Has Facebook driven social interaction into a corner? (Part IV)

Has Facebook driven social interaction into a corner (Part IV)?

In Parts I-III, I stated the following: Facebook allows its users quick and simple communication on a pleasant interface with millions upon millions of fellow users and the ability to individualize one’s profile information.

In my last entry, I discussed the situation in which the “pleasant interface” portion in my previous statement has become so successful in gaining Facebook an enormous user population because over the last few years, people’s tastes have fundamentally changed. We have seen this shift due mainly to modern generations’ desire for entertainment and more stimulating means of doing...just about anything.

Let us now examine the “pleasant interface” question under the assumption that tastes haven’t voluntarily changed and some other forces are at work. Ceteris paribus, would modern generations have chosen Facebook over the phone call or the letter? Have social networking sites forced themselves upon society? I believe this is a very plausible question to analyze. Social networking sites have not only become an increasingly popular communication medium, they are also a new pastime. It is that known among younger generations that “Facebook breaks” and wasting time “on Facebook” have become ubiquitous phrases on high school and university campuses. Under these circumstances, is it possible that Facebook has imposed itself upon society, rather than the other way around? I think the social network’s user population needed to provide it with a certain amount of slack (or interest) before Facebook could acquire pastime status. Rather than a one-way exchange in which Mark Zuckerberg has schemed to capture the attention of internet-savvy generations against their will, it would make more sense that Facebook’s former simplicity first intrigued its users.

The question follows, “How could Facebook’s simplicity have attracted a stimulation-hungry public?” Well, I never said that the public would confess to being bent on entertaining themselves no matter the situation. Drawing from my previous discussion of the “Myspace vs. Facebook user” distinction, those who grew weary and disinterested in the reigning champion of social networking sites sought (or at least wanted to appear as they were seeking) something simpler, cleaner, and original; Myspace provided a jaded virtual world and users craved something novel. Enter Facebook. It seems frivolous to be discussing changes within the social networking era when for now this medium is far from extinction.

The same cannot be said for our quintessential medium: the letter. Is the letter another casualty of the desire for stimulation, or have social networking sites’ capitalistic ventures forced it out of common usage? It is probably a combination of both. Under the assumption that tastes of changed due to the continually renewed pursuit of entertainment, letters offer little to their writers and, in the eyes of modern communicators, lack additionally in offering sufficient stimulation to their readers. Yet once Facebook acquired a modest user network, it was only a matter of time before its innovations cornered the communications market and put the letter out of business. But is the letter off the radar for good? Once out of favor with today’s young adults, and even most adults, could this medium be successfully revived? Is it possible for an individual to be sufficiently stimulation-saturated that he reverts back to previous communication media? This does not look like a promising prospect in an age when the older generations (parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents) are utilizing the networks for convenience.

A further question we can ask is, “How long will convenience be an excuse for a need to be stimulated?” Who will come right out and say, “I do it because it’s more fun than putting a pen to paper”?

It looks like we’ve found ourselves a new sliced bread.

Facebook Screenshot and Annotation

This is Facebook. Through a simple layout and user-interface, it is able to attract a variety of users. By maintaining a large selection of social networking options, Facebook is able to keep their users occupied for hours with no certain end. Some of these features you'd be able to do without. But most of them are in place to make the user's experience much more convenient and efficient. With these features, a user can reach out further and with more people, socially. There's a never-ending variety of options for the user to occupy himself thus keeping the social quest permanent and ceaseless. Until you get bored anyway.

The following labels and descriptions should help to analyze how the design of Facebook promotes self-expression:

NOTE: These are NOT merely descriptions of functions, but anthropological analyses of them. I tried to focus on the in-depth impact of these functions on social lives, interaction, and self-definition.

1: Friend requests: This is where you see new friend requests on Facebook. You have the option of confirming your friendship status with this person, or choosing the "not now" button, which is a euphemism for declining the relationship. Having two options, yes or no, gives the user the simplicity of discerning friends from non-friends, with no in-between option. This promotes the appearance of popularity and selectiveness, that these people are your "friends." The term itself carries a connotation of intimacy. Nonetheless, this is merely the friend request tab.

