Tom Hodgkinson, writing in Teh Grauniad, doesn’t care for Facebook apparently. He recites the usual blah about how online interaction is somehow dichotomously opposed to (genuine?) real life interaction, a piece of bollocks for which I’ve never had any time:
And does Facebook really connect people? Doesn’t it rather disconnect us, since instead of doing something enjoyable such as talking and eating and dancing and drinking with my friends, I am merely sending them little ungrammatical notes and amusing photos in cyberspace, while chained to my desk?
I won’t repeat again all the arguments I made against that sort of tedious theme last time I noticed it raising it head, because Hodgkinson goes on to reveal that the venture capitalists who funded Facebook are (gasp!) libertarians. I can’t quite make out why he says they’re also neocons, as the political positions he articulates don’t seem to have any relationship to those normally associated with neocons. And I’m not particularly comfortable with the way that he misinterprets the ideas on desire of the French philosopher and literary critic René Girard, who apparently lurks as some sort of philosophical inspiration for venture capitalist Peter Thiel. The trivialisation and misinterpretation of Girard’s thesis doesn’t give me a lot of confidence that Hodgkinson has got the rest of the facts he cites in his lengthy rant right.
And, to be honest, I couldn’t give a stuff if the people who put up the money for Facebook are right wingers with lots of crank ideas. Newsflash - lots of rich Americans are right wingers with crazy notions. Nor am I shocked that there are ads on it. As a technology, I find it useful and often amusing. I block the ads with a Firefox plug in. And I didn’t find the Beacon thing all that disturbing, and if you don’t read what they say about privacy, then that’s your problem. Short of overthrowing capitalism, I don’t see that refusing to use something because capitalists putting money into it may be crazed whackos is really going to change very much.
Ironically I read about this from a friend who worryingly posted it as a note on Facebook.
It’s not a very consistent piece, either. He can’t decide whether Facebook creates something new (representatives of multinational companies selling coke to each other) or it doesn’t, per the quote above - mediating relationships that already exist. Who’d have thought that such ancient theory would be almost useless for such a complex entanglement of people, media and technologies?
THis is the most interesting thing I’ve read in the MSM on Facebook lately. [link]
1. You are not a share cropper- Break the chains
2. Be a rebel
3. Change the game
4. Believe in the possibilities
5. Do good
6. At adelph.us “Open” means-
1. Whenever possible using Open Source applications
2. Whenever possible offering the hosted use of these applications free of charge to members
3. Always writing code using existing Open Source standards that are not proprietary or owned by a company ie (Face Book and the rest)
4. Empowering the community (Individuals, Groups, Non Profits, and Companies) with tools that help them to save time and resources
5. Evening the playing field
6. Giving back to the community
7. Giving back to Open Source
8. You control all access of your account
9. You control all access to your content
7. You have the right to control the conversations that you have with Companies
1. You have the right to choose the who, what, when, and where of this conversation
2. Companies must contribute to the community before they can be included in any conversation
3. Whenever possible the entire community should benefit from these conversations
8. You control your account -
1. We will never give your personal data to any third parties without your permission
2. You have control over who has access to your profile information
3. You have control over who has access to your content
4. At anytime you are free to delete your account
5. When you delete your account it is cleared from our Database
Great bit of fisking, Mark. Trackback
Or, rather, trackback.
Mark, you’re correct in spotting that the key idiocy in Hodgkinson’s piece is the false dichotomy between “real” communication and what happens online. We’ve seen the same moral panic response pretty much any time a new communications medium is introduced.
1960s American sitcoms had parents ridiculing teenagers for all the time they spent on the phone. However it was inevitable that kids used the tools available to stay in touch when the explosive growth of suburbs and the lack of public transport meant it they couldn’t just pop down the street to see their friends from across town.
Before that, people were criticised for “having their nose stuck in a book”. Now, we see books being held up as The Good Thing and the oldies decry all the time spent in front of the TV.
And now that TV viewing is declining we’ll have people like Hodgkinson whinging that teh internetz is destroying us because we no longer have the shared experience of “the national coming together” and watching the same thing on TV.
Whatever the medium, when two people communicate they create and continue their shared bond. If Hodgkinson can’t make that connection because he doesn’t “get” the new medium, well, no-one’s forcing him out of the pub.
I’m not sure this constitutes a “Fisking”. A “Fisking” is a specific type of rebuttal where passages are quoted from the original article, followed by a short (usually 1 or 2 sentences) of smartarse remarks.
