Facebook: Why Do We Return to the Dark Side? Also, Cats

                                                      Facebook: Why Do We Return to the Dark Side?

How many times have you been walking to your car, or waiting in line at Starbucks, meeting a friend somewhere, etc., and whipped out your phone to check Facebook? How many times has the phrase “I wonder what’s new on Facebook,” or “I wonder how many likes I got,” passed through your brain? It’s become a source of constant impulse, a time-consuming tool for self-gratification through posts and pictures and moods and interests and videos and games and likes and comments. There is so much information surrounding a user’s life for something to always occupy his or her time. This is simply part of our society now, part of the ambiguous “this is how it is.”

The question then becomes, is this good? Is this beneficial for society? for individuals?There have been studies surrounding these ideas, each coming to its own conclusion. These studies and questions are especially relevant, as far as this blog post and I are concerned, within the realm of undergraduate college environments. It seems to me that there is a general understanding among my peers, with whom I have held several conversations surrounding the topic, that Facebook and usage of it is not necessarily healthy, and that there is some amount of information loss.

Facebook, like a variety of other social media websites, programs, other sites, etc., has a vague, complicated, and lengthy Terms & Conditions Agreement, which a user must sign and agree to if he or she is to use Facebook. Lots of what people post online, including pictures, are technically then Facebook’s property. Does this not seem ominous to anyone else? But I suppose people don’t want to pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

Once, when the man was revealed, outrage sounded from the masses: Facebook’s Secret Mood Study. According to Robinson Meyer at The Atlantic, Facebook’s Mood Study (people’s news feeds were altered in what was displayed to see what different moods would be incited) was technically legal, based on its Terms & Conditions, but the question that came next was an ethical one. Is that right? Eventually representatives of Facebook made public statements, some on Facebook, that apologized for the study having taken place, but tried to save face by showing the numbers and explaining that it was the lowest amount possible to receive significant data. They aimed to improve Facebook through this study, they said (Meyer).

After that outrage died down, did people end up leaving Facebook? Some did, I’m sure, but not a significant amount. Who is to say that there aren’t other studies being conducted? Based on the first time it was revealed, no way would they reveal it again, but they have the power and resources to conduct other research, using Facebook users as guinea pigs. So, considering this point of view, why do people keep coming back to it (myself included)?

Gwendolyn Seidman’s article about expressing the “true self” on Facebook sheds some light on the individual aspect of this. She pulls data from other studies to show that expressing the “true self” – qualities that one has but does not express them in person – is easier to do on Facebook and has a good, although egotistical, influence on its users. It allows people to validate themselves and feel included in some areas, but people rarely go on Facebook for the purpose of helping others (Seidman). This seems like fairly selfish behavior for a platform that has so much weight socially.

This social weight is discussed by Steinfield, Ellison, and Lampe in “The Benefits of Facebook ‘Friends.’” A study was conducted on approx. 300 college students in the same campus, back when Facebook was only open to college students. They asked them a variety of survey questions to determine what kind of social capital was gained from Facebook usage, as well as psychological benefits. They found that Facebook usage has increased bridging social capital – communicating with people one has met in real life - , increased self esteem, and increased maintained social capital – kept relationships with friends from the past that would have otherwise fallen out of touch. Bonding social capital, establishing new relationships online, was less common (as one would hope – that’s a little creepy).

What can be concluded, despite my cynicism about Facebook, is that people go back to it because it has an overall positive influence on individuals and the college community. Now, my own outlook on this – I understand how it could increase communication, but as a person with low self-esteem, I don’t see how Facebook could possibly help. It seems like a time-sink, an ego-sink, and a sadly necessary evil. I could see how people stay in touch online more easily, but this leaves me with the question – what happens to interpersonal relationships? Face-to-face? It feels like social skills are deteriorating. I wonder what part Facebook has had to play in this.