Ever since the introduction and wide usage of electronic mail in the 1990s, other forms of communication have dwindled considerably. The communication medium most affected by the onset of email has been the paper-and-ink letter, an alternative relegated to the term “snail mail” as of late. Not only has the “art” of letter-writing all but disappeared among the younger generations due to the popularity of electronic mail and instant messages, but the costs incurred from writing and sending letters, as well as time spent writing them dissuade users further. In an age that requires increased speed and more complicated multitasking, emails have overwhelmingly become the norm. But how has the introduction in 2004 and booming success of Facebook affected this trend? Does there remain any hope for personalized communication?
The Facebook feature that most resembles the private and direct nature of the electronic email or paper letter is the message. The ability to send these messages from one’s Facebook, rather than opening another browser window or adding an additional “tab” to one’s window further expedites the communication process. In a matter seconds, senders have written, proofread, and sent an electronic letter free of charge. And the most convenient feature of electronic mail: it’s instantly in the recipient’s digital mailbox. Time has become one of modern man’s greatest adversaries, particularly with the constant perfection and re-perfection of technology and computer processing speed. The ability to have completed the expression of and sent information in an instantaneous manner has transformed electronic communication from a convenient method to a fully necessary one. To much of the world, the prospect of waiting a few days to a week for a single message to arrive (and that is just domestic communication) is unacceptable. This widespread, if not complete, movement towards the necessity of speed concerning communication has eliminated more time-consuming or “strenuous” methods, including letter writing, phone usage, postcards.
Will the basic written letter become the telegram? How soon from 2010 will the letter fall into complete disuse? As the youngest generations have had no experience with the telegraph, what does this say about the survival of the letter? How will networking sites like Facebook affect the communication styles of children born in the second decade of the millennium? The popularity of electronic mail over postage has incurred billions of dollars of deficit for the United States Postal Service. Under these conditions, it is difficult to see a bright future for postal services, particularly since USPS now competes for packages, something you as of yet cannot send by your laptop, with Federal Express and the United Parcel Service. Many parents and grandparents of our generation share the worry that communication among the youth has become depersonalized and desensitized, and that it caters to the growing impatience of the 21st century generations. Is Facebook, itself a personalized networking site, personal enough for sufficient human interaction? Leading into my next post, do social networks bring us closer by keeping us in touch with those we don’t see in-person, or does it distance its users by placing them behind a computer screen to communicate?
Monday, November 29, 2010
How does Facebook stay free of charge for its users? And for how long will it remain that way?
"We want the world to use Facebook and I think the best way we get revenue is when people put up the page and it is all free and then they advertise to show people where the pages are. You've got to show people you've arrived. If I'm a business I can advertise to the whole world or to the people in Liverpool. We offer at both ends of that spectrum." – Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook COO
Since Facebook had gained over four hundred million subscribers, users began to worry that the company would begin to charge them for its services. It only seems logical that once the network, which is indeed a business, had gained so many users, it would seek to realize profits beyond those garnered from its extensive advertising ventures. During this panic, the social network saw the creation of a bevy of groups dedicated to “keeping Facebook free.” The rumor that Facebook would indeed begin to charge its users spread like wildfire until company executives finally ended the outcries for free social networking in an April 2010 conference.
Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, quelled rumors concerning the social networking site’s possible new business ventures. She stressed that the site will continue to be an “ad-based business” and not exploit its frequent usage by consumers by charging them fees to access or personalize their profiles. Sandberg stressed the fact that the key to keeping Facebook’s membership high and increasing is keeping the network free. Word of mouth sees the success of many Facebook advertisers and patrons, particularly those catering to the needs and wants of Facebook’s mostly youth user population. Facebook officials find that the updated “like” feature and personalized ads attract a considerable population of the network’s users and thus increase profits for advertisers.
It is Facebook, Inc.’s view that rather than forego additional users by barring many from accessing the site with fees, it ought to rely on advertisers to make up for possible increased revenue. Sandberg states that increases in the social network population have led to “compelling” profits for the company, a sign that keeping Facebook free in the future might benefit its users just as much as its shareholders. Continuing to cater to the “likes” of its users, Facebook believes in matching advertisers with potential consumers in a global and local manner. The social network uses web browser activity to pinpoint goods and services any particular user would be interested in. It might offer you tickets to a concert in your city or present you with a screen cap for a worldwide movie premiere this weekend. As long as Facebook excels at this type of producer-consumer matching game, it should have no problem supporting its rapidly growing user population.
Facebook executives are confident that the interactive features the site provides its users when it comes to advertisements will rocket this ad format past the success of television commercials. As more people are using the internet to watch their television programs, Facebook executives expect users to spend more time on their sites and thus see further increases in ad revenue. But as Sandberg states, Facebook will not veer from its original goal of connecting people by introducing pop-up ads or access fees. Over six years after it’s opening, Facebook still appears to put user satisfaction first and profit-making strategies second.
Source: http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2010/04/facebook-services-to-stay-free.html
Since Facebook had gained over four hundred million subscribers, users began to worry that the company would begin to charge them for its services. It only seems logical that once the network, which is indeed a business, had gained so many users, it would seek to realize profits beyond those garnered from its extensive advertising ventures. During this panic, the social network saw the creation of a bevy of groups dedicated to “keeping Facebook free.” The rumor that Facebook would indeed begin to charge its users spread like wildfire until company executives finally ended the outcries for free social networking in an April 2010 conference.
Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, quelled rumors concerning the social networking site’s possible new business ventures. She stressed that the site will continue to be an “ad-based business” and not exploit its frequent usage by consumers by charging them fees to access or personalize their profiles. Sandberg stressed the fact that the key to keeping Facebook’s membership high and increasing is keeping the network free. Word of mouth sees the success of many Facebook advertisers and patrons, particularly those catering to the needs and wants of Facebook’s mostly youth user population. Facebook officials find that the updated “like” feature and personalized ads attract a considerable population of the network’s users and thus increase profits for advertisers.
It is Facebook, Inc.’s view that rather than forego additional users by barring many from accessing the site with fees, it ought to rely on advertisers to make up for possible increased revenue. Sandberg states that increases in the social network population have led to “compelling” profits for the company, a sign that keeping Facebook free in the future might benefit its users just as much as its shareholders. Continuing to cater to the “likes” of its users, Facebook believes in matching advertisers with potential consumers in a global and local manner. The social network uses web browser activity to pinpoint goods and services any particular user would be interested in. It might offer you tickets to a concert in your city or present you with a screen cap for a worldwide movie premiere this weekend. As long as Facebook excels at this type of producer-consumer matching game, it should have no problem supporting its rapidly growing user population.
Facebook executives are confident that the interactive features the site provides its users when it comes to advertisements will rocket this ad format past the success of television commercials. As more people are using the internet to watch their television programs, Facebook executives expect users to spend more time on their sites and thus see further increases in ad revenue. But as Sandberg states, Facebook will not veer from its original goal of connecting people by introducing pop-up ads or access fees. Over six years after it’s opening, Facebook still appears to put user satisfaction first and profit-making strategies second.
Source: http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2010/04/facebook-services-to-stay-free.html
Limited Profile
As a college student, I’ve seen many around me run into a social dilemma unique to this generation. As part of an effort to integrate more with their children’s’ lives, many parents of students are creating Facebook accounts to “friend” their kids because they have heard from others how it’s a useful way to connect and maintain relationships. On the flipside, however, the student wants to live up to the newfound freedom of the college freedom and does not want to be tied down by the fact that his parents may still always be watching. Some students in this position harshly choose not to accept their parents’ friend requests. Others compromise by adding their parents to a Limited Profile list.
For those who are unfamiliar with Facebook terms, the Limited Profile is an option for users that allow them to hide certain information about themselves from a certain group of people. For example, if I am Facebook friends with my parents, I would be able to restrict their access to content by adding them to a Limited Profile list and choosing which features I want to hide from people in this list. This could allow me to hide my photos from only my parents, whereas I can continue to reveal that as public information to others.
The Limited Profile offers a unique point of view of an online personality for different people so that a user could craft multiple images for himself, depending on the audience. Anybody can make themselves seem like the quiet, hardworking type to their parents and co-workers, while appearing like the crazy party animal to their friends. This allows anyone to conveniently live out multiple identities, depending on the situation, which is something that has never been easily done in human history.
Another less obvious consequence of the Limited Profile is that it involves concretely categorizing Facebook “friends” into different lists based on the level of comfort regarding open sharing of information in the relationship. By putting someone into a Limited Profile, the user is making a statement- “I am not close enough (or comfortable enough) to show this person the real me”. Having the Limited Profile list cements this relationship’s weaker comfort level, putting the connection distinctly below a normal relationship in the hierarchy of “friends”. One could say that it would be more accurate to label these bonds as “acquaintances” rather than “friends”, but the latter is obviously much more marketable and user-friendly. Facebook thus allows one to use the term “friend” broadly as an umbrella word to cover a wide spectrum of relationships, from a grumpy boss to a real best buddy.
