EMAIL THIS PAGE       PRINT       RSS      

Talking About Facebook and Twitter

facebook

I reluctantly joined Facebook back in September. I’ve been on it for like 9 months now, and I suppose you could say I’m a little less antagonistic about it than I once was… like when I wrote this article back in 2007, or even this one back in February. I mean, I still have a love/hate relationship with Facebook, but I’m definitely less extreme about it these days.

Facebook is a reality we have to deal with (as well as Twitter… but we’ll get to that in a minute). It’s quickly becoming our preferred mode of communication and a source of many hours of time spent on a weekly and even daily basis. And in keeping with my newly diplomatic approach to Facebook, I have thoughts about both the good and bad aspects of this type of communication.

The Good: Facebook allows you to consolidate a vast majority of friends, family, acquaintances and colleagues in one massive, easy-to-use online Rolodex.

The Bad: Isn’t it a bit strange to reduce all types of “friends” (including best friends, bosses, professors, etc) to just another part of the “friend collection”? Isn’t it strange that everything is so public and shared and mixed… so that my friend from one area of my life can observe and make assumptions about my acquaintances from other areas of my life? Or maybe this is a good thing?

The Good: On Facebook, you can easily share photos, videos, and pretty much anything about yourself that you’d like to share.

The Bad: You don’t have to share anything you don’t want to share. You have complete control over your image, to the point that you can even untag yourself in a photo or remove any comment or unsightly representation of yourself that doesn’t fit with your ideal projection of yourself.

The Good: Facebook is a quick and easy way to schedule events, parties, and social gatherings. It makes it easy to do spontaneous things and allows groups to communicate together more easily.

The Bad: Facebook is too quick and too easy. Whatever happened to the glorious challenge of scheduling, playing phone tag, and figuring out the nuances of group dynamics in a gloriously clunky manner?

The Good: Facebook is an efficient means of promoting yourself or something you like. It allows you to inform vast numbers of people about things that you want them to read, or see, or listen to, and it gives you the opportunity to keep people in the loop as to your life’s important goings on.

The Bad: Do we really need to be tempted to think that our life’s goings on are important and worthy enough to be trumpeted to the entire Facebook world?

The Ugly: Might Facebook be turning us into more prideful narcissists, overly obsessed with our publicized Facebook identity and prone to narrate our lives via mass-transmitted status updates?

Which brings me to Twitter. OH, TWITTER. This is something I have a hard time finding much good in at all. Okay, that’s not true. As a marketing or PR device, or an impersonal means of alerting large groups of people about something important, Twitter is a good tool. But in my experience the majority of people use Twitter as a nauseatingly indulgent means of self branding and pat-on-the-back public self actualization. People love using Twitter to subtly announce their importance (“over 100 emails on my blackberry this morning!”) or suggest something about class distinction (“Oh dang, I just remembered I have to take a Redeye tonight to New York!”). Occasionally someone will tweet an interesting link or thoughtful observation about something, but 90% of them are just shameless self-promotion.

My over-arching concern about all of this stuff is that it is pushing us farther into our own worlds and making us even more individualistic and self-obsessed. There’s a reason why it is FACE-book or MY-Space… these things are all about ME.

In my article, “The Problem of Pride in the Age of Twitter” (Relevant, Jan/Feb 2009), I wrote:

I think that contemporary technologies are nurturing the part of our humanity that strives to be the master of our domain, the sole creator of identity. In former eras and communication environments, our human longing for community and connectivity and the shared creation of meaning was foregrounded. But these days, it seems that everything technology-related is pushing us inward, to the “i” world of iPod, iPhones, iMacs, etc. Under the guise of increasing our levels of connectivity, these technologies are ultimately just tools to help us isolate, insulate, and unshackle from the outmoded constraints of having to answer to anyone other than ourselves.

That remains my concern with these online “extensions of ourselves.” Though they can and are used to cultivate community and interpersonal relationships, they are also tools to aid us in our never-ending quest to be in complete control of our identities. And I’m not sure we need any more help in this quest.

Coming next in the communication series: Talking About Blogging.

Comments

Two thoughts come to mind as I read this: 1) Do you have the impression that people were less interested in their public images before these tools existed? 2) Is it possible that all of this public persona makes it more difficult to be different things to different people?

I'm thinking about the "good old days" when you could create a half-dozen different fake personas with different groups and just make sure that worlds didn't collide. Now everybody sees everything you do, requiring us (maybe?) to be more uniform in what we project to the outside world.

"The Bad: Facebook is too quick and too easy. Whatever happened to the glorious challenge of scheduling, playing phone tag, and figuring out the nuances of group dynamics in a gloriously clunky manner? "

are you freaking serious?

I understand some problems with social media, but I am still convinced most people that hate it just want to promote themselves as rebellious or indie.*

*maybe that is just my group of friends. Some of my friends HATE talking about Facebook in "real life" (because the internet isn't real?), but LOVE talking about how much they hate it.

I remember the first time that I used the internet. There was a small computer lab down in the basement of the University: a dark portal into the future. I wonder if anyone really has a handle on the impact of the wired life? I do echo your concerns about tools of identity control, or as your twitter comments elude to, ego bombs.

I also wonder if online social networking is a poor substitute for community hubs, like churches, service clubs, etc. Which rabbit trails me to the question of how much Church is a truly offline thing, and if the online world is a new mission field for converting people to an offline life full of relationships and shared physical experience.

Got to go offline now. Volunteer group coming in to work in the after school program this afternoon.

i stopped reading after 160 characters. please be more concise next time. hth

this glorious blog is gloriously glorious

What do you guys think of http://www.lifechurch.tv?

I think that this article is a bit arrogant. Brett, I've heard you rail on social networking for the past year and most recently on "Christian hipsters," and I don't really buy it. Certainly, social networking has been abused. Certainly, these tools don't feed our obsessions with ourselves. Certainly, these are poor substitutes for community.

But it just seems that it's trendy these days to criticize the tools for communication VIA those same tools of communication. For instance, why didn't you write this article in hardcopy and mail it to a thousand people? Why didn't you submit something to your local newspaper? Probably for the same reason you're criticizing facebook and twitter - it's easy and free.

I'm as cynical as the next guy of people "living authentically" via the web, but I think that it's time for us all to be a little bit more grateful for the media tools we've been criticizing... or stop using them to propagate our messages. Anything else sounds like hypocrisy.

I think you may be minimizing the benefits of social networking for certain demographics. It's not always just a poor excuse for community. I can think of a few examples in my own life where facebook has truly changed life for the better.

For one, there is a growing number of stay-at-home moms who feel less isolated due to facebook. Many of us don't have the free time to call several friends a day, or the luxury of calling people at regular hours. When I get my three small children down in the evenings, I really enjoy logging on and seeing what my friends are up to, and feeling just a wee bit connected. Does it replace my real interaction with friends? No. But without it, I wouldn't be connecting at all in this unique stage of life where I spend most hours of the day talking to toddlers.

I have also connected with a number of other adoptive families via facebook. When we visit the orphanage where our children live, we can post photos of all the kids, and everyone can enjoy seeing what they are up to, and hearing stories from the sidelines.

I also know many missionaries who really benefit from facebook, and get to feel like they are "socializing" with friends that, a few years ago, would have been impossible to connect with via the phone, due to time differences and the cost of long distance.

»  Become a Fan or Friend of this Blogger
About
Brett currently works full-time for Biola University as managing editor for Biola magazine. He also writes movie reviews for Christianity Today and contributes frequently to Relevant magazine.


Media
Resources