TD

Thanks for continuing this here, Hal.

My understanding of “mass” scale or “mass” communication isn’t as simple as one to several or one to many; it requires not simply an audience of individuals but a plurality of audiences. That’s my rationale for asking if all (or most) actions on Facebook truly qualify, particularly with the granularity of control that is available to every user both for what they publish and what they see. The second reason I asked this is because the discussion seemed to be getting caught up in repeated references to “mass” entertainment, and I wanted to be sure this idea was critical to your argument.

What concerns me is the eventual lean of the discussion here toward “the whole Internet is full of peep and/or drivel”, because that observation (even if valid) is just not the same thing as a cogent, specific criticism of our social networking behaviour. I would hope for a greater degree of differentiation here.

So, back to your point Hal; how often do you find yourself arguing along these lines with your television?

Mark McCawley

If one looks at these two mediums, objectively, one cannot help but think about Marshall McLuhan and his thesis: ‘The medium is the message’. Just as the television was a reflection of the “TV Generation” (passive entertainment, quick episodic imagery, brief attention spans, the Disney-ifcation of reality), so is Facebook a reflection of the generation now using it. While we can surely agree that most FB users begin their FB use (peeping) passively, it moves beyond the TV paradigm when they start to actively seek out others (and lifestyles) to peep on (and perhaps even interact with). From this perspective, FB is not only similar to TV, but an outgrowth of it as well, since both mediums are reflections of our own behavior?

Margaret Santangelo

Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my comments. We should try and fly in the face of the assumptions that Facebook is a complete waste of time and engenders real discussion by using Facebook to engender thought provoking discussions about it as a medium that is, in fact, revolutionizing communication on multiple levels. I have to think about the Facebook TV relationship and post more.

Natalie Pendergast

“I reject the argument that we’re becoming more social through social media.” Whose argument is that? I think it’s more of a clause in a more precise argument along the lines of “[People who have trouble interacting with others face to face] are becoming more social through social media.” The computer acts as a filter for people who are socially awkward in real life situations. It allows people to predetermine what they are going to say and the image of themselves they are going to construct/portray. It’s therefore totally awesome in that regard. It is still a medium that we screen ourselves through, so though it is immersive, it’s not transparent.

It’s an immersive, interactive form of entertainment, yes. TV - not interactive. What Margaret Santangelo says is pretty important. The fb narrative is always under construction, it’s always provoking user contribution, always stimulating user imagination. It’s therefore a creative activity. An unfinished art of which everyone is author…

I have noticed that you use fb as a marketing tool for your writing, Hal. Though you would be able to do the same on TV, it would not be interactive and you would have fewer freedoms in terms of multi-media forms of presenting your self-promotion.

Those people who left comments on your fb on this very topic seem like biggots to me. And hypocrites. “Meaningless drivel,” is what MM called TV and fb. It’s not meaningless if it’s fun! Fun is the anti-stress. Get with it guy. There is so much humour on TV and on fb: it’s pure performance. But pretentious people don’t get to enjoy it because they have a complex about being one of the general public. xoxo

TD

I think you pretty seriously misread my comments, Natalie. Wow.

Mark McCawley

Hal, how often have we witnessed a “healthy discussion” turned meaningless by someone who reduced the discussion itself to “name calling” like “biggots”? In that manner, how more could FB be like TV? How often have we witnessed members of a TV panel do the very same thing? Obviously, when a person lacks the necessary intelligence to join a discussion, they choose to attack instead of converse. Again, Hal, this supports your thesis: just as common respect seems to be lacking on the TV medium, it also appears to be the same on FB. Perhaps my choice of words when I said, “meaningless drivel” was too incindiary; but how else does one describe a status such as this: “is painting my toenails?” Huh?