For those who are unfamiliar with Facebook terms, the Limited Profile is an option for users that allow them to hide certain information about themselves from a certain group of people. For example, if I am Facebook friends with my parents, I would be able to restrict their access to content by adding them to a Limited Profile list and choosing which features I want to hide from people in this list. This could allow me to hide my photos from only my parents, whereas I can continue to reveal that as public information to others.
The Limited Profile offers a unique point of view of an online personality for different people so that a user could craft multiple images for himself, depending on the audience. Anybody can make themselves seem like the quiet, hardworking type to their parents and co-workers, while appearing like the crazy party animal to their friends. This allows anyone to conveniently live out multiple identities, depending on the situation, which is something that has never been easily done in human history.
Another less obvious consequence of the Limited Profile is that it involves concretely categorizing Facebook “friends” into different lists based on the level of comfort regarding open sharing of information in the relationship. By putting someone into a Limited Profile, the user is making a statement- “I am not close enough (or comfortable enough) to show this person the real me”. Having the Limited Profile list cements this relationship’s weaker comfort level, putting the connection distinctly below a normal relationship in the hierarchy of “friends”. One could say that it would be more accurate to label these bonds as “acquaintances” rather than “friends”, but the latter is obviously much more marketable and user-friendly. Facebook thus allows one to use the term “friend” broadly as an umbrella word to cover a wide spectrum of relationships, from a grumpy boss to a real best buddy.
First Impressions in Jobs
The power of altering first impressions has a uniquely critical role in the job sphere. While many use Facebook to give themselves first impressions that improve their image, the Facebook profile is capable of negatively affecting a user as well.
Let’s take the example of an anonymous girl (we’ll call her Molly) who was mentioned in an NBC article because of how Facebook has impacted her career (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20202935/ns/business-personal_finance). Van Allen, a job recruiter for hospitals, deemed her as a well-qualified young female psychiatrist and looked her up on Facebook, only to find pictures of her taking her shirt off at parties. While this may have nothing to do with her ability in the hospital, Molly ended up not getting the job.
There are many different perspectives circulating the issue. Some believe that a Facebook user has complete control over what he reveals to the public, and thus it is valid for companies to use this material to determine whether the candidate is a good fit with the company’s culture. On the other hand, many others believe that using the Facebook profile is a violation of a meritocracy, because one’s profile picture and interests should not play any role in terms of how good someone is at his job. Additionally, when most users are told that their information is public, it usually does not click with them that the term “public” means…well, public—for anyone in the world to see. Whether Facebook is a valid form of background checks is a hot topic for debate.
To be safe, a good tip before applying for a job is to treat your Facebook profile like a resume and assume that your future boss will be looking at it. People aren’t immune from this panoptical effect once they get the job either. Many can be fired even after they have secured their job. Would your boss be comfortable with that picture tagged of you at a party throwing up over a trash can? What about the fact that you included “procrastination” in your activities list, even as a joke? Doing some cleanup from this perspective can ensure your safety in your career.
Let’s take the example of an anonymous girl (we’ll call her Molly) who was mentioned in an NBC article because of how Facebook has impacted her career (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20202935/ns/business-personal_finance). Van Allen, a job recruiter for hospitals, deemed her as a well-qualified young female psychiatrist and looked her up on Facebook, only to find pictures of her taking her shirt off at parties. While this may have nothing to do with her ability in the hospital, Molly ended up not getting the job.
There are many different perspectives circulating the issue. Some believe that a Facebook user has complete control over what he reveals to the public, and thus it is valid for companies to use this material to determine whether the candidate is a good fit with the company’s culture. On the other hand, many others believe that using the Facebook profile is a violation of a meritocracy, because one’s profile picture and interests should not play any role in terms of how good someone is at his job. Additionally, when most users are told that their information is public, it usually does not click with them that the term “public” means…well, public—for anyone in the world to see. Whether Facebook is a valid form of background checks is a hot topic for debate.
To be safe, a good tip before applying for a job is to treat your Facebook profile like a resume and assume that your future boss will be looking at it. People aren’t immune from this panoptical effect once they get the job either. Many can be fired even after they have secured their job. Would your boss be comfortable with that picture tagged of you at a party throwing up over a trash can? What about the fact that you included “procrastination” in your activities list, even as a joke? Doing some cleanup from this perspective can ensure your safety in your career.
First Impressions
In the first few seconds of a human being’s first encounter with another human, both people develop thoughts and perceptions of the other that will influence the rest of their relationship. A man once said “Never hire anyone who is going to report directly to you who you do not intuitively just plain like from first impressions. If your instincts tell you you're going to have a hard time working with someone, pass” (Fred Charette). This is evident in not only job interviews, but also at first dates, casual introductions at school…everywhere.
A rarely visited consequence of controlling features shown on Facebook is that a profile gives a user the ability to manipulate others’ first impressions of the person.
Nowadays, before setting job interviews, recruiters are very, very likely to search for the person on Facebook to get a sense of whether the candidate would fit in nicely with the company’s culture. Also nowadays, before a first date, both people involved are very likely to go onto Facebook to find out more about the other to get a hint on whether the other would be compatible. In fact, before any meeting in which person A is about to meet person B, person A is likely to search up person B because of the relatively low cost of finding out more before entering a social interaction.
Before such a vastly used social network, control of first impressions didn’t exist. You could try to look your best as you walked out the door, but after that it’s pretty much up to other people to make judgments on you. With Facebook, others make judgments on you as well, but you have the power to greatly influence those judgments by choosing the perfect profile picture, revealing interests that seem sophisticated and displaying quotes that sound intelligent.
This concept is so prevalent in the job sphere that it deserves its own focus.
A rarely visited consequence of controlling features shown on Facebook is that a profile gives a user the ability to manipulate others’ first impressions of the person.
Nowadays, before setting job interviews, recruiters are very, very likely to search for the person on Facebook to get a sense of whether the candidate would fit in nicely with the company’s culture. Also nowadays, before a first date, both people involved are very likely to go onto Facebook to find out more about the other to get a hint on whether the other would be compatible. In fact, before any meeting in which person A is about to meet person B, person A is likely to search up person B because of the relatively low cost of finding out more before entering a social interaction.
Before such a vastly used social network, control of first impressions didn’t exist. You could try to look your best as you walked out the door, but after that it’s pretty much up to other people to make judgments on you. With Facebook, others make judgments on you as well, but you have the power to greatly influence those judgments by choosing the perfect profile picture, revealing interests that seem sophisticated and displaying quotes that sound intelligent.
This concept is so prevalent in the job sphere that it deserves its own focus.
Connect with Facebook
Let’s take a closer look at some activities I did online today. First was my homepage, CNN, where I checked out some local news to begin my web surfing. Next was Facebook—the urge to see what my friends are up to is strong. I also hit up www.sheyna.com, the customized jewelry startup that I worked at this summer, because I received several emails about it from my former boss. I then did some computer science homework and visited Piazzza, the discussion forum, to look at some threads to help me get started. In the process, I got distracted and began to chat online with some friends (who doesn’t?).
In every one of these activities, I logged in, whether automatically or not, through Facebook or Facebook Connect.
What is Facebook Connect? According to Facebook developer Dave Morin, it is a tool that “allows users to ‘connect’ their Facebook identity, friends, and privacy to any site. This will now enable third party websites to implement…features of Facebook Platform off of Facebook” (http://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/108). The definition itself already implies its impacts—Facebook is quickly becoming a human being entrance tool into the world wide web.
It’s already incredibly popular and appealing to the user. “Users prefer to use Facebook Connect by a margin of 2-to-1” (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login.php
). This statistic means that if a website owner was to implement Facebook Connect into the system, users are twice more likely to log in through Facebook than the native site’s login system itself. Powerful. What makes this widget so popular?
From an application developer’s perspective, Facebook Connect is an incredibly convenient tool that is easy to implement and provides a lot of user data without ever explicitly asking for it. A Facebook user’s account contains a hub of information already so the application developer no longer needs to ask the user for these basics. I interviewed Kyle Horimoto, a member of Facebook’s software development team this past summer, who believes that Facebook’s encapsulation of a user’s online identity represents “the future of the web”. “Ideally, sites should personalize themselves to the user with minimal user effort. Facebook Connect can bring us there by decreasing the work it takes for a user to create a personalized online experience,” Horimoto says.
It’s easy, yes, but what does it mean for society? Specifically, what does it mean to a society that is rapidly moving all its services to the web? A Facebook profile is becoming similar to a driver’s license in terms of being an identity marker. There is enormous power being put in the control of a single online power hours. If this social network, which has become so central to our online experiences, were to ever shut down, charge prices, or make any other similar architectural changes to its structure, the impacts would be enormous as we continue to grow more dependent on this tool’s convenience. Some believe that all social media would completely fall apart (http://blog.futureranking.com/if-facebook-shutdown-what-would-happen-to-the-social-media/
). Additionally, in the future, a hacker would only need to break into a Facebook account to retrieve a password that could be used to steal one’s identity on every site on the net.
