Ala mosaic
mosaic said:
The only good thing about these sites is is that there is potential for me to interact with family members and friends long distances away from Alaska. In nearly all other facets, I don't like it. All this talk of transparency obscures how quickly superficial and meaningless many of these "conversations" become. Furthermore, when you ask questions like "what degree of privacy should we realistically expect," you already cede control of your own personality. Why even enter a situation where this becomes a question? I'd rather disconnect and not engage it at all. I love this site and the relationships we've built here - small, mutually respectful ( for the mos part) and not an endless list of "friends" that pop in to say worthless things every once in a while. I just don't desire this overload of information about everybody's life - it feels like gossiping.
You're probably further into Facebook than I have ever been, and I've never acquired such a long friends list. I guess, if you want to look at Facebook cynically, you might describe it as a technological tool for people to go through the motions of having a relationship with everyone without the substance behind it. For instance, it will remind you when people on your list are having a birthday, and when someone messages you, you can take a quick at their profile and recent status updates to help you remember them, or failing that, make a pretty good pretense of knowing that person.
But ignoring Facebook for the moment, I do like the idea of a social network, but implemented differently. First of all, I don't want a single identity, I've always used a pseudonym online (until Facebook), and in my opinion I'd rather be a member of multiple social networks than a member of just one. The key difference is that, outside of a particular social network, my contacts won't know who my other contacts are. For instance, lets say I want to add a bunch of people I know who are interested in a particular politics, do I really want everyone else I associate with know that I associate with the former people? Or lets say I join an online programming project, those people should be on a separate social network. Additionally, my co-workers should be on a separate social network; relatives on their own social network; my high school class on a separate social network. But this desirable feature of segregating out social networks is actually against the interest of companies such as Facebook who use this "friend of a friend" feature to add to their userbase.
As to your comment about meaningful conversations, I definitely identify with that, but then I pause to consider what makes a conversation meaningful. When I first started on Facebook I found some people I knew in high school and had a conversation with an old friend. We did this a few times, engaged in some chat, and it was really neat. We basically reminisced about people we used to know, and it was crazy to some degree because I was doing some serious flashbacking. So yeah, it was meaningful.
But that was it. He's gone off, moved away, married, and has a daughter and expecting another kid. I don't really know him much anymore, we've both moved on. It's just like there comes a time when family reunions cease making sense, when the bond of a shared past is no longer strong enough to form relationships with.
On the other hand, doing what I do here, chatting about philosophy with people who I've never met in real life, is a hundred times more meaningful, because this is what I'm doing with my life
now. All those people who I've met in real life, I couldn't discuss philosophy with, and that's the sad truth. That's why I've always been grateful for the internet and sites like these.
Hey, for those of you planning on quitting Facebook, wait until May 31st:
http://www.quitfacebookday.com/