Today a Time Magazine writer complained about the latest Facebook fad, “25 Things About Me.” In this fad, the Facebook user lists 25 theoretically random observations about themselves, and then tags 25 of their friends, saying, “I wanted you to know more about me.” Friends who have been tagged in the note are then encouraged to create their own list of 25 items to share with their friends and the original writer.
Time’s writer is unhappy about being tagged. She says that the people who are tagging her aren’t really connected to her, that she isn’t that close to them, and that they aren’t really her friends. Not only that, but she accuses the writers of being narcissistic and – gasp – unfunny. She complains it is a waste of time.
Ms. Writer, may I point something out to you? You don’t have to read the notes. It is completely optional. Not only is it optional, but unless you leave a comment or someone asks you outright, no one will notice if you have or have not read the notes, especially if they are written by people who have as dubious a connection to you as you claim.
Time Magazine is missing the point of social media. Facebook and Twitter exist to create a community. Social media enables us to connect with others in ways we previously didn’t. My parents went to their ten year high school reunions and caught up with their former classmates; I already know which of my former classmates went on to grad school, got married and had kids because I’m friends with them on Facebook. Social media sites allow me to stay in touch with old friends and to meet new ones. If Time's writer isn’t even friends with the friends she has on Facebook, why is she friends with them?
But perhaps what is most striking about this article is the implication of the complete integration of the internet into our lives. The internet is no longer simply about convenience; it has become part of our daily routine. Previously optional activities are now considered imperative. A Facebook member sees that he has been tagged in a note; he reads the note, even though he doesn’t find it particularly interesting. He is tagged in another note; he reads this one too. He is tagged in yet more notes, and although at this point he’s getting annoyed, he continues to read the notes. Why not simply stop reading the notes?
We forget we can step back, that we don’t have to check on the latest news from our friends every thirty seconds, that we don’t have to update our Twitter with what we’re eating for lunch, and we don’t have to check in with our friends to see what they’re eating for lunch. And when the volume gets too loud, we blame the community; we forget we can turn it down, step outside, get away from the noise.
Time Magazine writer, I’m sorry you were annoyed by your non-friends. It is frustrating to feel obligated to read a non-funny note by someone you only barely know. But please remember, the internet is optional. Feel free to step away from the computer at any time.
Note: the writer’s name has been removed from this article; this is not intended as a personal attack on the writer’s character, only as a commentary on the use of the internet and social media.
Well, I wrote a comment and lost it. Here's what I said. I like your style and your reaction the that poor put upon Times writer who is annoyed by the bloggers of the world. Well bloggers don't write to annoy anyone and the easiest thing in the world to do is to STOP reading. So Stop already. I are a blogger, but not a twitterer. But hey I am 77, cut me some slack.
ReplyDelete