When you are not paying for the product…

Horning, R. (2016). Reacting to reactions. The New Inquiry

Concepts

authenticity; sociality as convenience; autocannibalism; social & cultural capital; self-formatting; simulacrum of the self

Summary

Horning uses the recent integration of Reactions on Facebook as a hook to discuss multiple concepts regarding the social network. He describes how the mechanisms of the site push its users towards performing/presenting themselves for an ever-present audience, thus producing more content in order to accumulate social/cultural capital. That way, we eventually aim to obtain a new type of authenticity.

Quotations

“Reactions sacrifice speed for more granular marketing data without fully disrupting the mechanical quality of responding.“ (Section 4)

“The design of Facebook’s Reactions repudiates the possibility of such ambivalence, suggesting mixed feelings are abnormal, atypical. It presumes we have an immediate, precise response.“ (Section 2)

“Facebook’s algorithmic simulacrum of the self offers a compensation for any lost authenticity.“ (Section 9)

“In order to experience or inhabit that unique version of yourself, that “real identity” that your data has delineated, you have to keep using Facebook.“ (Section 9)

Commentary

It certainly is an interesting move. As Horning points out, the Reactions make Facebook a little more cumbersome (section 2). Asking for a reaction rather than a like adds another step to the process of accumulating a response from users at the expense of transparency and clarity. In a way, it partly sacrifices the identical characteristic of Facebook: The like button. The button now feels ambivalent (section 3). Should I use it in its old fashion? Can I still like sad songs, even though there is now a sad reaction?

The move also seems to contradict the general desire for minimalism. Our attention spans online are tiny. And we want everything quick and easy. Every piece of content, every interaction should be thoughtless. Don’t make me think is the motto of successful usability professionals. Vines are 6 seconds, Tweets are 140 characters.

But the move makes sense. As Horning states in the third section of the article, it gives Facebook the chance to accumulate more data. Data which lays the groundwork for their revenue-stream. Everything that Facebook does and all the effects it has on our emotions, self-assessment, lifestyle, and culture are based on its desire for data. The concepts of self-formatting, self-performance, autocannibalism, black-and-white emotions, sociality as a convenience — all of those are true and can be experienced every day in our daily lives. And in the end, all of those are descendants of the data-hunger.

But it would be way too easy to point a finger: “That’s bad! They are forcing us into transforming our emotions, our lifestyle, our thought patterns and ultimately ourselves.“

We must not forget that we keep using the site. We expect it to be available 24/7. We expect it to be fast, up-to-date, reliable. And most importantly: We expect it to be free. Just like anything else on the web. There are thousands of people and servers working at Facebook to make sure that we get what we expect. And we are not paying a dime. Whenever we reflect on these developments and realize what kind of culture and social patterns we are creating, it becomes clearer than ever:

When you are not paying for the product, you are the product.

Question

Would you be willing to pay for a social media site, if — in exchange — it would guarantee your absolute anonymity?

Would you even want a social network that does not use algorithms to tailor the experience to your needs?