Jarrett’s article, “Facebook Friends Aren’t Your Real Friends? Alienation and Exploitation in Digital Media,” helps readers understand that we are part of a generation that manipulates social media platform users for production and consumption, that benefit ourselves. She defines Facebook friendships by explaining that they are “part of a regime of exploitation and alienation” (Jarrett 2016.) Everything we do is for the purpose of our benefit, and trying to make a profit. This means we ‘friend' people to have a large number of friends, which can increase the amount of likes we get on pictures and posts, and overall make us feel good that our social media platform is worthy of attention.
She breaks down this process by explaining “transforming and using the means of production to produce new commodities, enter a sphere of circulation, and release value as money profit” (Jarrett 2016.) She explains this through a business perspective, that we are commodifying ourselves for profit. Profit being on Facebook’s end, as the more information we share, they can sell it to advertisers. This is encouraged on platforms, like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube.
She uses the example of Google and relates it to the digital audience. This digital audience allows consumption to be productive. As there is more value in labour, and the labour that is generated by digital audiences because it is free because audiences are choosing what to share. We are doing the labour that companies require for their platform to be successful. Jarrett states that there is, "personal information and data showing browsing and communication behaviour," which means that information we are providing is for more than just our online friends. Google uses the page rank algorithm, which means when someone types something in their search engine, the user will receive the most accurate and efficient information because it is personalized. This exemplifies that Google is doing the least amount of work, and the labour is originating from the user. Google is responsible for organizing the information that we provide. They have so much information to work with because we are constantly using Google, because it's free. This a beneficial exchange, and it is more valuable than money.
She uses the example of Google and relates it to the digital audience. This digital audience allows consumption to be productive. As there is more value in labour, and the labour that is generated by digital audiences because it is free because audiences are choosing what to share. We are doing the labour that companies require for their platform to be successful. Jarrett states that there is, "personal information and data showing browsing and communication behaviour," which means that information we are providing is for more than just our online friends. Google uses the page rank algorithm, which means when someone types something in their search engine, the user will receive the most accurate and efficient information because it is personalized. This exemplifies that Google is doing the least amount of work, and the labour is originating from the user. Google is responsible for organizing the information that we provide. They have so much information to work with because we are constantly using Google, because it's free. This a beneficial exchange, and it is more valuable than money.
Do you think you are more likeable in real life if you have a strong online presence? Additionally, do you think Facebook has the capability to create and maintain real friendships, if you have never met in real life, or is it solely for popularity and/or profit?
Interesting take on the ideas developed in Jarrett’s article. What stood out to me the most while reading the piece was the discussion on the digital audience-commodity. One point that I believe is important to touch on is Jarrett’s statement that “The various ways to extract revenue or generate surplus from user information means that all hours spent online by users of Facebook, Google and comparable corporate social media constitute work time, in which data commodities are generated, and potential time for profit realization”. I personally believe this statement relates back to our class discussion during the last presentation where the class was asked why people are so willing to provide free labour to social media and content creation. Here, many students expressed that individuals are often unaware that they are providing free labour while using social media platforms. Jarrett’s idea that all hours spent online constitute work time parallels this discussion as users fail to recognize their time consumed on social media platforms is actually generating profit.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the questions you presented, I personally think that a strong online presence is twofold. While a strong online presence can enable a more likeable individual due to their various connections and active social media profiles, a strong online persona can simultaneously be harmful to individuals. For example, if social media users do not actively monitor their accounts, future employers may choose not to hire an individual based on what has been posted online. Additionally, while I do think that Facebook has the capability to create and maintain friendships between individuals who have not met before due to its ability to connect people through pictures, chatting and video chatting, I do feel that the platform has reallocated its focus toward extracting user data. This idea is demonstrated in Eran Fishers article, Class struggles in the digital frontier, as social media users have now been converted into immaterial labourers where our posts, likes and comments are no longer just about our online interaction, but rather about strategically using this information as a commodity to be bought and sold by advertising companies.
Similar to surveillance tactics such as a security camera, the surveillance of our online personas often causes users to alter their behaviour as they know they are being watched. Do you think if more individuals actually knew their comments, likes and online connections were being watched and extracted, would these users change their online habits or even stop using the platform all together?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think that your online presence whether be from Facebook, Twitter or other sources of social media platforms, heavily influences one’s perceptions of the other person. For example, a person who has 1000 friends compared to another person who has only 300 friends will be more looked upon as social, confident and down-to-earth. This draws people to not necessary “like” that person more, but view them as more favorable than they truly are. When Jarret claims that, “transforming and using the means of production to produce new commodities, enter a sphere of circulation, and release value as money profit”, she is stating that Facebook actually wants you to have more so called “Facebook friends”. This is because we are more vulnerable and easily accessible when we have a greater number of friends online. It allows us to be more exposed to our interests and hobbies for Facebook to make a profit off us.
ReplyDelete