The Fault is Our’s
“By making the world more open and connected, we’re expanding understanding between and making the world a more empathetic place” — Barry Schnitt (Facebook’s director corporate communications and public policy)
I disagree with the declaration above; but do you care?
This is the point that I am attempting to tackle in this post, Facebook was created in order to “make the world a more open and transparent place” (Van Dijck 45). But it has done nothing but separate us into our like minded groups and factions. Instead of open and objective reporting and diolagues, Tomi (I enjoy the left’s tendency to refer to her as Tammy, but for the sake of an objective approach, I’ll stick to her given first name) Lahren and The Huffington Post have replaced this idea with biased news spreading biased and untested ideas. Our world is different now; the opportunities are apparent, a truly transparent online society and access to more information than we’ve ever had. Yet, we selectively choose what we read, picking anything that solidifies our very mindset. This is a dangerous place.
Anytime one may open up Facebook, they are immediately splashed with a tsunami of opinions and, although not articulated in way to persuade others, debates that lead nowhere. But, this will probably occur with any new medium in our devastatingly separated world, what I want to focus on, is the idea as to why we continue to use the network. We argue with loved ones, old neighbors, and co-workers; we get heated, and we say hurtful things; what draws us back? It’s the extrinsic motivations.
Throughout Shirky’s Cognitive Surplus, we see a discussion of extrinsic and intrinsic motives, extrinsic are the most apparent on Facebook, specifically one of them, Social Status. We disguise this motive with a more heralded intrinsic motive, knowledge. We create a facade of Voltaire-like enlightenment within our minds. We utilize this facade on both our followers and ourselves. With regard to the former, we want everyone to understand just how well versed we are in politics, foreign policy, and other controversial issues. But in reality, its a battle for likes, rebuttals, and reactions. As for the latter, we trick ourselves into thinking that this is important; what we know is important and we must show others. But in reality, I must reiterate, it’s a battle for acceptance, for company, for a social status that can legitimize ourselves.
We do not want to look like a fool and discuss things that we do not know, things that we don’t have a litany of talking points on, so there is no attempt for furthering ourselves. We talk about things we know, things we like. So it is apparent that knowledge is not our primary goal, there is no expansion of the mind, there is no realignment occurring; just reassurance.
I hate that side, because that side is wrong and I am right.
This mentality goes nowhere FAST. We know this, yet we continue to do it; why? I return to my point stated early, we want social status, and a political ideology offers shelter to our feeble attempts to gain relationships. We’re addicted to connections with people we like, just as we are with the hatred towards those we disagree with. Facebook hasn’t created connections, but separations and it’s not their fault, their intentions were good; the fault lies on us.
References
Dijck, JoseÌ Van. The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2013. Print
Shirky, Clay. Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age. New York: Penguin, 2010. Print.