2: Messages: This feature allows you to see all of your personal messages and manage sending/receiving them. Messages on Facebook are accessible only by the user and whoever the user sends them to. This allows for a setting of privacy in an otherwise public display of your profile, which gives users the luxury of sending intimate, embarrassing, or even gossip-like messages that would be met with resistance from the Facebook public.

3. Notifications: The Granddaddy of every Facebook feature. This small button alone notifies you of any interaction with your friends and you. That is, anything dealing with your status, your comments, your pictures, your notes, or anything else which you interacted with, is susceptible to being commented on by a friend. With their comment, you are notified and it shows up here in a number with a red circle. Clear and simple. This allows users to see how others define/judge them, and it is by far the most addicting feature of Facebook. For example, the Facebook server refreshes several times a second (without impeding on your browsing) to give you immediate feedback when a friend comments on something of yours. Such clear indicators of others' opinion constructs the large web of social networking which allows the user to then manipulate his/her profile to receive the most desirable feedback. Genius.

4. Search: Enter anything, and I mean ANYTHING in this box and Facebook will find something for it. It can be a friend's name, a hobby, a group, a metaphysical concept, or even food. This is a way for users to really identify themselves. Belonging to a group makes a person feel welcome, and that's what Facebook wants for it's users: a welcoming experience. It's a way to identify yourself through interests that thousands of others have in common. The best part: everybody's collection of interests is different. BAM! Self expression right there.

5. Home: Collect yourself wherever you are on Facebook. This button allows you to return to the home page, A.K.A. the web page you see here. Just a simple tool to rescue you from being lost in the abyss of profiles, pictures and whatever else you may find yourself exploring for hours. It's always good to simplify an interface to prevent the user from feeling incapable and frustrated when you're lost. It happens in a mall, it can happen on the internet. This home feature is just another way for Facebook to re-enchant its users. What would you do without it? Click more, that's all.

6. Profile: Go directly to your wall and see what has changed, what you can change, or what hasn't changed at all. With a single button that leads you to your wall, you have plenty of opportunity to edit some of your public information. Always being able to simply alter your outward Facebook appearance allows nobody to pinpoint your true persona but rather, whatever you want them to see. "Self" expression. Or at least whatever "self" you want others to see. Without the profile, well, it would be called Blankbook.

7. Account: The nitty-gritty of Facebook. This is where you change whatever settings which pertain only to you. These settings involve your friends, your account, your personal information, and of course the ability to log out. Facebook has improved with their security so that when you change these settings, they are visible only to you. You can change to what degree you want your profile to be private. You can change which people you want to keep as friends. And, most importantly, you can change your Facebook DNA. You can practically assume a whole new identity, since, of course, nobody who doesn't know you well can't object. I think this is the most cunning feature of Facebook because without it, you would be sacrificing your entire identity to others. With it, you are able to have a foundation from which to build your virtual self with predesignated templates such as Beliefs, birthday, hometown, hobbies, music etc. Express yourself, how Facebook allows you too anyway, without risking your safety. Mostly.

8. Profile picture/status update: Ah yes. The lens through which the Facebook world sees you. Literally anything you do on Facebook carries your profile picture thus leaving your fingerprint, or really your "face" print. With so much pressure to display unto the world an appealing image, it is no wonder why profile pictures are given precedence over all other self expression mechanisms. Most pictures show a profound scene where the user seems happiest or most enlivened. You've all done this before and can see that the majority of pictures seem pleasing, even if the status may contradict such feelings. There are also pictures which don't show the person at all, show the person in a group of people, or show an avatar of the person. This just goes to show you the lengths at which people are willing to go in order to avoid direct exposure of themselves to the Facebook world. What does this all mean? Facebook profile pictures are iconic and representative of the individual, more than any words. Therefore, there is great emphasis to portray yourself as the way you want others to see you. For most, this is best described as a feeling that is happy. Without the profile picture there would be far less expression, life, and color.

9. Top News: What Facebook thinks you'd find most important among all of your friends. It evaluates this based on who you interact with the most on Facebook, which may not necessarily translate into real life, but how is Facebook supposed to know that? Messages on Top News are what you make of them. Really. The "filtered" self expression.

