Facebook: Get Out of my Life

Contrary to whatever misconceptions may arise after you read this entry's title, this article is not intended to be taken as an attack against Facebook or its well-meant creators and developers. It is not my goal to offend those 31 million active users the Web 2.0 company claims to have. Rather, I believe it is important to raise awareness of its flawed purpose and structure and to take a critical look at its very nature as it inevitably begins to form part of our lives. Here's a scoop on what the Web 2.0 has come down to.

Unless you live in solitary confinement, away from internet, or in a poor third-world country like, say, Argentina, I am certain that your inbox has received an invitation to join Facebook at least a couple of times in the past year. If you have accepted, you are now part of the over 31 million users world-wide and the more than 3 million Canadian users. Canada is now second only to the U.S. in the number of active members. If you have not joined yet, you are more than likely wondering what the fuss is all about, and especially, what is so different about Facebook that other Web 2.0 applications do not have. In my opinion, the answers to those questions are somewhat interrelated. Consider MySpace or Hi5. While they offer virtually the same Web 2.0 services, they differ from Facebook in one important aspect: not being a member does not restrict access to user-posted content. Without a membership, you are not outsider. Whereas ("forced") word-of-mouth resulted in the boom of MySpace, Hi5 and Friendster, this was not the case with Facebook. A non-member can only see a simple welcoming page and take a promising but unrevealing virtual tour. Having had its beginnings as a college application only, and always exploiting this exact sense of individual exclusivity, Facebook's success is, then, the result of peer-pressure rather than simple word-of-mouth promotion. Not having a profile is not a choice of whether to follow the hype, it is a choice of whether to belong. The fuss is, then, the result of the sense of exclusivity it creates. It is combined with the sense of belonging that further separates this service from its competitors.

It could be argued that any community is tied together by a sense of belonging. But, in general terms, this sense of public affiliation consists of rules and customs coming from within the community, rather than those preset by the medium in which it takes place. Blog websites like Xanga and Blogger are worthy of the word community because they serve only as a medium for its members to participate in common open debates. The discussion experience is affected only in the sense that one may have to learn how to write entries. This drawback is gradually dissipating as users become more web-wise. Unless set as private, for the better or for the worse, a web log is a contribution to the expansion of web content and to the non-endorsed attributes of the community. Facebook has very little of this as its pre-made, pre-shaped service is not intended to be used in open debates. It is, in fact, restrictive in its very nature. Indeed, there is little room for the development of specific community rules and values coming from its members, because being a member is all that is needed to belong.

The nature of Facebook is certainly flawed. It claims to be designed to help "people understand the world around them" by allowing them "to share information online the same way they do in the real world." (Download Facebook's Fact Sheet) Real-world members, however, tend to disagree. Here are some of the comments I have collected from them in the past year:

• "Facebook is like the ultimate stalking tool."
• "Facebook allows me to find friends I haven't seen for a long time."
• "I am addicted to Facebook."
• "Facebook is my guilty pleasure."

Perhaps the broadest McLuhanism "the medium defines the message" comes into play now. Facebook's intent may be to allow its members to share information online the same way they do it in the real world, but unfortunately (or not) Internet is not like the real world. It is, indeed, a very different medium. It is rather absurd to believe that a 24-hour news feed, its 1,800+ applications, the inability of its members to formulate grammatically correct sentences in writing are a replacement for the so-called real-world communication. Facebook is a well-designed tool that contributes to the daily time-wasting online routines, but it is in no way a service that brings about social development to the internet life. It is rigid, weak and ineffectual in its nature and in its idea of the meaning of "keeping in touch."

The question that arises is, then, can this Web 2.0 service be improved to better establish a communication medium among peers worthy of the online community classification? The answer is certainly yes, but if this poor networking tool begins to allow a higher degree of community interaction, it would lose its appeal and traits that separate it from its competitors. Why not just let people believe they are, in fact, communicating instead?