Have you poked a friend today? Your answer will determine your loyalties in
the greatest intergenerational split since the Sex Pistols swore at Bill
Grundy on live TV. Friend-poking, along with superpoking, wall-posting and
hikkuping – as the clued-in among you could yawningly explain – is simply an
internet-enabled social greeting. The rest of us – especially, duh, the
dinosaurs still buying newspapers (LOL!!!) – might dismiss Facebook, MySpace
and a gazillion other social networking tools as short-term, vacuous fads.
But that would be to underestimate a vast shift taking place in how a
younger generation is defining its social life and privacy.
What makes Facebook such a tempting multibillion-dollar target for litigation
is its compelling ability to tap into the digital generation’s Zeitgeist.
For under 25-year-olds in particular, who have grown up blogging,
photo-sharing and chat room flaming, today’s digital social networks offer
its participants all the status-enhancing tools needed obsessively to shape
their public persona. Driven by peer pressure as much as the practical
benefits – well, would you want to miss the party invitations? –
three-year-old Facebook already claims 31 million active users, with
membership growing at about 3 per cent a week. Along with rivals such as
MySpace – owned by this paper’s parent corporation – it has become a key
enabler of today’s youth-focused culture of virtual self-expression.
Call it Web 2.0 or Me Media, this culture mashes up elements of creativity and
raw emotional honesty, of exhibitionism and voyeurism. You risk
insignificance unless you are a visible presence 24/7, which explains the
relentless noise of personal video broadcasts via kyte TV, of text message
“microblogging” via Twitter. As Duncan Watts, Professor of Sociology at
Columbia University, explains it, the compulsion serves the vital human need
to hang out and be seen. “You’re with your friends, but you’re also creating
the possibility that you’ll bump into someone else,” he says – which could
mean a date, a real world social invitation or simply another virtual
acquaintance.
What the non-networkers tend to find incomprehensible – there are happily
Facebooking septuagenarians but the split is largely along age lines – is
the casual honesty and alarming openness of these sites’ core under25
participants. Under the new etiquette of social intercourse, strangers may
expect to peruse your sexual orientation and home phone number, your
education and employment histories as well as your candid photographs.
“Facebook may also collect information about you from other sources, such as
newspapers, blogs, instant messaging services, and other users of the
Facebook service”, declare the terms of service. Yikes. It makes all those
warnings about shredding your gas bill to avoid identity theft sound
marvellously quaint.
Yet it would be wrong for the IRL crowd – sorry, that means us reactionaries
still residing In Real Life – to dismiss these networkers as geekish
no-hopers. These tools offer genuine social benefits, from the ability to
limit one’s interactions with “friends” one wants only a little contact
with, to the opportunity to solicit information efficiently and gain
emotional sustenance from likeminded strangers. Immediately after the
Virginia Tech massacre, students found intense camaraderie in Facebook and
MySpace support groups. And as for engaging this so-called apathetic
generation politically, just look at who is out there wanting you to be
their friends, from US presidential hopefuls to David Miliband and his
YouTube climate-change video homilies. “BS big time”, as one new friend so
gracefully replied.
What this generation may not be prepared for is the damaging uses to which its
own personal information may one day be put. Just a few days ago, Amy
Palumbo, the reigning Miss New Jersey, came under pressure to surrender her
crown after indiscreet Facebook photographs of her with her boyfriend –
supposedly restricted to “friends” – found their way on to the pages of
newspapers. Nor could Chris Dreyfus, a British police inspector with senior
counter-terrorism credentials, have expected his Facebook meanderings to
prompt a Sun exposé of his “gay lifestyle” (with helpful transcripts of
web postings to friends, such as: “Hope the leather shorts didn’t chafe too
much on Saturday”). As for students, the group for whom Facebook was
originally conceived, they are now finding the grown-ups using their own
evidence against them rather too brutally. Poor Alex Hill, a third-year
Oxford mathematics and philosophy student was disciplined by the proctors
for being “disorderly” on the basis of her postexam celebration Facebook
photos. Even poorer Justin Park, a Korean-American student at Johns Hopkins
University in Baltimore, was suspended and given 300 hours of community
service after the university decreed that his “Hallowe’en in the Hood” party
invitation on Facebook, written in a self-mocking gangsta-rap style,
violated its “antiharassment policy”. So much for free speech.
And what happens when the teens and students currently disclosing their entire
personal lives to LiveJournal, Facebook, MySpace, Bebo and the rest, want to
reinvent themselves as serious job-seeking (and spouse-seeking) grown-ups?
