Many politically active people love Facebook. It has made their need for expression more vibrant and has widened the reach of their deeds and words. Everyone now can have a channel or a medium for broadcasting their views and opinions. This is the so-called ‘democratic’ aspect of Facebook. This is the subversive, even supposedly radical, feature that it is supposed to possess. We are cornered today by Big Media like CNN and their indigenous offshoots such as Times Now. Facebook has come along to save us from these ‘nasties’.
Many people are on Facebook because they claim that it makes their access to, and consumption of, information easier. It is a one-stop shop for their information-needs. They consider it a vital link in the chain between the info-makers and themselves. This is true enough but as censorship of progressive issues by Facebook has shown, information is not without filtration. If we are seeking ‘real’ info about the world and the events in it, Facebook might not be the best way to get it. The Internet was touted until the early 2000s as a great “information superhighway” that would democratize knowledge and spread information equally throughout the world. Because of this perhaps many governments have initiated legislations to curb the power and scope of the Internet, such that today it has lost much of its liberating potential.
That potential is further weakened by the policemen – beyond the State agencies – which includes Facebook. Facebook has for all purposes become the Internet for a large number of people globally. The Internet might still in reality be a highway of information but its traffic is being controlled and directed in subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) ways. Facebook is one of these shepherds. Its advocacy for faster ‘lanes’ (speeds) within the Internet, the odious Free Basics project and its courting of vested government and corporate interests that are willing to pay to promote their products, within its programme, all point to a deep desire for control by the company. Maybe one can ‘subvert’ it but I doubt this; it seems that the Facebook revolutions that were claimed by many are no longer affecting much change. Maybe that is because they were probably never realised because of Facebook, in the first place.
Further, what Facebook has given us is not just information but a glut of it. Any credible news is immediately followed by oppositional info, such that we are drowned in the possibilities that all sides are equally and entirely correct (or wrong). This destroys in effect all possibilities of political change that might arise. For instance, the BJP might be accused of a scam and immediately someone emerges to accuse the INC of the same. The issue then becomes oppositional/polarised instead of progressive; the issue should be about corruption and how to tackle it; not about BJP honesty vs. INC honesty.
Because of the swiftness, and more importantly copiousness, of the information via social media, many of us forget to cross check or investigate the claims that are made. Traditional ‘long form’ journos lose out and wild outrageous news floods us within seconds. Facebook is not the only one to blame here of course but its ubiquity is something that must be looked at suspiciously.
Has Facebook really made our lives better than it was before it came along? I seriously doubt this. It has just stepped in and simplified our ways of connecting with each other but it has herded us into groups where we can all love, hate, dislike or like something collectively. Experts have rightly called Facebook an “echo chamber”, where one can only hear one’s own beliefs being articulated in a positive manner; real criticism is not allowed.
Facebook claims that this is not true and that people can make up their own minds about what to follow or like. But how easy is it to be on “automatic” mode, how seductive is the choice of no choice! Many of the groups, the majority of them, I’d have to say, don’t want to ‘mix’ with other groups. Facebook has made our borders more distinct when it could have chosen different models for user interactions. But that is what you get when you bring scale into the picture, I suppose.
Facebook is the prime example of a digital multicultural society with no integration/interchange, it mirrors reality, in the online realm; and much like the real world, power is held firmly by the few on top.
My own personal issue with Facebook stems from my belief that it has not enhanced creativity at all but severely reduced it to fit into a status bar. I mean this in relation to writers and not really audio-visual people. Facebook has destroyed the ability of writers to frame a thought beyond a few lines. The instant gratification of the ‘likes’ that our friends would (no doubt) bestow upon our oft-times reactionary silly ‘sweet nothings’ is too tempting for many to defer. This robs us of pursuing an idea further and making it more complicated, developing its body. The dangerous lulls of uncritical praise have stunted ideas into shrubs when they could have been trees. The immediate response that one might get from across the Facebook platform has made it addictive and appealing but is that why someone should write or create? There’s the thing we must ask ourselves.
Poets and wordsmiths might be put off by my assertions. The platform, after all, encourages brevity – the soul of wit. Many would also say that Facebook allows a free and wide distribution of their works which is one of the positives. Maybe at the stage of distribution it could be used effectively but a profile, for me, distracts the creative process a lot (unless the author is researching and writing about Facebook!). These are rigid arguments arising out of my rigid belief in the writer’s process. By arguing in this manner, I make my own beliefs clear and it is up to the listener to decide for herself whether she also feels the same way. You needn’t ‘like’ this.