This paper looks at Facebook, the popular social networking site, and explores some of the negative impacts the site can have on its members.  This paper considers the perspective of individuals who use Facebook for personal reasons, with their primary motivation being to renew and maintain friendships.  The key area that will be examined is that contrary to Facebook being considered a device to socially network, it actually infuses separation and generates antisocial patterns of behaviour, which are isolating to the individual and actually detach them from society. 

To explore this detachment, this paper will seek to answer some of the following questions; Do we use Facebook to fill a void? Is our behaviour addictive? Do our ‘real’ friendships suffer and has our experience of connecting shifted?

“Australians lead the world in spending time on social networks” (Bantick, 2010).  Facebook has 6.4 million users in Australia, equating to almost 40% of the countries on-line population having a Facebook account (Alban, 2009).

The site has been successful in drawing in a diverse range of age groups, the largest segment of users being 25-34 years old with 29.3% of people having a Facebook account, the second largest segment being 18-24 year olds with 28.8%. (Alban, 2009).  Facebook has become so ingrained in our culture, such a routine part of our day to day lives interacting on the site has become the norm for many people – in fact Australians spend 29% of their online time using Facebook (McIntyre, 2009).

Early virtual communities’ saw members join in order to initiate connections with strangers and interact with like minded people. These actions were about affiliating with an online community, and “doing everything people do when people get together, but with words on a computer screen, leaving our bodies behind” (Rheingold, 1988).  The marked difference with early virtual communities such as ‘The WELL’ (Rheingold, 1988) is that it was common themes and interests which brought people together, with discussions, debates and arguments taking place.  In contrast, with the transformation into ‘relational communities’ (Aguiton and Cardon, 2007) such as Facebook, its premise is developed around who you know and not what you know.  It does not encourage thoughtful interaction.  Nor does it promote quality of connections over quantity.  Early virtual communities, despite users often being required to use their real names, allowed them an extent of anonymity – it would be rare to meet or cross paths with friends from their virtual world. Many Facebook users would be uneasy at the prospect of being so expressive.   This is especially true when taking into account the different social contexts of Facebook, in that your close friends are privy to the same information as your boss.    We yearn for recognition and approval through our interactions, yet the scope to truly express our thoughts and feelings is absent.  Early virtual communities with no links to physical identity and little prospect of any come-back in real life, enjoyed this freedom and luxury.

Virtual communities have now evolved to the point where the “hunger for community” (Reingold, 1988) has given way to a ‘hunger for attention’, leading to trivial and inconsequential exchanges within the Facebook world “I don’t give a hoot that you are “having a busy Monday,” your child “took 30 minutes to brush his teeth,” your dog “just ate an ant trap” or you want to “save the piglets.” And I really, really don’t care which Addams Family member you most resemble” (Bernstein, 2009). 

Facebook’s motto claims “to help you connect and share with the people in your life” (Facebook, 2010).  One of the perceived advantages of Facebook is that it strengthens weak ties; Granovetter defines ties as “a combination of the amount of time, emotional intensity, intimacy (mutual confiding) and the reciprocal services which characterise the tie” (Granovetter, 1973).  Weak ties are considered useful in that they “facilitate the exchange of information between distinct groups, and help to expedite the flow of ideas among groups” (Kavanaugh, Reese, Carroll, Rossen, 2003).  The downfall with Facebook is that whilst providing a medium for weak tie relationships to exist, it is precisely the excessive number of these types of relationships that provide persistent distractions to users.  It is not uncommon for people to stalk Facebook profiles without even saying ‘hello’ (Heffernan, 2009).  This acting as “an invisible audience” (Boyd, 2007) is probably the most dismal and unconstructive type of Facebook behaviour, peering into friends lives with no intention of making ourselves known or initiating conversation. Is such “social voyeurism” and “insight into society at large” worth the expense? (Boyd, 2007).  Such easy access into people’s lives lures us away from paying attention to reality. 

Maintaining weak tie relationships can have its benefits, yet it is important that it has its place.  Facebook is a trap, which allows people to spend disproportionate amounts of time away from doing more worthwhile activities or spending real, quality time with other human beings.  Moreover, it has become apparent that “social networking sites like Facebook are diluting the quality of relationships” (McClellan, 2009). This is because we choose to interact with even our closest circle of friends and family through Facebook, and because this keeps us ‘in the loop’ we allow more time to pass between real life catch ups.  The need to spend time with those people becomes less of a priority because Facebook enables us to constantly be on the periphery of their lives, whilst giving us a degree of rationalisation for our lack of effort. 