10. Most Recent: Almost every single action that is not privatized by your friends shows up here. Click it, and you will see second by second status updates, wall-to-wall posts, picture changes, etc. This is what fills your Facebook with the information of your friends' worlds. Your actions are recorded here too, just so that you can keep track of everything that goes on. Truly self-expression, truly public. Think of this feature as the stock market ticker of your friends list.

11. Status update: With a question such as "What's on your mind?" how can you not immediately answer? This feature makes public every thing that you type into the box and click enter. Thus, you can be as careful (or careless) as you want with letting others into your stream of consciousness. It's Facebook's rhetorical "how are ya?" and it's up to you to answer, thus giving you the torch of self-expression to carry and light up on your friends' news feed.

12. Events: It's nice to know that you have things to do. It's even nicer when it's displayed right in front of your eyes on your Facebook home page. This feature tells you about awaiting RSVP's, time and location of events, and upcoming events that you'd might be interested in. All of these options are at your fingertips. To feel more exclusive, the event shows who is going and who was invited. This way, you can judge for yourself if you want to be in the event with the people listed. It is a different form of self-expression where you can display to the event-goers that you want to be included among them, or that you cannot (or do not) want to go. It is a way of selecting certain friends to go to an event of your creation. It is a way of showing your ability to go out into the real world. But most of all, it is a way of convenient planning. Just another way how Facebook synthesizes itself into a necessity of your life.

13. Simple Access to Above Features: Self-explanatory, but it labels the function of the buttons above, just in case you weren't sure what those dark-blue on blue icons were.

14. Display of Updated Statuses: Self-explanatory.

15. Facebook Suggestions: How to Expand Your Facebook Empire by Facebook. It gives you a list of recommendations that you might find interesting based on relative interests, mutual friends and other algorithms that Facebook uses to try to caste you into their perception of what you might find appropriate. If you were forgetting that one person who is friends with so-and-so, well, chances are he/she will show up here. And if the people shown aren't relative to your interests, simply click the x and see that, ho! There are more! Many recommendations work there way into this box and it is up to you to assess and evaluate the relevance of each one. How do you express yourself here? Well, you choose to accept people whom you missed (which shows how important they are) when adding friends. This generates your selectivity as an image, but also tells you what to accept as a factor of inhibiting your freedom of choice to seek out these people yourself. But it may just safe the effort of a days' search. Good or bad, who knows?

16. Group creation: Ever had trouble summoning users of the internets who might just share your same interests, passions, or idiosyncrasies? Now you can articulate that group into a collective and become part of something greater than an individual. Prove to everyone that you're not alone, even in your wildest of hobbies. This group can be anything you want it to be. Then, you can invite anyone you want to this group. Thus, your hobbies can be represented by a popularity. See, not everyone is alone? Facebook makes it so that even if you feel like a pre-existing group doesn't quite describe you, or if you feel as though you'd be more comfortable leading a movement, you can do so without the hassle of face-to-face interaction, physical meetings, or flyers. There is a sacrifice though. This group has to follow the Facebook designated template. A group only needs a title and a description. But, without this feature, there would be far less of a "community" feeling on Facebook. It provides an escape from the every-man-for-himself mentality on the internet. Now, people have an alliance.

17. Other requests: Because Facebook isn't just about friends. It's about a virtual life. Here you will find requests which pertain to groups, applications, games, and pages. Each and every "other" request is a way for you to acquire a Facebook identity. It's very easy to become addicted when you can play games through Facebook and have your friends "request" that you keep playing through gifts of virtual items, expansions, alliances or practically anything that will build your Facebook gaming experience. Application requests are when friends want you to join them in a new Facebook peripheral such as quizzes, Facebook enhancements, flair, bumper stickers or other paraphernalia which might "re-enchant" you into the ever mystifying and expanding Facebook empire. You don't want to fall behind, do you? Maybe it's best to keep up with all of these cool features which don't necessarily belong to Facebook, but keep your Facebook experience ever expanding and enhancing. The other requests are basically a way to relieve yourself from the social world, while still remaining in the social world. Let me explain. Say you don't want to deal with comments, pokes, or overwhelming Facebook drama. You can escape by finding alternate ways to communicate yourself (ie. self expression through quizzes, polls, icons, etc.) or escape completely through a video game (which is still communicated through high scores displayed on your friends' walls, thus creating a competitive atmosphere for you to contribute your skills). These are the Facebook apps. This is where the rest of your life goes to spend its time.

