Mood:
not sureTopic: 004 - Facebook Condemns Practice
As always this commentary is the product of my interaction with other users on the Huffington Post. I understand and actually invite public discourse from others on just about any subject; it can make for a very interesting read at times and as usual I was not disappointed today.
This morning as is my usual routine, I poured a cup of coffee and started my customary scan of the headlines on The Huffington Post, which is one of several of my personal choices. After reviewing a number of articles, I stopped to read some of the user comments on the article “Facebook Condemns Practice of Employers Demanding Employee Passwords” by Courteney Palis. It is a topic that is and should be of interest to any Facebook user. On a personal level this is more of a curiosity for me since my employer; along with a couple of previous employers are also friends on my Facebook page.
I was struck by the audacity in a post made by a user with the pseudo name of ‘Guy Girl’ in stating quite presumptuously that Facebook is dying in America. The entire comment is provided here: “How do I feel about it? I don't. Facebook is already dying, in America, anyway. Look at your friends' pages. Activity is down. Posts are down. Even the ego addictive friending is down. So many pages are just neglected. Some peoples' pages remind me of the junked out cars I used to see in NYC tunnels and road sides- abandoned. Unwanted, neglected. So, I don't care what they do to try to win back active clients. Privacy was once of concern to Facebook users. Now, most of them don't have the time or interest in Facebook to even care.”
However, to me it was more so the generalization that prompted my simple reply of “Perhaps in your neck of the woods. With the exception of a few that rarely post actual conversation style comments on Facebook, I personally love Facebook!”
Specifically intended to state that while things may be such with regards to that particular Facebook users experience, the same sentiments are not shared by me. Although I have to admit that there are a few of my friends on Facebook that have an irritating tendency to continuously post, share and reshare those certain images that are supposed to either be some sort of joke or some inspirational message that is religiously oriented or even worse politically oriented, and I respect that as their choice.
Somehow my meaning was lost on another Huffington Post reader using what may or may not be a pseudo name of ‘Jack Boat’ who commented on my post with the following: “What are you trying to say ^ I think all the tweeting and facebook posting has affected your ability to communicate effectively.” Whose comment is the reason for my commentary on here today rather than the original comment that actually sparked my participation in the ‘conversation’ on Huffington Post. Even without the elaboration provided, I believe my articulation of the English language was quite clear, which gives cause to question the comprehension level of shall I say Mr. Jack Boat.
Although I understand the purpose of limiting comments to a set number of characters to avoid tirades and other soap box style commentary, as I will most willingly admit that I have a tendency to do; it can be somewhat difficult at times to fully address a specific comment on the Huffington Post or any other interactive site for that matter. Therefore based on the established limitations, I scaled down my reply to Mr. Jack Boat by stating:
“My apologies [not] that my comment [to someone else’s post] was not crystal clear to you. Every individual who uses the internet whether it is for personal research, work, school or social media, does so for their own purposes. Everyone who ventures into the realm of Cyber Space does so [hopefully] with the understanding that there is nothing that is truly private. You are very correct that Facebook just like any other media source is a tool to be used but is often abused. It is the responsibility of the individual user to take the initiative in educating themselves regarding the ‘Terms of Use’ which are part of every interactive site on the internet, social media included” which is unfortunately the only part of this blog commentary that appears on the Huffington Post.
I read a large number of articles on the Huffington Post on a weekly basis and often find myself [almost] without words at times to describe the complete lack of substance that is blatantly displayed and that particular post ranks right up there in my top ten. The content of the post is a testament to the lack of knowledge as it pertains to the subject matter. The first question that came to my mind as I read the statement was to wonder what rationale was used to make this assumption. Is this individual friends with nearly every other Facebook user in America? That they could make the determination that enough pages would “remind me of the junked out cars I used to see in NYC tunnels and road sides-abandoned. Unwanted, neglected” as a sign that Facebook was dying in America as was stated in their post. The images inspired by the comment are eerily similar to a scene from a Mad Max movie.
I wonder, did it ever occur to this particular user that perhaps the actual owners of those ‘other pages’ those supposedly abandoned, unwanted and neglected pages have perhaps taken the time to actually read the information regarding privacy on Facebook? Contrary to their assumption that “Privacy was once a concern to Facebook users. Now, most of them don’t have the time or interest in Facebook to even care.” Privacy is very much a concern for Facebook users as evidenced by the information provided in yet another article on Huffington Post entitled “Facebook Privacy in Demand: Users Don’t Want You Prying” by Bianca Bosker dated February 24, 2012. [Link provided at the end of this commentary]
A couple of points brought out in the article provide a very interesting perspective on this issue:
“Researchers at Polytechnic Institute of New York University tracked the privacy settings of 1.4 million Facebook profiles belonging to New Yorkers over a 15-month period between March 2010 and June 2011. They found a “dramatic decrease in the amount of information Facebook users reveal about themselves to the general public” and the authors concluded that the users became “dramatically more private” during the period, according to their report.”
