I have never really understood the point of facebook. Yes, I know it is popular but the fact is it is being used for things it is very poorly suited for, such as pro-liberty activism, by a great many people. There is even a samizdata facebook group (largely inactive, as again I really cannot see the reason for it and only created it as several people asked me too).
So when I was asked to join a (worthy) facebook group lamenting the fact facebook summarily and without explanation shut down a (worthy) group of anti-anti-smokers with 800,000 members, I joined it and posted this:
This is why the whole facebook model (a corporate controlled walled garden) is not suited to activism in the way a network of blogs on the wider internet is. To be honest although I joined this group, I think facebook is more suitable for discussions about LOL-cats than anything serious. I lost interest in facebook the day they took it upon themselves to change how “my” page looks, which just drove home that unlike a blog, my facebook page is not really “mine” at all. Anything you do on facebook is at facebook’s sufferance. I just do not see the need for facebook to be honest.
Facebook… yawn. No thanks… I have the internet.
Oh, and by the way I have nothing against LOL-cats.
Good post.
I’ve read opinion pieces in the Guardian which mistakenly talk about “internet censorship” and then mention how Facebook bans photos of breasts (including in breastfeeding groups).
It’s really important that people understand the Faustian pact that they often create when they use things like Facebook and Twitter. You create a group for free, get thousands of members for free, use it to promote your business or cause. What happens if they start charging a large fee? Are you going to get all the members of your group to leave and sign up to a new group, or are you going to accept the fees that are now higher than self-hosting something?
Look at eBay. Sellers and buyers are now getting a raw deal because they are bound together by network effects. Buyers won’t go elsewhere because that’s where the sellers are and sellers won’t go elsewhere because that’s where the buyers are.
Yes most of the stuff about facebook in the Guardian is incoherent jibberish because they cannot grasp that facebook is PRIVATE PROPERTY and what you say and do on PRIVATE PROPERTY is quite rightly at the sufferance of the property owners, so talk of “censorship” is preposterous.
My dislike of facebook is entirely utilitarian, not ethical.
Facebook and Twitter are two completely different entities, though it is easy so see how they can be confused.
Facebook is a socail networking tool, and can host photos, videos, and other content that you create. entirely at their sufferance. They can choose to disallow certain types of content and often do so as stated in the OP.
Twitter is less a social networking tool than a means of communication. the only thing twitter hosts is the 140 characters of the message you send using it. Yes, it is used for the creation of social networks, groups and such, but these groups have an existence that can be, and often is, entirely independent of Twitter and could just as easily use the telephone, email, newsgroups, the dead-tree versions of these, or your more run of the mill blogging to communicate. Twitter is merely the method these groups use to communicate with each other. And has nothing to do with hosting the content such groups have access to.
Whilst we have seen many instances of Facebook’s willingness to disallow certain things which conflict with the owner’s politics and opinions on a variety of subjects, we have yet to see such movements spring up using Twitter and be similarly disallowed. It would seem Twitter has decided that it is merely the messenger, and keeps its opinions of the messages it relays to itself.
If Twitter or Facebook decide to start charging for the use of their services, their userbase will move on the the next internet fad and they will fade into obscurity, as has happened to many other similar services in the past.
touché.
I can just-about see some utility for something like Twitter. Just-about. Maybe.
But Facebook? Maybe it’s the old copper in me but I just find the idea of spreading your life out in detail before the entire world to be completely devoid of any value or merit when stacked up against the potential negatives.
Plus, as decribed, you place all of the content that you freely throw out there into the hands of a private entity, that can do with it, whatever they like.
The key to any acceptable communication system that does not compromise the security and privacy of the individual is that the content matter is not handled by anyone who has the ability to alter it – ideally, they do not even have the ability to identify it.
I have seen some remarkable demonstrations of just how quickly and effectively data from places like Facebook, Twitter ASF can be integrated in real time to make some rather startling conclusions with high degrees of confidence. A snippet here – a snippet there – and all of a sudden, you’ve got real data.
