More on facebook

Update: Here's a decidedly British take on the phenomenon as well. . . Thanks to MonkeySkull for the link.

There is something incredibly invasive about this whole "Web 2.0" stuff, isn't there? (Aside: Has "Web 2.0" already become a hoary, quaint reference to what's going on with the Web, akin to the "information superhighway" or "cyberspace"? It feels like it. . . )

Perhaps "invasive" is the wrong word, as it connotes an unwelcome intrusion. With the exception of a few embarrassing old pics posted by "friends" most of the information available Facebook, etc. was placed there by our own volition, and not the result of some overreaching third party digging up dirt on us. That this information occasionally amounts to an embarrassing or compromising disclosure is more a function of our inexperience with the forum--much like the regrettable "reply-all" email response, sending a snarky, petty or downright cruel comment to the very subject of our derision. I haven't made that error in a long time, not due to some change in technology, but because I have been chastened by prior indiscretions to do two things: one, be more thoughtful about what I say in email, and two: be more discreet about who's on the receiving end of my emails.

If our means of interacting social networking sites follows the same user arc as email, will we inevitably see a shift towards more circumspection and discretion on how far we open our virtual kimono in the future? I'm not sure what's left of the sites if we stop posting our public, multimedia, extemporized diaries online. Perhaps social networking is just enduring its initial novelty phase right now, much like answering machines did in their inception? Remember when telephone answering machines first hit the market, and a critical mass of persons had some clever ditty or schtick for their message, when now, you're hard pressed to find somebody who doesn't use some near-verbatim flavor of, "Hi, I'm not here, so leave a message" message? So which is it? Is facebook more like email, or more like the phone answering machine? Are we more interested in conveying information via facebook and twitter, or receiving information? Exactly what information are we trying to convey: how clever we can be (a la the early phone messages), or something that we'll ultimately deem to be more utilitarian? And just as important: what information are we trying to learn about our friends, loved ones, or coworkers when we use the sites? Are we scanning for scandal, or are we really that curious about the quotidian goings-on of everyone?

Because of facebook and its ilk, we may see people become more comfortable knowing more about people's otherwise "secret" lives--the lives they lead when we may not be looking. If that's the case, then the social networking sites will have an enormous impact on society: getting people to relax their double-standards, and understand that we all have skeletons, thoughts, desires, alternative lives. Eventually, we'll learn that kinky, freaky, corny, tacky thoughts and actions don't detract from our professional and interpersonal competencies--on the contrary, they inform and enrich them. The predilections of the politician, the schoolteacher, the preacher, the middle manager, the stockbroker, previously looked down upon as perversions, will instead be seen as part of the amalgam that makes any of us competent at work, love, leisure, compassion. It's not that difficult to envision a future where our facebook profile is the "first" impression somebody creates of friends or workmates, rather than a supplement to our offline impression of a person. We'll see. In any case, I'm looking forward to seeing what facebook becomes after the "answering machine jingle" novelty of it wears off.