18. Link: This is how you and your friends bring in other websites and how you are aware that there is a whole world that exists outside of Facebook. Facebook conveniently allows you to link anything on your profile and it will appear with the title of the webpage and a short description. This is very useful for users who want to show off their expedition into the unchartered territory of the internet wilderness AKA Not-Facebook. It helps a user express his/her diversity and ability to keep up with the news, find something funny or interesting, or even link another Facebook page. Without the simplistic display of the link, Facebook users would just type in and show off a complicated web address with a useless caption that is nearly meaningless without context. It's not just the ability to link something that makes it a desirable feature on Facebook, but more importantly the ability to express oneself clearly and explicitly through yet another medium. Also, through linking and commenting, it makes everyone a critic. By this, I mean that if you link another page and comment on it, you are making a concerted judgment on a piece of information, thus developing and exercising your freedom of speech and critical thinking. Not many websites make it that easy for you.

19. Likes: Where oh where do I begin? Let's start with the simplicity of clicking one button to make an assessment on another users' (or even your own) action, words, picture, link, or anything on Facebook. One click and in an instant you have made a judgment. But, lo and behold, there is no 'dislike'. Thus, if there's nothing you like, or something you dislike, then you simply don't show your opinion (unless you go through the effort of commenting). Facebook makes it so that negativity requires more effort than optimism, so it's easier to just "like something," or don't take any action at all, than to type out your thoughts. With one button that says something as vague as "you like this" without any magnitude, what exactly does a like mean? Facebook has obscured users' opinions by watering down a phrase, "like", through it's effortless mass distribution. Little thought is required in the clicking of a like button compared to an original comment. Conclusively, Facebook creates an atmosphere of either positivity or neutrality. Positive when you "like" something (which is the equivalent of "I approve"), and neutral when you abstain. But this form of self expression has become so overused and tossed around that saying you like something and meaning it is like saying you had lol'd and you literally laughed out loud. It just doesn't happen. A like now is a way of conveying that something a person said caught your attention or your interest enough so that you spent the time and effort to click a button and move on. So, to compensate, there's the comment box.

20. Comments: This is where your true thoughts can be displayed on any of your friends' actions or interactions. Facebook grants its users to comment on anything, uncensored. This is where the true voice of the user can be publicly displayed to both the commented person and any friend of either person. Anything can be given an opinion from any user, and this is how Facebook drama comes alive. That's right, Facebook invented its own genre of drama. Through the ability of uncensored, public, social interaction, Facebook created a stage where everyone is an actor, only there is no script. It's completely up to the users to create the scene. And it works. Having friends' every action monitored and displayed gives you the opportunity to judge them accordingly.

21. Summary of Requests: Once again, it is evident that overloading the user-interface isn't necessarily a bad idea, if done well. Though the requests can be accessed through the list on the right, it is through the introduction of icons that these catch the readers' eyes first. The same psychology is used in advertising through imagery. It's much more easier to understand a concept if it is brought to life through visualization, thus it is much better to attach to Facebook a list with icons. The same technique is replicated through their introduction of a portrait based friends list, accompanying every post with a picture, and making the focus of a profile, group, or event its photo.

22. Chat List: Observe all of your online friends instantly with or without them knowing. A way to observe their online patterns, choose whom to chat with, or simply just use their online status as a way of avoiding them. The chat list provides a new outlet into others' lives where you can know their location without being next to them, or even in touch with them. Facebook now shows online status, and, if granted the opportunity, the location of the individual. Great for meeting up, troublesome for avoiding stalkers. With so much information at the dispense of your "friends", there's no guarantee to privacy or security. With that being said, it is sometimes better to not know how much of your information is available to others. That's why it is best to thoroughly go over the privacy functions to best mask your identity, if you so choose. It is only through critical analysis of given information that one is able to best understand how to defend against the influx of technological overflow and technological manipulators with ill intentions. But it's hard to tell whether we'd be safer without this function, or even better off altogether. One thing is for sure though, it's introduction has caused us to redefine privacy and personal space. What place does the ability to see others online have in society? That answer we will find soon enough, but already we see a label of "stalker" applied to those who utilize this default function. Maybe more measures will take place to ensure ones safety, but the idea that someone is always watching you is certainly intimidating.

