This post is a little out of left field. It has nothing to do with photography or art though at a stretch it may have something to do with human nature so it may still has a place in this blog I suppose.
I get photography, I get art but I admit to often being at a loss when exploring human nature, including my own.
In this instance however I find my nature at odds with those of many friends and acquaintances, especially those of my generation. This topic has been in my thoughts for a long time but I continue to be baffled and perhaps writing about it will help sort something out.
The Internet, like all things in life, has its pros and its cons. What is more, the Internet is made up of many parts with each part having its pros and its cons. As I see it, the Internet’s major pro is that it is a repository of all knowledge (granted, this could be argued as a con too), available to most people, at least in the Western world. Another pro as I see it, is that the Internet is a connector of people and that is the part I want to explore because that too has its pros and cons. Initially we had email to connect people and forums too. Now we have many other means of connecting. MySpace, Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, Instagram, Google+, Pinterest to name just a few. Each of these applications have their pros and cons but there is one word that keeps popping up to describe some of these and that word is “creepy”. And I just don’t get that. This word is mostly applied to Google and Facebook though I’ve heard it used with Instagram and I suspect it won’t be long before I hear it about Twitter when they start changing their business model to monetize the site.
Just to be sure, I understand creepy as being a sensation of repulsion or unease or fear. Maybe even horror at one extreme. If there’s another definition, one that is perhaps more contemporary and less extreme, than I am happy to hear it.
Sites like Facebook have a lot things going against them. Things like aesthetics and ease of use come to mind, but creepiness? A guy in a trench-coat loitering outside a pre-school is creepy, a guy spying on his neighbours with binoculars is creepy, unexpectedly walking into a big spider-web can feel creepy, but a computer program? Why do people get creeped-out by social sites? Am I missing something? It can’t be the targeted advertising because surely everyone knows that is nothing more than an algorithm, right? One friend told me he didn’t like the idea that the people who run the web site might be reading his updates. Really?!
I remember the days when every time a significant event occurred in my life I would make dozens of copies of photos, write dozens of letters and post them to dozens of people across the world. Some people might miss getting mail, real mail, but I certainly do not miss writing letters to each and every family member and friend around the world every time someone over here had a birthday or wedding or graduation. A site like Facebook lets me do it in one place and I’m happy to put up with an ugly and unfriendly interface for the convenience. Plus, the immediacy of getting responses, sharing thoughts and staying in contact with people thousands of miles away is an absolute joy and for that I am happy to put up with ugly advertisements; after all, server farms don’t come cheap, nor the real-estate on which they reside.
I know a lot of people who don’t use Facebook or any social sites (in my age group that is the norm). On the occasions that I ask why, my expectation as to what the response might be lies along the lines of “I don’t need it” or “I don’t understand it” or “I don’t care about keeping in touch with anyone” or “I’ve got nothing to say and most people bore me” or even “I would get addicted and I can’t afford the time”. Any of these reasons would make sense to me but instead I always get “It’s not safe”, “I don’t want people knowing what I do”, “I’ve heard people get robbed blind” and of course, the most common one, “It’s creepy”.
Connecting people on the scale that the Internet has done isn’t all good and dandy. There are some serious cons to balance out the pros. I don’t deny that for a minute. Nor do I deny that opinions are easily formed and strongly defended when it comes to such charged topics as social media but I can’t help wonder if such opinions only end up being bars in the prisons of the mind.
I am happy to be called naïve or even stupid for not seeing the creepiness in some of these services as long as it is explained to me because I would dearly like to understand what, exactly, is actually creepy.
Cedric, leaving aside all those often superficial discussions about the value of befriendedness in facebook, leaving out also the bullying and mobbing that can happen in real world as well as in social networks (where, however, it’s probably harder to fight), what I do truly dislike and why I don’t login there except on very rar occasions:
That small “f” button, that you also sport on your blog, is tracing the most perfect graph of your wanderings through the web that has ever been done. The small “f” comes with a cookie and within there your facebook UUID (or whatever they call it), and the cookie together with the referer tells facebook where you’ve been and how long, where you came from and where you go to. (Oh yes, and analytics can do similar things if you have a google account).
Maybe you should have a look at Jason Benlevi’s “Too much Magic: Pulling the Plug on the Cult of Tech” as a starter, and read Cory Doctorov’s “Scroogled”.
For myself I’ve decided not to use analytics despite its capacities, and not to put “f” and other sharing links on my blog. With my own browsing, I cull my cookies regularly when I close the browser, so I can live comfortably and reasonably hope not to leave too many traces.
Superficial discussions, they’ve been around since Adam was a pup. Value of befriending, I’ve known people in my time who had no problems hooking up with total strangers in a bar and going home with them for a one night stand. Bullying and mobbing, I think it’s safe to say there is nothing new there. Sure, social media has made it a little more obvious how weird people can be but in that respect nothing has really changed.