Studies have shown that people tend to prefer and find more satisfaction in repeated interactions with the same group of people.  If the same number of interactions takes place, yet these are with constantly changing groups, people will be less satisfied.  Similarly, if people cannot have repeated interactions with the same (or preferred) group of people this will also be found unsatisfactory (Baumeister and Leary, 1995). This is interesting when put in to the context of Facebook.  This means that although we are continually in the virtual presence of a variety friends and acquaintances, the customary bond is not able to transpire due to the lack of consistency and repeated interaction.  Therefore, the associated feelings of belonging and acceptance do not follow.  Fundamental needs are not being met.  Online relationships, no matter how frequent cannot replace the genuine happiness and fulfilment provided by physical companionship.  “Social networking sites should allow us to embellish our social lives, but what we find is very different. The tail is wagging the dog. These are not tools that enhance, they are tools that displace” (BBC, 2009).

There has also been research into associated health implications, which have arisen due to the increase in popularity of social networking in general “it is clear that this is a growing public health issue….Children are now experiencing less social interaction and have fewer social connections during key stages of their physiological, emotional and social development. An increasing proportion of men and women are living alone during their ‘mating years’ having far fewer social contacts. And as the greying of the population continues, the incidence and effects of social isolation are pronounced.” (Institute of Biology, 2009).

Why then does Facebook become addictive to so many?  Humans have a basic need for belonging and “the desire for interpersonal attachments [is] a fundamental human motivation” (Baumeister & Leary 1995).  This, along with a need to fit in, be liked and approved by our peers, form a silent motivation for people to join social network sites, and are no doubt contributing factors to their ‘stickiness’.  Facebook provides a forum for people to try and meet these needs.   It also offers escapism without feeling isolation.  It’s communication without having to leave the comfort of our home.  It’s not actually networking in the traditional sense, but merely broadcasting our lives to our online audience (Bourg, 2009).   Facebook makes it easy for us to fool ourselves into believing we are being sociable and nurturing relationships. The type of interaction a Facebook user has is becoming less and less about expressing their individuality and strengthening relationships, and more about passing time, trying to fill a persistent void “at first with Facebook you can spend hours on it, but eventually you really know that you are wasting your time. It is a real problem if you don’t” (Pychyl, 2008).

An interesting trait of Facebook and other social networking sites is the visual representation of ‘friends’.  This ‘public display of connections is a crucial component” (Boyd and Ellison, 2007), and one which many will find reassuring and ego boosting.  It is not uncommon to see people with hundreds of friends – virtually an entire network of weak ties.  The more ‘friends’ you connect with, the more profiles you have access to, the more comments you add and read, literally an Aladdin’s cave for snoopers.   Facebook encourages you to accumulate as many friends as possible in order to seem popular whilst also asking you to suggest friends for other people, continually expanding everyone’s network.   Facebook has contributed to elevating the concept of social networking, making it the default form for online interactions.  The masses now believe that this is simply how social networking is done.  It is a shame that the dumbing down of friendships has occurred in the process.

Facebook has altered how we experience things, how we engage with those around us and immerse ourselves in life.   Pre-empting comments and witty anecdotes to make on our next post, taking photographs for the purpose of a flattering profile picture, updating our status from mobile devices whilst out at dinner.  These are examples of not being ‘in the moment’ with our secondary life on Facebook niggling at the back of our mind, wondering when we can next check back in.  Tailoring everything especially for our online audience “everything that happens in your life, you feel like sharing with your contacts on your status line. You post your thoughts and you expect the comment and when the comment comes, you smile if you like it or you frown if it’s not what you expected. All of a sudden, complete strangers are important to you and their comments leverage your value as a person”.  Why do we need to document every aspect of our lives?  “Facebook appeals to a kind of vanity and self-importance in us…if I put up a flattering picture of myself with a list of my favourite things, I can construct an artificial representation of who I am”. (Gadgetopia, 2008).  It allows us to control and construct ourselves in a positive light.  This constant desire for validation and approval can become a vicious circle.    

Peoples social skills are also affected, especially those of younger Facebook users who have not known life before computers or some form of networking tool, be it MySpace, MSN or email. Behavioural cues that are picked up on in real life can go undetected.  Emulating our peers, learning how to conform in real life situations and converse with people face to face is a skill most of us take for granted.  The impact of excessive online networking and the potential social ramifications should not be underestimated.

