The Social Network Ladder

For this post I think I am just going to look at the video “Social Networking Wars” and examine what I say as the main argument that was made regarding Facebook as a social media tool. First, I think it is obvious that Facebook—being the cool popular animation in the video—is indeed the cool guy of social media. Whereas a few years ago people were once engaged in the world of MySpace, now Facebook is at the top of the social media ladder. Those who want to connect with old friends and enter into the most popular media conversation are on Facebook—and most everyone knows that. However, at the other end we see that Friendster is an example of where social networking failed. As the narration goes, nobody wants to be the friendster, or the “cast off” of social media. Although Friendster aimed to do much of what Facebook succeeded in, now according to this video, it is known as the poorest of the social media tools. Just like we have discussed in class several times: there is a hierarchy to most everything we do and enviably we place someone at the top above everyone else, the one we prefer above all others. And although the computer does not set up the standard for what is best, as people we naturally privilege one thing above another. In this case Facebook is the social media tool that serves to inform us on how people connect to one another digitally and therefore begins the discussion of what is appropriate and not appropriate, cool and not cool, and who is doing what and what we should be doing too.
The main premise/ moral of the video seemed to be toward the end. The final scene seemed to say what I thought made the strongest point about social media/ Facebook in our society. As we see the character choose to disconnect from social media in order to go into the “real world”, he is shown walking through the streets of the city alone. At a coffee shop he sits by himself and watches others go about their lives. He then goes to the top of a building where he can see a panoramic of the city—and he is still alone, with no one to talk to or interact with. The video ends with the viewer recognizing that without social media you cannot be connected to people in the real world. This then translates as the inferior choice to staying connected to the annoying, but connected (not alone) social media tools. The moral of the story is that although the media tool may be irritating by constantly alerting you of the various friend requests or random posts to your page, these annoying things are merely the indications of the community of people that want to be a part of your world/ network. Therefore, you are not alone with social media. There seems to be a clear argument about what social media does for us and why being connected is far better than being disconnected in the “real world”. But, what I wonder is: what is the alternative to that experience? Are we expecting to go to a coffee shop alone and find random people who we can share our lives with? Where were his “friends”—on the computer talking to their friends and “randomly bragging about their unexceptional life” on Twitter? And what would have made his experience apart from social media more meaningful and interactive? Could he have gone to a friend’s house or called someone to come meet him for coffee? Is face-to-face interaction as valuable as we might want it to be? Do we want to connect with one another over coffee, or do we prefer it at a distance, through social media? What is it that we privilege as a society today that Facebook is able to address and satisfy in us, if that is what it does?
When all is said and done, I think it seems like each creator—behind the various social networking sites mentioned in the video—is trying to vie for the attention of the user in an effort to supercede the most recent media tool in order to position that media at the top of the hierarchy. If that person can get their social media tool at the top and gain the most users, they have truly connected people. But, now with the invention of Secondlife, people can escape the frustration of being connected and live a virtual life that allows them to imagine that they live the life they have always wanted. Is Secondlife looking to do the same thing? Will it meet the need to escape from all of the competing social media tools that we feel are closing in on us? What need is now behind SecondLife that it serves to fill in us? I thought being connected was the most important part of contemporary society? Why do we need Secondlife then? Or is it really just a fun game? How might we consider the way we are connected and whether or not we are satisfied with how we function in our social networks as people who feel we are meeting our needs as relational and emotional people? Is Facebook working to meet this? Or is it just another media tool we use that does not validate our sense of belonging? If it does, are we really more connected to one another and to our communities?