It struck me as a pretty useful fisking, Yobs - as in a thorough debunking. That’s the essence of fisking to me. These days, the smart-arse comments are often pretty lame, so people are doing the same thing slightly differently.
Hodgkinson, eh? The proud banner-bearing Luddite behind The Idler magazine. I recently read his book How To Be Idle and liked it immensely - it was fun and very well written, though the arguments were dud. Reading another of his books now (’How To Be Free’ - he can’t write good titles), but it’s a flop.
Ohmigod!
Must I stop using Word and Excel and IE because Bill Gates is wealthy?
And if I start looking at other products… sheesh!
William @ 2; I think I’ll have to BECOME a sharecropper: to be pure of heart.
“Let Us Now Praise Famous Men: Three Tenant Families”, James Agee & Walker Evans, 1941
[link]
That Facebook constitutes a tremendously efficient viral marketing platform is sheer coincidence of course. It’s a consumerism proliferation tool, nothing else.
The perceived communication benefits are illusory - don’t be fooled by the IT industries equivalent of beads and trinkets for the natives. Facebook does nothing new, it merely brings together pre-existing ideas with a pretty, easier to use interface (MySpace tried this trick to great success too).
I’m sort of on Facebook. Like, I registered and got a page and communicated briefly with some one from Las Vegas. I’ve since got a couple of messages from “friends”, but apart from the first time I’ve never been able to log on successfully to the damn thing.I was sceptical for literally years about the value of the www for anything except research. Paranoid about copyright, mostly. But now I see it as a very effective communication tool, even if I haven’t worked out how to set up my own blog yet. (And I’m not sure if I want to, because, despite my occasional verbal diahhorea on LP, I’m not sure I’ve got that much to say.)
maybe I’m just dumb, but I find the facebook interface quite confusing. I set up an account but I never use it, I think it’s piece of crap. the worst thing is how difficult it is to close your account.
That Facebook constitutes a tremendously efficient viral marketing platform is sheer coincidence of course. It’s a consumerism proliferation tool, nothing else.
I’ve never been sold anything as a result of being on Facebook. I might consider buying a book on Amazon which I’ve found via Visual Bookshelf, but that is nothing more than the “people who bought this also bought” lists on Amazon. If some people are compulsive shoppers, surely they’ll do better at eBay or Amazon and other shopping sites than on Facebook.
I think that Facebook does the job of ‘really connecting’ people better than other sites. It’s first time a mainstream site has so significantly encouraged using real names, thus creating a community of ‘people’ rather than simply pseudonym ‘identities’.
What is so wrong about disseminating information that can help businesses more efficiently supply the demands of people? Oh no, someone might know something about me!
Given that privacy runs contrary to the free transfer of information, I don’t see them being contradictory in claiming to be about freedom.
Fisking the thing would have taken forever - so many words, so few points made.
That’s not a fisking. A fisking involves quote, answer, quote, answer, quote, answer, etc.
Yeah, I couldn’t care less about the political economy of facebook - I just dont get the point of it.
A friend from the US sent me their profile, which I couldnt access without joining. So I joined -rather perfunctorily I admit - and….. wow! still couldnt access it. Yawnometer went through the roof.
Even as a member, you cant see people’s profile, it seems, until they make you a friend - whereupon you can “chat and file exchange with them”
Well, guess what: I can do already with friends, via a futuristic cutting edge program known to initiated poindexters like me as “email”.
Not getting it!
LE
Keating Towers
Like I said, John, I’m not claiming to have fisked the article. That’s SL’s claim.
Lefty E, you can’t throw sheep by email!
Viral not direct marketing Helen
I’m sure this is a thoroughly unoriginal observation but Facebook strikes me as the online network equivalent of Starbucks - a bland, safe, predictable version of something which is appealing but too difficult for the majority to navigate for themselves. It shits me how everything on fb is multiple-choice. You can do x,y, or z to your friends and that’s all. Like Lefty E says, it’s got nothing you can’t do without it and the only difference is it’s streamlined and enclosed.
“Lefty E, you can’t throw sheep by email!”
Yes, you can Mark. “Hi Enrico, I’m throwing a sheep at you, kind regards, Stephanie.” cc’d to all your pals if you so desire.
I must admit, I’ve never felt a strong compulsion towards the ovine hurling arena.
But its nice to know its there
I think thats useful to have a certain level of privacy. People are willing to share more personal information (eg mobile phone numbers) if they know only their “friends” can access it.
