 |
| Class text. Photo by Ngozi Maduoma. |
As I read through the class text
for this week, I realized that just as there is culture of language, dressing and
other unique societal characteristics, there is also a culture of connectivity.
According to Van Dijck (2013), the prevalent use of technologically created
platforms has caused many people to move their social, cultural and professional
lives to online environments. It has become common practice to be constantly active
online; hence, these online platforms have taken on the shape and pattern of
every day human life. The usual sharing of information and interaction between
friends and family has shifted from offline to online environments, which is
why the author of the book, ‘The culture of connectivity: A critical history of
social media’ pointed out that social media platforms have redefined the concept
of ‘sharing’ (Van Dijck, 2013).
Personally, I concur with her
analysis, because these days individuals post all kinds of information on
Facebook and other social networking sites (SNSs). People post their problems, successes, joys,
worries, and some post every occurrence in their lives; including information
that was once generally considered to be personal. Facebook in particular, has
made it seem like the norm to share and constantly post all of one’s life
experiences for the whole world to see. This change in societal views is what
the author tried to bring to readers’ attention. The first few chapters of the
book were solely dedicated to analyzing social media platforms (with particular
attention to Facebook and Twitter); their history, functionality, business
models, governance and their usage (Van Dijck, 2013). However, what got my
attention was the fact that very many users of these sites are unaware of its
implications and so, they perform their roles without a conscious thought to the
underlying meaning of their actions. What does this mean?
Public
versus private communication
Social media, which includes social
networking sites (SNSs), user generated content (UGC), trading and marketing
sites (TMSs), play and games sites (PGS) has changed the concept of private and
public communication (Van Dijck, 2013). There is too much information on the
display in many social media sites; so much that I wonder if people recognize
the difference between what is classified as private communication and that
which is public. Some have taken cognizance of this change, which is why in
recent times there has been so much debate about privacy issues on some of these
platforms (Van Dijck, 2013). However, if one reviews the situation objectively,
one would see that owners of these sites are not to be solely penalized,
because individuals have also adapted to the way these platforms have been
structured. This is done when one responds to prompts from these sites; thus, most
of the time, information referred to as private, already became public
information because it had been shared with friends online.
Lines have literally been crossed
in online environments, and today it seems as if there is no demarcation
between what is considered as public information and that which ought to remain
private; because many consumers join the trend and supply information unintentionally
to the public. I say unintentionally because, even when information is shared
only with friends on Facebook, it becomes public data, which implies that it
can be accessed by others (Friends of friends and the likes). Nevertheless, I
must clearly state that Facebook is not the only social media guilty of manipulating
people’s actions through the formats created on the site. A lot of these
platforms attempt to influence reactions from users, with the constant relaying
of every action carried out by friends. These platforms have been programmed to
inform individuals that their friends liked this
 |
| Notifications on Facebook informing user of friends' activities. Photo by Ngozi Maduoma |
or commented on that. It may
be true that Facebook is the most defaulter of privacy (Van Dijck, 2013), but some
other platforms also sell out user generated data to third parties. For
example, Twitter utilizes the concept of ‘followers’
to determine influential users that are used as spokespersons for products and services
(Van Dijck, 2013).
Users
versus owners
On the other hand, human beings are
not robots and so, as much as individuals are being manipulated to perform
certain actions on these sites, they also force owners of these platforms to constantly
review and introduce more user friendly formats. In fact, most of these platforms
are designed to adopt certain real life ideologies (Van Dijck, 2013). For example, the popular saying, “show me your
friend and I will tell you who you are,” seem to have been adopted in online
situations.
 |
| Social media platform adopting real life ideology. Photo by Ngozi Maduoma |
Often times, social media makes certain recommendations to
individuals based on their friends’ online actions; implying that because they
are friends, they are likely to have similar tastes. Thus, not only does social
media steer human beings in one direction, people also determine the way these
platforms are fashioned. Hopefully, this fact is as much consolation to you as
it is for me! I mean, I would hate to think that my life was being driven solely
by technology.
Last semester, after reading the
book, ‘Globalization and the media’ by Jack Lule, our cohort had this discussion
of whether each of us were either ‘social determinists’ (believe that people determine
the technology created and its use) or ‘technological determinists’ (believe
that technology shapes human life). The fact remains that no one wants to
acknowledge that his or her life is shaped by technology, even though in
reality it may be so. Nevertheless, the problem is not that many are oblivious of
the impact of technology in their daily living, but rather that they are
unaware of the implications of their online actions. These actions include the
concepts of ‘sharing’, ‘liking’, ‘friending’,
‘following’ and the likes. For instance, on Facebook there is the ‘what is
on your mind’ question that appears whenever one clicks on the status icon. It
is my opinion that this is a way of initiating some sort of emotional reaction
from users. It’s almost psychological; as if Facebook cares about your thoughts,
whereas it’s just another strategy to keep you engaged on the platform, and further
use the data you generate for commercial purposes.
Did
you know?
Knowledge, they say, is power. Are
you aware that social media platforms, which were primarily created to foster
human connection and openness, constantly integrate structures on the sites that
try to quantify human behavior? Random actions and thoughts are no longer supported,
as every action is documented and arranged for measurement purposes (Van Dijck,
2013). So, there is the input of ‘timeline’ on Facebook, which organizes an individual’s
actions on the site, according to day, month and year. Also, Twitter has the stipulation
of 140 characters that limit excessive use of words and allow for easy recognition
of patterns and algorithms. This has been discovered to be a tactic to make
Twitter similar to the act of ‘texting’
on mobile phones, so that ‘tweeting’ could
become a normal day to day action just like the use of mobile phones (Van
Dijck, 2013).
The implications
These platform creators know what
they are doing and strategize daily to ensure that they infiltrate every system
of the society through these online sites. Hence, users must become more
conscious in their online interactions and cease to be steered into changing
certain valuable societal norms, such as respect for privacy. Today’s generation
of consumers cannot afford to be lukewarm or ignorant about their actions in
online environments. Every time you register on any site, be informed that you
have just provided data and also given permission to receive cookies that will
be used to create algorithms from your online practices (Van Dijck, 2013). Be
mindful of the fact that it ceases to be private information, the moment it is
shared online.
Final thoughts
Fortunately, this has been a
learning experience for me, and it could be for you too; because analyzing this
cycle of influence in societal practices between users and owners is what Van
Dijck (2013) is all about. So, stay logged on to this blog and be informed
about communication technologies, as there may be a whole lot of other underground
activities involved in online actions that you have considered to be inconsequential.
On the grounds of full disclosure, which has been observed to be lacking in the
terms of service (ToS) of some of these social media platforms and with absolutely
no intent to scare you off; I am obligated to mention that blogging is also
another way information is gathered about individuals. What kind of blogs do
you follow?
See you next time!