It is all very well for David Cameron to dismiss allegations about drug use
with the assertion that “everyone is entitled to a private past” – but in
future, such “pasts” will most likely be documented permanently on publicly
accessible computer servers.
How many of the next generation’s leadership talent will decide against a
career in public life because, even as you read this, a “friend” is
uploading what looks like a photo of them inhaling? No wonder employers are
increasingly admitting to using job applicants’ online histories as a means
of vetting them. As for prospective future health insurers or lovers: take a
stroll through sites such as Jaiku and 43Things to discover that Nikola N
“has just had an HIV test”, or that another woman, identified clearly by her
photograph, plans to “go to rehab, get my son back and stop using [crystal]
meth”.
Remember, we are still in the early days of this uncharted revolution. Wait
until your best mates all start “lifecasting” their video thoughts live
throughout the day. Already start-ups such as Ustream and kyte TV are
offering band width for “your own TV channel” that allows you ubiquitous
interaction. Nor is being too busy to update your online output any longer a
valid excuse. For a fee of £369, you can now hire a stand-in to be your
“digital biographer”, who will “enhance” your online presence based on a
detailed briefing with you over Skype.
Some day, many of this hyperconnected generation may regret their abandonment
of personal privacy. But, as they are doubtless twittering and IMing and
vlogging in response even as you read this, who cares what the MSM – the
mainstream media – think? There are too many friends at the wall waiting for
a return poke.
What this generation may not be prepared for is the damaging uses to which its own personal information may one day be put
As a product of the extremely litigious California work force, I can say that I am very careful what I channel through Facebook and Myspace. I enjoy Facebook as a way to keep in touch with my friends from my time working in London, but don't see it as a place to bare my soul. As it always has been, as it always will be, privacy can only be found in one's own mind. Any other place is open to observation. London was a very powerful lesson in just how easy it is to be observed constantly. If you wouldn't do it in front of Oxford Circus, why would you post it online?
The employers vetting comment doesn't hold true in my experience. I have yet to come across an employer that actually spent time looking on either Facebook or Myspace for information about a prospect. As someone who is constantly involved in recruitment, I don't have that kind of time to spend on such a luxury.
soaklord, San Diego, CA
Alas, there is no better example of Mr. Gamow's infinite 'monkeys at typewriters' hypothesis than the Internet, and as best as can be told, not a single line of prose approaching Mr. Shakespeare's has yet been produced - including this one of course.
Elisha Moor, London,
Jacqui Smith and half the cabinet have admitted to smoking cannabis in their youth yet the public don't care. Let's praise the fact that we live in an enlightened society where the mistakes of our youth can be openly discussed without fear of reproach.
Andrew Montgomery, Manchester, England
I have very little sense of self-preservation online. My life is documented, spread over a variety of sites, and anyone could find out whatever they wanted, really. It doesn't scare me though, I've never had any problems from anyone in 6 years of fairly frequent internet usage.
As for what's going to happen when I want a job, well, I just don't do things I wouldn't want people to know about!
Anna, Isle of Wight, UK
I think it's really problem of people in whole world. i think that many of the different kinds of mass communication can be destroyed our intellect because they limited different kinds of contact between of many people. It's really can be dangerous for the world. Many of us spend all them's free time sending sms or looking some sites and associated with friends in internet. All good can be bad in time.
P.S. sorry for my english))
Alexander, S-Petersburg, Russia
There is less discussion of the difference in social networking 'norms' between generations in this article as I might have thought, but I think I get the gist nonetheless.
I am always mindful of content that I publish online, whether it be a comment, review or just a line of greeting, and try to steer clear of unpleasantly nasty remarks or candid admissions, just as I would in real life. There will always be somebody who remembers a time when you embarrassed yourself or said something silly; online interactions are no different in this regard. If you open your account with this approach in mind, there is nothing to fear from having an open record of events in your life, and the benefits from sharing news with friends you can't always get to see in person are huge. I feel a lot closer to my friends since starting up with Facebook a while back, and by restricting access to my news to just these people, and keeping contact details off my page, I also feel my identity is protected.
Mark T, Staffordshire, UK
Facebook is growing at three per cent per week: thus more people are changing sides in the alleged IRL/social networker divide. Does this mean that our society will eventually become less hypocritical (witness the Sun expose on Chris Dreyfus - what does that say about rabid homophobia in our supposedly liberal society?) as we accept that we each have our foibles? Shouldn't laws guaranteeing freedom of expression also protect us in an online environment?
As our culture becomes ever more fragmented, online networks are a key way of maintaining relationships which would otherwise fall prey to long workhours or geographical distance. And if we cannot be ourselves amongst our friends, where can we be?
Jeni Fulton, Berlin, Germany
I am 23 years old. I think Facebook and Myspace and all the other 'books' and spaces are silly, a waste of time. I'd rather learn a new language, enjoy a sport, develop a hobby, thereby becoming the best person I can be. Hanging onto these social sites will do nothing for me. I want to make friends and keep contact with them, but I would prefer to see them with my own eyes, hear their voices with my own ears, and touch them with my own hands. That's what real friends do- they don't congratulate each other on their birthdays via SMS or instant messages. What's going to become of this society? Can't people communicate like living breathing people? I'm not saying that Facebook is just bad, just that it's so easy to loose touch with reality and it can destroy relationships. How will you like it if your partner is online for hours chatting to facebook pals?
Kat, Johannesbrug, South Africa
I am 23 years old. I think Facebook and Myspace and all the other 'books' and spaces are silly, a waste of time. I'd rather learn a new language, enjoy a sport, develop a hobby, thereby becoming the best person I can be. Hanging onto these social sites will do nothing for me. I want to make friends and keep contact with them, but I would prefer to see them with my own eyes, hear their voices with my own ears, and touch them with my own hands. That's what real friends do- they don't congratulate each other on their birthdays via SMS or instant messages. What's going to become of this society? Can't people communicate like living breathing people? I'm not saying that Facebook is just bad, just that it's so easy to loose touch with reality and it can destroy relationships. How will you like it if your partner is online for hours chatting to facebook pals?
Kat, Johannesburg, South Africa
I agree that these sites do not quite make sense to the outsiders, for example why invest so much time online socializing with people you can just call and meet for a coffee? However I truly believe in the benefits of openness, why should we all have something to hide? Why shouldn't we all be completely open? Sharing our lives and experiences allows other around us to understand each other, which in the end should help us the human race to evolve and develop even quicker than we could without these kind of sites.
I see this WEB2.0 technology as the first steps to a real worldwide community, the first steps towards bringing down corruption, secrets deceit and so on.
David Thomson, Hamburg, Germany
Is this the beginning of the end of mainstream media, including television? One of the predictions of Star Trek and other sci-fi was that in the latter part of this century television died out and was replaced by more interactive forms of entertainment. This is coming to pass before our very eyes.
The young are turning away from television and entertaining themselves with social sites and Youtube et al. Everyone can pontificate on the stories of the day in an instant as I am proving now. We are all columnists in the modern world.
The only problem may be the poor standard of English and the proliferation of txt spk may ultimately mean we can no longer understand each other.
Paul Owen, Birmingham , UK
Are you not all just cringing by now?
Jenna, Glasgow,
Surely, on the other hand, you risk insignificance if you waste energy getting dragged into this stuff?
Start with the fact that most people _are_ insignificant. Doesn't openly admitting that you have nothing to say that is any more worth reading than everyone else in a group the size of a small country simply underline that fact? And that's a hundred hours a week wasted that you _could_ have spent on becoming significant.
I'm reminded of a Dave Allen sketch on what people did before television, featuring peasants saying things like "I picked my nose last night." Now, the only difference is the size of your audience, and the fact that they really, _really_, don't care whether you picked your nose or not.
Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK
Publishing has always carried the risk that people might read what you put into the public domain - that is supposedly why people publish
ToMTom, Leeds, England
We live in a Victorian Age with a multitude of proscriptions. It is only that the prohibited speech and behavior is different. Rather than this being a liberated age, political correctness is far more restrictive and addresses a broader swath of activity than the Victorian's did. Think about it.
Johnson, USA,
I'll confess upfront that I just don't 'get' all these site like MySpace and Facebook - I don't understand connecting on the net with the same people you speak to regularly anyway. But, what really intrigues me is how every little detail of a persons life is put up for all to see. I remember what I was like as a teenager and -boy oh boy - am I glad there isn't a permanent cyberspace record of it for all time! Not only was it fairly uninteresting but it would be excruiatingly embarassing to view it all again with the benefit of age. I think that there is probably great value in putting a buffer between your every thought and the world, with the internet there is no buffer, no reconsidering and no taking things back. That's just a bit scary to me.
Anita, Sydney, Australia