However, aside from the potential risks of having a centralized base of information to be attacked, the benefits of an online “account” for everything has the potential to be incredibly useful, as Horimoto suggested. We just need to ask ourselves: are we mentally ready to commit our online entity to a single corporation for these benefits? The conservative may be hesitant, while others don’t mind the spread of this universal login because of its convenience.
Regardless of whether you support the movement or not, Facebook is quickly becoming the core of our online entity. Next time a site asks you to “Connect with Facebook”, know that clicking the button means taking part in society’s move towards a new, personalized internet.
In every one of these activities, I logged in, whether automatically or not, through Facebook or Facebook Connect.
What is Facebook Connect? According to Facebook developer Dave Morin, it is a tool that “allows users to ‘connect’ their Facebook identity, friends, and privacy to any site. This will now enable third party websites to implement…features of Facebook Platform off of Facebook” (http://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/108). The definition itself already implies its impacts—Facebook is quickly becoming a human being entrance tool into the world wide web.
It’s already incredibly popular and appealing to the user. “Users prefer to use Facebook Connect by a margin of 2-to-1” (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login.php
). This statistic means that if a website owner was to implement Facebook Connect into the system, users are twice more likely to log in through Facebook than the native site’s login system itself. Powerful. What makes this widget so popular?
From an application developer’s perspective, Facebook Connect is an incredibly convenient tool that is easy to implement and provides a lot of user data without ever explicitly asking for it. A Facebook user’s account contains a hub of information already so the application developer no longer needs to ask the user for these basics. I interviewed Kyle Horimoto, a member of Facebook’s software development team this past summer, who believes that Facebook’s encapsulation of a user’s online identity represents “the future of the web”. “Ideally, sites should personalize themselves to the user with minimal user effort. Facebook Connect can bring us there by decreasing the work it takes for a user to create a personalized online experience,” Horimoto says.
It’s easy, yes, but what does it mean for society? Specifically, what does it mean to a society that is rapidly moving all its services to the web? A Facebook profile is becoming similar to a driver’s license in terms of being an identity marker. There is enormous power being put in the control of a single online power hours. If this social network, which has become so central to our online experiences, were to ever shut down, charge prices, or make any other similar architectural changes to its structure, the impacts would be enormous as we continue to grow more dependent on this tool’s convenience. Some believe that all social media would completely fall apart (http://blog.futureranking.com/if-facebook-shutdown-what-would-happen-to-the-social-media/
). Additionally, in the future, a hacker would only need to break into a Facebook account to retrieve a password that could be used to steal one’s identity on every site on the net.
However, aside from the potential risks of having a centralized base of information to be attacked, the benefits of an online “account” for everything has the potential to be incredibly useful, as Horimoto suggested. We just need to ask ourselves: are we mentally ready to commit our online entity to a single corporation for these benefits? The conservative may be hesitant, while others don’t mind the spread of this universal login because of its convenience.
Regardless of whether you support the movement or not, Facebook is quickly becoming the core of our online entity. Next time a site asks you to “Connect with Facebook”, know that clicking the button means taking part in society’s move towards a new, personalized internet.
A Mask
When people say they are on Facebook 24/7, they are obviously exaggerating. However, it’s true that many Facebook users today, especially high school and college students, are on Facebook for an unhealthily large number of hours daily. As a college student, all I have to do is sit in the back row of a lecture hall to witness this phenomenon, as most of the students “taking notes” on laptops are really checking out their News Feeds. What makes Facebook so addicting? The obvious answer that Facebook probably advertises is that the social network is a platform where humans can learn more about their friends and family and stay updated, which is definitely true. However, I believe there is another less obvious reason:
Facebook can also be addicting because it gives a human complete control over how others perceive them.
A Facebook user can choose exactly what dimensions of their being others can see. They can control which photos of them are visible to the public, as seen when many people “de-tag” from photos where they find themselves unattractive. They can instantly reveal to others what they are looking for (i.e. networking or a relationship), their basic interests, their favorite activities/music/books/movies/TV shows, and really, anything they want, without speaking a word. Before Facebook, never has a human been able to so easily express so much information about himself in such a public medium without any direct contact or conversation. One of Facebook’s many functions, therefore, is a unique way for anyone to achieve instant customized self-expression to many.
From this perspective, Facebook is similar to Second Life, a 3D virtual world where users create an alternate identity that they can control all features of. While Facebook is much more restrictive in that people generally do not post false information about themselves, Second Life lets anyone pretend to be anyone they want to be to others, ridiculous lies included. In no other situation in history is a human able to achieve such an effect so effectively. Addiction to both Facebook and Second Life may partially stem from an innate desire of humans for others to view them positively, which is something both social networks are capable of doing.
When else in humanity’s existence has any being had so much control over their image? This I cannot recall. Saying that power of these new social networks is overwhelming is an understatement.
Facebook can also be addicting because it gives a human complete control over how others perceive them.
A Facebook user can choose exactly what dimensions of their being others can see. They can control which photos of them are visible to the public, as seen when many people “de-tag” from photos where they find themselves unattractive. They can instantly reveal to others what they are looking for (i.e. networking or a relationship), their basic interests, their favorite activities/music/books/movies/TV shows, and really, anything they want, without speaking a word. Before Facebook, never has a human been able to so easily express so much information about himself in such a public medium without any direct contact or conversation. One of Facebook’s many functions, therefore, is a unique way for anyone to achieve instant customized self-expression to many.
From this perspective, Facebook is similar to Second Life, a 3D virtual world where users create an alternate identity that they can control all features of. While Facebook is much more restrictive in that people generally do not post false information about themselves, Second Life lets anyone pretend to be anyone they want to be to others, ridiculous lies included. In no other situation in history is a human able to achieve such an effect so effectively. Addiction to both Facebook and Second Life may partially stem from an innate desire of humans for others to view them positively, which is something both social networks are capable of doing.
When else in humanity’s existence has any being had so much control over their image? This I cannot recall. Saying that power of these new social networks is overwhelming is an understatement.
Face-to-Facebook: Human Interaction as a Result of Social Networking
Facebook. It redefined what a friend is. It revolutionized communication. It broke the rules of social boundaries and personal space. And it’s not stopping there. On its own website, facebook brags about its ever-growing domination of interpersonal communication: “More than 500 million active users/ 50% of our active users log on to Facebook in any given day/Average user has 130 friends/People spend over 700 billion minutes per month on Facebook.” Such facts suggest that facebook dominates, or at least claims to, a significant part of our social lives. But what happens to one’s self as one exits the internet browser and encounters face-to-face interaction?
In this essay, I will attempt to unlock a deeper understanding of the connection between facebook and the effects it has on individualism in the world outside of profile pictures, statuses, “likes” and groups. I’ll attempt to answer the following: Does the same person translate from on-screen to real life? What changes in self-expression result from using facebook? And where is the individual? For the last question, I will attempt to locate the self within society which people wish to identify with most and how it was displaced with the arrival of facebook. Put simply, where does one’s social loyalties lie? No pun intended.
Before there was Facebook, Myspace, AOL, the internet, or even phones, most communication was accomplished face-to-face. As far back as man developed language, there was an intimate relationship between culture and interaction. The only way to interact was to talk with someone. And this was so up until the written word, where communication was made more convenient, efficient, and distant. There became a hierarchy of control, as evinced by the Egyptian “megamachine” where orders could be written, architecture planned on a blueprint, and communications passed down rather than the burdensome, direct interaction.
Later down the line came the printing press, the telephone, the television, and where we are now, the internet. Patterns developed over time where mankind limited his/her appearance in public and/or direct personal interaction to that which met the requirement of the needs of any given era, and rarely much more. For example, with the integration of the television inside of most households, it became uncustomary for families to have game nights, frequent trips to the park or family outings. A recent survey said that only five per cent of families said they never watch television together (Sims) and it is no surprise with the ever-growing need for efficiency and productivity in a post-industrial society. They just don’t have the time or energy to do the socially “intensive” task of interaction.
Then social networking, specifically facebook, came along, a network that allowed for interpersonal communication without the arduous challenge of leaving the comfort of one’s house. So we arrive now at the present-day circumstances as a result of a pattern of simplification, rationalization and shifts in culture. It is now more acceptable to text someone or message them on facebook than to call them or hand-write a letter addressed to them. Convenience has led to tradition, or so it would seem, unless one were to observe that, with respect to communication, convenience is tradition.
