There were some very interesting points in the two assigned readings of Tom Slee's blog posts. In the first, titled "More Facebook, More Egypt," he makes the point that people "need to keep a clear distinction between what it is they like and the corporation that provides it." Many people today see sites and the internet they run on as an entitlement, when really we are paying for it in more ways than cash.
Notably, it has been used as a tool for activism. "Facebook was permitted, and the educated, urban members of the younger generation adopted it and used it to push up against the limits of acceptable dialog." Also note how he says the government "permitted" Facebook. There are many instances where we don't realize what is blocked on the internet in other countries, let alone our own. The censorship happens before we know it, and there's no obvious bleeping noise to indicate what we're missing out on.
Unfortunately, Facebook is being integrated into our lives in both an addictive and compelling fashion. As Tom Slee put it, "like other generational phenomena, it seems that Facebook plays into a sense of identity for students and youth." Not only that, but Facebook provides an instant placebo of socialization, and has many implications not just for activism but also for how we interact with people on a daily basis. "They felt as though they needed to be there [...] because they got to connect with someone there that they couldn't connect with elsewhere." Another important implication is how it allows us to reach out to people at times or in places we couldn't have otherwise contacted these people. This sort of contact creates metaphorical wormholes and disjoints our network of relationships: we can not have friends in any country we want, and contact them any time of the day we are able to access the internet.
Slee also talks about "generational spaces," or what I interpret as a sense of culture. He claims we have adopted Facebook as a sort of generational space, like we would come together at a popular mall, geek out over a favorite pop icon, or surf select sites on the web. "Generational spaces can be both public & private", in physical and metaphorical space. His warning, however, is that "if Facebook is a cultural phenomenon, then its meaning and role will change as it becomes mainstream - we need to treat it like we treat the record companies, the mainstream media, and our phone companies. Necessary, but not to be trusted." Facebook is a corporation like any other, and will always have separate motivations and values than what it's users hold.
Corporations are a sort of double edged sword, however. It's impossible to expect them to always operate in the public's best interest and be honest 100% of the time, but their resources are often invaluable, even if only in terms of convenience. "Activists have always needed to be both in and against the media. Artists have always had a dysfunctional relationship with the industry that manages them." A band may not enjoy signing with a record company, but their ability to advance in their career grows with such a relationship.
In Slee's second post, "Blogs and Bullets: Breaking Down Social Media", he implies that we need to stop integrating Facebook into the term "social media" because the distinction is important. How we interpret words matter to Slee, and to those who use them, whether they know it or not. Like words, however, new technologies are so commonplace that we meld them into the background of our lives, like many important issues, without careful consideration of how their presence affects our choices. "The Internet is still pretty new, so we tend to look at it as a definable thing, but digital technologies have now become so multifaceted and so enmeshed in other facets of our lives that such a broad brush obscures more than it reveals."
When considering Facebook as an untrustworthy corporation, just consider when you are presented with a Terms of Service agreement during an online transaction, monetary or not. How often do you read them? "If we make ourselves talk about Facebook in particular, rather than social media in general, then it is clear that issues with their terms of service, privacy policies, real-name policies and so on are not details in the big picture of networked technologies but are central to the potential of Facebook as a tool for effecting political change." If you want to compel yourself to read them, as they do matter, just watch South Park's episode merging the power of Terms of Service agreements and themes from the horror movie "The Human Centipede." Their contracts are basically an exchange of their service for your information, and thus are more important than many of us like to admit.
More so are these implications important for countries with tighter restrictions. "Given how important privacy is under authoritarian regimes, terms of service matter." Just think of all those shows in the media that make fun of the people who sign documents without reading them, and end up in a contract with a crooked character (classically Satan) who exploits their blind trust. That could easily illustrate cases of signing online policies without reading them. Of course, who really has time? Time itself is a marketable commodity we do not readily think about, though I doubt many people argue whether or not "time is money," as we are all familiar with the worth of efficiency.
Yet another point Tom Slee makes is that the "Internet takes its place as one part of the real world, not a separate entity." Evidence that not many people really believe this (though they may know it as true) is how common it is to commit online theft of movies, music, you name it. In court, "many Internet cases are argued within the bounds of existing trade, intellectual property, privacy, and other laws. Disputes that seemed to be specific to the digital realm turn out to be (with the exception of net neutrality) about trade law." The internet may seem a great escape into a personal realm that sits in a rectangular frame on our desktop, but in reality that escape is to the same reality as everything offline, just in different contexts.
Technology has advance so quickly that we now merge together everything into one device on our pocket. With smart phones we can bring our computer with us, but there is still a huge difference in Facebook on our phone versus on our desktop computer at home. "Mobility makes a difference, and lumping SMS messaging together with blogs just confuses things." Each technology provides its own potential for media in each of their unique contexts. This potential, however, seems to be wasted on a generation that would rather have time looking at pictures of cats than reach out to help those in need of capable activists and the wildfire of social networking online. "We are losing a diversity of institutions in the move to a digital terrain, and it is worth investigating what impact that loss has."
No comments:
Post a Comment