23. Pictures of chat list: See 21, 22

24. Chat box: The quickest way to contact someone who's online, this instant messaging system has proven to be the source for many private and quick conversations. With it's convenience of instant messaging only online friends, you are almost guaranteed an immediate response. You are also allowed multiple chat windows, thus simulating multiple conversations with different people simultaneously. Something which is nearly impossible, or simply rude on the phone or in real life. Without the real time demand for response, the chat function allows for more thought and consideration than a verbal response. Thus, people can erase, rewrite or disguise their words. This produces a troublesome conflict of authenticity: how real or authentic are the words sent in a chat message? The quick answer, who knows? Once more we are faced with a look at the integrity of our interpersonal relationships and the challenge of the spoken word vs. the written word. Without the chat function, immediate convenience would be lost. But something more may be lost if we keep the chat function and ignore it's consequences.

25. Pokes: All your friendly e-violations are listed here. For more information on what this is, see "What is a Poke?"

26. Expand your Facebook: It wouldn't be an addiction if there weren't ways to extend your dependence. With features like find a friend and invite a friend, you are staying all the more "connected." With Facebook mobile, you can track your friends while on the move. Nothing can escape the grasps of Facebook if you don't want it to. This feature is a great conclusion to this snapshot guide to Facebook. It shows, for one, that Facebook has no intention of slowing down or stagnating. It also proves the ever-expansive array of opportunities for you and your future friends, colleagues, or even family, that, through Facebook, you are promised the appearance of being truly connected with and socially networked to all of your online friends. What would Facebook be without this function? Incredibly exclusive. To say that they are always accepting users and willing to expand says a lot about a company. It takes a great company to make features so openly available to the public and to keep it free. Without a website like Facebook, there would be many difficulties keeping up in this fast-paced society. But, by no means is Facebook perfect. Many steps need to be taken in order to ensure the user of Facebook's unerring benevolence, and many precautions need to take place in order to promise the future generation that a friend is still something more than a 500x300 pixelated image.

Face-To-Facebook Pt. II

This is an Edit of my previous post. I reformed some of my ideas and made some observations clearer.

Sean Posada

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.” (Facebook.com). Such facts suggest that Facebook dominates, or at least claims to, a significant part of our social lives. But what happens to your ‘self’ as it exits the internet browser and encounters face-to-face interaction?

I aim 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 shall suggest an answer to the question does the same person translate from on-screen to real life?

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 direct interaction. One can see, as early as 4000 BC, the benefits of efficiency as evinced by the convenience of indirect communication overcoming the slower but more intimate face-to-face commands.

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. This provided a network that allowed for interpersonal communication without the arduous challenge of leaving the comfort of your own house. Basically, you can keep up with more people in less amount of time with less difficulty. Efficiency at its prime. So we arrive now at the present-day circumstances as a result of a pattern of simplification, rationalization and less intimate shifts in a culture that values efficacy and convenience. 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 been embraced in cultures and societies which also value progression and efficiency. This pattern is revealed in inter-personal communication and interaction from Face-to-Face to Facebook.

I will assume that a great portion of time and communication is dedicated on the website of Facebook.com, by its users, between what Facebook will identify as your “friends”. But is there a different person behind the profile picture? Through observation, I have noticed the answer is yes, somewhat .

I have a Facebook friend named Fred, in social venues, is energetic, enthusiastic, and perhaps 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. He takes a profile picture that imitates a contemplative, reflective personality. He leaves inspirational quotes that you would never guess he’d known, let alone appreciated, as statuses. I observed also that Fred leaves the most benevolent comments on friends’ walls and he writes long, contemplative pieces as a note for the public to see.