No, thank you. You won’t find llamas anywhere near any of these networks. People I care about, and who care about me, know how to find out whatever they need to know about me that I choose to tell them. Anything or anyone more is of no value to me and maybe a serious potential negative. Anyone who asks whether they can be my ‘Facebook friend’ or to ‘follow’ me on Twitter (I’m not sure exactly what that is, but I have a rough idea) is going to cause me to seriously second-guess what they are about. Perhaps that’s not the effect that was hoped for.
llater,
llamas
Facebook groups are all about signaling. You doesn’t join a group or campaign or fan page on FB in order to participate in activism but to signal to your friends that you support that cause. Yes, a blog would be more effective for actual activism, but most of us have far more friends on FB than people who would regularly read our blog if we had one (I’m guessing the median numbers would be about 150 and 5, respectively.)
Just a reminder here that the Queen is the owner of Britain. You’re currently on her private property. Thus, she can (via her parliament) make any rules she likes as to how you may behave on her private property.
Is that okay with you?
I don’t live in England, IanB, so I know that I don’t get a vote in this argument. But it seems to me that it would be better to live at the whim of an hereditry monarch than that of the fickle mob (let alone Obama’s minions). At least some of the time the monarch will fall into the “benevolent” category, whereas the mob never will. So yes, I for one would be “OK” with that. (Of course, you Brits now get the worst of both worlds, since the Queen seems to have been reduced to a totally meaningless figurehead. It would be fascinating to see her exercise any of her theoretical powers, such as by dissolving “her” Parliament.)
Besides, it’s not as if Perry, unlike with Facebook, has much choice in the matter.
Two extraneous points-
1) Paul Monk- congratulations on your new book! The Australian had an excerpt from it on it’s Opinion page. It seems to be the sort of thing that I’d buy.
2) Litchenstein has caved in to outside authorities, and will let Britain look at it’s bank accounts. A sad day for liberty.
While Facebook was a frivolous use of resources, maybe someone here can do something I once suggested- set up a Second Life version of Britain, after a libertarian revolution. Instead of having to imagine it, you could show it to people, and hope that seeing freedom makes them covet it.
Quite possibly the dumbest thing you’ve ever written, at least that I’ve seen.
The trick thar is to actually demonstrate the error in the statement you are attacking, otherwise you just look like a fucking twat who doesn’t understand the British constitution.
Albion- you should get out more! I am sure that if you read your writings, you’ll agree that Ian is not the dumbest writer here!
Ian, where can I buy a copy of the British Constitution? I always thought it was unwritten. And I think that this unwrittenness could be good, as it allows evolution in politics. And the Queen reigns by heeding advise from Parliament, surely? She doesn’t rule absolutely?
It’s a little know fact that it’s actually written on the wall of the mens privvy in the Goose And Strumpet Tavern in Blackfriars, by royal decree, and has been since 1542. An appointed beefeater has to go there and amend it every St. Swithins Day while maidens of the parish dance round a maypole singing hey nonny no.
She’s an absolute monarch. There’s an unwritten agreement that she will take the advice of parliament and her ministers, who carry out her wishes. That is, when a law is made, they are advising the queen to pass such a law, and then she agrees it’s a jolly good law, and enacts it. Hence the royal assent. That’s why she does that speech once a year where she says what “her ministers” are going to do, to satisfy the constitutional idea that she governs the country and the ministers are just advising her.
In theory, she could just dismiss the parliament and rule her country herself, but it’s generally agreed that if she tried that the Barons would revolt, or something, so she doesn’t.
But it’s her country, she can do what she likes in theory. That’s why the armed forces swear allegiance to the crown, not the parliament.
Honestly, if she ordered the army to seize the current cabinet, take them to the tower and off with their heads, would anyone object? Quite a lot of people have written to her recently asking her to do just that, because constitutionally she can.
Facebook, n.: where you go when you don’t have the balls, energy or skills to blog.
Twitter’s 140-character limit drives me nuts, esp. when I try to promote my blog. Direct links take up much of that limit; descriptions have to be real short.
I once tweeted this:
The queen owns the queen’s own properties: her personal lands, palaces and corgis. That’s it. That is why it is a stupid comment. I own nothing in fief from the queen, even in theory. It is said the queen “reigns” but not “rules” and actually her “reign” is about as relevant as a national flag: symbolic but really just a bit of cloth.
So your comment sounds like someone trying to be clever without actually saying anything useful as it is irrelevant.
