27 Jul 10 Facebook is just like real life
Stan James writes about how he thinks Facebook amplifies that demoralizing feeling you get when you see people raving about how glorious their lives are. He likens it to TV, and the idea that we’re all seeing a sanitized and unrealistically cheery version of each other.
Andrew Sullivan linked to the piece and excerpted:
Since TV was invented, critics have pointed out the dangers of watching the perfect people who seem to inhabit the screen. They are almost universally beautiful, live in interesting places, do interesting work (if they work at all), are unfailingly witty, and never have to do any cleaning. They never even need to use the toilet. It cannot be psychologically healthy to compare yourself to these phantasms. So it’s interesting that social networks have inadvertently created the same effect, but using an even more powerful source. Instead of actors in Hollywood, the characters are people that you know to be real and have actually met. The editing is done not by film school graduates, but by the people themselves.
There are certainly parts of this that are true. But I disagree with his overall argument that this is somehow different from life. Reality TV, in all it’s forehead-to-the-palm-of-your-hand idiocy, pretty strongly refutes the notion that TV stars are the sculpted Adonises that James claims. Also, fictional shows like, say, The Office, show their fair share of grit and grime (including ugly actors, boring locations, work place monotony, cleaning and bathrooms [see below]). Sure, The Office is about laughs, but TV’s focus is not as singular as it is made out to be. And, while Hollywood actors and actresses can be attractive, the success of shows like Ugly Betty imply that people, at some level, see through that.
Moreover, I think we all scrub our external-facing lives to make them appear as squeaky clean as possible. We all want to look suave (that’s why we comb our hair); we all want to appear intelligent (that’s why we’re proud to discuss our cool jobs/classes); we all hate doing house-chores (that’s why it’s always put off to the last minute). Therefore, the depiction of life that we project to others (while offline) is not so dissimilar from the rose-tinted lenses of TV, or Facebook.
For example, the idea of posting only flattering photos on one’s Profile Pictures album seems analogous to putting only happy memories on the mantle, to sending out Christmas cards every year with a smiling family and dog with a copy of the year’s annual family resume.
What makes this entire phenomenon either more or less pernicious to you is that, like in life, bad things can and do get through. Sprinkled among the portrait photos and the group shots, there is bound to be a goofy one here or there. Little details can slip through the cracks: an errant photo of you in an other-than-perfect smile gets tagged — watercooler gossip spreads virally in person. Maybe someone posts on your Wall about how crazyyyy last weekend was…and just like that, the picture isn’t like a TV set, it’s like real life again.
Ultimately, is it any more annoying when someone is gloating “loudly” on Facebook about their fabulous (fill in the blank: ______ job/house/car/kids) than when they do so in person?
I don’t think so (feel free to disagree), I think that’s just life.
Tags: andrew sullivan, christmas card, daily dish, Facebook, the office, tv, ugly betty
13 Dec 09 On Disrupting Your Own Technology
I don’t like shopping, but the one kind I will tolerate is hunting for tech goodies. Couple that with Black Friday deals from the comfort of my own laptop, and I’m all over it. This year, my little bro and I bought my dad a beautiful 42″ Sharp LCD 1080p TV. This of course necessitated discussions of replacing the current disc player in our family room, which, believe it or not, is actually a dual DVD/VHS player.
We were looking around at Blu-ray players, comparing and contrasting their up-converting abilities, cost, etc. One thing we talked about as a feature was WiFi/Internet-enabled Blu-ray players. This struck me as a strange idea. The advantage is, as advertised, the ability to stream content directly to the device from Amazon, NetFlix and other services. The attraction from the consumer’s standpoint is obvious (more media, in more ways) but it is a counter-intuitively strong move by manufacturers.
It is, in short, a great example of disrupting your own tech advantage, a message hammered home to me this summer by David S. Rose at Singularity University. He gave the example of Amazon disrupting big-box physical book stores like Barnes & Noble, and then even further disrupting their own very successful model (and margins) with e-book delivery via the Kindle.
But I’d say that the Blu-ray example could prove to be even more lucrative. By positioning themselves directly between the consumer and the content regardless if the data is coming from a disc or streamed off the Web, Sony et al. are ensuring that when the tipping point in data delivery arrives, they’ll be there.
There is a story in today’s New York Times about falling Blu-ray prices which touches upon the tension:
…Blu-ray manufacturers have placed themselves in a seemingly awkward position: They are selling a device that relies on people to continue to buy discs, but the same device gives them a way to download videos — bypassing the discs the machines were built to play.
But, as the article goes on the point out, this is not all bad. In fact, in my opinion, it is the kind of long-sighted planning which despite being rather rare nowadays, should pay dividends.
Compare this move to the current player in our house: it is tempting to say these are parallel examples, of devices simply looking to bridge the gap as the world moves from one standard (VHS) to another (DVD) — and now to a third (Blu-ray).
But that overlooks something very basic and very crucial: the VHS/DVD combo player was reactionary. It was something which grew out of the need to give people a way to watch both their home movies stored on VHS as well as their newest releases coming out on DVD.
The Web-enabled Blu-ray player is an entirely different set-up: it is an attempt to jump the gun (and to disrupt the Blu-ray market) just as the market itself is maturing. Only now are prices falling near the “impulse purchase” range of $100, according to the president of the Blu-ray trade group. And the mainstream switch to streamed delivery is not due for a number of years. But there it is, right now, the WiFi Blu-ray player, available at your local Best Buy, and for cheaper now than ever.
Tags: amazon, black friday, blu-ray, disruption, disruptive technology, dvd, netflix, new york times, nytimes, sharp, shopping, singularityu, sony, stream, streaming, streaming content, tv, vhs, video
