Taking a stab at Facebook

There are various popular press ‘buzz words’ that are bound to gain attention. Charlie Brookers article in The Guardian a couple of weeks ago ‘Online POKER marketing could spell the NAKED end of VIAGRA journalism as we LOHAN know it’. Ooo sensationalist. And that is exactly his point.

In the last couple of hours I’ve been forwarded the noisy foray of commentary on ‘the shank’, the not-so-super superpoke on Facebook. If you don’t know ‘shank’ is the street slang to stab someone. The word on the press street that include, The Telegraph, Sky and Channel 4 shouts are that Facebook is responsible for knife crime. Well masked by the story are the complaints by Facebook users from months ago about the shank poke. One of the discussion board topics ‘Campaign to remove the Shank poke’ had already gained momentum. Although, reading some of the discussion comments this was with surprisingly muted support as this became conflated with freedom of expression discussion rather than 'good' taste.

Attempts in the press to lay blame at Facebook’s door are over the top. These mask many of the generational contexts of socialisation, particularly in terms of youth crime. The circumstances of a knife-crime ‘culture’ and value orientations lack the consistent definition and careful consideration of potential causalities. This means the relevant constructs of ‘good taste’ become entangled with different social effects, opinions and assessments from parents, politicians and the young people themselves. An attitude of ‘our generation’ versus ‘their generation’. Something that was bought out by Rowena Davis's article in The Guardian, How can our politicians understand blade culture?

'Young people' are just as shocked and concerned about knife crime. Some are even in the unhappy contingent of knowing the victims. There is suport to challenge this trend. Already there have been organised demonstrations and yes even Facebook groups such as the: ‘Stop our young people killing each other’.

In short, knife crime is a serious issue, but it’s not Facebook’s fault.

Trying to be 'seriously social'

Off the back of Channel 4's 2Gether 08 event last week my minds been occupied thinking about the whole propriety around social networking and networks.

The innovation of software over hardware on Web 2.0 makes available (to the connected up masses) a whole range of essential social tools. This is of contrast to the 'go out and buy', or (Bill) gated Microsoft approach. Although, as PhilRamble makes the point at WordPress, that MS is innovative in the O/S world, but is given little credit for this. Well be that as it may, MS still put at their fore marketing promotion before a more 'caring' and 'sharing' and sociable.

Networks have potential as transformative and powerful systems of knowledge. A concern that was overlooked at 2Gether was the risks for those who are outside of such links. At the margins of communication and knowledge, one has to query whether 'such individuals' are 'missing out', or are instead blissfully ignorant of the participatory and compulsive activity across Web 2.0?

Clearly not everyone can be connected to everyone else all the time. Though there is the potential for this of course, but even Facebook puts a limit at 5,000 friends. Moreover, that many wallposts on your birthday could get annoying, even for the most network savvy/addicted amongst us.

No the goal of networks should be to strike that happy medium between 'enough connections to make life interesting', but 'not so many that my enhanced communications fall by the wayside'. In short identify and cultivate key network nodes, and dump the chumps.

Could a series of new networked systems of based on your personal information where content is drawn from associated relationships between contacts, pages, interests etc. represent the next stage of the social networking evolution?

One of my favourite blog posts that I return to time and again is Steve Spalding's 'how to define Web 3.0?' As current trends show, we are increasingly navigating by the seat of our networks. Such directions in the world of a Web 3.0 will Spalding speculates be conducted by personal taste, (distate?) and even personality. Seeking entertainment and information are already fast becoming ways to show and acknowledge social validation. At 2Gether despite all the networking, the creativity of the day, sculptured sessions and outbreaks, but nothing said 'validation' and 'i'm here' like a network statement of exchanged details, and newly acquired Facebook friends.

SO, where once the goal of networks was fairly abstract, as simplistic as Zuckerberg's ambition to be able to 'connect to one another'. Relationships have transgressed such one-to-one definitions. Instead we make use of increasingly complex patterns of associations that are drawn and re-drawn as we become 'friends', 'business' 'family' or even just a 'node' in a long chain of links.

Now it seems is the time to take advantage of a counter-network stratification, and just enjoy being able to be seriously social. Or even not so seriously.