So it is evident that a great portion of time and communication is dedicated on the website of facebook.com between “friends”. But is there a different person behind the profile picture? Through observation, I have noticed the answer is yes, somewhat. Take a facebook user which I will name Fred. Fred, in social venues, is energetic, enthusiastic, and a bit over-the-top in his real-life interactions. I notice he is spontaneous and generally driven on impulse which tends to intimidate those who do not know him very well. On facebook however, he has all the time he needs to collect his thoughts, take a profile picture that imitates a reflective personality, leave inspirational quotes as statuses, leave the most benevolent comments on friends’ walls, and write long, contemplative pieces as a note for the public to see.
What about facebook creates this paradox? For one, there is the fact that face-to-face interactions are often in small groups. On facebook though, your information is accessible to all of your friends, averaging 110 people to put on a show for. That’s a lot of pressure to abide by social norms and strictly avoid anything that would offset the perfect “image” of oneself. It’s almost like stage fright in front of a large audience, except this time the stage can be manipulated.
Another difference is that, of the numerous facebook friends one may have, only a small percentage are actually close. Therefore, one is reaching out, generally, to an audience which one is not entirely comfortable with. Being thus estranged from familiarity with one’s audience, there is increased pressure not to embarrass oneself or give off an image which one would not want a stranger to see.
In face-to-face interactions, there is a certain tone, script, and composure that one must maintain. On facebook, there’s no way of telling what mood one is trying to convey. This leads to self-censorship online, something used to deter oneself from misconstruing one’s message to the public. There tends to be an online vocabulary that simplifies emotions and phrases as not to confuse the audience. It proves so effective that the very acronyms developed for use online are used in face-to-face interactions, where people sometimes spell out “el-oh-el”, “bee-tee dubs”, etc.
But we are the same on facebook in some respects. The same way we walk alone down a crowded street and don’t normally break out fervently dancing salsa, we don’t step out of our boundaries on facebook by commenting on unfamiliar friends’ pages. We don’t typically send a friend request to strangers, and we don’t poke people. Such things maintain the awkwardness from real life into the social network.
Subsequently, is one the same on facebook as one is in real life? This requires a complex, case-by-case analysis, but the most certain analysis is never quite the same. There are always idiosyncrasies and mannerisms unique to face-to-face interactions as there are personas we adopt on facebook. These aren’t necessarily bad, just different. It’s a sign showing that the human adaptation reflex is working. There is a problem when one cannot decipher between facebook and reality, where one should draw the line, and when facebook becomes more real than face-to-face interactions, but these are troublesome cases that require more in-depth analysis. One needs to be able to critically analyze his/her social life to discern what one values more and therefore which self is authentic: the facebook self or the face-to-face self. It’s evident, though, that face-to-face interactions are quickly becoming wall-to-wall.
In this essay, I will attempt to unlock a deeper understanding of the connection between facebook and the effects it has on individualism in the world outside of profile pictures, statuses, “likes” and groups. I’ll attempt to answer the following: Does the same person translate from on-screen to real life? What changes in self-expression result from using facebook? And where is the individual? For the last question, I will attempt to locate the self within society which people wish to identify with most and how it was displaced with the arrival of facebook. Put simply, where does one’s social loyalties lie? No pun intended.
Before there was Facebook, Myspace, AOL, the internet, or even phones, most communication was accomplished face-to-face. As far back as man developed language, there was an intimate relationship between culture and interaction. The only way to interact was to talk with someone. And this was so up until the written word, where communication was made more convenient, efficient, and distant. There became a hierarchy of control, as evinced by the Egyptian “megamachine” where orders could be written, architecture planned on a blueprint, and communications passed down rather than the burdensome, direct interaction.
Later down the line came the printing press, the telephone, the television, and where we are now, the internet. Patterns developed over time where mankind limited his/her appearance in public and/or direct personal interaction to that which met the requirement of the needs of any given era, and rarely much more. For example, with the integration of the television inside of most households, it became uncustomary for families to have game nights, frequent trips to the park or family outings. A recent survey said that only five per cent of families said they never watch television together (Sims) and it is no surprise with the ever-growing need for efficiency and productivity in a post-industrial society. They just don’t have the time or energy to do the socially “intensive” task of interaction.
Then social networking, specifically facebook, came along, a network that allowed for interpersonal communication without the arduous challenge of leaving the comfort of one’s house. So we arrive now at the present-day circumstances as a result of a pattern of simplification, rationalization and shifts in culture. It is now more acceptable to text someone or message them on facebook than to call them or hand-write a letter addressed to them. Convenience has led to tradition, or so it would seem, unless one were to observe that, with respect to communication, convenience is tradition.
So it is evident that a great portion of time and communication is dedicated on the website of facebook.com between “friends”. But is there a different person behind the profile picture? Through observation, I have noticed the answer is yes, somewhat. Take a facebook user which I will name Fred. Fred, in social venues, is energetic, enthusiastic, and a bit over-the-top in his real-life interactions. I notice he is spontaneous and generally driven on impulse which tends to intimidate those who do not know him very well. On facebook however, he has all the time he needs to collect his thoughts, take a profile picture that imitates a reflective personality, leave inspirational quotes as statuses, leave the most benevolent comments on friends’ walls, and write long, contemplative pieces as a note for the public to see.
What about facebook creates this paradox? For one, there is the fact that face-to-face interactions are often in small groups. On facebook though, your information is accessible to all of your friends, averaging 110 people to put on a show for. That’s a lot of pressure to abide by social norms and strictly avoid anything that would offset the perfect “image” of oneself. It’s almost like stage fright in front of a large audience, except this time the stage can be manipulated.
Another difference is that, of the numerous facebook friends one may have, only a small percentage are actually close. Therefore, one is reaching out, generally, to an audience which one is not entirely comfortable with. Being thus estranged from familiarity with one’s audience, there is increased pressure not to embarrass oneself or give off an image which one would not want a stranger to see.
In face-to-face interactions, there is a certain tone, script, and composure that one must maintain. On facebook, there’s no way of telling what mood one is trying to convey. This leads to self-censorship online, something used to deter oneself from misconstruing one’s message to the public. There tends to be an online vocabulary that simplifies emotions and phrases as not to confuse the audience. It proves so effective that the very acronyms developed for use online are used in face-to-face interactions, where people sometimes spell out “el-oh-el”, “bee-tee dubs”, etc.
But we are the same on facebook in some respects. The same way we walk alone down a crowded street and don’t normally break out fervently dancing salsa, we don’t step out of our boundaries on facebook by commenting on unfamiliar friends’ pages. We don’t typically send a friend request to strangers, and we don’t poke people. Such things maintain the awkwardness from real life into the social network.
Subsequently, is one the same on facebook as one is in real life? This requires a complex, case-by-case analysis, but the most certain analysis is never quite the same. There are always idiosyncrasies and mannerisms unique to face-to-face interactions as there are personas we adopt on facebook. These aren’t necessarily bad, just different. It’s a sign showing that the human adaptation reflex is working. There is a problem when one cannot decipher between facebook and reality, where one should draw the line, and when facebook becomes more real than face-to-face interactions, but these are troublesome cases that require more in-depth analysis. One needs to be able to critically analyze his/her social life to discern what one values more and therefore which self is authentic: the facebook self or the face-to-face self. It’s evident, though, that face-to-face interactions are quickly becoming wall-to-wall.
Facebook and the Self.
Why do people join Facebook? What does it provide for self-esteem, cognition, and free will? In this blog post, I will try to explore how a social networking system can create an identity crisis, a loner, and an existential doubt. By offering a medium of self expression other than physical reality, it convolutes the mind into believing in an intertwined dualism existing between virtual and real. With this paired existence, one must compete with oneself to prioritize which image of their self they wish to portray, the real or the “enhanced” real. Then by isolating one, they abandon the other, thus creating a vacuum in which their beliefs cannot readily cross one realm or the other without a necessary transitory conversion. Essentially, through Facebook exists a metaphysical dilemma between reality and “surreality” where the self assumes a new identity.
First, we have the mind as a whole. Assuming there is an overlying cognitive, self-willed decision-maker, then one may judge accordingly that he/she is in control of his/her actions. With that being said, we would assume free will of the mind and control of one’s own actions. Now we have decisions being made, in real time. Or are they? In a normal interactive scenario, the agent would utilize his/her mental capacities to make a decision for the moment of the interaction (disregarding any delay in thought processing). But, in the Facebook interaction, every action or thought can be delayed, diluted, redirected, reversed, undone, or even nullified. What does this do to the individual?
Paradoxically, Facebook offers the promise of finding yourself through expression, having hundreds of “friends” and truly belonging in a world where Facebook is reality’s greatest sidekick. But, taking a look deeper, Facebook can have profound effects on thought processing and will-to-action. Whereas a phone conversation, letter, or face-to-face interaction requires immediate agency, Facebook indulges its users with the façade of the time gap. This in small quantities is no metaphysical dilemma as much as it is a nuisance to reality. But when multiplied across by events, status updates, picture changes, comments, games, pokes, messages, advertising, groups, etc., then there becomes a second reality in which the mind’s internal clock must be calibrated to function accurately. If this calibration were to fail, and the agent should act on Facebook in real-time, then the consequences can be overwhelming.
