Who remembers the Yellow Pages? Or the Thomson Local
Directory? In years gone by the Yellow Pages weighed about the same as a
housebrick and ran to hundreds of pages. The Thomson directory, though more
modest, was also a sizeable tome. Nowadays they have shrunk in dimensions as
well as pages to the point where they are little more than pamphlets and when
the new ones arrive I throw out last year's editions with the realisation that
I have not looked at them at all since the day they were delivered. I am amazed
that they keep printing them, that they haven't gone the way of the telephone
directory, although I guess that there are still plenty of people (my Mother
for one) without access to the internet who still rely on the Yellow Pages if
they need a plumber or the like.
We now have a generation who have grown up with the internet
and probably cannot imagine life without it; a generation that reacts to new
apps, new ways of interacting with friends, new ways of working and of doing
business quite effortlessly and nowhere is this more obvious than in the use of
social networks. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram may be the most well known of these,
but there are literally hundreds of social network sites worldwide and it is
rare these days to meet anyone who is not a member of at least one (again, my Mother would be an
exception). The odd thing about these sites is that they tend to provoke some
quite extreme views; everyone it seems has an opinion on how these sites should
be used (based normally on their own prejudices, which they may try to foist
upon others as though they were holy writ). As you might have guessed, I am now
about to add to the sum of ignorance by foisting upon you my own opinions,
although I must stress it is opinion only and I should be most grateful if you
would not abide by any of it except in the exceptional circumstance that you
happen to already hold the same opinion as me.
I suppose I was moved to write this because of an article by
James Graham that I read in last Friday's London Evening Standard (Hey, thanks for sharing, but this has gone
too far)[1].
Graham makes some valid points; it is true that the amount of data that we
share on social networks, the amount of confidential information we blithely
transmit over the internet and the lack of control we have over the use that
information is put to is something that perhaps we should all worry about more.
You can argue that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, but if
for no other reason than combating identity theft and fraud we should perhaps
be more circumspect about how much of our private lives we reveal on Facebook
or Twitter, et al.
 |
| James Graham |
Graham asks, quite rightly, why have we started to share so
much? It made me smile when he said the old playground chant,' “I know
something you don’t know” used to give you an edge' as I can recall that taunt
flying around the schoolyard and yes, it was used in a superior, boastful way.
Unfortunately this attitude can also prevail in the workplace, where some
people jealously guard information or knowledge to give themselves an air of
importance and make them appear indispensible (which causes problems when they
are off sick or leave). Ok, so sharing knowledge about how to perform a
particular task with one's workmates is not the same as sharing a picture of
your dinner on Facebook, but there is a mindset change going on and whereas
some people might be unnerved by the ease with which the current generation are
happy to live their lives in public through social networks, it is probably
healthier in many ways than the stiff upper lipped approach of our parents'
generation who bottled up and repressed their emotions in a way we might now think unhealthy.
Yes there is a load of old rubbish on social networks, but
no one forces you to read other people's posts if you don't want to. It is
similar to people who complain about TV programmes because they are not to
their taste; no one forces you to watch, use the Off button! I do not believe
that " The value of life experiences has been reduced to how many likes
they get on Facebook" as Graham suggests in his article; if I post
something on Facebook and people like it, all well and good, if they don't then
it isn't really all that important (now if we're talking about how many hits
this blog gets...)
There may be people out there who post deeply personal stuff
about their private lives on social networks; about their relationships, about
their hopes, dreams, worries and nightmares, and my set of Facebook friends may
be atypical, but the majority of posts that I see are light-hearted, fairly entertaining stuff that keeps me in touch
with what people are up to. There is a point of view that says that we should
interact more with our friends face to face rather than by proxy through the
internet, that some of our Facebook friends are not friends at all because we
don't really know them in the "real world." Well, I don't see some of my Facebook friends that
often for various reasons, but social networks keep me in touch; oh you could
argue that if I wanted to keep in touch I could ring them, or write to them but
personally I've never been one for ringing people 'just for a chat.'
As for who you should be friends with online, this is an
area fraught with opinions and difficulties. There is a very good case for
declining some friend requests, but even if you vet your friends carefully, the
people with whom you are friends may not
be so circumspect. Things that you post
online are a bit like the conversation you have with a friend on the train or
in the pub; you may think it is private but more people will hear it than you imagine.
A point that Graham makes in his article is that years ago
people kept diaries, which were generally private (at least during the writer's
lifetime) but that now we post updates: but times change. I can imagine, centuries
ago, an early diarist being teased with something along the lines "What do
you want to write that drivel for? No one's going to read it you know." The
times change and social networks are to
today's generation what diaries where to Jane Austen's. Graham argues
that this may mean we aren't dealing with things like grief in the way we used
to, packaging it rather than confronting it, but I would disagree. Social media
sites can allow people to get things off their chests, to express quite
important emotions coherently, and adding a note to someone's 'wall' sympathising
about something is probably a lot more sincere than sending a mass produced
condolences card bought in Clintons.
Twenty years ago we could scarcely have imagined the changes
that increased internet coverage, mobile internet devices and the growth of
social networking websites would make, and we now discuss and analyse their use
and significance with a seriousness that is possibly disproportionate to either
their importance or longevity. In twenty years time we may be waxing nostalgic
about Twitter and Facebook as we ponder whatever it is that has long since supplanted
them, although many of us will still be asking the question some people are
asking even today; what exactly is the point of LinkedIn?
No comments:
Post a Comment