Should I join Facebook?
This is probably a question for a poll, but hey, i’m going to blog about it instead.
What is this Facebook Phenomenon? I just don’t see the attraction of having a virtual network of friends whom i interact with solely through a third party website! And yet I received a stiff defence of its merits from my sister on the telephone today and I’ve now received countless invitations to join the network from ex-workmates, new workmates and friends from University.
Am I simply denying myself the pleasure of being hermetically attached to my computer for more hours of every day or am I - like Nero and his friends (mercenaries?) in the Matrix- among the socially excluded of the cyber world? Am I officially unemployed because, unofficially, i’m not yet registered to work on Facebook? Should I be claiming benefits for my ignorance of the social network available “freely” to all with a broadband connection? Maybe I should apply my social inclusion economic development planning skills to the cyber world and start teaching insecure individuals how to get recognised on the web?!
Personally, the risk of meeting ex-girlfriends, arch-enemies from school or even someone i know, puts me off completely! How low can our levels of communication sink? I don’t need a picture, profile and a display of my personal “web” of friends to maintain either my self-esteem or my friendships and i struggle to understand why someone might want to broadcast themselves to the world via a computer when the real world is so much more effective in doing so.
We might laugh at the cultural tendancies we observe here in Chile- the chileans and the Europeans working in Chile- but we do value them highly. Close family ties and the eternal stories of the intrusive Chilean “mother-in-law” may frustrate us foreigners sometimes, but we really respect it and recognise its benefits to society. Our ongoing debate about greeting a stranger with one kiss or two and on which cheeks might sound somewhat “simple” but the debate alone highlights the relative dependency that the english speaking world has upon the non-contact sport of networking via cyberspace, relative to our European counterparts. And the difference is not just explained by different levels of connectedness such as the number and cost of broadband.
Do we face a collective social confidence crisis that leads us to hide behind our computer screens to avoid real interaction or to hide our flaws and our sensitivities? Like e-mail, we can say so much more yet it can be so much more easily misinterpreted! In the words of Yusuf Islam, “please God, don’t let me be misunderstood” is both a guide to creating your Facebook profile and any responses to it!
Perhaps it is just a convenient way to avoid catching a dreadfully overcrowded/late/unreliable/slow train or bus to actually go and see that person? I don’t know… but it seems that Ewan McGregor in Trainspotting was not only right but profound in his analysis of the risks of substituting real relationships for other forms including cyberships- “Choose Life”! (I don’t mean 2ndLife! That could be another whole blog couldn’t it?!)
You won’t find me on Facebook yet but its only a matter of time before i drag my lazy, antisocial cyberbum into the highly connected, over-caffinated real-world-divorced community.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Bugger! Too late.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I’d like to point out that “Douglas has 17 friends” - as he informed me this morning.
He’s been sucked in to the world of facebook!!
June 6th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Hello Douglas, You don’t know me, but I am doing a social studies project on the impact of Facebook and found your blog entry today on Google while researching my topic.
I am interested to see what you think the difference is between “having a virtual network of friends whom i interact with solely through a third party website” and this website - which you use to interact with a virtual network of friends…
You say you “don’t need a picture, profile and a display of my personal “web” of friends to maintain either my self-esteem or my friendships” - but that is almost exactly what a personal web page like this is!
On your homepage you have a list of titles: “About us” “About our work” and “friends”. Is this not just a personalised version of Facebook? For people who do not have your skills at webdesign, or the time to do so, facebook is just a more accessible way of offering the same information to their friends.
You add, ” i struggle to understand why someone might want to broadcast themselves to the world via a computer”. I do not know you, but via this page I now know a lot more about you than I know about people I would consider close friends - and this is via a computer. I definitely do not know what exact words my best friend uses to pray to God, for example! You have put a lot of things on this site, “broadcasting yourself to the world via a computer”.
I would be interested to hear your views on this.
Katie
June 6th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Good to see you resisted temptation, Doug!
All the best,
Howard
June 6th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Thanks for your interest Katie and for reading our website. I wasn’t aware that our website called the attention of Google on a regular basis, so I am pleasantly surprised that you found my rather cynical tirade against Facebook!
You’ll be aware that i have now registered and tried Facebook for real. When i wrote the article, I knew very little about it- I based my arguments on the structural aspects of Facebook and upon the experiences related to me by friends, in particular, my sister, who is always worth arguing with!
I guess i’ll start my response by agreeing with two of the points you raise- one, yes, Facebook is a very accessible way in which to write and share a profile of yourself on the web. It has acheived a trade-off between flexibility/customisation and accessability unrivalled by MySpace or blogspot or LinkedIn. And secondly, I agree that a personal website offers the opportunity to broadcast yourself (as coined by YouTube), although i hope that our site, rather than being a measure of the number or quality of our friends, is a way to communicate an experience of our lives in a different country, Chile.
However, while the functionality of Facebook might resemble or equal that of a blog site, there are fundamental structural differences and perhaps security differences.
Take, for example, your comment today. You have voluntarily searched for and read our blog. You have found more than you were searching for. And you have chosen to interact with me through the site, when the option to email me directly exists. Likewise, you could have asked me to contact you directly on your email address, which our site asks for (but doesn’t, actually, require). This commitment to communicate, to deliberately contact me, of openess, is a step further than Facebook, whereby you must first be accepted as a friend and then might send me a message via Facebook, without ever knowing my email.
There is an element of the obligation or compulsion in Facebook which does not exist in a personal blogsite such as this. One of my first discoveries on Facebook was the option to switch off auto-emails alerting me to people writing on my wall or tagging me in photographs. These would have clogged my inbox severely in the first two days of my Facebook registration and i would feel compelled to respond to invitations, photo tags and messages, either to “clear my name” or to clear my inbox!