Take for example a couple who just changed their Facebook relationship status to “It’s complicated.” From a Facebook user’s perspective, this seems vague and controversial. But translate this into reality and the disillusionment is amplified. You don’t want to approach the couple without a clear indication of their relationship status else you’d appear inconsiderate. The situation becomes a psychological puzzle. You start viewing them differently in real life because of a vague situation created in Facebook. This was just one scenario in which a happening on Facebook strained the understanding of reality. Multiply this by every other communication mechanism on Facebook and you have an excess of input and strain on your mental capacities to filter what’s unimportant and translate what’s encrypted. Failure to do so will create an alternate reality, the Facebook realm, coexisting with the real interaction. I call this the Facebook dilemma.
How can one both exist naturally and exist alternately on Facebook? Sure enough, there are dissimilarities and notable separations, but the problem which I wished to expose was that there is also an alternate reality. This Facebook reality is abject to us: it captures reality in a mimicked fashion and skews it so that we see life through different lenses. It is in this fashion that we are contorted by the influx of Facebook feedback and faced yet again with questioning the authenticity of the self in reality.
My final point was cleverly written out before I erased it and replaced it with the sentence that you are reading now. This component of the Facebook dilemma features the undo function: the ability to reverse, undo, or delete almost anything you do on Facebook. No longer do people need to think before they talk if there is a function which can erase what was said with merely one click. What does this mean for the self? One way to quite understand this is to imagine having a conversation with someone. You ask her a question and await her response. Then, when she is talking, as you assume because her mouth is moving, you hear nothing come out. You look upon her quizzically as this strange phenomenon occurs. Then her mouth stops and you hear the response and usually all is well. But for the few moments of phenomenon, you were lost, confused and curious as to what was being said. This is similar to the words of a person being deleted before being sent to you. There is also the case where the words are sent, but immediately deleted later, but the two cases are nearly identical for the sake of this argument.
These words were bits of consciousness streamed onto the keyboard and into data on a computer. The real doubt arises when you try to figure out what was trying to be said. Surely you can cast the matter aside, but words that existed and that could have been meant for you were held captive and disintegrated before you were even able to cast your own judgment on their value. Simply, you were robbed of your thinking capacities and manipulated by the other person to believe that the words you ultimately read were meant all along.
This runs into several problems of its own. Like, what am I reading on Facebook that is really significant? How much of this was cleverly thought of before reaching their wall? What were they originally writing before they erased it and replaced it with this message? The answers to these questions may overwhelmingly lead to dead ends or irrelevancies. But one may never know because the opportunity to think was controlled by a person thousands of miles away.
To think this way is to think like a madman. It’s dangerous and unhealthy. Which is why when we ask “What were you saying?” we may often get the response “don’t worry about it.” But what you see in a blog post may or may not be what was originally intended in the mind of the blogger, who knows? What you can do is judge based on what you see, and know for yourself that you are using your mental capacities to evaluate your self’s integrity. Sometimes the safest way is the simplest way, but if we allow our senses to guide us, then we may not give ourselves the opportunity to exercise our free will of mind, so it’s as if it doesn’t exist. That’s why it would never hurt to peek a little more into a situation and gather information to make educated conclusions of matters for yourself. After all, it’s because we can think for ourselves that our individual self exists, no matter how manipulated it may be. “Cogito ergo sum” –Descartes.
First, we have the mind as a whole. Assuming there is an overlying cognitive, self-willed decision-maker, then one may judge accordingly that he/she is in control of his/her actions. With that being said, we would assume free will of the mind and control of one’s own actions. Now we have decisions being made, in real time. Or are they? In a normal interactive scenario, the agent would utilize his/her mental capacities to make a decision for the moment of the interaction (disregarding any delay in thought processing). But, in the Facebook interaction, every action or thought can be delayed, diluted, redirected, reversed, undone, or even nullified. What does this do to the individual?
Paradoxically, Facebook offers the promise of finding yourself through expression, having hundreds of “friends” and truly belonging in a world where Facebook is reality’s greatest sidekick. But, taking a look deeper, Facebook can have profound effects on thought processing and will-to-action. Whereas a phone conversation, letter, or face-to-face interaction requires immediate agency, Facebook indulges its users with the façade of the time gap. This in small quantities is no metaphysical dilemma as much as it is a nuisance to reality. But when multiplied across by events, status updates, picture changes, comments, games, pokes, messages, advertising, groups, etc., then there becomes a second reality in which the mind’s internal clock must be calibrated to function accurately. If this calibration were to fail, and the agent should act on Facebook in real-time, then the consequences can be overwhelming.
Take for example a couple who just changed their Facebook relationship status to “It’s complicated.” From a Facebook user’s perspective, this seems vague and controversial. But translate this into reality and the disillusionment is amplified. You don’t want to approach the couple without a clear indication of their relationship status else you’d appear inconsiderate. The situation becomes a psychological puzzle. You start viewing them differently in real life because of a vague situation created in Facebook. This was just one scenario in which a happening on Facebook strained the understanding of reality. Multiply this by every other communication mechanism on Facebook and you have an excess of input and strain on your mental capacities to filter what’s unimportant and translate what’s encrypted. Failure to do so will create an alternate reality, the Facebook realm, coexisting with the real interaction. I call this the Facebook dilemma.
How can one both exist naturally and exist alternately on Facebook? Sure enough, there are dissimilarities and notable separations, but the problem which I wished to expose was that there is also an alternate reality. This Facebook reality is abject to us: it captures reality in a mimicked fashion and skews it so that we see life through different lenses. It is in this fashion that we are contorted by the influx of Facebook feedback and faced yet again with questioning the authenticity of the self in reality.
My final point was cleverly written out before I erased it and replaced it with the sentence that you are reading now. This component of the Facebook dilemma features the undo function: the ability to reverse, undo, or delete almost anything you do on Facebook. No longer do people need to think before they talk if there is a function which can erase what was said with merely one click. What does this mean for the self? One way to quite understand this is to imagine having a conversation with someone. You ask her a question and await her response. Then, when she is talking, as you assume because her mouth is moving, you hear nothing come out. You look upon her quizzically as this strange phenomenon occurs. Then her mouth stops and you hear the response and usually all is well. But for the few moments of phenomenon, you were lost, confused and curious as to what was being said. This is similar to the words of a person being deleted before being sent to you. There is also the case where the words are sent, but immediately deleted later, but the two cases are nearly identical for the sake of this argument.
These words were bits of consciousness streamed onto the keyboard and into data on a computer. The real doubt arises when you try to figure out what was trying to be said. Surely you can cast the matter aside, but words that existed and that could have been meant for you were held captive and disintegrated before you were even able to cast your own judgment on their value. Simply, you were robbed of your thinking capacities and manipulated by the other person to believe that the words you ultimately read were meant all along.
This runs into several problems of its own. Like, what am I reading on Facebook that is really significant? How much of this was cleverly thought of before reaching their wall? What were they originally writing before they erased it and replaced it with this message? The answers to these questions may overwhelmingly lead to dead ends or irrelevancies. But one may never know because the opportunity to think was controlled by a person thousands of miles away.
To think this way is to think like a madman. It’s dangerous and unhealthy. Which is why when we ask “What were you saying?” we may often get the response “don’t worry about it.” But what you see in a blog post may or may not be what was originally intended in the mind of the blogger, who knows? What you can do is judge based on what you see, and know for yourself that you are using your mental capacities to evaluate your self’s integrity. Sometimes the safest way is the simplest way, but if we allow our senses to guide us, then we may not give ourselves the opportunity to exercise our free will of mind, so it’s as if it doesn’t exist. That’s why it would never hurt to peek a little more into a situation and gather information to make educated conclusions of matters for yourself. After all, it’s because we can think for ourselves that our individual self exists, no matter how manipulated it may be. “Cogito ergo sum” –Descartes.
How does Facebook Affect my Everyday Life?
50% of Facebooks active users log onto Facebook in any given day. The average time spent on Facebook is about 23 minutes a day. That means that users are spending over 700 billion minutes per month on Facebook. That’s a lot of time out of our day, out of our lives. Bottom line: Facebook takes up a lot of our time.
Looking at the a group from the highest user pool of 18-23 year olds, a small survey done with ten students at Stanford showed that nine out of ten students check Facebook at least once a day, seven students checked over 10 times a day. That’s between classes, on laptops, on iPhones, and at computer clusters. Everytime they sit down at a computer, they will go on Facebook. It becomes a habit, a necessity, almost like opening up their email.
How do these students use Facebook? They chat with classmates, keep in touch with friends far away, keep family members in tune with their lives, keep in tune with others’ lives, learn more about people they just met. The general communicative functions of Facebook are becoming ever so popular and easy to use. Students post on each other’s walls, asking about weekend plans, plan birthday parties over using the events functions, update status. This is all done publicly, for all their friends to see. What does this say about Facebook’s users? How does their usage of Facebook affect their lives?