I notice that Facebook reveals a side of Fred that may otherwise go unnoticed. There is a benevolent Fred whose Facebook wall is plastered with appreciation and grace, and whose bedroom wall is lined with random “lolcats” and internet memes. It would seem that either Facebook created a new, unique face for Fred, or that it unlocked a persona of Fred that was initially unable to find a medium through which to express itself, but thanks to the comfort of Facebook, he exposed his “inner-self.”

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 (which Facebook averages at 110) 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 yourself. It’s almost like stage fright in front of a large audience, except this time the stage can be manipulated.

So, going back to Fred, he can be more ridiculous in his small group of friends, his class, or his team in real life. But if you expand the audience to an auditorium or a large venue, you see that it’s hard to act silly. This can be so because the risk of seeming foolish and appearing socially improper and unacceptable is greater. You have a larger audience and thus larger pressure to please (in order to avoid becoming a social outcast).

Another difference is that, generally, of the numerous Facebook friends you may have, you might only interact with a fraction of them. I’m generalizing this claim because if a user has an average of 110 friends, I’m assuming that they would interact with far less friends face-to-face. I’m making this assumption quite dangerously because there is no empirical evidence proving this, but from experience, I’ve noticed that it would be near impossible for most Facebook users to interact with all of their friends on Facebook in the same manner as real life.

From this assumption, you are reaching out, generally, to an audience which you’re not entirely familiar with. That is, you aren’t quite as close to all 110 friends as you are to the few that you may call your best friends. Being thus distanced with your audience, there is increased pressure not to embarrass yourself or give off an image which you would not want a stranger to see.

To conceptualize this easier, imagine being as “natural”, as you are with your best friends, with, say, a random person on an elevator. Without the intimacy that you developed over time with your closest friends, the interaction with this person is considered, and actually is, awkward. The same translates as you compare face-to-face interaction with Facebook interaction. You wouldn’t be as intimate on Facebook as you would in face-to-face interactions, or in Fred’s case, you’re more intimate on Facebook than in real life. Regardless, there is a significant difference between the way you interacts face-to-face and on Facebook.

In face-to-face interactions, there is a certain tone, script, and composure that you must maintain. On Facebook, there’s no way of telling what mood you’re trying to convey. This leads to self-censorship online, something used to deter yourself from misconstruing your message to the public. There tends to be an online vocabulary that simplifies emotions and phrases as not to confuse the audience. It even 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. However, such acronyms don’t effectively capture a true emotion, feeling or mood.

So, when Fred says “lol” on Facebook, you can’t assess how hard, or even in actuality, he’s laughing. But when a joke is told in person, Fred’s reaction can clearly be observed.

Also, the backspace or delete message features are available on Facebook and not face-to-face. What happens as a result? Words can be reconfigured over a longer period of time until they suit the sender on Facebook. Thus, messages on facebook can be a result of several edits, but face-to-face conversations require thought-to-speech executions in an instant.

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. This shows that Facbook has not completely dominated or altered our personal lives.
Subsequently, the big question becomes, are you the same on Facebook as you are is in real life? The true answer is uncertain. It requires a complex, case-by-case analysis for each user, but even the most thorough analysis for one is never quite the same for another. The only certain answer is that Facebook cannot fully capture a face-to-face interaction. 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 or good, just different. It’s a sign showing that the human adaptation reflex is working. There is a problem, though, when you cannot decipher between Facebook and reality, where you 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. You need to be able to critically analyze your own social life to discern what you value more and therefore which self of yours is authentic: the Facebook self or the face-to-face self.

What does this all imply? Well, nothing definitive can be proclaimed as the effects of Facebook in real life, or vice versa, but it does reveal that interactions, given the right setting, can have different levels of intimacy, mood, interpretation, character, persona, context etc. To truly observe one fact, it is that the trend of efficiency and convenience has made it culturally acceptable to be less personal. By this, I mean less face-to-face interactions are becoming increasingly favorable. Whether this is good or bad is a philosophical debate all on its own…

Has Facebook driven social interaction into a corner? (Part III)

In Parts I and II, I stated the following: Facebook allows its users quick and simple communication on a pleasant interface with millions upon millions of fellow users and the ability to individualize one’s profile information.

