Thursday, 7 October 2010

Anti-Social Networking

Two questions I would like to never hear again in my existence:

"Why aren't you on Facebook?"

and

"When are you getting an Iphone?"

The second is easier to answer: because I don't need one. I've had the same mobile for about five years now and have no intention of replacing it. I don't see the point in having a new one that does loads of fancy things that will bring zero benefits to my life. The magazine Private Eye has an excellent cartoon called "Ibores" that hits the target bang on.

As for the first question: I never have nor will see the point in those social networking sites, unless you're looking for someone to cop off with. Yet some people seem to see being on this site (or Twitter) as some kind of essential aspect of modern life. I'm baffled as to why the footballer Rio Ferdinand feels the need to constantly update thousands of strangers as to the most trivial aspects of his day, or why anyone wants to know.

A work colleague told me "it's useful for finding people you used to go to school with", which translated to me as that old game of finding people you didn't like back then, and laughing if it turns out they're flipping burgers for a living. The other line is "it's good for letting everyone you know what you're doing" - which seems odd, as I never realised sending an email to more than one person at a time was that tricky.

I'm not covering new ground on this topic, of course, but what I do wonder whether a so-called 'surveillance' society that the likes of the Daily Mail get in a tizz about won't come as too much of a trouble to people who already tell the world what they're doing at any given moment. I'm not a Luddite, but I like new technology to enrich and improve our lives, not trivialise it (and yes, I'm aware of the irony of saying that on a blog, of all things).

If you allow me to be a paranoid nut for a moment (and why not?), I can at times envisage a future where anyone who doesn't have their own Facebook/Twitter pages is banished from society like the 'savages' in Brave New World, ostracised for not knowing the correct context to say "OMG!" or letting everyone know what bar we'll be in that Friday night.

For now, though, I'll remain quite happy in the knowledge that nobody from my past can find out any personal information about me online because, after all, if I wanted them to know, I would fucking tell them.

2 comments:

  1. Well facebook isn't really that different from say, interpals, except instead of browsing the profiles of strangers, you're browsing the profiles of friends. And acquaintences. And yes, that old crush from high school that you haven't seen/heard of in 10 years after they shut you down, who now appears to be a divorced alcoholic fatty, much to your satisfaction.

    Point is, friendship websites, instant messaging, blogs and homepages... aren't they all just the communication tools, for better or worse, of this generation? What makes some ok and not others? The fact that you use some and not others? I know just as many people that think blogs are the written diarrhoea of over-inflated hacks whose diatribe we would never otherwise be exposed to as I know people that smugly decree that they're too cool for facebook/twitter/MSN/myspace.

    A friend of mine recently commented; 'I used to have thoughts, now I have status updates'.

    And I can't help but feel that if you really felt strongly about the big brother aspect of having an internet identity.. you wouldn't be reading this in the first place.

    Just sayin'

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ah, but then you know who I really am...

    My point was more against the feeling that having a constant Facebook/Twitter presence is somehow seen by many as a neccesary part of modern life.

    I write this blog not so much about creating an "internet idenity", but more about keeping my hand in the journalism game should I ever decide to go back into that murky world. And also for the amusement of the few friends I have.

    ReplyDelete