I'll be honest: I like Facebook. And Twitter. I love the chance to keep up with friends and neighbors and coworkers, to hear about the updates to their personal lives, to be exposed to funny quips, videos, articles and quotations, as well as the serious headlines.
And I don't mind saying that I still get a charge out of it when I post my own goofy pictures and thoughts and other people think enough of them to add their responses.
Further, I don't have much patience for people who take a self-righteous point of view about it. I'm capable of enjoying my community in the "real" world as well as the "virtual" one.
But could that change in 2013?
Neil Richards, a privacy law expert and professor of law at Washington University, says yes. In an essay for Wired Magazine's UK edition, Richards calls the current trend as "frictionless sharing" — sharing that happens so automatically online, we hardly know it's happening.
And that's what he's specifically talking about: Tools that allow for a more seamless sharing experience.
"Frictionless sharing is on the rise as social media encourage users to share information automatically for a fuller online experience," he wrote. "Facebook 'social reader' apps from the likes of the Guardian, the Washington Post, Spotify and SocialCam have allowed us to follow, automatically, what our friends are doing online."
He goes on later to write: "We are starting to realise that frictionless sharing is not just a bad idea – it’s a terrible one, whose demise will accelerate in 2013."
He may have a point about some of these "automatic" tools. But I question whether the trend to share on social media is going to do anything but continue to grow.
Do you agree? Are you a strong proponent of using social media tools to share and experience what's going on in your community? Do you see a time when people share less online?
You can never un-share something and the Internet has no ability to 'forget'. And it saddens me that more companies are providing only one means to interact with them - only by sharing your information - 'liking' them. I like my cousin. I like the service my utility company provides. That does not mean that those two relationships are equal or that what I want to share with one has anything to do with the other. And that is the problem with Social media. Deciding what information I want to allow to be shared with whom is a personal and very contextual decision and the people we share with forget - there is a 'cost' to remembering. You can't automate that and it costs nothing to 'remember' information.
But Social Media (i.e. Facebook) doesn't forget, and their customers - companies and governments that pay them - don't care about your interests or your contexts - only their own. To Facebook and Social Media companies - we are producing their product - raw unrestricted information about us. So if Taco Bell wants our location information and we've 'liked' them from some giveaway sweepstakes from some related company (KFC) two years ago, they can get it and send us unwanted advertising. The point is Facebook's customers don't care about our context and we have no control over that context - of our information.
Or you are with a colleague, but others see an inappropriate relationship. Everyone becomes the paparazzi and Social Media becomes the world's most popular real-time tabloid. The fictional story of 'Truman Show' has become a documentary. And the world is not a better place for it.
It isn't just Facebook. It is Twitter, the Patch, Meetup, any online forum. I am on FB, but only because some company I do business with decided that was going to be the only way for me to interact with them online. They decided all of their customers had to go through FB to interact with them paperless/online. I am doing my best to replace them, but what happens after the tipping point?
I have no friends on FB, I go in and check my privacy settings are all turned off to me only and have provided no demographics. I do my best to put the F in FB. It is just over-hyped drivel and gosdip-mongers.
You raise the concern that your friends will "rat you out." I'd follow the axiom of 'not posting what you're not willing to say or show publicly.' Free speech does still exist, but not slander, confusing your rights can be a problem with or without FB. If some company contacted me about one of my friends from FB, I refer them back to that friend. Yes, FB is filled with over-hyped drivel and gossip but isn't that the nature of most personal interactions. For most people, that's the whole point of FB. Obviously you don’t belong on FB and should terminate your account. It simply isn’t something designed with you in mind, but why preach against it, is a mystery. It’s a lot like the occasional acquaintance or friend who proudly informs everyone that they don’t watch TV. I always think to myself, okay good to know someone is making this noble sacrifice. Then I wonder why they have a TV, sometimes more than one which they don’t watch.
They also buy customer data from companies 'partnering' with FB in marketing schemes. I agree about not eating anything you don't want public. What I object to is FB finding unrelated public information and deciding that it belongs in the context they decide to put it in. - hey, do you know so-and-so? Friend them! And FB won't 'forget' you - you are always a 'maybe you'll come back or try us out' customer to them. That's the problem. No ability to forget or interest in your desire for.them to forget anything. And their web bugs are all over the internet. Check out ghostery plugin for firefox or adblock or confluence to see how pervasive the tracking is.
FB can be a good thing if you select the right options, don’t friend people you don’t know and keep in mind that anything you post anywhere on the internet has the possibility becoming public. You obviously need a good firewall, virus and malware protection, however many people surf without them. So it looks like we mostly agree, except you don't enjoy FB.