Conclusion

We continue to live through the ever changing world of the Internet and world wide web, which affords us a different and unique way of life, something that our parents and grandparents did not experience.  Our lives have been made easier, more efficient and enhanced in many ways.  This does becomes damaging, spiritually and physically when the internet is our only means for socialising and forming ties, be it weak or strong and “spending more time with computers and screens than human companions” (Rheingold, 1998).  We should avoid filling every gap in our day with social networking mediums.  As humans, we need to have down time, time to contemplate our lives and “to clear space for introspection and transformation”. (Orenstein, 2009). Allowing our lives to be sidetracked in this way only removes us further away from reaching our goals and finding the happiness and fulfilment we ultimately deserve.

References:

Aguiton C, and Cardon, D, 2007. The Strength of Weak Cooperation: an Attempt to Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.idate.fr/fic/revue_telech/696/CS65_AGUITON_CARDON.pdf

Alban, G (2009, August 20). Facebook Australia: Users Demographics and Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.seosydneyblog.com/2009/08/facebook-australia-user-statistics.html

Bantick, S (2010). Australians lead world in time spent socially online. Retrieved from http://www.itwire.com/your-it-news/entertainment/30681-australia-leads-world-in-time-spent-socially-online

Baumeister, R F., Leary, M.(1995). The Need to Belong: The desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Retrieved from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/stei0301/sp_bbk/BandM%20Need%20to%20Belong.pdf 

BBC, 2009. Online Networking Harms Health (2009, February 19).  Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7898510.stm

Bernstein,  (2009, August 25). Bonds / On Relationships: How Facebook Ruins Friendships. Wall Street Journal  (Eastern Edition),  p. D.1.  Retrieved March 26, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1844367151).

Bourg, C (2009, March 12). Facebook and the strength of weak ties. Retrieved from http://chrisbourg.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/facebook-and-the-strength-of-weak-ties/

Boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.danah.org/papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf

Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

Facebook, (2010, 31 March). Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com

Gadgetopia, (2008, January 14). An Anti Facebook Rant. Retrieved from http://gadgetopia.com/post/6248

Granovetter, M S (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties, American Journal of Sociology., Volume 78, Issue 6. Retrieved from http://171.67.216.14/dept/soc/people/mgranovetter/documents/granstrengthweakties.pdf

Heffernan, V. (2009, August). Facebook Exodus. New York Times Magazine,16-17.  Retrieved March 28, 2010, from Academic Research Library. (Document ID: 1852724581).

Institute of Biology, 2009.  Decline In Face-to-Face Contact Linked to Biological Changes in Humans As Social Networking Increases.  Retrieved from http://www.aricsigman.com/IMAGES/PR.Well.Connected.pdf

Kavanaugh, A., Reese, D., Carroll, J M., Rossen M B., (2003) Weak Ties in Networked Communities. Retrieved from http://www.socio-informatics.de/fileadmin/IISI/upload/C_T/2003/kavanaugh.pdf

McClellan, S.. (2009, November). Is Facebook Getting Uncool for 18-24s? Adweek, 50(41), 58.  Retrieved March 26, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1914801761)

McIntyre, P (2009, November 20). Woe is Bebo: Site to shut down in Australia.  Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/woe-is-bebo-site-to-shut-down-in-australia-20091119-iox3.html

Orenstein, P. (2009, March). Growing Up On Facebook. New York Times Magazine,11-12.  Retrieved March 28, 2010, from Academic Research Library. (Document ID: 1664143731).

Phycl,, T (2008, April 3). Facebook – a whole new world of wasting time. Psychology Today. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/200804/facebook-whole-new-world-wasting-time

Rheingold, H. (1988). A Slice of Life in my Virtual Community. Whole Earth Review.
Retrieved from http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/bdgtti/bdgtti_18.html

<a rel=”license” href=”http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/”><img alt=”Creative Commons License” style=”border-width:0″ src=”http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/2.5/au/88×31.png” /></a><br /><span xmlns:dc=”http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/” href=”http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text” property=”dc:title” rel=”dc:type”>Facebook: Taking the ’social’ out of networking</span> by <a xmlns:cc=”http://creativecommons.org/ns#” href=”http://networkconference.netstudies.org/2010/04/facebook-taking-the-social-out-of-networking/” property=”cc:attributionName” rel=”cc:attributionURL”>Facebook: Taking the ’social’ out of networking</a> is licensed under a <a rel=”license” href=”http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/”>Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Australia License</a>.