I signed up for Facebook, partly to see what the hype was all about, partly for “research” purposes (I’m a graduate student in communications, after all), and partly from buckling under the pressure of being asked every day for a week, “are you on Facebook?”
I stayed on Facebook because it’s fascinating: people compare the site to highly addictive drugs for a reason. I’ve spent hours sifting through profiles of old high school friends and random people I’ve met in the real world over the years, looking at photos of their weddings, vacations and parties, marvelling at how seemingly unconnected friends know each other, and keeping up-to-date on people’s plans, careers and relationships.
Like many astute students of communications (as I said, this is research!), I’m interested in how free sites like MySpace and Facebook plan to make money. After all, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. purchased MySpace for $580 million (US) for a reason (which is made somewhat clear in this fascinating article). It seems to me to be about more than just getting people to voluntarily participate to make content costs virtually zero, getting participants to draw each other to the site (that’s why it’s called social networking) and then selling that high traffic to advertisers.
The answer to this question is becoming increasingly clear as I realize that Facebook is a data collector’s wet dream. By filling out personal information such as favourite books, movies and events we’re attending, we are volunteering information that is in turn repackaged and sold for big bucks (bigger than the bucks made from selling ads, I would imagine) to marketing companies and other interested parties, who then turn around and use our info to sell us things. This is nothing new (see: airlines, mailing houses and retail outlets for other examples), and something I think we have been able to brush off as just part of the massive marketing machine that we have learned to live with, to put it somewhat simply.
But something interesting (and I think something new) is happening on Facebook. We are willingly (and happily) filling out even more personal information, including our addresses, phone numbers and email addresses, places of work, political affiliation, religious and sexual orientation, who we have lived with and for how long, how we know each other, who we are dating, where we go to school, etc.
I was shaken out of my Facebook haze last night when I visited this site and learned about Facebook’s alarming privacy policy, which at first I thought was about limiting who on the site could see the photos of me and my friends from Friday night. Silly me: it’s about who has access to the personal information I keep plugging in. Do You Have a Facebook? traces the links between Facebook and the United States government and has kept me up all night trying to understand the implications of this.
These are critical questions we need to be discussing as we increasingly participate in sites like Facebook. We are drawn to social networking sites because we we want to establish personal connections with each other, however mediated those connections may be. I think we need to be asking what we’re willing to give up in the process.



Digg
seven comments
When I first discovered Friendster I was immediately hooked. I loved the way I could maintain connections with little effort, keep in touch with the people and events I was interested in, and yes- participate in a little narcissism via updating my profile obsessively.
A few months ago I bailed. I didn't like the way people, even those people I called friends, could peer immediately into my life without my permission. All of a sudden the environment felt like a violation of boundries and anxiety set in. It didn't have anything to do with corporations or government having access to my information, it was more about random people checking me out... and me knowing exactly how connected I was to them.
It frightens me that we no longer have any privacy and that we opt-in to that so easily. With cell-phones and IM and Facebook, we're never alone and everyone knows what we're up to. While I love the democracy of internet content and the ability of indie causes to promote themselves quickly, cheaply and easily, I do get a little "tin-foil-hat" about the fact that anybody -potential employers, future dates- can know anything about me at the click of a mouse.
What can we do but go underground?
Posted by Stacey May
February 6, 2007, 6:56 PM
New York magazine's current cover story is about exactly this sort of phenomenon. It is something new, and the angle the story takes is that the new generation of social network users is embracing the end of privacy. Teens, the article argues, have entirely different expectations of what is public and what remains private, and it's a shift so sudden and titanic that the generation gap can be measured in years instead of decades.
It's especially interesting because I've had plenty of pub discussions about the effects of putting your entire life online. My friends and I had a big argument, for example, about whether a woman could become President of the United States twenty years from now after her half-naked MySpace photos are revealed. The argument goes something like this: such a woman could never be elected because everyone would still be outraged at having such a woman for a President (and yes, there are plenty of double standards and sexual liberation issues wrapped up in that as well). On the other hand, twenty years from now having half-naked photos of yourself on the internet will no longer be a big deal because everyone will have those sorts of photos of themselves. So how could anyone call out the future President for having lewd photos when everyone's got the same things on their flickr accounts, stored for posterity?
It's funny because this all relates back to a dinner speech I heard once, given to a crowd of hardcore hackers and cryptology nerds in Toronto a couple years back by author Neal Stephenson. Basically he outlines three possible futures: one is the stereotypical Big Brother universe, where the elites sit at the top and see everything that goes on below them while the plebes see nothing and are under constant surveillance; another is the smokescreen universe where privacy is king and no one sees anything; and the third is the aquarium universe where nothing is private, everything is public, and everyone is watched by everyone else. Stephenson actually sees the last universe as having pluses and minuses, because on the one hand it means government and authority can watch every move you make; but on the other hand, it also means you have to power to watch everything the government does as well. Stephenson posits the whole Battle of Seattle WTO protests as evidence: much of the video that came out of that protest was filmed by the protesters themselves, showing obvious examples of police brutality.
How does society change when you can know anything you want to know about someone else by Googling them? Is privacy really an antiquated notion, as the New York article argues? Maybe it's just a matter of accepting the new status quo and figuring out how to use it to our advantage.
Posted by Wesley
February 7, 2007, 12:45 AM
I guess it depends on whether you think privacy is a basic human need. (Popular) internet social networking sites are a relatively new phenomenon: Facebook was only founded in 2004; MySpace is 2003; Friendster is 2002; Linkedin is 2003.
I think their popularity does say something significant about what we're willing to /try/ in terms of new concepts of privacy and information sharing. But I think we also might be as adventurous as we are because the consequences haven't quite caught up to us yet. We're all still negotiating what is and isn't working in this new public space. I'm putting money on a backlash against the full disclosure option, and then arriving at a "more public but still private" middle ground.
And Neal Stephenson is great, but as a science fiction writer he might be predisposed to thinking of the future in terms of extremes... :)
Posted by catherine
February 7, 2007, 9:44 AM
For those of us who live double (artistic) lives this is a HUGE question- and in the modern workforce a lot of us do live double lives. I am a writer who needs to pay the bills at a typical day job and a lot of what I write can be viewed as controversial... maybe not to Shameless readers, but certainly to potential and current employers and to my Mom and Dad.
I did a g-spot orgasm workshop in Montreal over 5 years ago and it still lives and breathes on the internet and comes back to bite me. I ended up putting it on my resume just to give myself a chance to explain it before someone judged me on it.
Now that books are being published electronically I'm no longer worried that my Dad will end up in the gay & lesbian section of Chapters and accidentally pick up an anthology I'm in (highly unlikely,) instead I'm worried he'll simply Google me, as he is much more likely to do. In fact, he once confronted me about being very disappointed that I used the word "Cunt" in this very blog. The generation gap is certainly very obvious as he simply can not comprehend why I'd put myself on the web and "embarass" myself as such.
If anything this kind of lack-of-privacy anxiety stifles creativity. If we are constantly worried that what we make will be available to everyone will we not censor what we create? If I write a piece for a particular audience with the knowledge that anyone with a computer can view it from the comfort of their homes, will I decide not to take that initial creative risk?
Or maybe this is continued Friendster narcissism... assuming that people even care that much.
Posted by Stacey May
February 7, 2007, 10:44 AM
A straight male friend of mine, who happens to be a little effeminate, made a Friendster profile and, because he didn't really care that much he checked off that he was interested in dating men and women. Immediately several of his friends confronted him and said they had been waiting for him to "come out" and they were glad he did but why didn't he tell them directly? It actually took a long time for them to believe that he was pretty comfortable with his heterosexuality and that what he told them himself was more accurate than what they saw on the Web. People are weird.
One interesting aspect of places like Friendster and MySpace is how they allow people to take on personas or to present themselves in a stylized way that's much more difficult to do in "real life". I know very few people who use Friendster "earnestly" - maybe it's indicative of my peer group being a bunch of cranks, and I'm willing to admit that. In any case, I find it interesting that, say, trans people have to choose a male or female designation on Friendster (although there was that petition to add an "it's complicated" option), but within that cramped gender space they can actually create a male or female persona that's more "visible" than it may presently be in terms of their own bodies. What I'm trying to say it that when someone looks at your profile, they're not necessarily peering deep into your soul. They're seeing a version of yourself you've consciously constructed - maybe more consciously than how you present yourself in your day-to-day life. If they choose to act as though they are, in fact, glimpsing your innermost self and act accordingly, well, isn't that their problem?
Posted by Anna
February 7, 2007, 11:10 AM
I gleefully got on the Friendster train, but by the time MySpace and Facebook rolled around, I had jumped off. I have to admit it's not because I'm incredibly politically astute, but more because I was disturbed by what Friendster brought out in me. Every time someone became my friend or gave me a testimonial, I almost fainted from the joy of attention.
I think the thing that's really creepy about all these networking sites is that the really exploit peoples' need to feel connected and important. I think it's serious crisis of community. In an atomistic society like ours, where acknowleding that we need each other for survival is not really hip, feeling connected and valuable has started to boil down to weirdo corporate sites that determine exactly how we interact with each other.
(Sad sidebar: a good friend of mine from an exchange program I did six years ago died suddenly last week. I was lucky enough to get the news from a close friend, but a whole bunch of people who were also close to my friend got the news that she had died on Facebook. Can you imagine a more horrible way to find out about something like that?)
I agree with what Anna said about the problematic nature of the kinds of self-labelling options you're offered on all these sites. Most of the time (at least on Friendster) you get five or six options that you can choose for all the categories. There's 6 billion of us, and Friendster hopes to be able to sort us into just five or six categories? Oh dear.
And of course, lumped on top of these slightly more abstract concerns, is the worry about how all these sites are just a giant marketing ploy, as they plug into our most profound (and maybe neglected) need to be loved.
I have to admit though, my friendster page is still alive and kicking. Four years after I signed up, I still get messages from long lost friends. I can admit that I'm totally hooked on the loving I get via Friendster, as sick as that makes me - and maybe our culture on the whole.
Posted by Thea
February 9, 2007, 1:14 PM
[...] Do you have a facebook? (tags: facebook privacy socialnetworking datamining) [...]
Posted by links for 2007-02-16 at blogdriverswaltz.com
February 16, 2007, 6:18 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.