Ian B: That is apropos nothing to what I am talking about. But Albion is correct that the Queen is absolute monarch over her corgis and that is about all. If the Queen disappeared through a hole in space-time tomorrow, it would make very little difference to the reality of Britain’s polity, which is rule-by-parliament… whereas if the US constitution did likewise, the entire country would explode even if the 75% of the document is in fact a dead letter.
I enjoyed reading your blog Kim but I cannot agree with your comment. Quite a lot of us simply do not have the time, or inclination, to blog. Facebook may be private property with some fairly arbitrary rules (and annoying changes in format) but it fills a niche that many many people enjoy. With the correct privacy settings one can enjoy sharing thoughts, events, photos etc with friends and family and in a way that takes little time or skill. Its a phenomenal success.
Intelligent, educated, well-travelled, erudite and able to argue your ideas with clarity and logic many of you bloggers are a little too far up your own backsides at times to appreciate, I think, that most people are not like you.
I’ve read some things on the internet that suggest that the armed forces swear allegiance to The Crown (also in “tThe Crown vs…), which is an entirely different entity than the monarch, I don’t know how accurate that is..? Maybe someone here knows a bit more on the subject.
To stray back on-topic for a second, Facebook is for my friends, my blog is for like minded people I’ve never met. I’d never dream of using Facebook for political stuff. Also, as I don’t self- host, technically my blog is private property too and wordpress could presumably choose to modify or delete anything on there just as Facebook do.
Oath of Allegiance plus some vague discussions.
Cheers
Thanks! 🙂
Surely Facebook is a place were you can see lots of photos of drunk young women hanging off their friends’ shoulders? Because this will look great on the internet.
“I’ve read some things on the internet that suggest that the armed forces swear allegiance to The Crown (also in “tThe Crown vs…), which is an entirely different entity than the monarch, I don’t know how accurate that is..? Maybe someone here knows a bit more on the subject. ”
It mentions the Crown, but it’s a personal oath.
You could interpret that several ways.
As for the Royal Prerogative etc.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldconst/236/6032909.htm(Link)
Isn’t it refreshing to see the (relative) quality of the debate in the Lords?
I find the utility of facebook in academic networking. Through facebook I maintain contact (very light, intermittent contact, but contact nevertheless) with a lot of people I meet at conferences who I would not have maintained contact with otherwise. I’m hoping this will get me a job at some point…..
Or one could use email (without the need for “privacy settings”), for the same purpose and with even greater facility.
Sorry: I find the whole FaceBook concept shallow and childish. Your opinion may vary.
I appreciate that it gives people a means to mass communication, but popularity means diddly — cf. the sales of Britney Spears albums — when it comes to quality.
Look, I don’t have a Facebook account and have no interest in one. (I don’t “tweet”, either.) But I see no need to denigrate (“shallow and childish”) those who enjoy it. E-mail isn’t necessarily a good substitute for “sharing thoughts, events, photos etc with friends and family.” In some ways I can see that posting photos of a family vacation, a new baby, a party, whatever, on Facebook would be a superior means of sharing them. Why go to the trouble of sending them to a few hundred people, many of whom may not even care, if you can simply post them on the web for anyone who’s interested?
There are lots of us who lack the skills, time, or inclination to create and maintain a blog, let alone a website. It seems to me that a Facebook page could be a pretty good substitute.
There is a place for “quality” (whatever you mean by that) and there is a place for simplicity and expedience. I see no point to affecting an air of arrogant superiority over those who choose the latter. Frankly, I prefer childish to churlish.
The thing with Facebook is that it can be used on several levels. I joined after the death of my mother since it allowed me to keep a connection with family members who she had been the nexus for previously but that I likely wouldn’t have corresponded with otherwise.
Since then, I’ve “friended” a bunch of people from work and it’s a good place to upload trip/vacation/activity pictures to for perusal at others’ leisure. With the bonus that if a particular activity doesn’t interest me much, I don’t have to sit through the commentary
There’s a lot of inane stuff in there but for basic social networking, it’s actually not too bad.
And as for customizing it with your own look. Well, there’s always myspace *shudder*
Facebook is surely an electronic lassoo for “like-minded people you’ve never met” just as much as any other tool?
With the addition of Networked Blogs, I find it is a reasonably useful way of spreading the message and raising awareness(Link).