This is not the case with a blog site or even a bloglines or blogspot site. I don’t compel others to read it and neither do I always respond to readers comments. I choose the level at which I interact with our site readers. Selfish, perhaps, but also sensible, if you are at work! How many people complain that Facebook takes up time at work?!
Regarding security issues… I know that you sent your email from computer number 421 in the Scotsman Newspaper through a particular server. This provides me with the added reassurance and awards you the credibility I need in order to respond to you. If you had sent this through Facebook, not only could you have a false identity but a false location, false qualifications. Of course, you would have to be a friend on Facebook first, but what if your identity and “poke” had deceived me into accepting your invitation to be friends?
But surely nobody would bother with a false identity on Facebook? And even then, what could they earn or gain from it? Errmmm… answers on a postcard, but I know that it can be and has been used that way. Online intimidation or recriminations are only a click away. But so is the “Remove Friend” button.
So I hope I have convinced you that blog sites are not the same as Facebook profiles. That Skype, email and MSN are not the same as Facebook messaging or “walls”. And that blogsites do not simply measure your popularity- a common misconception of Facebook.
However, what does Facebook offer other than a virtual friendship network that parallels the real one?
Two things- it adds the benefits of being able to search for friends whom you might have lost contact with or someone who has never had a web presence.
Second, networks, like profile attributes, give individuals an identity beyond that existing in reality. You and I can support wind farms or oppose an obscure amendment in the US consitution as part of our online profile, even if the reality is entirely different or never talked about.
These are the same reasons why almost anyone older than 30 has yet to discover the benefits of Facebook. It seems such a mamoth task to contact old friends and the opportunity to be someone else in the cyber reality does not really appeal.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I found this quote this morning…
“New Technology goes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed by those ignorant of its potential.
Next, it is subverted by those threatened by its potential.
And finally, it is considered self-evident.”
Mmmm.
June 8th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Hey bro. Have eventually taken a min to read your facebook tirade and the resulting comments.
Have a few comments to make in response to yours:
DG wrote: ‘Do we face a collective social confidence crisis that leads us to hide behind our computer screens to avoid real interaction or to hide our flaws and our sensitivities?’
I think this is far from the truth. Girls of eight and upwards are posing in their tinies and posting these on their facebook pages. They are not hiding their flaws and insecurities but instead talking openly about their first encounters and the physicality of relationships in a manner that used to be reserved for the ‘problem pages’ of teenage magazines under the (questionably) ‘sensitive’ control of the adult editor.
Admittedly, some (most) use their profile pages to construct their ‘ideal’ identity and to portray the way they would want people to see them; but is there anything wrong with that? People who really know them, (their real-life friends) know they don’t look like a young Jennifer Lopez, or a lolling sex-kitten, on a daily basis. However, yes, I think there is something wrong with this. Indeed, it is increasing the fantasies people are trying to fulfil, the persona they want to grow into, the sense that one should look, sound and act like ones icons.
The sad thing, and the danger, is that most people in cyber relationships want, at some point, as it grows, to have a physical meeting with their ‘friend’. Herein lies the danger. Their good-looking peer called Matt could be a sick 60 year old man. Not likely. More likely is that the person just won’t live up to their facebook/myspace persona. Perhaps without the safety of anonymity and distance, they won’t have much to say. People too easily type what’s in their head, then press send. Whereas, if they were talking face to face with that person, they wouldn’t divulge such personal info and thought garbage at such a terrific pace.
I think the danger of social networking tools and the like, as a Christian, is that the opportunity to self-construct ones identity in such a manner, is pushing us in the opposite direction from seeking to find and know our identity in Christ. We are called to die to self and live for Him (Christ) – not in theory but in cold, hard practice. What does this mean in the realm of cyberspace? How can represent Christ in one’s profile? (Is it not the case that Christ uses all of us, and will speak through us, if we let him, wherever we are? Submitting to Christ brings freedom. We’re set free to be who’s God’s made us to be. Just be yourself!). Like all new developments in technology and social shifts, this is an opportunity for Christians worldwide. We should be at the forefront, leading the way and shaping the development of new media. How can we point to Christ and be beacons of light in these second-life worlds?
I think it’s important not to be tempted or indulge in letting your self-concept be drawn from your online status. How many myspace/facebook friends you have does not equate to your value. You are valuable because you are a child of God. Not because you have something to say about the future of nuclear energy, that you’re in a certain ‘cause’ group, social circle, that you attended a posh club on Saturday night, signifying your status, or that your photo shows you can afford to live with excess, in uninhibited self-indulgence. Be radical. How do you do this? It is an opportunity to be radical. Or is it?
Arguably, most of the myspace society is trying to show how wacky and individual they are (what they have to offer that no-one else has. Eg. their songs), and yet the result is that everyone dims into the genre/crowd of individualists, clamouring for their voice to be heard saying what’s in vogue and what everyone should be in to, as though they’re the voice divine on what’s cool.
I’ve more to say so I’ll be back later. Interested to hear your thoughts.
(I read an article about all of this in the Telegraph’s Sunday ‘Stella Magazine’. It was in one of the May issues but now I can’t find it online. Anyone else find it?)
June 8th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Having said all that, above, about meeting up with new online friends and them not being how you anticipated, there are obviously cases when the results can the be the opposite of dissapointment. I had first contact with someone on 2 Feb this year through myspace, we continued email correspondence (increasingly long emails) until meeting up on 9 March and started going out on 28 March. Still going strong today!
June 11th, 2007 at 9:28 am
You both need to do some work.