Natalie Pendergast

I agree with TD’s description of mass communication. Fb epitomizes the post-modern era that we all thought was over and done with: A plurality of seekers trying to find ... something? Something unique to each individual or each particular audience? Same goes for video games. The narrative of a video game is partly authored by the software designer, and partly authored by the player. The personal narrative of each player therefore shares some themes, settings and experiences with all other players, given that the virtual world in which they are playing is stable and unchanging as created by the software designer.

However, each player’s avatar experiences this virtual world and all it has to offer in a different and unique way that is controlled by the player’s performance: decision-making, problem-solving, interaction, etc. And each player’s individual performance depends on his/her personal choices of how to behave in situations of combat, social interaction, and other challenges, etc. Therefore, no two gamers share the exact same narrative.

So, what does that tell us? It means that each story involves the ego and identity of the player. An avatar is a projection of one’s identity into a virtual setting. Each story is therefore pretty much only interesting to the player who co-authors it. Did you ever play Super Mario Galaxy on Wii or another single-user game like it with a bunch of friends, and find yourself waiting anxiously for your turn again? There’s a reason why it’s boring to watch others play: The game is not meant to be observed, it’s meant to be interacted with.

TV is meant to be observed. Large numbers of audiences can share the experience of watching shows or movies and their emotions/reactions are pretty identical and determined by the creator/writer of the show.

Fb, video games, transfictional literature are all meant to be enjoyed on an individual basis. The user is pretty much the only person who is really entertained by the interactive medium in question. Even those who like to live vicariously through their friends’ fb accounts because they are too shy to create their own are actually interacting with it and using this friend as an avatar.

I don’t really know what “peeping” is. It sounds cool though! Is it synonymous with the fb-coined term, “creeping”? As in, I “creeped” on Joey’s profile today to see what he was up to. He’s sooooo hot! If that is what it means, I think it goes both ways. I think there are facebookers who like to creep, while others like to be creeped on. Personally, I get a kick out of sharing links, news, photos, notes etc. with others.

Sorry this is so long, Hal. Sorry also if my intelligence is not up to snuff! Shoot! There goes my intelligence again, letting me down once more! I wish we were on a TV discussion panel right now so that we could all roll our eyes at appropriate times!

Mark McCawley

You make excellent points, Natalie, especially the interactive nature of the FB medium (and the co-authoring of ongoing transfictional narratives), as well as the creation of individual avatars as one’s virtual identity (is anyone on FB exactly who they presume to be?).

Still,while FB is fun (why else would it be so popular), it’s also an ongoing social experiment in human interaction and behavior.

Sometimes I cannot help but wonder if we are all just white rats running around this virtual maze called Facebook.

Natalie Pendergast

Totally. I agree that we are all participating in the evolution of social interaction. Even language is transforming because of texting, chatting and tweeting! : “i’ve been w8ting 4 u!” It’s crazy talk!

Thanks to everyone for this discussion: MM, MS, TD and HN. And I am sorry for that bigot comment. Now see, if this were taking place on TV, I would have to issue a formal apology and there would be all kinds of paperwork and red tape up to ying yang. Thank God for the facility of Internet communication.

len

re: causality - if you postulate linear causality the issue is very different than if you postulate non-linear (networked or quantum) causality. Fascinating concept and how it plays out socially long term will be even more fascinating.

runescape gold

It’s a fastidious and instructive article. Thanks for to apportion from you. Even I bookmarked this as advantageously for to get improve from it in incoming.

federal tax preparation

I don’t think credit is much of a factor with savings accounts. They do check for fraud alerts on your account. If they suspect you of committing fraud they can turn you down.
federal tax preparation

Tylor Merlyn

? I would suspect that they differ and that it would be quite interesting to analyze them on a deeper level. I think that a major divergence between TV and Facebook is the presentation of a narrative within a formally defined beginning and ending (even so-called “reality” shows are presented as such). Facebook is a never ending “narrative” that is not framed within any context. In addition, as TD points out, TV is passive (TV viewer) whereas Facebook is active (Facebook user).
facebook layouts