by Zvi Baranoff
Centuries ago philosopher monks pondered the question of the falling tree in the woods. If no one is there to observe the tree falling, did it make a sound? The modern equivalent to this riddle is at the heart of the Facebook Effect.
All sorts of political and social debates take place on various levels on Facebook designed formats. Lines are drawn and we choose up teams and we play the intellectual equivalent of dodgeball. If minds are changed or opinions are influenced through the process we do not know. If any of the dialogue that takes place within Facebook affects the physical world, I have my doubts.
I am beginning to draw some conclusions as to what it all does to me.
In the world we all grew up in people form organizations for specific purposes and the organizations require active participants in order to continue to exist. Whether we are speaking of a political party or a bridge club or a charitable or social group, someone needs to actually do SOMETHING in order for the group to continue.
Years ago I was invited to join a Polish Cultural organization. The requirements of membership were; to be invited by a member, to claim (not prove) some Polish heritage and to pay a small annual membership fee. The purpose of the organization was to skirt the draconian Blue Laws in effect at the time and operate a neighborhood bar on Sundays. Without a purpose no organization lasts long. This Cultural organization thrived.
Arguments, debates and disagreements may bubble up over projects, plans, philosophy, ideology, strategy or style. When enough people agree enough of the time, something actually happens. Whether we are talking about organizing a potluck supper or electing a candidate or erecting a monument or cleaning up the community center, ENOUGH actual people need to be involved in order to make SOMETHING happen.
In order to be a member of any group one needs to be in general agreement with the group. There needs to be certain common agreements, but certainly everyone will not agree about everything. So, there are lots of valid conflicts and reasons for folks to disagree with each other. If the general agreements break down, some may leave and find other ways to spend their time. The purpose of the group defines the membership and the members define the group.
Around the same time that I declined to join the Polish Drinking Club, I was actively involved in a community newspaper that published - at least, for a while - on a weekly basis. Those involved came from different cultural, social and economic backgrounds and from various political streams. We disagreed about much so there was much to argue over. But, questions of ideology or even style were only valid within the context of some real, practical questions.
Rent, printing costs, typesetting, layout, distribution…all of these are the matters that determine the viability of a newspaper. While the organization strived to operate on a basis of equality and consensus decision making, there were some kinks that became obvious before long.
At the weekly meetings there were plenty of people that wanted to make editorial decisions but at layout sessions only a handful would show up and as this would drag late into the night only a very few would stick it out to make sure the work got done. I suppose that if the newspaper had been serving a true and viable social need it would still exist. Perhaps we should have been selling beer on Sundays. Real life conditions are full of real life choices requiring exertion to facilitate and for better or worse result in actual consequences.
On Facebook, a “group” needs a group page and membership is determined by whomever opened the group page.
Debates that take place in this context serve perhaps the purpose of sharpening our wits or perhaps exposing ourselves to a perspective that we may not have been aware of. (See - I am trying to be positive.) The debates on Facebook however almost never are about actual projects in any sort of practical way. There are good reasons for this. The debates are taking place in cyberspace between people that likely do not actually know one another except through cyberspace. In fact, we may be unsure of the others’ real name, actual location and true intent.
I got caught up in one of the great cyber debates that left my head spinning and my spirit in turmoil. It all started over an article I posted on a Facebook group page. I was attacked, dragged, defamed and accused. After a while, I had to go back and reread the article posted to remind myself what it was about and why I posted it in the first place. The comments and responses were so divorced from the reference point that I began to distrust my own memories. That, in my opinion, was the intended purpose of most of the comments - to destroy the link to the actual world where ideas and words have meaning.
The Internet fosters a concept of ultra equality, where all ideas have equal value and hold equal weight. In practice, that means a surrender of verifiability. If everything is equal the random utterances of fools is the same as the thoughtful analysis of experts.
This is a problem that has, of course predated the Internet in Anarchist circles. We believe in equality and allowing everyone a voice. We promote consensus as a form of decision making. When put into practice we find the tendency of dilution rather than distillation and paralysis rather than process.
All things being equal, which of course they are not. So, we battle on in an imaginary world over control and dominance of uncertain territory. Maybe the real purpose is to keep the debates happening in realms that have no physical effects.
