Essays and Etcetera

This week I opened a Facebook⁽¹⁾ account, and I’m feeling a bit uncertain about it. I avoided doing this for a long time. Typically I don’t sign up for an account with a website without a reason–I dislike randomly handing out my e-mail address. In particular I shy away from “social” or “social-networking” websites. I have never had a Myspace account, or a Livejournal account. I only broke down and signed up for a Xanga account when there was a particular blog I wanted to read that required a Xanga login.

I avoid subscribing to social websites for a number of reasons. First, I’m not a extrovert who is always making friends and seeking more. I don’t have many friends, or people I need (or want) to socially interact with–as can be witnessed by the fact that I got a cell phone only two years ago, and I now have 2,000 unused minutes sitting on my Tracfone today. (But that is a different story.) Related to this, I’m not really a social player. Social websites are designed to try to bring people together to play in the same sandbox. I prefer to play quietly in my own sandbox, undisturbed by the rules, regulations, and drama of other people. Finally, I don’t care for the lack of anonymity typical of social websites. The whole point of being social is getting to know people, and helping them know you better. This involves sharing personal information–and to me it often feels like indiscriminate sharing of personal information. I prefer to be very particular in what I share, and in general I am happiest as the silent lurker when on some stranger’s website.

Facebook, I felt, personified the social website and so I avoided it. My objections to Facebook could be summarized as follows:

• Improper use of the term “Friend”
• Time wasting
• Loss of privacy
• And . . . more loss of privacy

I know, I am so old-fashioned, but it really annoys me how Facebook has employed the term “friend.” They have made the word into a parody of true friendship. To join Facebook is to join the world of grade-school girls where the true meaning of friendship is lost in the always playing game of “Okay, you can be my friend today” or “You’re not my friend any more today.”

People say you should just think of your Facebook “friends” as “contacts” and that when someone is asking to be your “friend” they just want to be a “contact.” I know that is the end result–a look around Facebook will show many people have 100, 200, 300, or more, “friends” where it is physically impossible to actively befriend that many people in real life. Fine. So all those people aren’t really friends. Then why must we go and butcher the English language? Is it necessary to rob a word of all its meaning? If the true function of Facebook “friend” is simply to add people as “contacts” then call it that. Better yet, call it “acquaintance” as that is the most accurate word. When you meet someone, you become an “acquaintance.” If, after a time, you discover you have much in common, then you become friends. But if you know 100 people, probably 25 of them are friends and the remaining 75 are acquaintances.

Beyond the improper usage of the term “friend” Facebook poorly handles the technological mechanics behind the implementation. There is neither the right granularity, or flow, to the sharing of information. People should ask to become your acquaintance–and the granting of this privilege should give minimal access to your account (as per whatever your settings). Beyond this, you should be able to create sections on your account and assign who can see those sections based upon your own prerogative, not someone’s request. It is improper to ask to be someone’s friend, (not to mention that it is tacky to declare to someone “You’re my friend!”) and it is improper to ask for personal information–and Facebook puts you in the place of feeling like you are doing both be interacting with other people. It is as if impoliteness has become the rule. It would be more appropriate if you (as the user) could easily decide whom you wanted to share what with, on an individual or group basis–down the the fine granularity of sharing some posts with only certain people, and other posts will all your acquaintances. As it is, Facebook’s ability in this regard is far too limited and leaves one feeling like too much can too easily be shared with too many.

If Facebook stopped abusing the term “friend” and gave fine-tuned control to sharing and privacy, I might actually find it a useful tool for sharing. I don’t expect them to do either any time soon.

Regarding the problem of time wasting, Facebook is not alone in that regard. Time wasting is a perennial danger of the web, and I find it particularly endemic to social websites. Basically, if a social website is doing its job, it is making you waste time. A part of me leans toward thinking that all socializing is a waste of time, but in reality I am quite happy to keep informed about people I know in real life. But I do find it (99% of the time) a complete waste of time to go about on social websites, reading about the lives of people I don’t know . . . writing that is typically not very good, or informative, or educational. Yes, there are exceptions. But since I typically have no intention of socializing with the writer it ends up being something of a nosy and vicarious act of watching someone else live their lives–which is (strangely enough) very much like watching someone live their life. In the mean time, you haven’t got anything done, or lived your life.

The better a social website is at doing its job (making you stay on the website and read about other people) the more dangerous it is for time wasting. It is very easy to get sucked into the vortex of “people browsing” . . . not because there is anything inherently gripping about it, but because it is so easy. With Facebook it is very, very, easy to share. As a result, it is very east to enter the wild realm of too much information. How much do you need to know about your immediate family’s activities? How about your extended family? How about your friends? Maybe your distant-friends? Or the friends or your friends, and friends of your family? The clearly relational possibility of Facebook makes it incredibly dangerous as a time waster. After all, aren’t you curious who is friends with your family? And if you like your friend, maybe you would like your friend’s friend. Back in the old day’s of social websites just about everyone was some kind of stranger. It was all social-strangers. Now there is often a tenuous sense of familiarity which can lead to the hopeless activity of attempting to acquaint yourself with all of those strangers you sort-of know.

Back when RSS readers were first becoming really popular, I strenuously avoided using them because I was afraid an RSS reader would make it too easy for me to waste too much time. It is so easy to collect so many blogs right at your fingertips. I could easily see myself spending all day reading blogs you are (sort of) remotely interesting. As RSS readers were to blog reading, so is Facebook to social website: The ultimate invention of ease (so far). I eventually did start using a feed reader, but I very carefully, and vigorously, limited the blogs I allowed to put into it. The rest were relegated into my “read on the weekend” folder. It currently remains an open question whether I will be able to exercise the same control in using Facebook–but I will have to, if I am going to use it. Otherwise, I will have to ban myself, because I can’t go about looking at every one of 32,000 photos that someone I know has posted, or reading every comment that everyone I know has ever posted. Not too long ago it was impossible to aggregate that much information about people you knew. Now you can. Sometimes too much ability is a dangerous thing.

On the issue of privacy, it comes in two parts, for me. There is the principle of privacy, and there is practical matters. On principle, Facebook earned very bad marks in my book when they instituted their Facebook Beacon⁽²⁾. It is true that the Internet is awash in a lack of privacy, and to a large degree I have resigned myself to this. I’m not some nubile young woman, or a person engaged in illicit activities, so I neither have anything I need to hide, or anyone who is going to want to stalk me. So I don’t get tied into knots over every last bit of information about my activities that might get out on the Internet.

But by the same measure there is very little that companies need to know about me. The more generic and less intrusive the information gathered, the less I concern myself. But when tracking information for me is attached to a particular account I have with a particular company–that is when I really start paying attention. Because, on principle, I believe people (and companies) should not go around sticking their nose into other people’s business. Sometimes, I find it grudgingly acceptable on grounds of usefulness–Amazon has got to the point where if I sneeze while browsing their website they will offer me a tissue, but in spite of their over-eagerness enough of their suggestions are useful that I haven’t started really rebelling. Even so, with Amazon it is getting to the point where I am noticing that they are tracking me very closely, and it is beginning to make me ponder how much I care for it.

However, if Amazon’s tracking is ameliorated by the service they offer as a result–not so Facebook. With Facebook Beacon you are tracked like Amazon tracks–except instead of it being confined to one store, (and displayed only to you and Amazon) you are tracked through a possible 40+ stores, all of the information is aggregated back to one location–and then potentially shouted to the world. Problematic? I think so.

First, this is far more information that anyone needs to know. There is no reason to share with all your friends everything you bought at all the stores you shop. Its inane at best. Second, while it is sold as a service (let your friends know what you are doing) it is in reality naked exploitation. You are being used to pimp the products you bought, and the icing on the cake is you’re not even being compensated for the advertising service you provide. I’m sure its a real sweet deal for Facebook, but–the issue of uncompensated service aside–you know too much information is being shared when you can see the day when someone could aggregate the data of your toilet paper purchases from Facebook Beacon and determine how often you wipe your bottom. We’re not quite that far yet, but already Facebook will use your name in the advertisements on their website–so exactly where is the limit? We’re not even talking about just subtle, implicit, endorsement based upon your reporting your various purchases through Facebook Beacon activity (on affiliated websites). We’re talking about inserting your name on explicit advertising on the Facebook website. Did you know that? At present you are allowed to turn off this use of your name in the Facebook privacy settings–but doesn’t the fact that Facebook would do this strike anyone else as shocking, even galling?

The sum total of Facebooks activities regarding their users demonstrates an appalling sense of hubris⁽³⁾. Their protestations to the contrary ring hollow.

I have avoided Facebook on principle because I disapprove of their attitude and actions regarding privacy. But I am tech savvy enough that in practice I can play the game as well as them. When I set up my Facebook account I set it up using an e-mail address I created for only that purpose and I log into Facebook using a browser that I use for nothing else. The end result? Facebook cannot trace me on the web. If I weren’t so lazy, I could obfuscate things even further.

There is another aspect of privacy that I had to consider, one that is not related to Facebook’s own policies. I am a writer, and should I ever publish a successful book people will look me up on Facebook. They will want to be my “friends.” But I do not care to mix my personal life/friends with my professional life. This would mean that I would have to be very rude and tell all my (hypothetical) fans that I don’t want to be their friends. How awkward.

I have a rather ingenius solution for my situation because I publish my writing (and this website) under the nickname I answer to in everyday. So if I ever become a successful write, I will set up a Facebook profile for Rundy. My current profile is set up under my real name life–A name I don’t actually use in everyday life, but which is indeed my real name. Strangers don’t know it, but my friends and family do. It is a nifty custom filter for my Facebook presence. This wasn’t a really big problem, but it was another privacy issue I needed to resolve before I went forward with a Facebook account.

And why, after all my complaints about Facebook, did I go forward? Why not hold out in my “little cabin in the woods” and rage against the world and its stupidity? In short, because other people are not the cantankerous stick-in-the-mud which I am. As Facebook has become increasingly popular, more and more of the people (in the small circle I know) have joined. It recently came to the point where I felt like I was, perhaps, cutting of my nose to spite my face. I have a dim view of Facebook’s practices, but I can beat them at their own game. Before I rebelled against the system by not joining in–but now I decided to take a more subtle route and rebel by subverting the system. I can keep my privacy in spite of Facebook’s attempt to invade it. I can exercise some self-control and not waste all hours on the website. And as for this whole thing of “friending” people–I’ve decided that for everyone I request to “friend” I must work the word “stalk” somewhere into the request. Facebook says “friend” I say “stalk.” I’m rebelling against the system . . . please, let me stalk you.

It’s odd . . . I don’t have very many friends–I mean, victims.

_____

(1) http://www.facebook.com
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Beacon
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook