Last week, I was reflecting on the fact that my cynicism actually protects me from quite a bit of frustration. This reflection came just in time for me to be aware that because I don’t expect anything to be done for the right reasons, I am not shocked to find capitalists behind the bubbly front of social networking sites. I do, however, still experience quite a bit of frustration because I maintain that things should still be done properly, and am often called an idealist for that reason…but that’s a whole other discussion.
Tom Hodgkinson’s article on the “shady” inner workings of Facebook sound, to me, like the lamentations of someone who is more naive than insightful.
I totally respect the fact that there are many people out there who choose not to participate on websites like Facebook (even though I give some of them a hard time, just for fun). Like phones, email, post mail, VOIP, instant messaging and “the rest”, a social networking site is merely a tool, and doesn’t work for everyone.
Personally, I like maintaining regular contact with friends and colleagues through Facebook because it allows me to do it on my own time. Of course, it’s no substitute for in-person interaction but I find it very handy for keeping abreast of my friends’ more mundane events. By doing so, I’ve noticed that when I have lunch with a friend, we can have more [frequent and valuable] meaningful conversations without having to play catch-up firstly.
If someone else wants to use it as a make-shift dating site or homage to themselves, do I really care? Not so long as I continue to be able to ignore their requests to be my friend. Like in a high school or any other social space, cliques form naturally and most people gravitate towards others who are there for similar purposes. I’m sure the people who are merely on Facebook to boost their self-image think that people like me are taking the fun out of Facebook by using it to network professionally, but don’t really care because there’s enough space for us all.
Hodgkinson’s profiles on the brains and finances behind Facebook were actually a very interesting read. I’m sure he had intended for the information to show how that Facebook is really being operated by “The Man”, but I found their histories to be quite cool. I had not known about Peter Thiel prior to reading Hodgkinson’s article, but found his work to be extremely exciting. I know my affinity towards Thiel is mostly due to “The Diversity Myth”, which he co-wrote, because it seems to be a more expansive version of the same realization I reached in high school during one of our many assemblies to “celebrate multiculturalism”.
Although I don’t think Facebook is perfect (far from it; I agree with Hodgkinson’s, and most other people’s, dislike for the recent fiasco over the opt-out/opt-in problem with Beacon), many of the problems Hodgkinson has with Facebook are not unique to Facebook.
1 Everyone will advertise at you
Facebook doesn’t charge for membership, and instead uses advertisement as its main source of revenue. Even newspapers like The Guardian, in which Hodgkinson’s article was published, use advertisement. Not only do many other businesses use ads, and targeted ads, as part of their revenue source, not all of them are transparent about their ad targeting practices.
2 Nothing ever gets deleted on the internet
Maybe not nothing ever gets deleted, but data retention is a huge issue which is not limited to Facebook. You’ve got to be very new to the internet if you aren’t aware that anything you put online will probably exist until the end of time (or at least the end of the internet), either online, on a backup, or on someone’s personal computer.
3 Privacy isn’t guaranteed anywhere anymore
Social networking sites may make private detectives a thing of the past, only to be relived in Film Noir, and are certainly making people realize that privacy is an illusion. While I don’t agree that privacy should be allowed to be an illusion, I also realize that anyone who really wants to know about my most intimate confessions will find a way to do so, whether I’m on Facebook or not. Luckily, I don’t think anyone really cares to do so.
4 Facebook only knows what you tell it
Most of the information you give Facebook for it to build a profile on you is optional. Users need to take responsibility for how they share their information. If you’re going to do it through Facebook, of course they’re going to use that data. Duh. Many of the fields, like your gender and marital status, are optional. So are the bajillion applications which harvest more information about users. Just because you’re presented with a field doesn’t mean you need to complete it. Social networking sites need to be responsible for how they use the data they have, but the users who provide that data share that responsibility and need to start owning up to it.
5 Opting out doesn’t mean closed communication…ever
If Hodgkinson ever read any other privacy policy (like the one for a financial institution or utilities company), he’s probably likely to find that they also indicate that opting out of notifications will not cease all communications. I assume those clauses exist so that the company with which you’re doing business can still contact you if there’s a problem with your account—whether they abuse that is a whole other issue, and I have yet to be spammed by Facebook. They actually deliver fewer direct mailings (via email) to me than my credit card companies, opting instead to broadcast updates on their blog.
6 The CIA would probably look at your stuff anyway, if they really needed to
Does anyone really think that the CIA, or any other homeland security organization, would not be able to access your information on a social networking site just because that site’s TOS didn’t say that they could? I don’t.
Tags:
business models,
facebook,
internet,
reality check,
social networking
Related posts
Print This Post