In my last post, I partially looked at the “pleasant interface” portion of my previous summarizing statement. I discussed the possible reasons for Facebook’s dominance over other communication media, and whether people truly prefer to communicate in the fashion Facebook and social networking sites provide.

I now wish to answer my last question: Have the tastes of people changed since the onset of social networking sites concerning how they would prefer to communicate (regardless of the time and money factor)? Let us begin with the assumption that people’s tastes have indeed changed since the onset of the internet and the widespread use of all that it has to offer us. Under these circumstances communicators have consciously paused in their use of media to contemplate their personal preferences. There was a point, even for a split second, that they faced a fork in the road. They contemplated the costs and benefits of various communication media options available to them over the course of their lifetimes thus far. To these individuals social networking sites appear as the superior alternative. The process of phasing out other means of communication is founded upon the deliberate choice of the user population and their preference for newer communication media.

Yet what are the incentives for such a change? How did users decide that they prefer Facebook chat to mailing a letter? I believe the answer lies in the modern user’s wish to be entertained no matter how mundane the central or original purpose of an activity. Social networking sites have turned interpersonal communication into a broad form of entertainment. Users can “tag” photos their friends have posted to the site, play games against their friends in real time, and leave humorous comments on their fellow users’ “statuses.” The attention of modern generations is growing harder to capture, and the shrinking span of this attention necessitates constant tending. Facebook and its competing sites feed this popular desire to be amused by providing their user population with newer and more exciting methods of communication. Users are no longer just linked to one another, they are linked to the rest of the world wide web as well. Users can now post Youtube videos, internet hyperlinks, invitations to play online games, and incentives to attend events outside of the virtual world. A letter cannot do all that, let alone simultaneously. Under these circumstances, it is no surprise that the technologically savviest of generations prefers this medium to other forms of communication. The vicious circle of stimulation begins with a desire to be entertained further, yet upon being stimulated people build up a resistance to this form of amusement and it quickly becomes antiquated. How soon will it take Facebook’s user population to abandon it as “unexciting” and demand more exotic forms of communication?

The appearance of Twitter and Dailybooth offered alternatives and complements to Facebook and other social networking sites that increase levels of stimulation. The ability to broadcast one’s minute-to-minute activities or create photo albums that illustrate one’s day further connect one’s social network and attempt to fulfill consumers’ ever-expanding need for more.

Has Facebook driven social interaction into a corner? (Part II)

In my last post, I stated the following: Facebook allows its users quick and simple communication on a pleasant interface with millions upon millions of fellow users and the ability to individualize one’s profile information.

I looked at the “quick and simple” idea pertaining to Facebook, as well as the loss of legitimacy and sincerity in social communication since the onset of the internet and social networking websites.

In this second part, I would like to take a look at the “pleasant interface” portion of my previous summarizing statement. My first question: What makes people choose Facebook over other means of communication, particularly with so many options available since the onset of the internet? My second question: Do people really prefer getting a Facebook message than receiving a letter in the mail or getting a phone call? Linked to this second question is another: Have the tastes of people changed since the onset of social networking sites concerning how they would prefer to communicate (regardless of the time and money factor)?

To answer the first question, I believe it is the visual simplicity of Facebook that has garnered it so many users. The previous social networking fad involved Myspace. Myspace allowed its users to completely personalize their profiles, from the themed background to the music played when one viewed their profiles. Many users were complaining about how “messy” Myspace profiles were, and when Facebook took the web by storm, found it a much-needed relief for the eyes and ears. Many believed this early competition between Myspace and Facebook (no longer much of a competition with the raging popularity and user-friendly features of the latter network) split online network users into two categories. The first, the diehard Myspace users, were rebellious, middle-to-low socioeconomic class members with questionable morals and little regard for how others perceived them. This character profile seemed to fit well with the “messy” and tawdry atmosphere Myspace provided for its user population. The second, the burgeoning Facebook users, were mid-to-high socioeconomic class members (preparatory high school and private university students) who saw the social network as a clean slate with which they could build a professional appearance for friends, family, and coworkers to view. The next amusing question is, could a letter really say all this about a person? Could a piece of paper possibly profile its users socioeconomic status, goals and aspirations? The obvious answer is no. The contents of a letter showcase only what its writer wants to reveal. When Myspace and Facebook were at the peak of their networking rivalry, siding with one site over the other (regardless of the content on your profile), appeared to bombard you with stereotypes and stigmas: the boorish Myspace teenager and the yuppie Facebook young adult.

