Face The Facts Saturday 6 November 2010

Social networking: how much is too much?

I imagine a vegetarian would have a hard time trying to tell a carnivore to avoid meat. It’s even harder, however, for a Facebook non-believer to convince a Facebook believer that the social networking empire is built on shaky ground. It’s a challenge that I’ve embraced with gusto this year, in a desperate attempt to offer a critique of social networking and a reality check for the hoardes of Facebook lovers I know. I kicked off with this confessional in Canvas Magazine, and continued with this commentary in Idealog. Both stories ask whether our social media love affair is going too far, whether it’s taking the place of ‘real’ relationships and ‘real’ interaction, and whether social networking is as ‘revolutionary’ as it is made out to be. These questions are hard to answer. And they’re questions which most of us don’t want to answer. But while we watch Facebook continuing its ‘meteoric’ rise, its forerunners remain in pretty dire straits.

Murdoch-owned MySpace re-launched this month, but it’s still ad-heavy and cluttered. Bebo has lost its old school cool, and was sold earlier this year. The golden child, Twitter, is still useful for musicians, marketing gurus and media types, but is completely irrelevant to ordinary Kiwis. Facebook, it must be said, has held up admirably well over the past few years, but it has also taken many hits from critics, due to Mark Zuckerberg’s light-handed approach to privacy. Given the incredible sway that social media has, it seems remarkable that we have had so little discussion about its pitfalls, vulnerabilities and weak points. This, despite our growing reliance on social media, our willingness to trust its leaders with our data, and our willingness to dedicate time and energy to it.

The reason for our blind trust in social media is that the people who have the power to change are minds are the same people who have a vested interest in keeping social media alive. Mainstream media have embraced social media, especially social networking, with great enthusiasm. They have little choice. If newspaper and magazine publishers fail to capture the social media market, they have little hope of winning the ‘war against the web’. It is a war that has already caused many media organisations to go bust. Corporates, too, aren’t interested in challenging the validity of social media. It’s a fresh source of free advertising and free  chatter. In dollar terms? Priceless. And finally, the people we love to love, and love to loathe: celebrities. Social media lets us get closer to celebrity culture than ever before. It’s a vital tool to keep the fame flame alive.

So it’s no surprise, then, that the social media beast has risen so quickly. Of course, it’s been useful. Of course, it’s made it easier and more enjoyable to communicate, share and interact. But social networking sites are much more than just modes of communication. Facebook is an environment.  It is public. And the way we interact on social networking sites is radically different to the way we interact in real life. We need to examine it more closely. And although I’ve been harping on about this all year, it’s going to be hard to shut me up.