Give Unto Facebook

As the Facebook phenomenon continues to spread and gain momentum it seems that recently, much more than in years past, a larger share of attention has been allocated to the site’s founder and principle driving force, Mark Zuckerberg.  This refocused attention to the organizations leader has great validity beyond our arguably justified fascination with a brilliant and quirky man who has made himself a billionaire six times over before the age of 27.  In truth, if we want to understand what Facebook is and what it may become in the future then we must understand Mark Zuckerberg.  Zuckerberg wields overwhelming influence and control over the operations of Facebook, how the site handles its users information and how the site will behave in the future.  For better or for worse, the future of Facebook and the nature of its influence and involvement in the lives of its users are dependent on the whims of a very young man who we are just beginning to get to know. 

Facebook is the envy of the world’s governments and intelligence agencies.  It convincingly compels individuals to divulge hoards of information about themselves, ranging from where they work to their political beliefs up to where they are and what they are doing at any point in time.  According to Lev Grossman, “Facebook has a richer, more intimate hoard of information about its citizens than any nation has ever had, and the US government sometimes comes knocking, subpoena in hand, looking to borrow some” (Grossman, 2010).  Depending on the situation, or more likely Zuckerberg’s opinion in the matter, Facebook may go to court to resist or they may capitulate and share information.  According to the terms of agreement, information shared on Facebook belongs to Facebook and not to the individual who shared it.  Therefore the choice to share rests totally with Mark Zuckerberg.  According to him, information shared on Facebook will remain safe and secure in Facebook’s servers and Facebook will be, “… making sure that it happens in a bottom-up way, with people inputting the information themselves and having control over how their information interacts with the system, as opposed to a centralized way, through it being tracked in some surveillance system… That’s just a really important part of my personality and what I care about” (Kirkpatrick, p.324).  While it’s nice to know that Mark feels that way now, how long can we be certain he will remain that way? 

What happens when Mark Zuckerberg goes down the same road as Howard Hughes?  He is certainly idealistic and egalitarian minded at this point in time, but being only twenty-six years old means that Mark could go through a lot of changes in the years to come.  As Facebook grows and potentially becomes the steward of more and more personal and sensitive information, will its current leader still feel the same way about this information that he has total control of?  Only time will tell.  It is merely speculation on my part at this point but it’s worth considering, especially now that Facebook has 550 million members and is gaining tens of thousands more everyday (Grossman, p.1).  At best we should exercise caution when divulging information on the Internet, and try to think about whether we want the information we present to come back and haunt us twenty or thirty years down the road.

References:

Kirkpatrick, D. (2010) The Facebook Effect (pp.287-333). New York: Simon & Schuster

Grossman, L. (2010, December 15), Person of the Year 2010 Mark Zuckerberg. Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2036683_2037183,00.html

Social Networking and Collective Action

 In my opinion, one of the very best things about the Internet is it’s potential for connecting communities and helping facilitate social change.  One of the most fundamental and simultaneously most powerful tools of organized communities is the ability to communicate quickly and effectively with one another and to act as intelligently as an informed and up to date group.  Especially in a scenario that involves direct action, specifically protests or demonstrations, social networking tools have again and again proven to be invaluable in maintaining communication and cohesiveness in the midst of a constantly evolving strategic situation.  If we wish to continue evolving the project of democracy and to see a world where authority is derived from a mandate from an informed populace, the continued evolution of open and free online community networking should be encouraged and protected. 

Clay Shirky brings up an interesting example of social demonstration facilitated by social networking in his article Fitting Our Tools to a Small World.  He describes a student-organized walkout that took place in California in 2006.  The walkout was planned and advertised completely through MySpace, completely off the radar of any of the school administrators or staff so when the action took place everyone was taken totally by surprise, unprepared and off-guard.  In addition to being a relatively stealth operation, the organization of the walkout was arguably much more effective than it may have been without the use of MySpace.  Because of the way MySpace separates and shares information, students who were likely to be interested saw the advertisements while people who would have no interest didn’t even see a single link (Shirky pp.221-222).

Another arena where social networking has been put work for social change is in the recent uprising throughout the Middle East.  Starting with the anti-government protests in Iran in 2009 (that some journalists dubbed the “Twitter Revolution” due to the heavy use of that particular network) up to and including the recent pro-democracy uprising in Egypt, social networks have played an important role.  When things began to heat up in Egypt the first thing the government did was to take a not from the events in Iran in 2009 and they immediately disabled Internet and mobile phone communication (Joudeh, 2011).  Despite this tactic, Egyptians at home and abroad were able to circumvent the information blockade and to help each other remain logged-on and tuned-in.   In the weeks that followed, culminating in the successful eviction of their unwanted president, the Egyptian people used sites like Twitter and Facebook to organize themselves an to, “… get the word out about how to bypass checkpoints, how to get across bridges, and how to get to places where people want to demonstrate” (Joudeh, 2011).             

   These are just a couple of examples of the potential social networking sites and Internet communication in general represent for community organizing and collective action.  Ideally we are constantly in a state of becoming a better world, not just technologically but socially and economically as well.  As Clay Shirky says, “Our electronic networks are enabling novel forms of collective action, enabling the creation of collaborative groups that are larger and more distributed than at any other time in history” (Shirky, p. 48).  Clearly our democracy is imperfect but it is nonetheless available to those who wish to engage with their friends and neighbors and to put effort and love into creating positive changes in their community and in the world.  Open access to the internet and to sites like Twitter and Facebook, just to mention a couple, can be quite effective if one also follows up in person to be on the streets or in the town hall or wherever it is their community calls them to be. 

References:

Joudeh, S. (2011, February 01).  Egypt:  A Social Network Revolution With a Twist.  The Moscow News.  Retrieved from http://www.themoscownews.com/comments/20110201/188383255.html

Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations (pp. 47-232). New York: Penguin Group.

CIA's 'Facebook' Program

Thoughts on Virtual Reality

“You may ask yourself:  Am I right or am I wrong?

You may say to yourself: My God, what have I done?”

                                    - David Byrne

There is a general agreement among researchers and developers that virtual reality’s role in our everyday lives will become more and more pervasive in the near future.  While it is clear that there are a number of useful and productive applications of virtual reality technologies, I am wary of jumping immediately on board without taking some time to hash out some of the potential negative consequences or side effects of our increasingly virtual existence. 

Especially in these times of rapidly evolving technologies where it seems like there is hardly time to consider the social implications of one technology before it is swiftly made obsolete by another, I feel that is increasingly important to be aware of the road that we are walking and stay alert for potential pitfalls.  It is important to keep in mind that there are often important criteria, beyond simple economics or efficiency, which must be addressed when evaluating the usefulness or desirability of a new technology. 

Years ago I came across a list of just that sort of criteria, developed by the thoughtful and agrarian-minded writer Wendell Berry in a controversial essay titled Why I Am Not Going To Buy A Computer, intended to determine whether a proposed technology is indeed superior to the one it supposes to supplant.  In the interest of brevity I will not touch on all nine of the standards proposed by Mr. Berry, but I would like to briefly touch on two or three of them and see how Virtual Reality technologies might measure up.

The first criteria proposed by Mr. Berry seem to lean in the favor of virtual reality.  Paraphrased, rule number one says that the new tool should be less expensive than the one it replaces (Berry, 1987).  D. Friedman described the use of Virtual Reality as an inexpensive and effective tool for international business in the article All In Your Mind.  The author describes himself as lounging at home in his bathrobe wearing a headset in, shall we say “real” reality, while delivering an address in a virtual suit and tie to a room full of folks who have been brought together in a virtual space although in real space they are thousands of miles away from one another (Friedman, p.281).  There is a clear advantage in the virtual world here, in that it replaces the necessity to spend money and fuel and time travelling by airplane and taxi, staying in hotels and becoming generally exhausted from travel before you even get a chance to attend to the business at hand. So, if what we intend to replace with VR is in fact tedious travel, then the news is good.  I’m not sure, however, that many people would argue that a virtual vacation to tour Paris or Rome could be an equivalent substitute for the real thing, especially with the state of technology today.           

With that in mind, let’s look at one of Mr. Berry’s criteria that relies more on qualitative data, i.e. quality of life stuff, than on quantitative criteria like dollar values.  Rule number nine states that the new technology, “…should not replace or disrupt anything good that already exists, and this includes family and community relationships” (Berry, 1987).  Oh man, that’s a whole new can of worms right there.  I’m sure that different applications of VR could land all across this spectrum here.  I’m sure you could get any number of today’s parents to vent a torrent of frustration about their withdrawn teenager who spends all their time wired in to a virtual world to the detriment of their relationships at home and their success in school.  On the other hand, it could be argued that VR can have a positive impact on the fabric of family life.  For instance, a couple that may be separated by thousands of miles out of necessity may find a fulfilling method of interaction in a virtual setting. While their virtual interactions would most likely be and inferior substitute to the real thing it may still be better than nothing and serve as a proactive tool in maintaining the health and integrity of their family ties.    On the whole, however, I expect that a deeper examination of the question of the disruption of established familial and community relationships would reveal a great deal of potentially negative and disruptive consequences stemming from an increasingly virtual society.  While this may indeed be the wave of the future, we would do well to ask ourselves what among our current habits and patterns of life we hold especially dear and how those traditions fit in to the brave new world that seems to be just moments away.

Resources:

Berry, Wendell.  (1987) Why I Am Not Going To Buy A Computer.  Retrieved February 10, 2011 from http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/berrynot.html .

Friedman, D.  (2008) Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World.  (pp. 275-292).  New York: Cambridge University Press.