After a particularly exhausting exchange with some sort of cyber creature I communicated to a friend that I questioned the value of participation in these sorts of dialogues. She told me how important it was for “the thousands of people” that were seeing my input. Of course, I have no way of knowing if thousands or hundreds or tens or a handful of people actually see. I would have to assume that most that saw that particular thread would quickly get bored and scroll on to something else. I try to limit these interactions. I have noted the pattern. When I see it emerging I ask the question that always ends the debate. Agent provocateur or fool? One way or another, there is no value to continue the waste of my time!
The best way to measure if anyone is out there is by the responses. Much time on Facebook is a matter of nearly empty echoes. I have posted on matters that I considered important and have had zero response. Maybe the effect is on the subliminal level.
One time during the height of the short term Trade War sabre rattling with our neighbour to the north, a Canadian news agency ran an article about the tensions. I posted a somewhat tongue in check apology to Canada in the comments section, assuring Canadians that Americans loved them and were looking forward to better relations once we got rid of the current President whom most of us think is an idiot. Over 2000 clicks, mostly thumbs up and hearts and hundreds of favourable responses including nice emojis and emoticons. Oh, it warms my cyber heart to feel the cyber love.
I have a page on Facebook that I manage that has around 4000 followers. The page is called Bookworms and focuses on literature, arts, bookstores, libraries, censorship issues and whatever else I feel is appropriate. (https://www.facebook.com/HabitatBookworms/)
Some of my posts get lots of attention and some get none. As manager I get to see more data about who is seeing the posts. One might assume that with 4000 “followers” that around 4000 people would be seeing each post but evidently that would be untrue. Under each post Facebook will have a line showing how many they claim have seen the particular post and an offer to boost the number if I pay them! Some posts may have been seen by a couple of thousand but most are far fewer. Exactly how many is probably never knowable. Interestingly, I have had posts that I am told have been viewed by zero people that have been “liked” by one. I suppose that is based on some sort of advanced mathematical formula that I will never understand. Anyway, why one post would be seen by a thousand and another post by fifty is a mystery to me but I am sure it makes sense to the algorithm and the computer mind. The relative importance of the post does not reflect the level of response. The biggest response results from the fluffiest of posts, usually consisting of a picture of a library. A cat picture with books is always a big hit!
We hope to educate and enlighten through our processes. We are aware that we need to be entertaining in order to gain and keep attention. However, I am unsure how much I contribute to our collective enlightenment. Sometimes I think I am just a dancing bear. Sometimes I think I am only talking to myself. Facebook is unconcerned about the educational value of my input. Facebook just hopes that all the scrolling and clicking will lead to the sale of some eco-toaster or the purchase of a vacation getaway or the marketing of the social preferences of the those that take notice of the content that I have contributed to their marketing scheme.
I am, however, drawn in by the spectacle. I check to see if my posts are clicked on, if my comments are appreciated. It is akin to the old pinball machines with the flashing lights and ringing bells, grabbing and holding one's attention.
Years ago, when cell phones were just becoming popular, someone suggested that we give cell phones to all the crazy people that are walking around talking to themselves. With cell phones they would no longer appear to be crazy. Now we all have cell phones. Now we all appear to be talking to ourselves. Perhaps we have all gone crazy.
One effect that I am pretty sure of is that the more time I spend with scrolling on Facebook the less quality thinking and writing takes place. I get caught up in what is “trending” rather than in what is important. I debate fools over fine points of mindless abstractions.
I write on an internet connected tablet. I write best when my internet connection is disabled. Of course the internet helps with fact checking and research and keeping up with important world events but the notification of seeming action that consist of somebody “liking” something or “commenting “ on something is background noise that can be quite distracting.
On the other hand, when I add a new essay as a blog post, in order to get my writing out into the world I post links on Facebook. Is there really another option? This post will serve partially as a cyber social experiment. We can assume that the algorithm at work determines who gets to see the posts. Do you suppose that if “Facebook” is in the title of the article it will be treated better by the algorithm? Will using the word “Facebook” often in the text increase the cyber circulation? I am inclined to believe that it might but there is probably no real way to tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment