No Free Lunch!

I was first introduced to the internet when I was in grade 4 but I never thought that such technology would be a big part of my life. Back then, it meant nothing to me. It had no significance until reached grade 6 when all my classmates were gushing about MIRC, Yahoo! Messenger and Friendster. That was the time I felt the need to explore and embrace the new technology for fear of being an outcast. That was the only time I asked my mother for us to have our own internet connection at home. At present we have a broadband internet, wi fi and Globe Tattoo providing for my daily dose of internet. I am no longer gaga about Y!M, my jejemon days in Friendster and MIRC but I have Tumblr, Twitter and Facebook that’s consuming most of online time. Even though the internet and the web have evolved, in terms of technology and content, one thing remains the same. The web is still enticing as ever.

The only reason why the web is appealing is because of the illusion that it has created- the myth of free. Sure, everyone wants anything that is given for free and in the web access to information is relatively at no cost. When I use Google.com to search for song lyrics, pictures of Jensen Ackles or a critique paper on Marxism I am not required by Google to pay an access fee of some sort. I can freely search whatever I want, click as many links I desire zero money charge. The same thing goes for social networking sites. Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t ask for membership fee for every Facebook member.

I can chat with my friends, poke people and write on everyone’s walls all day without paying a single centavo. Consuming online content for free makes access to information easy and practical. Why pay for journals and articles when you can search for other reliable sites?Why buy music when there are free songs online?

I used to feel like a little rascal stealing from Google, Yahoo and other sites every time I use their services. I used to think that I am cheating Google because I’m abusing its search engine and gmail without getting anything in return from me. Well, I was wrong. Google was using me more than I thought I was exploiting it. Google doesn’t want my money, it wants me. It wants my needs, my interests and likes so that they could give my very precious and private information containing my desires and interests to advertisers. As an effect, advertisements are made personalized based on what I might like and eventually buy. The currency online is not just monetary but also the individual users and what every click of their mouse say about themselves. Brilliant! This sucks not only because I am made into a commodity by another medium but because I was not the first one to think of it. Imagine if I invented something similar to Google, damn I’d be filthy rich by now. Kidding aside, making money out of the people (including me) who are consuming your product and services for without them knowing is a genius idea but it is also cheating. Who gave them the right to sell my information to advertisers but at the same time are there really prohibitions and morality in the internet?

Here is an excerpt from Douglas Rushkoff’s rant about social media and advertising:

I fought for so many years to convince people that the Net was a social medium in the first place. Until recently, everybody seemed to believe that “content is king,” and that all this messy socializing between people was of little value. It was all about getting people onto a sticky website so they’d make purchases. Their conversations and innermost thoughts were once considered utterly un-monetizable. But thanks to Twitter, YouTube and Facebook, social media has arrived as a justifiable expense for businesses looking to do whatever it is that’s intended to replace advertising. And as a result, people who should know better -– many of us who have some understanding of how social media actually works –- are busy working for companies who want to turn this social landscape back into a marketplace. (http://rushkoff.com/)

Knowing that every activity that I do online for free is gathered and collected by website owners and is traded to advertisers in exchange for money is quite disturbing. All of the information gathered about me is private and should be utilized by no one but me. Even though these information are listed anonymously, a Netflix research in University of Texas says that it is possible to “de-anonymized’ by statistically analyzing an individual’s distinctive pattern of movie ratings and recommendations.” In this case, I could be harmed by the things I, myself, posted online. WTF!

“When you’re doing stuff online, you should behave as if you’re doing it in public — because increasingly, it is (Kleinberg, 2010).” People think that the social media landscape is their own and it’s their prerogative to upload, post and write whatever they please on their Facebook profiles, Twitter pages and blogs. There are really no rules about abuse online and most people believe that there are no consequences in the web. As a result, the web has become a tool where people could express themselves more freely. Also, the emergence of Facebook made communication more “efficient” and flow of information “easier” but skeptics believe that it is transforming human communication and undermines relationships. But with the “Dunbar number” proves that Facebook is not changing our relationships because even though you have 10,000 friends (which Clay Shirky thinks that the word friend must be struck out for it to make sense) we only interact with only 5 out of the 10,000 of our friends. The notion that it changes human communication is a little bit extreme.

I think it’s time to reflect on what I have been giving Google, Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr. I think I am basically giving them everything about me. I am letting them know of what songs I listen to, what I have been up to (Yeg Umagat tagged 3 photos of you), where I have been (Here at Katipunan w/ @carlabalanza) and what’s bothering me (I just turned 21 last night…..) and so on. Basically, I am just “documenting” my offline life in the web for future references. I also use to talk to my friends and see updates about their lives. So am I giving too much of myself online? Maybe but not enough to put me in serious danger. I feel like that what happens in offline life that is put up in the web is worthless (except for advertisiers). I don’t see any harm in putting my thoughts and feelings online because my Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr are extentions of self. These sites are some of the things that best define me as a person. I may be slightly different online or offline but that is still me.

Although I have this notion of freedom to create, post and write whatever on the web I know that I still must be responsible of what I share to the world wide web. I should always be reminded that there is no such thing as delete in the web—everything will be there forever. My only worry now is that I might be haunted by my not –so-flattering-photos and rage driven tweets in the future.

Individual online information may seem harmless but if collected together it might cause serious damage not only to a person but to a whole nation. Fortunately, no significant use for this collective information has been discovered yet. So far, we are still safe but for how long?

There are no laws prohibiting companies from leeching information from us. Legal wise we are helpless but we can do our part in protecting our privacy. I agree with Chris Anderson in saying that we should not rely for government intervention to solve issues regarding privacy violations. The younger generation must be trained and taught about the consequences of what they do rather than depending on government for protection.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/digitalrevolution/2009/08/chris-anderson-on-free-and-pri.shtml

There is no need to be worried about the whole Facebook phenomenon but the culture created by the internet to the younger generation whose lives revolve on the internet is more alarming. Not knowing a life outside of the internet is deeply depressing because they are missing out on a lot of fun activities outdoors. Steven Fry said it best,

“We think our youth and our childhood are somehow if not perfect, it was even, if was imperfect, it made us suffer how dare these children now not suffer the way I did. They should be having the kind I did made to read, made to do this, they should not have this freedom this access, or if they do, while I can approve of it, I ought to suggest that it's dangerous that it's going to while I can approve it, I ought to suggest that it's dangerous it's going to go wrong.”

What is ironic about the Facebook phenomenon that brags about connecting people through a more efficient medium of communication is that it did strengthen communication ties of people online but it undermined personal relationships and real-life encounters. Although, Facebook promotes openness and transparency among different networks these values just remain online- it is not reflected in the real world. How many of your friends greeted you “Happy birthday” through your wall instead of calling/texting or making an effort to see you? How many of your friends would rather reap, cook or bake in a virtual world rather than making a conversation during dinner parties? How many of us put all our feelings, disappointments, and triumph in a form of a status message over talking to a friend about it? I know I am guilty of some of these Facebook things and I know I’m not alone. It might not be enough proof that such undermining of personal relationships among people happen but it does say a lot about its implication on digital natives’ behavior. It is good to look at why today’s generation feels the need to use social networking sites more than ever? Is Facebook a case of technological or cultural determinism? Did Facebook change the way people relate or did their behavior initiate the creation of Facebook?

The virtual revolution is very interesting to witness and I am excited on how it will develop in the next few years. Will it be successful in penetrating culture and human interactions? Will the internet sustain the “myth of free”? Will Google start charging its consumers for every search? Will the web proliferate as a marketplace or will it return to being just a “social media landscape”? Douglas Rushkoff has an interesting proposal about the internet but I disagree with him. Even though the internet is not what as it was advertised decades ago it doesn’t mean that it should be removed or changed. The government and the powerful (capitalism) have indirect control over the internet just to oversee and maintain order. These two organizations might set limitations online (wikileaks, bandwidth allocation etc.) but there is still a choice to resist. The virus is a form of resistance and also torrent and Limewire. These forms of resistance against consumerism and capitalism exist within the system of the web that feeds on advertisers and consumers. Foucault said that in order to destroy the system you must break it through the system.

No matter what happens the probability that people will still be embracing it the same way people patronize it today is quite high. No matter how adverse its risks are it is compensated by the rewards received by people. As for me, I am still bummed that all of my favorite sites are ripping money off of me, however, I think that is the price I have to pay. I wonder if deleting my cookies every now and then will help fight capitalism. Haha

Sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/digitalrevolution/2009/08/chris-anderson-on-free-and-pri.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/digitalrevolution/2009/10/rushes-sequences-stephen-fry.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/technology/17privacy.html?_r=2

http://rushkoff.com/2011/01/03/time-for-a-next-net/

http://rushkoff.com/

Image sources:

http://rushkoff.com/images/rushkoffbiosm.jpg

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lftnfd6aOz1qgpzvfo1_500.png

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lftljzIjVC1qe9ztzo1_500.gif