Perhaps since your mom can see weekly updated pictures of you, she feels less inclined to call you and check up on what’s going on in your life. When you go back home on winter break, perhaps catching up with friends over lunch or dinner is less a priority for you. Afterall, you’ve seen their entire freshman year mapped out on their profile. Connections between people becomes less personal, less emotional. What you know about your friends and family depends not on interactions you have in person, rather what you read on each others’ walls, what their friends are saying, what events they are attending, what statuses they post. The “feeling” one gets from interacting with a person disappears. What you learn about them through their interests, their hometown, their photos, who their friends are, all tangible things recorded on a profile page, is now what defines your friends. “Friendships” are no longer based on emotional connections, rather surface labels and images. The fact that people care so much about what they say on their profile, what others write on their profile just goes to show how important “image” has become for the average citizen.
Consider other ways spending more time on Facebook affects our lives. More time being spent on Facebook means longer interaction with and influence from advertisers. This means that the average Facebook user will also be spending more time surfing the web. Advertisements for clothing, food services, games, will entice Facebook users to other websites, keeping them online and at their computer for longer amounts of time. People no longer will need to go out to shop for clothing, rather they can shop on americanapparel.net. These advertisements help Facebook users save time by not having to go to the store, but also minimize the number of physical interactions they have with the outside world. Are we confined to a computer screen in order to communicate with even just our next door neighbor? Are we a society who no longer values human relationships, but rather social labels and images?
http://www.socialmediatoday.com/paulkiser/199133/social-media-3q-update-who-uses-facebook-twitter-linkedin-myspace
Looking at the a group from the highest user pool of 18-23 year olds, a small survey done with ten students at Stanford showed that nine out of ten students check Facebook at least once a day, seven students checked over 10 times a day. That’s between classes, on laptops, on iPhones, and at computer clusters. Everytime they sit down at a computer, they will go on Facebook. It becomes a habit, a necessity, almost like opening up their email.
How do these students use Facebook? They chat with classmates, keep in touch with friends far away, keep family members in tune with their lives, keep in tune with others’ lives, learn more about people they just met. The general communicative functions of Facebook are becoming ever so popular and easy to use. Students post on each other’s walls, asking about weekend plans, plan birthday parties over using the events functions, update status. This is all done publicly, for all their friends to see. What does this say about Facebook’s users? How does their usage of Facebook affect their lives?
Perhaps since your mom can see weekly updated pictures of you, she feels less inclined to call you and check up on what’s going on in your life. When you go back home on winter break, perhaps catching up with friends over lunch or dinner is less a priority for you. Afterall, you’ve seen their entire freshman year mapped out on their profile. Connections between people becomes less personal, less emotional. What you know about your friends and family depends not on interactions you have in person, rather what you read on each others’ walls, what their friends are saying, what events they are attending, what statuses they post. The “feeling” one gets from interacting with a person disappears. What you learn about them through their interests, their hometown, their photos, who their friends are, all tangible things recorded on a profile page, is now what defines your friends. “Friendships” are no longer based on emotional connections, rather surface labels and images. The fact that people care so much about what they say on their profile, what others write on their profile just goes to show how important “image” has become for the average citizen.
Consider other ways spending more time on Facebook affects our lives. More time being spent on Facebook means longer interaction with and influence from advertisers. This means that the average Facebook user will also be spending more time surfing the web. Advertisements for clothing, food services, games, will entice Facebook users to other websites, keeping them online and at their computer for longer amounts of time. People no longer will need to go out to shop for clothing, rather they can shop on americanapparel.net. These advertisements help Facebook users save time by not having to go to the store, but also minimize the number of physical interactions they have with the outside world. Are we confined to a computer screen in order to communicate with even just our next door neighbor? Are we a society who no longer values human relationships, but rather social labels and images?
http://www.socialmediatoday.com/paulkiser/199133/social-media-3q-update-who-uses-facebook-twitter-linkedin-myspace
The Relationship Status
“Oh, so now you guys are Facebook Official? Woah, that’s a big deal.”
Relationship status has taken on a whole new level. Being “in a relationship” on Facebook is almost like a binding contract for couples, a written agreement that keeps them together. Couples want to world to know that they are together, they want their friends to know that they are loved, and that they are not alone. What does the fact that being “in a relationship” on Facebook is such a big deal mean?
Afterall, what does a label on your profile even mean? How does this label add or take away from your image on your Facebook? It is almost as if only by publicizing your relationship online so that all your friends can see is the relationship “real.” Our society relies heavily on artificial labels. Couples are seen as further into their relationship if they are official on Facebook than if they were not. But this cannot be the case. These superficial labels replace the true “meat” and emotions of a meaningful relationship. Or perhaps, what is meaningful in a relationship has changed. Rather than being in a relationship because a couple is in love, couples are perhaps more attracted to the idea of being “taken” or wanted by someone else. They want this to be known. The connotations of being in a relationship seem to matter even more than actually being in a relationship.
Of ten Stanford students that were surveyed, five of them said they are or have been in a relationship on Facebook, three were unsure of whether or not they would publicize their status to the worldwideweb, and two said they would never put themselves as “in a relationship” on Facebook.
Although majority of the students seem to fit into the mold of the “relationship status-er,” 20% of students still would never put their status up. This perhaps points to how the Facebook relationship status has now even become a source of stress to users. It seems that with exposing something so personal, such as marital status, comes much drama between friends and family. How can we explain how labels have become such a central part of our lives? Why do we value them so much? The relationship status is just one aspect of labelling. Our Facebook profiles become a way for us to compare ourselves with our peers. They allow us to find a social standing. Is that what we care about most?
Relationship status has taken on a whole new level. Being “in a relationship” on Facebook is almost like a binding contract for couples, a written agreement that keeps them together. Couples want to world to know that they are together, they want their friends to know that they are loved, and that they are not alone. What does the fact that being “in a relationship” on Facebook is such a big deal mean?
Afterall, what does a label on your profile even mean? How does this label add or take away from your image on your Facebook? It is almost as if only by publicizing your relationship online so that all your friends can see is the relationship “real.” Our society relies heavily on artificial labels. Couples are seen as further into their relationship if they are official on Facebook than if they were not. But this cannot be the case. These superficial labels replace the true “meat” and emotions of a meaningful relationship. Or perhaps, what is meaningful in a relationship has changed. Rather than being in a relationship because a couple is in love, couples are perhaps more attracted to the idea of being “taken” or wanted by someone else. They want this to be known. The connotations of being in a relationship seem to matter even more than actually being in a relationship.
Of ten Stanford students that were surveyed, five of them said they are or have been in a relationship on Facebook, three were unsure of whether or not they would publicize their status to the worldwideweb, and two said they would never put themselves as “in a relationship” on Facebook.
Although majority of the students seem to fit into the mold of the “relationship status-er,” 20% of students still would never put their status up. This perhaps points to how the Facebook relationship status has now even become a source of stress to users. It seems that with exposing something so personal, such as marital status, comes much drama between friends and family. How can we explain how labels have become such a central part of our lives? Why do we value them so much? The relationship status is just one aspect of labelling. Our Facebook profiles become a way for us to compare ourselves with our peers. They allow us to find a social standing. Is that what we care about most?
What is a Poke?
A guy you met last night at a party “pokes” you after accepting your friend request...What does this even mean?
In normal terms, poking someone would be pretty annoying. It’s an invasion of private space and could even be considered as inappropriate. Yet, it seems to be accepted in the online arena. Why?
The options involved after being poked involve either to “poke back” or to just ignore the poke. This poke funtion doesn’t really serve much of a purpose, rather its just a way to make your “friend” aware of your presence online. Without having to say or offer anything, you can remind them of yourself and make some sort of “connection.”
The poke essentially allows for “physical contact” without the face-to-face. It’s a way to flirt, a way to comfort, a way to joke around, all alone from your room. But what does this mean that we’re doing something we would normally never do in person? Facebook allows for interactions that we are too affraid to perform in public. It is ironic perhaps that this website allows for us to be more “intimate” with another person by taking away the real, live, and physical experience of interacting with another person. Social norms barely carry into the world of social networking. And therefore, we are uninhibited when no one can see our face--we are more daring, more bold, more assertive behind a computer.
How does this reflect our values for human relationships? How is it that the getting-to-know-you process no longer involves face-to-face interaction. What happened to getting coffee and dinner dates? Now, individuals can flirt and make moves with the push of a button on your computer screen.
In normal terms, poking someone would be pretty annoying. It’s an invasion of private space and could even be considered as inappropriate. Yet, it seems to be accepted in the online arena. Why?
The options involved after being poked involve either to “poke back” or to just ignore the poke. This poke funtion doesn’t really serve much of a purpose, rather its just a way to make your “friend” aware of your presence online. Without having to say or offer anything, you can remind them of yourself and make some sort of “connection.”