As for the tracking, I know about that, I work in this industry and short of complete abstinence from the Internet it is exceptionally difficult to remain private. I understand though I’m not sure what you mean by “f” as I don’t see it on my site but I assume you mean buttons that let you share pages on Facebook or whatever site. Ok, I grant you that a lot of stuff that gets shared on the Internet is weird and it’s equally weird that people think that everyone else is interested in pictures of cats or pithy quotes but I still don’t get the “creepy” aspect. I choose the people I friend or follow. They are people I have met personally or who have won my trust. As far as I can tell however, all the tracking that goes on is done by algorithms on computers with all the data bits concerning me being just so many bits among trillions of billions of other bits. If someone was to tell me that there was some specific person who was following my every move on the Internet then I guess that would make it creepy (I would also feel sorry for that person for having nothing better to do). And if you were to say that there was no one doing that but that the point is that someone could if they wanted to then I would have to say: there’s nothing new with that either. And I’m saying this from personal experience.
I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying Markus, or Benlevi or Doctorov. All I’m saying is that I still don’t understand what it is that is so creepy. And I grant you that I may just be plain naïve. Or stupid (I’ve accumulated plenty of evidence to support both claims).
The answer is: Manti Te’o. The Manti Te’o story is why it’s “creepy”. His little story of “virtual” stupidity or nonsense (take your pick) is why we should be uneasy or apprehensive or, yes, even fearful of internet social connectivity. It is the great paradox of the so-called “internet revolution”, is it not? We can connect with the world at will (so long as we have a computer or tablet or smartphone) and yet all too often those connections involve no real person – to – person contact. We don’t know who (or what) we’re actually “connecting” with. Most of the time, that doesn’t really matter. But sometimes it does.
Manti Te’o, of course, is the All-American football player from Notre Dame who became famous to a much wider audience when it was found that his girlfriend didn’t actually exist. According to Te’o, she had died on the same day as his grandmother, making him a very sympathetic sports hero. Long story short, it was then discovered that the girl not only didn’t die, she had never actually existed. Te’o had never even met her (although at one point he claimed to have talked to her on the phone). It had been a “virtual” relationship. He had been duped by a cruel hoax, he said. Yeah, right. I’d always thought that Notre Dame was a school for “smart” people. Guess I was wrong.
Then, of course, there’s all those other people – the conspiracy nuts – who also connect using these social sites. Like the Newtown shooting conspiracy folks who believe that the government was responsible for slaughtering 20 young children. Or that the government is coming to take away their guns. Or that President Obama was born in Kenya. These people literally “feed” off of each other. They quote each other over and over again until a lie becomes an absolute truth. A United States senator (Rand Paul) actually used one of these “truths” in the Hillary Clinton hearings last week. It was bizarre (and scary).
I think that’s what people mean when they say it’s “creepy”. Mobs are creepy – even when they’re virtual. People used to say that things must be true if they read them in a newspaper. That certainly wasn’t always a valid argument. But at least you knew who to hold responsible. Who do you hold responsible for things you “learn” on a social website? I agree that keeping in touch with family and friends is much easier today. That part isn’t at all “creepy”. But the larger virtual community is, I think.
I know that this wasn’t a photographic post, but I really like the image. It’s dark and moody and perhaps just a little “creepy”?
Paul, I believe you are correct when you say “that’s what people mean when they say it’s creepy”. That is what they believe but to me, none of the examples you give are creepy. They are all simply examples of human nature at its worst rather than examples of social media creepiness. Cruel jokes, conspiracy nuts, cults, falsehoods, plagiarism, they are all, as you say bizarre and scary but they are not factors of Internet based social media but rather factors of humanity. These things have been around forever.
As for the part about responsibility, yes, that is a good point. Anonymity on the Internet is definitely one of the cons of this technology but then again it can also be seen as a positive under certain circumstances. And a virtual community is no more creepy (to me) than the strangers I sit with everyday on my daily commute to work, or the community in my suburb or any of the other non-virtual communities I can think of. As I said in the post, everything, including the Internet and all its associated technology has pros and cons. But like I said to Markus, maybe it’s just me.
Thanks for liking the photo. I was going more for gloomy, engulfing, suffocating and oppressive. The way I find some of my opinions make me feel ;)
One last thought, Cedric: You’re right when you say “these things have been around forever”. Yes, they are “factors of humanity”. I suspect that these traits of our humanity (or lack thereof) will be with us for another few thousand years. Not much we can do about that. But I think that the advent of universal access to the internet and social media sites has been something of a “game-changer”. And not in a good way.
In the dismalness of our Webster winters, my wife tends to spend a lot of time following sites like “The Blaze” and “The Drudge”, as well as more middle of the road media sites like The Huffington Post and Politico. She seems to like to know what the kooks are thinking on a day to day basis. From time to time she’ll show me some of the whackiness. Again, it’s scary stuff. Especially when you read some of the thinly veiled threats they routinely throw out. What’s really upsetting is knowing that these folks are not a small slice of the population – there’s a lot of them. Not a majority, certainly, but big enough to cause concern.
Once more, they’re not “new”. They’ve always been here. But instead of hunkering down in their own little dark corners, they’ve been mobilized and energized by the web. Worse, they draw more people into their bubble of insanity. As the old saying goes, there is safety in numbers. If I can see that others have the same view that I do, then there must be some credence to it. If millions believe, then it must be “true”.
