PsychBook Research

Nessa Childers and Facebook: the heart of the matter

The irony of MEP Nessa Childers recent statement on Facebook and regulation is that, while stating that ‘we can present on Facebook an unreal and flawless version of ourselves’, (which studies show does not happen in practice), and attempting to put herself across as an expert on the topic, she has exposed herself as acutely misinformed.

While I accept that guidlelines for the use of social networking would be a good idea, if drawn up by suitably informed authorities, dark mutterings about ‘problematic behaviour’ and ‘disturbing phenomena’ only serve to reduce the debate to scare-mongering.

It is disappointing that a psychotherapist should engage in headline-chasing of this nature, especially when only a modicum of prior research would reveal that ‘addiction’ to Facebook, or indeed any other medium, is a symptom, not a cause, of psychological problems.

Nessa Childers

Hi, Thanks for your blog post but I did not call for a ban or restriction. You…

3 June 10 at 10:03

Ciarán

Nessa, I appreciate your reply to my post, and I stress that I acknowledge that you, like I, have…

3 June 10 at 11:55

RTE Radio 1, Sunday Forum

An email I sent in to the Sunday Forum on RTE Radio 1 got picked up by Myles Dungan. The show was discussing Facebook and internet privacy issues:

Sunday Forum May 30th and Sunday Forum May 30th – 2

The question was basically, can traditional ethics and morality keep pace with technology?

  To which I answered:

The short answer is no – not by a long shot! As Marshall McLuhan (1967) put it, we approach the new with the psychological responses of the old. The new environment demands new responses, which have yet to evolve, meaning that we there will inevitably be a period of significant social unrest with regard to cyberpsychological phenomena, of which privacy is only one.

It will be a long time yet before the next generation of morality and ethics emerges which is capable of not only understanding but also effectively articulating what these changes mean.

The whole show, which was very interesting overall, a really thorough discussion, is available here

Baby boy bricking it: Zuckerberg announces new privacy features on Facebook

Looking at least twenty years younger than he is, and a billion dollars poorer, a wooden-looking Zuckerberg explains the new Facebook privacy settings.

I’m no dinosaur, but the chap looks like he hasn’t even started shaving yet.

And he quite cringeworthily mentions that it was his birthday (26th) was recently.

As if to say, ‘I’m young and inexperienced, and I’m trying my best, please forgive me’.

To be perfectly blunt, as someone who has many times pulled the

I’m-sorry-I-made-mistakes-but-only-because-I’m-new-at-this excuse

you can really only get away with it when you’re at the very bottom of the food chain.

It doesn’t wash when you’re the CEO and worth a couple of billion.

When you’re in that league, I for one expect you to dress the part.

And least look like you’ve gone to the effort of being properly camera-trained.

This looks like it’s still being done from a Harvard dorm, by a frat twat.

The possibility that it has been engineered to look this half-assed, and humble, is even more disturbing.

Will you have sympathy for this billion-dollar company,

which has scared the bejaysus out of you and your privacy rights

because its CEO is only 26 years old, and says he ‘messed up’?

Another Facebook f*ck up: Your personal information has been sold

As I predicted, the Facebook privacy bandwagon has continued to roll on. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Facebook, and MySpace, have been sharing users personal information with advertising companies, contrary to their official policies. This is extremely bad behaviour and will likely lead to more users peeling off and creating a greater groundswell potential for a social network rival.

Facebook, MySpace Confront Privacy Loophole – WSJ.com

Why Facebook’s privacy policy doesn’t work: We’re not in college anymore

It’s pretty simple what’s going on, now that I’ve had a chance to think.

Facebook’s ethos is ‘radical transparency’

• Everything should be shared
• All information should be free
• We should share all our information
• This would make us all equal

This is why:

• we have the News Feed
• the privacy default is public
• Facebook is built for sharing

Whether you like it or not,

that’s the theory,

and those are the products of it.

But why does Facebook have this ethos, and why do so many people dislike it?

The reason is quite simple:

Facebook was designed by college students

College students like to share and gossip with classmates

As for everyone else, while we like to share too

We don’t like sharing with everyone

We don’t like all our circles to be open

Because we’ve added other circles since leaving college

We don’t necessarily share the same things

With old friends as work colleagues

Facebook’s privacy policy is ‘open’ because Facebook’s designers never left college

You can’t explain why radical transparency doesn’t work to Mark Zuckerberg, because he’s never had a boss, or work colleagues other than his college buddies. On a certain psychological level, the Facebook team is still at college, still sharing everything with everyone, still jostling for popularity. No wonder they can’t see what the problem is for the rest of us …

It really is that simple: remember, it was designed as an alternative to a college yearbook. But we’re not in college anymore!