about.  \nBut if you\u2019re a realist \u2013 which I tend to be \u2013 I know that Shaq will probably never respond to my Tweets, so I might as well follow him on Facebook instead, where I can get a far better idea of his latest happenings and view it all in one place.\nWhich Do You Prefer?\nClearly, Facebook Pages - and the Facebook homepage - were re-designed with Twitter in mind.  And when our favorite stars (or more aptly, their teams) utilize all of the features at their disposal, they can be a very fun experience.  But it\u2019s a lot different than Twitter, and that comes with both pluses and minuses.  Which platform do you prefer for following and interacting with the famous?  Share your thoughts in the comments."^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://mashable.com/2009/04/29/celebrities-on-facebook/>