The poke essentially allows for “physical contact” without the face-to-face. It’s a way to flirt, a way to comfort, a way to joke around, all alone from your room. But what does this mean that we’re doing something we would normally never do in person? Facebook allows for interactions that we are too affraid to perform in public. It is ironic perhaps that this website allows for us to be more “intimate” with another person by taking away the real, live, and physical experience of interacting with another person. Social norms barely carry into the world of social networking. And therefore, we are uninhibited when no one can see our face--we are more daring, more bold, more assertive behind a computer.
How does this reflect our values for human relationships? How is it that the getting-to-know-you process no longer involves face-to-face interaction. What happened to getting coffee and dinner dates? Now, individuals can flirt and make moves with the push of a button on your computer screen.
How connected is too connected? Facebook, family, friends, and freedom.
The ostensible purpose of Facebook is to keep its users connected virtually, but there is a certain amount of pressure attached to a global social network. As with many network situations, Facebook began with a much smaller of users, giving them a certain amount of privacy and social exclusivity. As many remember, its original following consisted mainly of young people seeking a sleeker and more professional alternative to the Myspace networking craze. Yet as Facebook gained a larger following, its users no longer enjoyed the split between their face-to-face relationships and their online social network. Parents, grandparents, teachers, and authority figures joined the social network, effectively bringing a “big brother” to Facebook’s original social outlet atmosphere.
The arrival of close family and friends to Facebook transformed the social network from a sole means of communication to a medium for expressions of individuality and cultural “rebellion.” It is in this way that Facebook became a fad among the younger generations. The personalized profile information and ability to upload thousands of private photos gave users another mode for self-expression, akin to the individualizing capabilities of music taste, fashion sense, and colloquial speech.
As children become teenagers and young adults, they experience a central social shift from the confines of their home and nuclear family unit to a circle of friends and girlfriends/boyfriends. Media such as Facebook, in which family and friends cohabitate the same network, create a social gray area for younger generations, in which self-expression is still possible but limited to their comfort with sharing their personal information with parents and other family. Considering this “clash” of worlds, does Facebook upset the maturing process for youths in the 21st century, or does it ease the transformation from child to adult?
Given the advanced security and profile privacy features of Facebook, users are not forced to completely “mix” the dimensions of their social lives. This ability to limit public access to one’s personal information becomes complicated with new programs used by businesses to profile students and employees. This appears to be the price paid by a network user for publishing his or her social life through a commonly “hacked” and exploited medium. As Facebook’s user network expands, so will the risks for socially awkward “overlapping” of private and family lives. It is up to the individual whether the convenience of Facebook and other social network sites is worth the possible breaches of privacy.
The arrival of close family and friends to Facebook transformed the social network from a sole means of communication to a medium for expressions of individuality and cultural “rebellion.” It is in this way that Facebook became a fad among the younger generations. The personalized profile information and ability to upload thousands of private photos gave users another mode for self-expression, akin to the individualizing capabilities of music taste, fashion sense, and colloquial speech.
As children become teenagers and young adults, they experience a central social shift from the confines of their home and nuclear family unit to a circle of friends and girlfriends/boyfriends. Media such as Facebook, in which family and friends cohabitate the same network, create a social gray area for younger generations, in which self-expression is still possible but limited to their comfort with sharing their personal information with parents and other family. Considering this “clash” of worlds, does Facebook upset the maturing process for youths in the 21st century, or does it ease the transformation from child to adult?
Given the advanced security and profile privacy features of Facebook, users are not forced to completely “mix” the dimensions of their social lives. This ability to limit public access to one’s personal information becomes complicated with new programs used by businesses to profile students and employees. This appears to be the price paid by a network user for publishing his or her social life through a commonly “hacked” and exploited medium. As Facebook’s user network expands, so will the risks for socially awkward “overlapping” of private and family lives. It is up to the individual whether the convenience of Facebook and other social network sites is worth the possible breaches of privacy.
What Social Vacuum does Facebook Fill?
Another way of phrasing this question is, “What would we do without Facebook?” Many young adults, and even some tech savvy baby boomers and Generation X-ers, might baulk at the notion of a world without Facebook. And for all the easy-to-use features the 2010 version of Facebook provides, it’s no wonder why the social network makes life more convenient. Yet what intrinsic characteristics does Facebook possess whose absence would inconvenience its users if it were to disappear? In this blog post I will address the following questions: What lifestyle changes or habit alterations would users undergo in the absence of their favorite cyber social network? What would be the opportunity costs of alternatives to Facebook (e.g. time spent picking up the telephone or writing a letter)?
It is undeniable that since Facebook has accrued so many millions of users, it has become a superior vehicle for keeping in touch with friends and family, especially with those whom we don’t see very much or on whose virtual wall we would rather write than call. In this way, Facebook is also a superior social lubricant. The seemingly awkward phone calls or text messages to old high school friends are eased by this widely accepted medium for cursory hello’s and how are you’s. Fastened to the concept of the Facebook network is a general sentiment of temporariness and informality. It has become a veritable fast food version of now antediluvian forms of communication. Not only does Facebook provide a faster and more comprehensive means of communication, it allows its users to forego alternative media that might put them in awkward or uncomfortable situations.
On a most basic level, Facebook keeps its users “connected.” It begins by making the communication process easier by providing an internet-based medium that can be easily accessed whether one is checking email or finishing a project for work. In the absence of the network, consumers would be forced to multitask with multiple media, possibly endangering the integrity and quality of their composite tasks by splitting their attention among them. Additionally, mistakes and/or modes of multitasking not associated with Facebook could be more time consuming. In recent months, Facebook has added a variety of features that makes multitasking within the network simpler. Facebook Chat, an instant messaging feature in the lower corner of one’s profile, allows for instant connection to Friends, expediting the Message or Wall options by linking the user in real time to their communication recipient. The Poke feature (to be covered in-depth in another post) offers a unique option for communication that requires a single click of a button to let the recipient know you’re thinking about them or might like to communicate further in the future. The unique aforementioned features prove that Facebook truly is a social network. The Friend lists and Search options Facebook provides instantly antiquate phonebooks, address books, and rolodexes.
From personal experience, Facebook is also a money saver. With the recent increases in postage costs, resulting in more frequent email and social network usage, it is more costly to send letters or packages than to simply send a Facebook message or post on a friend’s wall. Particularly among students entering into college, Facebook provides an easy and free way to keep in touch with family and friends that might be states or continents away. Expensive international phone calls and postage are replaced by Messages, Photo album comments, Facebook chat, etc. Leading in to my next post, the Facebook generation has rapidly capitalized upon the time- and money-saving features the network provides, rendering many other communication media obsolete and clearing the way for new innovations.
It is undeniable that since Facebook has accrued so many millions of users, it has become a superior vehicle for keeping in touch with friends and family, especially with those whom we don’t see very much or on whose virtual wall we would rather write than call. In this way, Facebook is also a superior social lubricant. The seemingly awkward phone calls or text messages to old high school friends are eased by this widely accepted medium for cursory hello’s and how are you’s. Fastened to the concept of the Facebook network is a general sentiment of temporariness and informality. It has become a veritable fast food version of now antediluvian forms of communication. Not only does Facebook provide a faster and more comprehensive means of communication, it allows its users to forego alternative media that might put them in awkward or uncomfortable situations.
On a most basic level, Facebook keeps its users “connected.” It begins by making the communication process easier by providing an internet-based medium that can be easily accessed whether one is checking email or finishing a project for work. In the absence of the network, consumers would be forced to multitask with multiple media, possibly endangering the integrity and quality of their composite tasks by splitting their attention among them. Additionally, mistakes and/or modes of multitasking not associated with Facebook could be more time consuming. In recent months, Facebook has added a variety of features that makes multitasking within the network simpler. Facebook Chat, an instant messaging feature in the lower corner of one’s profile, allows for instant connection to Friends, expediting the Message or Wall options by linking the user in real time to their communication recipient. The Poke feature (to be covered in-depth in another post) offers a unique option for communication that requires a single click of a button to let the recipient know you’re thinking about them or might like to communicate further in the future. The unique aforementioned features prove that Facebook truly is a social network. The Friend lists and Search options Facebook provides instantly antiquate phonebooks, address books, and rolodexes.
From personal experience, Facebook is also a money saver. With the recent increases in postage costs, resulting in more frequent email and social network usage, it is more costly to send letters or packages than to simply send a Facebook message or post on a friend’s wall. Particularly among students entering into college, Facebook provides an easy and free way to keep in touch with family and friends that might be states or continents away. Expensive international phone calls and postage are replaced by Messages, Photo album comments, Facebook chat, etc. Leading in to my next post, the Facebook generation has rapidly capitalized upon the time- and money-saving features the network provides, rendering many other communication media obsolete and clearing the way for new innovations.
How Useful is Facebook?
