We all have to admit that social networking is the easiest and fastest way for immediate connection, albeit a connection that pales in comparison to physical interaction with real people, as discussed in Clarice Chan’s post. Mind the emphasis on the word “real”, because that’s something I’ll process for you later.
Facebook is just one of many platforms in which a user can create content, share content, and digest content. In this Ted Talks video, Eli Pariser succinctly describes said online content, especially from a popular social networking site, as being more “junk food” (i.e. unhealthy for your body and mind; superficial) than nutritional (i.e. educational; eye-opening, mind-opening).
The first of a myriad of problems that this corporate machine imposes on our culture is a topic that several of my classmates touched upon, which I shall refer to from this point onward as Facebook Photoshop. You may be familiar with Adobe Photoshop and its wonderful abilities to erase blemishes, alter appearances, and manipulate an image to an infinite extent. Well, with Facebook Photoshop, you too can 1) erase your personal flaws, as Callie Hitchcock points out, 2) alter other people’s perceptions of your identity, as mentioned in Kendall Blenkarn’s post, and 3) make up an entire vacation of 42 days to South East Asia that DID NOT HAPPEN (both Brooklyn Kemp and James Timperley touts this user-friendly ability of Facebook Photoshop v. 3.0, get yours today, it’s FREE).
Just as James questions in his post, “Are you the same person online?” I must also ask you this: “Are your friends even real?”
That may sound harsh but Sierra Weiner agrees that we all have an online identity that has been “preauthorized” by the unknown algorithmic forces which basically dictate what we like, what we will Like, and what should be hidden from us (a concept that Matias Taylor discusses further). Sierra goes as far as suggesting that “the perceived act of individualism is purely illusion”.
The second problem of Facebook (a multi–billion enterprise that has rooted snugly in our daily lives) is the collection of private information being used for profit via selective advertisement. Both Cheryl Fung and Jenny Bachynski dwell on this unsettling situation.
The third and most prominent issue was addressed by many of my classmates, such as Carly Bean, Denean Yang, Preet Chhina, and Tanzeela Piyasha Parveen. How are we supposed to expand our mind when filter bubbles are keeping us isolated from the unknown? If algorithms are continuously cycling the same information that we have been exposed to, how are we supposed to learn about the real world? What if we just keep getting fed Youtube parodies instead of National Geographic documentaries? WHAT IS GOING ON, INTERNET?
But even through this modern mess, we are all still enamoured with the World Wide Web. Guess what, the Internet in North America is still a relatively uncensored haven (excluding that whole Megavideo-FBI fiasco) compared to other places, like China (mentioned in Stephen Cook’s stimulating post). I mean, check out WikiLeaks and the Anonymous network. Where else can a group of random people come together to collaborate on intelligent, important, and accessible conversations that may teach others to act on their benevolent ideas?
Rosie Pierce offers another positive view to this fast-paced world of instant connection: the function of social networking as a way to motivate ourselves to “self-improve and live up to the identity we build”.
And Nina Xu reminds us that we can control our filter bubbles by becoming aware of our own limitations as tech consumers and chronic Google-rs, and “actively seeking out opposing viewpoints, clicking links that we disagree with, and engaging with those whose politics we do not support”. We can be more than users of this technology; we can build it, bend it, mend it. It really is all up to us.
As I finish writing, I am reminded of a link I posted on Facebook that garnered far more interest than I thought it would. It started a feminist discourse among a variety of my Facebook friends, from high school acquaintances that I have nothing in common with to new friends whom share my views, and even friends of friends whom I don’t know. And for that, I am thankful of Facebook’s mysterious ways.
Personally, I’ve always shared your feeling of reservation when thinking about Facebook. As a private person, the idea of attaching my name to anything on the internet is unsettling (including these blogs). However, the idea of Facebook being “evil” as you say in your title, is perhaps hyperbolic.
What I’m going to do now is, I suppose, play devil’s advocate for Facebook.
Corporate collection of data, filter bubbles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ofWFx525s), and the like are highly (read: HIGHLY) problematic, however I believe that we need to look at why people use Facebook and what results from this to determine whether we can label it as a truly (or even figuratively) evil entity.
People in North Korea, for example, where the internet is off limits to the vast majority of the population (replaced with a “walled garden” environment which is rather like a cardboard cut-out of a human being [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_North_Korea]), may feel that the freedom to express themselves of Facebook would worth having regardless of its issues.
As Callie writes about in her post (https://blogs.ubc.ca/callieanya/2014/09/11/hello-world/), Facebook threatens to allow delusion to become woven into people’s identity in a new and disconcerting way. This, however, doesn’t mean that some people don’t simply use Facebook to interact with real people through simple online dialogues in a way that they may not have been able to with other methods of communication, for whatever reason.
What I’m suggesting here is that the feelings of inclusion and community that some people extrude from Facebook (in a way I do not understand) are very, very real and valuable. The perspective from which we view and unanimously reject Facebook as a valuable aspect of society is perhaps not the only one worth considering.
For those of us who fear the power that Facebook has for influencing social and individual life, perhaps refusal to participate is enough of a reaction for now.
I completely agree with you on the merits of using Facebook. Unfortunately some people simply do not have the right “friend” group on Facebook and thus feel the need to convey their identity and personality in superficial ways, such as the selfie or posting inane statuses. I think if people made the effort to maintain Facebook like how they maintain their real-life social groups (e.g. deleting people who are irrelevant in their life, adding people who they are actual friends with, etc.), users can feel more free to express themselves and be themselves online. I love using Facebook as a way to network as well and my profile is now cluttered with acquaintances who I barely know but still maintain a semi-business relationship with.
Hey, that was a good summary and you have a very readable class blog post. I think your quote from Nina is spot on, but sometimes when we’re just browsing the web and social media sites we tend to just zone out and skim, opposed to thinking critically about what we’re seeing and actively seeking out information. I think this might be another goal of facebook: they format the site so it flows, is easy to read and basically is begging to be skimmed through. Nothing tends to stand out, and all the content amalgamates into a blob of like-minded content. It really takes classes like this to break out of the mindless browsing into a level of critical thinking.
I know right! My boyfriend sometimes starts telling me about stuff he read via Facebook, or music someone posted on Facebook, and halfway through the conversation I realize it was really ME who posted the content, and he had no idea! All the posts seem the same, and they seem to come from one solitary figure, everyone mixed in together as ONE. I don’t like how Facebook has made us all so similar and we can’t even express ourselves by customizing our profiles or anything.