The web – or more correctly, specific social media sites – becomes a kind of universal enabler. It’s like throwing an accelerant on a slowly burning fire. What was once controllable is no longer controllable. You can’t isolate it. It’s like the flu – if I have it in the middle of the Utah desert, no big deal. I’m not likely to infect anyone else. But if I’m carrying it in the middle of New York City, big problem.
Pardon the silly metaphors, but it’s like a statistical interaction – the effect of one variable depends on the level of another variable. Twenty years ago, the Manti Te’o phenomenon doesn’t happen. The “Truthers” could have their annual meeting in someone’s closet. The ability to spread and disseminate dangerous silliness, in other words, has been exponentially magnified by the existence of social media sites. And for me, that’s creepy. Simply referring to it as one of the “cons” of the internet understates its significance, I think.
That’s perhaps one of the best arguments against social media sites, that such sites are enablers of mob mentality. There’s no denying that mobs are scary (and exceedingly stupid), be they real or virtual. But here’s my counter argument to that; for every scary story enabled by the Internet, I am certain I can find a story of great humanity equally enabled by the Internet. This kind of links to the meaning behind my photograph and the title of this post. We all form opinions about things, it’s natural and necessary if we are to get by in this world but as soon as we become attached to them then those opinions starts to shape the world we see. We start seeing patterns or trends where there may in fact be none. We fall prey to the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Or at the very least we suffer from confirmation bias.
If the Internet magnifies “dangerous silliness” then I am certain it magnifies unbridled kindness and anything else we care to name. It may just depend on what our opinions want us to see.
Or I’m just a freakin’ stupid optimist, but we’ve already had that argument right? ;)
Some things feel right while others do not. Creepy is not the word I’d use but some social networks do not feel right to me and I therefore to not use them. I have a friend who has two facebook accounts, one for his games and one personal. These social networks can be consuming where people spend too much time on them. Life cannot be lived through our computers so those individuals worry me. I watch my grandson spend 4 hour stretches on facebook or youtube or reddit or whatever. Good post!
I can accept that Monte, “not feeling right”. That sort of feeling can come from cultural bias or generational bias or whatever else. I can understand those kinds of reasons for not liking social media. I can also understand closing an account because it becomes addictive. But like you Monte, I just don’t think “creepy” is the right word or reason. And your concerns about living life through our computers are valid issues to be concerned about but again I do not find it creepy.
I recently installed the Ghostery plugin to Google Chrome and was surprised on the amount of tracking sites there are, some places use half a dozen different. In principle Ghostery allows you to control tracking sites … though I’m not really worried about it, rather I’m interested in knowing what is going on.
On the other hand, I feel there is something strange about some social sites, especially Facebook, where I do have an account but have stopped using it. And creepy is not really the right word, “alienated” might be a better one – however, deep down, I feel that this isn’t anything new or worrisome or unnatural at all, it is just that social media allows us to see certain aspects of our own behaviour, to which we normally don’t pay attention to, or which is not visible to such degree.
That’s a definite possibility Juha, as Paul pointed out in his comment above, social media can be an enabler or even a magnifier of specific human behaviours. What has me fascinated is why the negative aspects appear to take prevalence over all the other great achievements enabled by the Internet.
I’m also fascinated by your feeling of alienation. You’re not alone (irony not intended). I’ve heard that mentioned before though I haven’t had the opportunity to explore that further. Someday if we get to meet, perhaps we can discuss it :)
IMO situations can be “Creepy” but I don’t personally see this applying to any specific site or software program. However, as Paul mentioned above, I believe some of these social networks provide easy opportunities for “creepy situations” to develop or occur — enablers. Even the definition of what, for an individual, might fall into being creepy is very dependent upon social norms, personal background and one’s belief system.
In some cases people share so much information, or present it in such a way, it crosses beyond my own comfort zone or belief system and I start feeling uncomfortable with it — creepy. However, the term creepy for me would be used for a narrow range of activities. Mob rule, bullying or discrimination in any form is simply wrong and hurtful, but I wouldn’t define it as creepy.
As far as these powerful Internet entities trying to track your every move in order to turn this valuable marketable information into a revenue stream — I may find this invasive but not necessarily creepy. Our lives are now so entrenched in the electronic data highway I’m not sure one can ever expect total privacy unless you live completely off the grid…no computer, no service accounts (TV,Phone,Utilities,Credit), and no banking or investments. True, we can try and limit our exposure but in doing so we often limit our convenience and functionality. I wouldn’t personally call this creepy.
Cedric, Interesting topic and nice photo to boot.
We’ve turned into a country (and world too) of extremes it seems. Creepy isn’t the word I’d use, but people toss it around as if everything they may not be comfortable with falls into that category. People use “Amazing” to describe things, when amazing is clearly NOT what they’re describing. If you’re a gun owner, you think Obama wants to take all your guns, if you’re for gun control you think Obam skeet shooting is disgraceful. Extremes. Responses need to be more measured, thought out. Describing Facebook as “creepy seems extreme to me – it’s just a tool to be used and unfortunatley, abused as well, like any tool can be.
Excellent post – thanks! (Oh dear, was excellent too extreme?) ;-)