I recently went through my list of Facebook “friends” and made changed about 900 of the 1000 or so into “acquaintances”, which in theory will keep all but the most important of their posts or activities from showing up in my news feed. I also went through and “unliked” nearly all of the hundreds of pages/causes/etc that populate my feed with their updates (keeping but a small few that met criteria which I may discuss later).
This is the half-measure that I am going to try out in lieu of abandoning Facebook altogether. I’m not sure if it will work.
Here are some initial thoughts and reactions:
1) The experience of the change immediately reinforced what I had begun to realize about Facebook specifically as well as my life in general. Simply, I have a very finite amount mental/emotional/spiritual space and it becomes cluttered more quickly than I ever expect.
Tools like Facebook give us the illusion that since we are able to make and manage more social connections, our capacity to engage them (to care about them) has increased. It hasn’t.
Furthermore, we think that we can introduce, through use of tools like Facebook, thousands upon thousands of new connections, new bits of information, new stimuli and yet still selectively pay attention to, care about, respond to only those that are important, without any loss or negative impact. (It is not I but those other fools that are affected by advertising).
I have been noticing this in a variety of areas of my life, mostly in ways connected with technology. To use Covey’s classic imagery, we readily expand our sphere of concern far beyond our sphere of influence, which contracts as a result. We are concerned about vastly more and thus concerned about each individual matter far less and all the while our ability and inclination to do much of anything about anything dwindles.
I have tended to think that having a Facebook app on my phone that is connected to 1000’s of people and advertisers at all times doesn’t affect me as long as I only open the app an appropriate amount of times throughout the day for an appropriate period. I have tended to think that having a streaming music service doesn’t negatively affect me or change how I think about or value music as long as I don’t play it too much or the wrong thing.
I’m just not so sure any more. Inevitably I find that Facebook and those thousands of connections have changed how I think, feel, react, and regard. Even when I close the browser or turn off the app, spiritually and emotionally the clutter remains.
I am experiencing more and more the truth of McLuhan’s insight, that despite what we think, the medium is perhaps more potent than the message it mediates.
2) As said, I had played around with the idea of these and even more drastic measures regarding Facebook for a while. What I underestimated was how immediate and profound were the subjective effects of cutting a list of 1000 people down to 100 that I am making a conscious choice to engage with.
Instantly, the news feed is no longer a news feed. It is no longer a diversion that I can turn to for an entertainment fix. Suddenly it represents actions, needs, responsibilities, things that I do or don’t but ought to care about.
It is not that those 100 people (close friends, family members, etc) weren’t there before. They were, but they were diluted in a sea of irrelevance presenting itself as news/content/entertainment to be consumed.
3) I realize now how the tendency of the newsfeed of this supposed “social network” to simply become, for one, a source of diversion, of a quick entertainment fix, also leads one to begin seeing all the people represented therein as the same. It starts with those who really are obscure to one’s concern (the celebrity stories, the friends of friends whom one can’t remember accepting a friend request from, etc) then it moves inward to those one is acquainted with but has no ongoing involvement, and finally proceeds to even those close family and friends that one would/should (if one could) care about/love/pursue/engage with for their own sake.
They all become simply content for my newsfeed – the characters that populate the soap opera that is always playing in an open browser tab and in the app on my phone.
4) We know this. All these things are cliche, passé. We know and we resolve to not be affected. But we are and we persist and thus one must question whether we really knew or understood the implications of the situation in the first place.
As my father is so fond of referencing, this is truly a “frog in the pot” scenario. We continually look around and observe the pot, the water, and the increasing temperature, but insist that the heat is manageable now and we’ll certainly jump out if it becomes otherwise. But the whole point is precisely that from within the pot one has the worst vantage point on both the current and future state of affairs.
5) Of course even what I have recently done has been but a half-measure. I am still, for now, on Facebook.There is a case to be made for such measures in such cases though.
Whether or not I perfectly interpreted the work or its implications, one of my takeaways from Neil Postman’s eye-opening “Technopoly,” was the value in a seemingly arbitrarily holding onself back from the cutting edge when it came to technology. It is not that there is some ultimately right or safe level of technology for a human person to inhabit (computers, pen and pencil, stone tablets, the spoken word). But if the concern is whether or not I can evaluate and manage the influence of technology on myself and my family, there is something to be said for intentionally staying behind the curve.
One primary danger of technology (any technology) is simply its initial novelty and the fascination that it engenders in a subject. At its introduction, a technology is a slippery thing to grasp. The new user and even more so the technology’s creator, are in precisely the worst vantage point for evaluating the net usefulness of a technology and its effects on our way of viewing the world and other people, one’s information and values.
Thus there is good reason to consider holding back, enforcing a certain distance from the cutting edge, using technologies that are now boring OR intentionally limiting or truncating the functionality of novel ones, however arbitrary and counter-productive such things might seem.
It has been said that technology makes a good servant but a bad master. What we underestimate is how easily the former can shift to become the latter and how subtly can be the change.
“I understand the technologies I am using and I would know if I am being unduly influenced or changed by them” says the frog swimming in an already-quite-warm stew.
6) So this is my experiment with Facebook for now. It may be temporary, it may be a half-measure, it may not work. But I am reaching for perspective and space to evaluate such things. If greater cuts must be made, then so be it.
7) On a separate but not entirely unrelated note, you should check out Marc Barnes’ essay on “Modesty and Act” which explores what it means to be a subject and how one’s ability to act/choose is affected by the world. It is a fascinating piece that digs into this question of our perception vs. the reality of whether and to what degree we are influenced by fashions, technology, the opinions of others, etc.