Something that I’ve been fascinated with ever since being involved in the creation of one of the first social networking websites, was how the medium of the internet could enrich people’s lives. The idea of the internet used to be alien, and many people that I spoke to had this idea that the fairly anonymous person on the other end of your computer terminal was either a spotty faced social-retard or a lecherous old dude pretending to be a chick. I knew this wasn’t always the case, as none of my friends who used the internet fit these stereotypes.The motivation for creating this networking site was to allow people to communicate, with the intention of meeting up ‘out there’ in the physical world. Increase the number of people you come into contact with, and you up the chance of developing rich relationships. That was the idea at least and for a while, it seemed to work; people would report back telling us that they met their new spouse on our site, but the site eventually evolved into something that was more akin to a porn site, dating websites became popular, more serious social networking sites emerged and the ‘party’ site we had built over was left drifting somewhere in the middle, staying afloat on it’s last planks of identity.

It had been 2 years, 7 months and 14 days since I first signed my privacy to Facebook’s data-hungry servers. Then yesterday I decided to vacate the site altogether. Although I had acquired hundreds of new contacts, and at the few clicks of a mouse I could stalk any one of them…  I felt that it was diluting the quality of my relationship with people in general. The information that people choose to present to you in real life, is a fraction of what they are capable of showing you. Through all the different aspects of their personality, they limit it down to the kind of person they want you to see them as. But online, through a social networking site, this quality of communication is a minute slither of that fraction. You don’t get to study body language, there’s no chance to touch, no smells, no awkward silences, no brief glimpse of eyes darting to the side that hopefully went unnoticed when you were telling a lie. And all the time, I kept telling myself that by using this site I was strengthening the bonds of my relationships with people.

By writing this blog post online, I’m a hypocrite. Perhaps I should broadcast this conversation as a movie in smell-o-vision instead of just creating and then re-editing my words into a muted text version of my own thoughts. Or maybe we should meet up sometime soon and have a lengthy conversation about it in some overcrowded English pub with a log fire crackling in the next room, pieces of burnt ash drifting their way into the fibres of our clothes.

I feel that the term Social Networking should be renamed to Social Entertainment, and that some day during the evolution of the internet, it may give birth to a tool which enriches the quality of our relationships with other humans. In the meantime, if you’re interested in trading up the hours that you invest in Facebook for a bit more free time to phone a loved one or start a fight with your neighbour, then this might be of interest to you.

The premise of the lecture was that through audience participation, we were to vote on whether this renowned(?) designer was a ‘Genius or Wanker’. At the end, a public ballot was held to determine the outcome, by holding up a piece of paper with the respective word on it. More than half of the people voted for the more positive outcome of Genius, but it didn’t seem to match with how he presented himself during this interview.

One of the topics that was discussed was a recent verbal slaughtering that he had received on an online forum. I kind of agreed with what he was saying; about how people might use such an anonymous form of communication to express themselves in a harsh and judgemental way. But would he be complaining about the conduit if someone praised him highly on the very same website? I doubt it, and it seems silly to dismiss the validity of a comment based on how it affects you on a personal level.

So it seems that it’s frowned upon to make negative comments towards an individual. Even if the negative comments are intended to be honest communication. I’ve seen this censorship occur in the absence of the facebook dislike button; where a website will choose to restrict people’s methods of communication (for whatever reasons, I can only speculate).

Jumping back to the present, in this open well lit lecture hall, where work colleagues sit next to each other discussing their vote at the end of  this semi-contrived social experiment. In light of the presumed social stigma of making a negative comment, how are these people expected to make an unbiased vote on this persons character?

Throughout the lecture, I developed the impression that the person we were scrutinising was no more than a regular guy, with strengths and flaws just like anyone else. The thing that did seem to set him apart though, was his desire to repeatedly contradict himself when trying to satisfy the audiences not-so-well thought out questions. We all live with contradictory aspects of our character, but he didn’t seem like he was able to present that to the audience. Without a shovel in sight, he dug his own hole by trying to appease other people. Instead of acceptance, there seemed to be a big dirt pile of denial. Not the kind of person I would say that I admire in any industry.

My Genius idea would be to stage a recount in a completely unbiased environment. I want to believe that the outcome of the vote would be different. But maybe the part of me that’s saying that is just a complete and utter Wanker.

Will the Internet manifest itself in a less external manner, combining itself with the human race at a biological level? I’ve always wondered about the effects of all this binary data that is tearing through our bodies. Will we evolve to be able to hear this information, as we evolved to listen and interpret sound waves? What if we develop the ability to send as well as receive data? We’ll be walking operating systems, or maybe we’ll have grown out of physical activity by that point, and we will finally have a version of telepathic communication.

Maybe we’ll fast forward through Nature’s own plans and install mechanical devices that hook straight into our central nervous system. Maybe we’ll all be mind readers by the year 2020. Maybe we won’t survive to see any of this because, like the dominant species on the planets before us, the ride is over and we have to join the back of the queue again.

I digress… partly because I’m feeling lousy today, and partly because I went to a theme park the other day and wanted to sneak this into the conversation somehow.

An important thing to consider, is that the future of the Internet is in our own hands. It can be a way to help us manage our overflowing jar of identities. It can be the future city in which our virtu-self will live for eternity (or until someone pulls the plug). It can be the key to connecting the human race and sharing information in ways that we never thought were possible. It can be all of the above, or whatever we want it to be.

Why do we use Facebook, in particular? I asked a couple of people why they used it, and got some interesting responses. Some people get dates, some get business contacts, some get a sense of connection with friends that live too far away and some people simply get entertainment from it. I liked the way one of my friends said that it was like sending a bulk email, but without the guilt of feeling like a spammer (has Facebook managed to simply re-brand the bulk email into something less annoying?). The common thing here, is that we all ‘get’ something. So because we are continuously being provided with ‘rewards’, we continue to use it. There are a limited number of things that we can do on the site, which makes it easier for the other junkies to respond with an encouraging message or a ‘I like this’. Where are the ‘dislike’ links, may I ask? And why is it that we can only ‘like’ something? If we can only respond in this manner with either a neutral (not clicking the like link) or a positive (clicking the link), then where did the negative go? Is the neutral now taking on the role of the negative, and if so, does that mean that the hundred or so people that don’t click that they like the link, actually mean that they don’t like it?

I was going to suggest that Facebook mirrors how we interact with people in our lives outside of our browser portals, but in a fast paced way, driven by the speed of communication that the advent of the internet provides us. It could be regarded as a tool to fish for rewards, except this is the trawler that sucks up a whole load of shrimp in one go. If this was truly a reflection of our normal daily lives; just another step in the progress of man rather than a shift in direction, then why are we encouraged to make only positive comments? I know the option is still there to make negative ones, it’s just not as easy to do so. I imagine that if there was a dislike link, then the number of possible reward catches per day would be reduced by the number of negative dolphins that you caught in your net whilst scraping the bottom of the ocean. I would imagine then, that people would use Facebook less, and that doesn’t seem to be something that this Business would want to happen. So, it’s a controlled system… not exactly a surprise…

Do I want to be getting reward from a system that reflects an over simplified version of communication? I like life, I like it’s complexities. I’m not saying that Facebook is a bad boy and should be sent to his room without any supper, I’m just saying that if you’re going to play together, then just remember that he is slightly retarded and despite it being fun to beat him at Junior Scrabble, don’t neglect your other more intelligent friends, who although won’t be so easy to beat at word games, could provide a much greater reward over a longer period of time (and will actually tell you if they don’t like something).