There has been a lot of talk on social media regarding social media recently; catalyzed by SZuckerberg's announcement to the world of what 99% of it already knew: that he doesn't so much as know what an ethical principle is (let alone have one in his body). The only surprise in this is that he finally feels comfortable with the disclosure; apparently feeling that the man whose good graces he hopes to gain by his groveling will protect him along with adding to his modest (compared to the real god Musk) fortune.
The feeling of many is that we should no longer use any of Meta's platforms because of this. I understand the sentiment. I don't agree with it.
Using the platform no more identifies me with its content than living in the U.S. identifies me with its imperialist wars, which I've supported with my taxes because I could not live here otherwise. To be sure, I could have emigrated in the midst of the Vietnam War in order to say: I didn't support that.
Would it have changed the outcome one tiny whit? No. Would I have been less effective as a part (albeit tiny) of the slow but steady movement of the voting public away from supporting the war? Yes. So what would have been the net gain?
Decidedly negative.
Any decisions on economic boycotts should be made with a view to their effects. I'm typing this on an Apple computer. Apple is donating one million dollars to Trump's inauguration festivities. I could have decided, on hearing that, to throw it in the trash.
And get what to replace it? My noble act would have done nothing to Apple's bottom line, and the replacement would have had no greater moral value. Yes, FB gets a nanocent or two from the mere existence of my account, but there are literally thousands of other ways that I support, in the same way, activities which are directed against what I stand for. It can't be helped in our society.
My use of FB has mainly been for personal exchanges (the cyber-gossip function that I originally thought would be its only one) and for promoting my book. I've made little use of it for political or other polemical purposes (apart from one private group), and will use it that way even less in the future. Those posts simply don't matter; their effective chemical potential is in the noise. And to sacrifice the value of those relationships, and the sales (however modest) of a valuable book, for effectively no return is not rational.
Quite a few years ago, Col. Claus von Stauffenberg was asked by a junior colleague if it would be a good idea for him to make a possibly major sacrifice to join in the effort that the colonel was leading. Stauffenberg said, in essence: don't waste your life on a sacrifice unless you think you have a meaningful chance to succeed; save it for when you do.
Now I don't mean to imply that Zuck is as worthy of opposition and vanquishing as von Stauffenberg's opponent was, but the analogy is close enough to be useful. I'll continue to use my voice, however soft it too often is, to oppose the hate that he offers to afford us in pursuit of his own enrichment, and I'll use any channels (which I consider essentially weapons) available. Most of that effort will be on other platforms (please follow me on Substack!), but if and when FB can be useful, I'll use it.
Live long and prosper. And may the Force be with you.
As an Indie author who connects in important ways with her readers using Facebook, I do not anticipate leaving the platform anytime soon. That said, I'm seeing post after post by my readers saying they ARE leaving. Some say they're going to Bluesy, and I have an account there, but it's organized like Twitter rather than FB, and I'm struggling to see how to make connections. It's going to be a whole new learning curve.
I've taken to contacting my readers who are still on FB, one by one in DM, and asking if they'd be wiling to share their address. (Most don't put this info into their personal FB data.) What a chore!
I wrote this on FB on 12 January:
A note about Facebook
There has been a lot of talk on social media regarding social media recently; catalyzed by SZuckerberg's announcement to the world of what 99% of it already knew: that he doesn't so much as know what an ethical principle is (let alone have one in his body). The only surprise in this is that he finally feels comfortable with the disclosure; apparently feeling that the man whose good graces he hopes to gain by his groveling will protect him along with adding to his modest (compared to the real god Musk) fortune.
The feeling of many is that we should no longer use any of Meta's platforms because of this. I understand the sentiment. I don't agree with it.
Using the platform no more identifies me with its content than living in the U.S. identifies me with its imperialist wars, which I've supported with my taxes because I could not live here otherwise. To be sure, I could have emigrated in the midst of the Vietnam War in order to say: I didn't support that.
Would it have changed the outcome one tiny whit? No. Would I have been less effective as a part (albeit tiny) of the slow but steady movement of the voting public away from supporting the war? Yes. So what would have been the net gain?
Decidedly negative.
Any decisions on economic boycotts should be made with a view to their effects. I'm typing this on an Apple computer. Apple is donating one million dollars to Trump's inauguration festivities. I could have decided, on hearing that, to throw it in the trash.
And get what to replace it? My noble act would have done nothing to Apple's bottom line, and the replacement would have had no greater moral value. Yes, FB gets a nanocent or two from the mere existence of my account, but there are literally thousands of other ways that I support, in the same way, activities which are directed against what I stand for. It can't be helped in our society.
My use of FB has mainly been for personal exchanges (the cyber-gossip function that I originally thought would be its only one) and for promoting my book. I've made little use of it for political or other polemical purposes (apart from one private group), and will use it that way even less in the future. Those posts simply don't matter; their effective chemical potential is in the noise. And to sacrifice the value of those relationships, and the sales (however modest) of a valuable book, for effectively no return is not rational.
Quite a few years ago, Col. Claus von Stauffenberg was asked by a junior colleague if it would be a good idea for him to make a possibly major sacrifice to join in the effort that the colonel was leading. Stauffenberg said, in essence: don't waste your life on a sacrifice unless you think you have a meaningful chance to succeed; save it for when you do.
Now I don't mean to imply that Zuck is as worthy of opposition and vanquishing as von Stauffenberg's opponent was, but the analogy is close enough to be useful. I'll continue to use my voice, however soft it too often is, to oppose the hate that he offers to afford us in pursuit of his own enrichment, and I'll use any channels (which I consider essentially weapons) available. Most of that effort will be on other platforms (please follow me on Substack!), but if and when FB can be useful, I'll use it.
Live long and prosper. And may the Force be with you.
I agree. And it shocks me that people are so willing to give up their own voices in the name of protest. What gives?
This was as scary as it was inspiring. I will not roll over and play dead. But yikes!
As an Indie author who connects in important ways with her readers using Facebook, I do not anticipate leaving the platform anytime soon. That said, I'm seeing post after post by my readers saying they ARE leaving. Some say they're going to Bluesy, and I have an account there, but it's organized like Twitter rather than FB, and I'm struggling to see how to make connections. It's going to be a whole new learning curve.
I've taken to contacting my readers who are still on FB, one by one in DM, and asking if they'd be wiling to share their address. (Most don't put this info into their personal FB data.) What a chore!
We'll have to see how it sorts out. A lot of people clamor, but then they don't do whatever they speak about.
Thanks for this Jude. I believe you are right. Let's not obey by silencing ourselves.
Yes! This makes total sense. Thank you for the logic.
It's awful, but for now, I need it. Zuckerberg seems to have no shame left.