On Facebook

3/28/2012

On Facebook

As our listener will know, Dave and I are at a sort of impasse on the subject of social media and Facebook in general.  The argument reached an interesting state this last week (episode 96) as Dave built a pair of contradicting rules for how one can research or comment upon a subject.  Rule One (made with an earlier argument about whether or not Colorado was a conservative state) was that your comments are only valid if you have spent time in a place and Rule Two (which was about Facebook) was that the only valid commentary is from someone who has read enormous amounts about the subject.  So I’m going to try to pick this thing apart in writing while it’s fresh in my mind.

So the accusation was made that when I described my experience with Facebook that it was invalid because it was purely my experience.  Now as a long time fan of first hand journalism I find that slightly offensive.  I am not a research scientist but I am also not a blithering, uncritical idiot.  My experience of Facebook as a well educated and observant person is completely valid and as I pointed out, my descriptions of my experience are meant to describe what most people experience when using the service. 

Dave’s further argument was that I hadn’t read any of the criticism of social media.  I was unable to get a word in edgewise and the argument glossed over this assertion.  Earlier I had pointed out that I listen to a large number of podcasts relating to the media and science.  Dave derided these as being something found on the internet that agrees with my beliefs.  I had mentioned the names of the programs I listen to and to call them biased or shallow demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to what the programs are or complete contempt for anything that isn’t “in print.”  The programs include Media Matters, from WILL AM, Onthe Media from WNYC (NPR), The Worldin Words, The World Science Podcast, and The World Tech Podcast from TheWorld (BBC), This American Life (NPR), Studio 360 (PRI), Science Friday (NPR), Quirks and Quarks (CBC), The Skeptics Guide to the Universe, and numerous NPR, BBC, PRI, PRX, and CBC science, news, and documentary podcasts.  I listen to these for over 8 hours a day while I am working with my hands.  Actually that’s not completely true.  I break up the day with comedy and music but most of what I listen to is news.  Journalism.  Reports on research.  Interviews with the researchers and authors themselves.  From the best news services on the planet and journalism and science award winning programs to boot.  Just because it’s not in writing doesn’t mean it’s any less informative, especially since it allows me to listen to the authors of more books than I could possibly read while I earn my living with my hands.  To denigrate the knowledge I glean from exposure to this much high quality reporting and interviewing is more than a bit conceited. 

The fact that I regularly read Harper’s Magazine cover to cover, constantly read The New York Times Online, Talking PointsMemo, National Geographic, Media Matters.org, and literally dozens of other journalism and science websites also puts the lie to Dave’s assertion that I’m just some ignorant parrot reciting my experiences.  My experiences relate to the experiences of most of the several billion people that use Facebook every day.  I’ve even delved into the realm of Twitter (which we didn’t even touch on) enough to where I think I see how the regular user experiences it.  I’m not that sure though I hear many people talk about their use of Twitter and have heard many excellent articles about how it is used and by whom.  At my minimal usage level it seems fun and the character limit is a challenge.   I have read a great deal of criticism and studies of social media.  There are many valid criticisms of what social media is doing to our society and what the breakdown of privacy is leading to.  I’ve never said anything against any of these criticisms.  There are many good things that come from the use of social media, there are vast amounts of neutral effects, and there are many bad things that are happening because of them.  Here’s what I don’t think Dave gets:  Almost all the people that criticize social media have used them extensively and most of them continue to do so.  Why would this be?  Perhaps it’s because they are an enjoyable place to go.  Perhaps it’s because using them makes keeping up with friends and families simple and easy.  Perhaps it’s because it gives them an outlet for their creativity or opinions.  Perhaps it’s because users of social media are at an advantage over those who do not use it.  Perhaps it’s because they know that if they do not swim in the waters regularly they will no longer be qualified to criticize those waters.  There are fantastically valid critiques of the motion picture industry but that doesn’t stop Dave from going to see movies.  There are strong criticisms of sports but that doesn’t stop Dave from knowing the names of high school basketball prospects.  But it isn’t the criticism of social media that keeps Dave from using them.  More on that later.

My argument with Dave’s criticism of Facebook et. al. is that the only thing he knows about it is through works of criticism.  I compared it to his assertion that only by living in a place can one make a valid anthropological study of it (though what I was doing was quoting what journalists reported about the politics in Colorado which I’m pretty sure is different from an anthropological study).  I’m sure there will be a semantic argument here but for all practical purposes, Facebook is a place.  It may be a “virtual” place but when one sits down and enters into the interface, moving around, reading posts, looking at pictures and videos, listening to music, chatting with friends, maybe unleashing a long diatribe on a page or in a group, it functions as a place.  It’s a place you can pop in on for a second and then pop back out of.  It’s a place you can spend hours in, looking at friends’ pictures, reading through what other people are posting, maybe getting in on some conversations or strings of jokes or wordplay.  It can also be this place that exists parallel to your internet browsing that you send things into while you are browsing.  For a lot of people it’s on their mobile thingy and they can check in with someone they’re supposed to meet or find out where the next party is they were invited to or quickly find the address for that gallery their friend told them to check out, or they’ll post pictures or videos of things they’re doing while they’re doing them (“Check it out, Bruce Willis is in line behind me!”), or describe a funny thing that just happened.  It can be all these things and more.  Like with a video game, a race track, a book, a restaurant, or an album, if you haven’t actually experienced the thing or place in depth you probably aren’t qualified to criticize it (and in Dave’s case, a man who is confounded and frustrated by door locks, not going to this place and using this thing in depth completely disqualifies him).  Dave really can’t experience Facebook like most people because he refuses to have internet access in his home or to use his work internet connection for anything but work.  That leaves him an occasionally moment in an internet café or the library now and again.  I think that all of my fellow users would agree that he has not gone swimming in the waters, has not walked around the town square, has not really used the thing as most people use it.

It doesn’t help that Dave’s angry attack on Facebook was based on his belief that everything is about him.  He was angry that our listener/reader visited our Facebook page but not our blog and presented it as “them” forcing him to do this thing.  The world is against him.  I’m against him.  When I ask him to do something I’m putting this enormous imposition upon him by asking.  I somehow become “The Man.”  I ask him to put links on his blog posts and he celebrates the fact he refuses to do this little amount of extra work.  “Let them look it up if they don’t believe me.”  First of all, it’s simply the professional way to present data, secondly, if the writer does this one thing it keeps every potential reader from having to do that thing which means you as the writer are doing something nice for  your reader, but most importantly I fucking asked him to do it.  “They” are not giving him extra work, he’s not being a prick if he does that little bit of work.  I tell Dave that most people are coming to Facebook so he should post there.  Somehow that’s an attack on him.  This horrible amount of work and effort being thrown onto his shoulders and it’s all about him.  All the arguments about experience and knowledge are secondary to the affront of Dave having to figure out how to do something new. 

Dave made the comparison of using computers and the internets and stuff with using a hammer to build things.  First, this is funny to me because I’m a carpenter and Dave would probably hurt himself if faced with a day of using a hammer to do a job.  Secondly, he is comparing getting acquainted with an complex interface to swinging a hammer.  Apples and oranges.  The hammer is more like the keyboard on a computer.  Maybe compare the mouse to an air hammer (which is used more these days than a regular hammer and you have to know how to keep them working and how to use the compressor) while an interface like Facebook is more like driving a car.  Apples and oranges.  A hammer is a tool used in a process.  But even the simple hammer requires a good bit of knowledge and that knowledge is always increasing.  What size/type of nail do you use for what projects?  You have a new project you might have to use a nail you’ve never used before or a nailing pattern or need to pre-drill this wood but not that wood and on and on.  Learning should be a continuous part of life but Dave hates learning new things and tends to turn that hatred against the things that require him to learn to use them.  If all he had was a typewriter he’d curse it because he had to change the ribbon.  And then he turns it outwards against the users of Facebook that visit our page there because they’re forcing him to use Facebook.  Our reader/listener doesn’t deserve such callous treatment.  He should want to give this extra effort for our wonderful MOPodites.  It saddens me, as I know it saddens you, dear reader, that Dr. David Overbey doesn’t go out of his way to do things for you, like I hope you feel I, your humble editor and producer and poster of cartoons and stuff, do for you.

Lastly Dave kept asking why were our users going to the Facebook page instead of the blog.  Over and over.  I answered it was because the Facebook page is easier and most people that are in Facebook don’t really feel like leaving it.  But I’ve since realized that another reason is because I post a lot of stuff on our Facebook page.  I post cartoons, links to stories, comments on current events, news and political video, and it has a convenient player for our podcasts.  For me the Facebook interface is easier to use than the blog though I like keeping the blog active as more of a magazine.  Another reason they’re visiting the Facebook page almost exclusively is because of Facebook itself.  If they’re interested in things that are posted on the Facebook page they’ll see them when they sign in to Facebook.  Many people no longer check their e-mail more than once a day because their “important” conversations are going through Facebook.  There is a qualitative argument here as well but I’ll just say that the chatter has increased exponentially which means the “important” chatter and the meaningless drivel has increased in equal amounts.  The latter is never going to go away and the former is all over the internets.

So there you go.  That’s what I have to say on the Facebook argument.  I am not an anthropologist.  Dave is not a giver.  I am not a vapid idiot, Dave does not use Facebook.