What value does Facebook have to us? What would we do without it? Could we survive? Is photo stalking, wall posting, status updating really neccessary?
While Facebook can perhaps distance us in our personal relationsihps, Facebook has also helped reconnect old family and friends with making connections that had been lost. There are stories posted by users on the Facebook website that recount reunited families and classmates. In many ways, Facebook is a device that really does allow for us to keep a broad network of connections. It helps us stay connected with an “outer world.” Whether or not one’s experiences are genuine and meaningful, well, that must depend from person to person.
But let’s return to whether or not humans as a race need Facebook to survive. It might be a new and useful way of communication, but, what are we really spending all our time on Facebook doing? Playing games, uploading pictures, “likeing” and commenting on wall posts, looking at strangers’ profiles. How much of our time on Facebook is actually done doing something productive? It seems that without Facebook, we might be able to stick to emailing or instant messaging devices to keep in touch. The extraneous profile information, photos, status updates are simply a way to feed our desire to compare ourselves to each other, to find a social standing. Our playing of games on Facebook feeds to our boredom, and keeps us at the computer for longer hours instead of going out to excersize.
Yet whether or not Facebook is necessary seems to no longer be the question. Perhaps what we should be asking ourselves is why do we want such a website in our lives that takes up so much of our time and mental energies. Facebook is a community of millions of people. In many ways, by having a profile, you are taking part of a large community. You are establishing yourself in your world, and making your presence known. Facebook becomes a way to belong to society. Does Facebook come down to wanting to be a part of a community and to be accepted?
While Facebook can perhaps distance us in our personal relationsihps, Facebook has also helped reconnect old family and friends with making connections that had been lost. There are stories posted by users on the Facebook website that recount reunited families and classmates. In many ways, Facebook is a device that really does allow for us to keep a broad network of connections. It helps us stay connected with an “outer world.” Whether or not one’s experiences are genuine and meaningful, well, that must depend from person to person.
But let’s return to whether or not humans as a race need Facebook to survive. It might be a new and useful way of communication, but, what are we really spending all our time on Facebook doing? Playing games, uploading pictures, “likeing” and commenting on wall posts, looking at strangers’ profiles. How much of our time on Facebook is actually done doing something productive? It seems that without Facebook, we might be able to stick to emailing or instant messaging devices to keep in touch. The extraneous profile information, photos, status updates are simply a way to feed our desire to compare ourselves to each other, to find a social standing. Our playing of games on Facebook feeds to our boredom, and keeps us at the computer for longer hours instead of going out to excersize.
Yet whether or not Facebook is necessary seems to no longer be the question. Perhaps what we should be asking ourselves is why do we want such a website in our lives that takes up so much of our time and mental energies. Facebook is a community of millions of people. In many ways, by having a profile, you are taking part of a large community. You are establishing yourself in your world, and making your presence known. Facebook becomes a way to belong to society. Does Facebook come down to wanting to be a part of a community and to be accepted?
Who’s on Facebook?
What do my grandmother and I have in common? Other than a bunch of genes and perhaps our love for food?
We both use Facebook. Daily.
Often reported as the most visited site in the US, even surpassing search engines such as Google.com, Facebook has become one of the most popular websites in the world. In fact, it was recently reported as the third largest US Internet company, now being valued at $41 billion USD.
But so who is it that uses Facebook? Once only open to elite university students, Facebook is now available to anyone that has access to the Internet. It’s your neighbor, your professor, your brother, your kids, even your mother. Facebook now reaches almost 57% of the people in the United states, and about 35% of the world. And now that Facebook is translated into over 70 language, about 75% of Facebook users are outside of the US. There are over 500 million users registered on the website, are you?
Taking a look at the make-up of this group of people, we can see that most users are women, regardless of age. For a while, the fastest growing general user age group was between those of 35 to 44 years of age. However, in just the last six months, there has been a quick rising increase in users under the age of 18.
How has Facebook become such an important tool our lives? Why is it so easy to fall into an abyss of endless clicking on profiles and pictures? This networking site is already well on its way to change the way we interact with each other, the way the world functions, the way businesses and companies operate. Why is Facebook important? Because Facebook is not only changing this Internet age, but also changing every single one of our lives.
That is why we’ve decided to take a deeper look into Facebook and try to understand the social underpinnings of this Global website. Our research and analysis strives to explore the widespread popularity of Facebook, the reasons for its success, and it utility in society. How the does the fact that almost everyone seems to be on Facebook tell us something about our society?
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/03/17/2010-03-17_facebook_beats_google_as_the_most_visited_site_in_the_us.html
http://www.practicalecommerce.com/podcasts/episode/896-Who-Uses-Facebook-
http://www.socialmediatoday.com/paulkiser/199133/social-media-3q-update-who-uses-facebook-twitter-linkedin-myspace
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/facebook_inc/index.html
We both use Facebook. Daily.
Often reported as the most visited site in the US, even surpassing search engines such as Google.com, Facebook has become one of the most popular websites in the world. In fact, it was recently reported as the third largest US Internet company, now being valued at $41 billion USD.
But so who is it that uses Facebook? Once only open to elite university students, Facebook is now available to anyone that has access to the Internet. It’s your neighbor, your professor, your brother, your kids, even your mother. Facebook now reaches almost 57% of the people in the United states, and about 35% of the world. And now that Facebook is translated into over 70 language, about 75% of Facebook users are outside of the US. There are over 500 million users registered on the website, are you?
Taking a look at the make-up of this group of people, we can see that most users are women, regardless of age. For a while, the fastest growing general user age group was between those of 35 to 44 years of age. However, in just the last six months, there has been a quick rising increase in users under the age of 18.
How has Facebook become such an important tool our lives? Why is it so easy to fall into an abyss of endless clicking on profiles and pictures? This networking site is already well on its way to change the way we interact with each other, the way the world functions, the way businesses and companies operate. Why is Facebook important? Because Facebook is not only changing this Internet age, but also changing every single one of our lives.
That is why we’ve decided to take a deeper look into Facebook and try to understand the social underpinnings of this Global website. Our research and analysis strives to explore the widespread popularity of Facebook, the reasons for its success, and it utility in society. How the does the fact that almost everyone seems to be on Facebook tell us something about our society?
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/03/17/2010-03-17_facebook_beats_google_as_the_most_visited_site_in_the_us.html
http://www.practicalecommerce.com/podcasts/episode/896-Who-Uses-Facebook-
http://www.socialmediatoday.com/paulkiser/199133/social-media-3q-update-who-uses-facebook-twitter-linkedin-myspace
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/facebook_inc/index.html
Monday, November 1, 2010
STS Blogger Project Details
History of Facebook
What are the reasons for its booming success?
Ways Facebook stays “free of charge”
Facebook as a business
Facebook as a social networking device
Social repercussions of Facebook
Technological innovation
Feature stories written by each member
Who uses Facebook?
Staying connected with friends/family
Lack of privacy
Facebook activity as a feature in hiring processes
How does Facebook affect my everyday life?
How often do I use Facebook?
Is Facebook a good/bad influence?
How can Facebook be changed for the better?
What social vacuum does Facebook fill?
What Facebook features I do use most?
How is Facebook a social medium for me? Or how not?
How useful is Facebook?
What is a poke?
Is Facebook a social lubricant?
Relationship status as source of social drama
Personal information section: pros/cons
The psychology of the “like” button
Facebook integrating with other websites/devices
Annotated screenshots as main source of evidence
Point out innovative features
How does Facebook make life easier?
How is Facebook different from other social networking websites?
Feedback from friends about their experiences with Facebook
Possible surveys sent out to friends to gather information from student population concerning the use of Facebook in college atmosphere
Sharing Facebook stories: the good, the bad
Why people choose Facebook over other social networking sites?
What do people use Facebook for?
Comments on feature stories
What are the reasons for its booming success?
Ways Facebook stays “free of charge”
Facebook as a business
Facebook as a social networking device
Social repercussions of Facebook
Technological innovation
Feature stories written by each member
Who uses Facebook?
Staying connected with friends/family
Lack of privacy
Facebook activity as a feature in hiring processes
How does Facebook affect my everyday life?
How often do I use Facebook?
Is Facebook a good/bad influence?
How can Facebook be changed for the better?
What social vacuum does Facebook fill?
What Facebook features I do use most?
How is Facebook a social medium for me? Or how not?
How useful is Facebook?
What is a poke?
Is Facebook a social lubricant?
Relationship status as source of social drama
Personal information section: pros/cons
The psychology of the “like” button
Facebook integrating with other websites/devices
Annotated screenshots as main source of evidence
Point out innovative features
How does Facebook make life easier?
How is Facebook different from other social networking websites?
Feedback from friends about their experiences with Facebook
Possible surveys sent out to friends to gather information from student population concerning the use of Facebook in college atmosphere
Sharing Facebook stories: the good, the bad
Why people choose Facebook over other social networking sites?
What do people use Facebook for?
Comments on feature stories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)