To answer the second question, one has to look at the idea of sentimentality and the appreciation of being appreciated. These days, emails and social networking means of communication are so ubiquitous that letters offer a sentimental and old-fashioned value to its receiver. If one asks a 13-20-year-old what they would prefer to receive, it’s a difficult question for him or her to answer. By the time most people in this age bracket had the desire to communicate with others at a distance, the internet was their first and foremost option. Before this generation, the telephone would have been the foremost option until about the 1940s-50s, when we see letters as the most common form of distance interpersonal communication. From here, it depends on the individual. If the person receiving the letter prefers the personalized quality and “thoughtfulness” characteristic of writing and posting a letter, then the letter would be the obvious preference. But if the individual has little patience of time for “material” mail, then emails and social networking sites would more often than not fulfill their interpersonal communication needs. Additionally, with the onset of “green” living situations, people prefer to cutback on paper consumption and see electronic communication as healthier for the planet and generally less wasteful. And, as with any matter of opinion, there are those would prefer both. Some might utilize Facebook or other online communication media for “everyday” uses, such as business and quick chatting with friends and family, and keep postage for special occasions (e.g. Christmas and holiday cards, invitations, etc.).

Has Facebook driven social interaction into a corner? (Part I)

Having already considered the basic ways in which the disappearance of Facebook would affect its users, it follows that I analyze what permanent effects the social network has had on other forms of social interaction and how permanent these changes are to the social communication system. I would like to first point out the ways in which people have become dependent upon Facebook for their social communication needs.

I begin with this simple description of Facebook: Facebook allows its users quick and simple communication on a pleasant interface with millions upon millions of fellow users and the nearly complete ability to individualize one’s profile.

Let us first take the “quick and simple” part of the equation in mind. Less than a century ago, letters were the only means of affordable communication between individuals apart from face-to-face conversation. The rapid advances in technology since then (i.e. relatively inexpensive telephone services and the internet) eliminated the need to await the mailman on the sidewalk every afternoon for a letter or spend large amounts of money sending telegrams across the nation or through the undersea cable system developed in the early 20^th century. Yet it seemed that the price (both with one’s time and money) to pay for not being able to communicate face to face was widely accepted. You rarely see pre-internet individuals in literature and media complaining about how letters are a thing of the past or a genuine waste of time and effort.

I gather this is because these individuals believed being able to communicate with someone thousands of miles or oceans away merited the time and effort spent writing and waiting. People had more appreciation and respect for social communication. They saw face-to-face interaction (particularly during the Victorian period and its reverberating effects on society for years to come) as a formal affair. That being said, how do you think they would have viewed letters and the other few means of distance communication? The rise of stationery shops, calligraphy classes, and the value of penmanship, spelling, and grammar demonstrate the respect paid to the institution of letter writing. Formal attire, nights at the Opera house, tête-à-têtes in reception rooms, calling cards. Someone flip open to any page of Edith Wharton’s The Age of Innocence and you will find the enormous level of seriousness and attention dedicated to social interaction before the onset of new social communication media. The question now is: Have we lost all of this?

I think to an overwhelming degree, yes. I believe interpersonal communication is taken very much for granted since the onset of the internet. The ability to hide behind one’s computer screen has opened a whole new world of possibility up for social informalities and deception. This is no longer our classical and amusing Shakespearean comedy of errors, but a grave blow to the identification and maintenance of significant relationships via the latest technology. This is no longer our grandmothers’ keepsake boxes filled with letters from their courtships with our grandfathers. This is no longer the signet ring worn by officials and pressed in hot wax to imbue authority upon communication. In most every way, the sincerity, sentimentality, and legitimacy of interpersonal communication have been stripped away because of social networking sites such as Facebook.

No one writes letters anymore: the de-personalization of communication

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?