I find it useful for those broadcast sort of messages. Eg here are the new photos of the kids etc. You just upload them to the photos area and all of your friends automatically get notified. It may be via email if they prefer that sort of notification or they may just get told next time they log into facebook. Also great for finding old friends who you no longer have up to date contact details on.
I agree there’s a lot of crappy applications on facebook - just have to learn to say no to invitations to install new apps.
Apparently these sorts of sites are also great for organising parties. But beware, 500 of your closest friends may turn up and trash the street
L, I agree entirely. Facebook is mediocrity universalised. As an email client it’s rubbish, it can’t hold a candle to flickr or gallery2 as a host for photos, there are a million superior XML updaters like twitter, for broadcasting it must be great for those illiterates who really can’t use a free blogging client or an RSS reader, and as for its “value” in bringing into contact people who’ve lost touch, what’s the point of losing touch if you can’t stay out of touch?
It has its uses in that it does bring a wide variety of things together in one place - ie photos, blog posts, links, bio, blah. And I honestly have found it useful for both getting back in touch and keeping in touch - it’s much easier to keep friends interstate and overseas in mind when their status updates are appearing rather than sitting around thinking “who shall I email a sheep to today?”… I’ve also found that I’ve got to know people I knew slightly better - it’s easier to interact in the FB fashion than writing AN IMPORTANT EMAIL.
I suspect there are personality differences in those to whom it has an appeal, and those who don’t find it appealling - and that’s just an observation not a value judgement. Like any other social technology, it falls far short of the utopian claims made for it, but unlike some it has a genuine use for some people.
Anyway, I kinda like it, so I’m sticking with it! Great procrastination engine too.
And I reckon youse are all just jealous because your FB Vampire isn’t as powerful as mine!
Btw, the LP Facebook Group has 310 members - I know some of those are our own bloggers who aren’t particularly into FB - but a lot are people who are - my impression is that the membership largely reflects the university origins of FB - lots of honours and grad students.
[link]
I’m certainly not happy that some of the profits from Facebook go to such nasty people, but the emphasis is on some. After all some of the money is ending up in the Bill and Melinda Gates fund as well.
I am a bit disturbed by Facebook’s pigheadedness on some things - the fact that they only accept American options for people’s politics. You can’t be Green or Social Democrat, let alone Socialist. Even more concerning is that their ban on breastfeeding photos (probably not enforced much). This is both misogynist and a boon for the baby killer companies such as Nestle.
That said, for someone who’s not particularly technologically literate it makes for an easy way of combining a lot of things I wouldn’t get round to otherwise because the specialist platforms are too intimidating, and most importantly I have refound friends I had lost touch with years ago, something which I think undermines Thiel’s goals. Still, it would be nice if an equivalent came along without the nasty aspects.
I was recently invited to sign up as a “friend” on Facebook. As the invitation had come from an old friend, I went through all the crap to be a friend, but quite frankly found it was a complete waste of time. I wrote a message to my friend and left the site, never to return, as I have no idea what password I used.
If I want people to know what’s going on in my life, I’ll get in touch personally and actually listen to their voices on that communication dinosaur, the telephone.
“I am a bit disturbed by Facebook’s pigheadedness on some things - the fact that they only accept American options for people’s politics.”
You can write whatever applications you like though (or get a friend who knows how), and as long as they run they’re in. My mate’s Election07 app was lots of fun, and allowed all the local parochial politics you could ask for.
Late to the thread and OT with it, but now I really really want to know more about Enrico and Stephanie.
Facebook Distilled
(via Making Light)
As of yesterday, Pail Theil threw US$80 Million at the campaign for small government Republican “Ron Paul” (presumably the offspring of L. Ron Hubbard and Sean Paul):-
“In our time, the government has become a reactionary force — preventing the growth and innovation America will need to be free and prosperous in the 21st century. I support Ron Paul because he is the only significant candidate who is a part of the solution, rather than a part of the problem.�
[link]
A bit late but I think he is on to something.
From the content of his article and my own prejudices I would say the Facebook is:
Beavis and Butthead, Big Brother, and the tiity-tainment of Brave New World all rolled into one.
And that the emotional intelligence of the people behind is the same as Beavis & Butthead.
What makes them truly scary is that they have leading edge technology to dramatise their adolescent mentality all over the planet—and (their stated goal) to refashion human culture into their own benighted image.
11, which was me. It’s MySpace I’m on, not Facebook. But I still can’t log on despite having a site. I suppose all that says something. eh?