--AM

My argument with Dave’s criticism of Facebook et. al. is that the only thing he knows about it is through works of criticism.  I compared it to his assertion that only by living in a place can one make a valid anthropological study of it (though what I was doing was quoting what journalists reported about the politics in Colorado which I’m pretty sure is different from an anthropological study).  I’m sure there will be a semantic argument here but for all practical purposes, Facebook is a place.  It may be a “virtual” place but when one sits down and enters into the interface, moving around, reading posts, looking at pictures and videos, listening to music, chatting with friends, maybe unleashing a long diatribe on a page or in a group, it functions as a place.  It’s a place you can pop in on for a second and then pop back out of.  It’s a place you can spend hours in, looking at friends’ pictures, reading through what other people are posting, maybe getting in on some conversations or strings of jokes or wordplay.  It can also be this place that exists parallel to your internet browsing that you send things into while you are browsing.  For a lot of people it’s on their mobile thingy and they can check in with someone they’re supposed to meet or find out where the next party is they were invited to or quickly find the address for that gallery their friend told them to check out, or they’ll post pictures or videos of things they’re doing while they’re doing them (“Check it out, Bruce Willis is in line behind me!”), or describe a funny thing that just happened.  It can be all these things and more.  Like with a video game, a race track, a book, a restaurant, or an album, if you haven’t actually experienced the thing or place in depth you probably aren’t qualified to criticize it (and in Dave’s case, a man who is confounded and frustrated by door locks, not going to this place and using this thing in depth completely disqualifies him).  Dave really can’t experience Facebook like most people because he refuses to have internet access in his home or to use his work internet connection for anything but work.  That leaves him an occasionally moment in an internet café or the library now and again.  I think that all of my fellow users would agree that he has not gone swimming in the waters, has not walked around the town square, has not really used the thing as most people use it.

It doesn’t help that Dave’s angry attack on Facebook was based on his belief that everything is about him.  He was angry that our listener/reader visited our Facebook page but not our blog and presented it as “them” forcing him to do this thing.  The world is against him.  I’m against him.  When I ask him to do something I’m putting this enormous imposition upon him by asking.  I somehow become “The Man.”  I ask him to put links on his blog posts and he celebrates the fact he refuses to do this little amount of extra work.  “Let them look it up if they don’t believe me.”  First of all, it’s simply the professional way to present data, secondly, if the writer does this one thing it keeps every potential reader from having to do that thing which means you as the writer are doing something nice for  your reader, but most importantly I fucking asked him to do it.  “They” are not giving him extra work, he’s not being a prick if he does that little bit of work.  I tell Dave that most people are coming to Facebook so he should post there.  Somehow that’s an attack on him.  This horrible amount of work and effort being thrown onto his shoulders and it’s all about him.  All the arguments about experience and knowledge are secondary to the affront of Dave having to figure out how to do something new. 

Dave made the comparison of using computers and the internets and stuff with using a hammer to build things.  First, this is funny to me because I’m a carpenter and Dave would probably hurt himself if faced with a day of using a hammer to do a job.  Secondly, he is comparing getting acquainted with an complex interface to swinging a hammer.  Apples and oranges.  The hammer is more like the keyboard on a computer.  Maybe compare the mouse to an air hammer (which is used more these days than a regular hammer and you have to know how to keep them working and how to use the compressor) while an interface like Facebook is more like driving a car.  Apples and oranges.  A hammer is a tool used in a process.  But even the simple hammer requires a good bit of knowledge and that knowledge is always increasing.  What size/type of nail do you use for what projects?  You have a new project you might have to use a nail you’ve never used before or a nailing pattern or need to pre-drill this wood but not that wood and on and on.  Learning should be a continuous part of life but Dave hates learning new things and tends to turn that hatred against the things that require him to learn to use them.  If all he had was a typewriter he’d curse it because he had to change the ribbon.  And then he turns it outwards against the users of Facebook that visit our page there because they’re forcing him to use Facebook.  Our reader/listener doesn’t deserve such callous treatment.  He should want to give this extra effort for our wonderful MOPodites.  It saddens me, as I know it saddens you, dear reader, that Dr. David Overbey doesn’t go out of his way to do things for you, like I hope you feel I, your humble editor and producer and poster of cartoons and stuff, do for you.

Lastly Dave kept asking why were our users going to the Facebook page instead of the blog.  Over and over.  I answered it was because the Facebook page is easier and most people that are in Facebook don’t really feel like leaving it.  But I’ve since realized that another reason is because I post a lot of stuff on our Facebook page.  I post cartoons, links to stories, comments on current events, news and political video, and it has a convenient player for our podcasts.  For me the Facebook interface is easier to use than the blog though I like keeping the blog active as more of a magazine.  Another reason they’re visiting the Facebook page almost exclusively is because of Facebook itself.  If they’re interested in things that are posted on the Facebook page they’ll see them when they sign in to Facebook.  Many people no longer check their e-mail more than once a day because their “important” conversations are going through Facebook.  There is a qualitative argument here as well but I’ll just say that the chatter has increased exponentially which means the “important” chatter and the meaningless drivel has increased in equal amounts.  The latter is never going to go away and the former is all over the internets.

So there you go.  That’s what I have to say on the Facebook argument.  I am not an anthropologist.  Dave is not a giver.  I am not a vapid idiot, Dave does not use Facebook.

--AM