Additionally I found their concluding remarks to be quite interesting:
“These statistics paint social networkers as an increasingly privacy-savvy group of individuals who are concerned about who sees what details about them online and are taking steps to protect themselves.
There’s an important distinction to be made between oversharing and not caring. It’s true that users bombard their friends with mundane details about their snacks, runs, burps and buys. But that’s when they know their audience – not when they’re addressing the world at large. We’re less inclined to broadcast our status updates to strangers or reveal intimate details to the unknown, and social media companies would be wise to take note of just how far social norms have – and haven’t – evolved.”
The simple truth is that people are not abandoning their Facebook pages, they are abandoning the once ‘complete openness’ that has historically been touted by Facebook representatives as the ‘social norm’ and necessary in order to the able to be found through a simple search conducted by former classmates, coworkers or whomever. Facebook users are now more than ever concerned about their privacy and have actually taken charge of their accounts by familiarizing themselves with how to properly utilize the privacy settings and other available options that have been there all along.
When I think about the poster ‘Guy Girl’ and the ideology behind the comment that so many pages have been abandoned like so many junk cars, I am curious as to how many of his or her friends have simply changed their settings so as to either hide or block them from viewing the entire content of their pages? If users are paying attention, every time Facebook makes changes to the privacy settings or any other part of the user interface, there is a notification sent out to the email address that was used to open the account. If users are not paying attention and do not take the time to read about these changes then they have nobody to blame but themselves.
It is interesting to me that in a world that seems to be ever more dependent on the use of the internet, social media in its’ many forms often comes under fire from various critics as well as a number of disgruntled users. It is almost a given that with the massive user base claimed by Facebook that it would probably be one of the primary targets, especially in the name of privacy. A fact that I find to be the epitome of an oxymoron simply because nobody at Facebook, Mark Zuckerburg included has ever hidden, concealed or otherwise distorted the real purpose of Facebook. It is only the user who has failed in their responsibility to take the appropriate measures to understand the requirements.
I find it particularly humorous with reference to the ‘gamers’ who will literally pour over the rules and instructions on how to win at whatever game they have just purchased in the shortest amount of time possible, even going so far as to buy into monthly subscriptions in difference publications in order to get the cheater codes to accomplish this task. These are the same individuals will sign up for some social media source such as Facebook that offers them the possibility of a vast audience with whom they can play these games, yet they fail to read the rules and instructions for their choice of social media that are so clearly available. Each and ever app on Facebook clearly tells the user that if they choose to use their application that certain predetermined information about themselves and their friends will be collected. When the user clicks "Allow" they have just agreed to these terms regardless of how they have privacy settings.
Those behind the Facebook that exists today never intended it to be anything close to a personal or private social club of any kind. Just like the architects and engineers who design and build elaborate shopping malls, they did not spend massive amounts of time and money in researching what attracted people to them. They did not build them just to have people drive by and marvel at the beauty of their work, they left that to the builders of museums and cathedrals. They built these shopping malls for the sole purpose of getting people to come inside and actually spend their money.
Facebook is not, never has been and never will be any different and for those of you who believe otherwise, you need to wake up. Do you really think that Mark Zuckerburg and his staff are there, volunteering their services and knowledge out of the goodness of their hearts because they believe people need some form of social media outlet? Come on!
In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt stated “If you build it, they will come” and if you have ever had the opportunity to visit Panama City, of which Roosevelt was speaking, you’ll see that it has become the awesome metropolis and a thriving city that he predicted over 100 years ago. The same can be applied to just about anything else, Facebook included.
The creators of the social media site as it appears today was never intended it to be anything more than a cyber-building, an awesome piece of virtual of architecture that was constructed for the sole purpose of ‘herding’ the general population toward an artistically designed cyber-mall where peddlers of a different nature could hawk their wares and services.
Stop and think about it. The reason that Facebook advertises that it is free and always will be is because the everyday user is what the Fortune 500 companies are paying for it. They are paying Facebook to create a platform that 'herds' these 'everyday users' toward their ads in the belief that we will buy their products, just like the window shoppers at the local mall.
The stark reality is that Facebook is going to cater to those who pay their bills and while the 'everyday user' is the source that generates the revenue used to pay the bills, if what they want is adverse to the market value of Facebook it is not going to happen. It is as simple as that folks.
Sources:
Facebook Privacy in Demand: Users Don't Want You Prying
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/facebook-users-privacy-social-media_n_1299211.html
