Facebook: A business or entertainment source?

In Herman's article, Production, Consumption, Labour in the Social Media Mode of Communication and Production, he explains the title of his article as, “social media technologies that simultaneously constitute a mode of communication.” He explains that social media is important because of what it symbolizes, as it is a method of production and communication, utilized though different channels. It is now a universal understanding that social media aids in shaping a user’s identity, because of how often it used, and by how many people it is used by. Social media helps us create an identity for ourselves, and really be whoever we choose. Each platform, from Facebook, to Twitter, to Instagram is different, and there are different used that help us shape who we want to be, and how we want to express ourselves to others. Herman says that this is a “commodification of the consumer” and it “impacts that activity and labour of the audience.” 

He explains Facebook to be a “mode of making meaning,” and it is essentially “structured to make money.” There are two major characteristics towards social media platforms, which include communication and production, in which are necessary in commodification. These characteristics add value, because the exchange of information is more valuable than money itself. Facebook has advertisements, which are personalized to each user’s profile, based on their interests. These are not meant for a mass audience, like television, where the audience is assumed. The information that Facebook users share helps connect one to products and services of interest. This exemplifies the value of an audience. Herman connects his reading to Adorno and Horkheimer’s culture industry by explaining the “message, means, and agent.” This is part of consumption, because there needs to be information, a platform to display the information, and an audience to receive the information. Without any of these steps, there is no use for this information. 

This raises the question: Is Facebook more of a business than a social media platform for one’s entertainment? Can you still enjoy Facebook, knowing that the sole purpose is to use your information for the benefit of their corporation?

Jodie Dean & The use of Apps

The author Jodie Dean in her article discusses the use of Apps on Smartphones and how they amplify communicative capitalism, individualist and individualizing fantasies. Apps are a way in which users support communication technologies through continuous use of the app. In particular, the ‘app’ on the iPhone is a means of which users are both content providers and data suppliers. Dean claims, “the app is less than a product than itself another means of production”. This means that we are users of apps, but from this apps can builds from consumer usage to enforce other modes of productions such as, additions to the product. Apps are developed for efficiency, and to occupy users minds for ‘X’ amount of time. Upon sufficient amount of use, users are then provided with options to upgrade or enhance their in-app experience for a dollar value.

Dean discusses four aspects of ‘individualist fantasy’ upon the promotion of app development. The fourth aspect ‘identification’  is one that stuck with me. The argument here is the best apps are able to locate an individual in time, place and a social network. Apps are able to locate data, behavioural triggers, and experiences and tie it to the individual user. By doing so, they are able to locate profit in users habits and consumption activity. This process is called ‘monetization’, the process where informational assets can be converted into economic value. App-developers are able to gather data about the user, and then make suggestions for app upgrades alongside in-app purchases in order to generate profit. Dean uses the example of Candy Crush, but as an avid user I would also like to elaborate on this.

After reading Deans’ article, I think about how much I play this game. I use this game as a way to pass time, to occupy my mind, and enter an exciting place for a moment. As I progress throughout the game and slowly complete each level my playing ‘lives’ slowly go down. I am then asked if I want to buy another life for .99 cents so I can continue playing which I am guilty of doing. Not only this, but if I complete a certain section of the game I must wait 3 long days to continue playing or I can buy access to this section for another $1.00! Here, I think it is the build up of excitement and completion of levels that app developers draw upon. The base of their product is to develop an ‘excitement’ aspect of the game through completion of certain levels. It is when users desires to go further (when they are at their weakest) do app developers seek an opportunity to enhance app profit. 

My question for you all, is there an app that you feel drawn to make purchases off of in order to enhance your user productivity? Or an app that you desire to upgrade so you can have more user capability?

If yes, here is a link to some statistics I found upon ‘free’ app upgrade from 2012-2017. Seeing these statistics shocked me as I know that apps are prominent today, but I never realized how much they have grown in the market place.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/241587/number-of-free-mobile-app-downloads-worldwide/

The Facebook Status - False Social Identities

After completing this week’s readings and listening to my fellow classmate’s presentations on such topics, I found Professor Herman’s reading entitled, Production, Consumption and Labour in the Social Media Mode of Production and Consumption, to be of great interest. This chapter explores modes of communication and production and constructs a conceptual framework allowing readers to understand how social media platforms generate symbolic value, which in turn, creates capital or ‘material value’.

One passage that stood out to me while reading the chapter was demonstrated in the introduction which underlined the reciprocal recognition that communication requires stating, “It is a fundamental foundation of personal and social identity in the contemporary world. Without such communicative practices, we would not have a coherent sense of who we are and would not be able conduct ourselves in everyday life”. This idea was further explored within today’s presentation on the reading where Larisa demonstrated how users tailor their social media platforms, creating and distributing content to display the individual whom we want to be.

Reflecting on this idea, I would like to share a video which demonstrates the importance individuals place on creating these social identities and how this can often contradict our truest selves. Attached below is a link to the video, please watch it in its full entirety as I will be unpacking its deeper meaning shortly.
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxVZYiJKl1Y  

As you can see within the video, the way we are perceived by our Facebook friends has become so important that we are now constantly altering our online identities to appear a certain way, even if this means being untruthful. This idea can also be related to our previous discussions on Vincent Mosco’s, Myth and Cyberspace. Specifically, when individuals modify their statuses this can be seen as a myth as it “lifts us out of the banality of everyday life and into the sublime”. By reading and commenting on such statuses, it can be argued that we are giving life to the myth the Facebook user has created. However, as it is demonstrated in the videos ending, we as users have the ability to separate myths from the truth by unfriending or hiding an individual’s posts from our timelines.  

While Professor Herman highlights how Facebook provides the opportunity for users to evoke their personal feelings surrounding their everyday lives, do you think that creating false social identities has become the norm for social media platforms? Have you ever experienced anything similar to what was demonstrated in the video, if so, what were your thoughts and how did you react?

The Effects of Jet Lag on Cognitive Labour

Within Yann Boutang's “What is Cognitive Capitalism?", Boutang discusses the means of capitalism and goes into depth about the issues with cognitive capitalism. The issues with cognitive capitalism are endless tasks, exhaustion due to mental labour and so on. Overall, there seems to be no distinct beginning middle or end with cognitive labour. The larger issue found within cognitive labour is it is extremely difficult to put a dollar value on the means of time and production spent on this type of labour. Additionally, this type of labour can take place outside of the work place and workday itself. We have allowed the means of time and space to push the production of cognitive labour in order to innovate and create new information constantly.

I found Boutang’s concept of cognitive capitalism in connection to the idea of “jet lag” within Sharma’s In the Meantime. Within the reading, there is discussion about the influence of airports and their influence on time. Discussed within the book, the traveller’s time management is up to them and it is their responsibility to work harder and stay in time with the means of working. Additionally, being “tired” is considered a “slow” person’s excuse for lack of productivity. However, the bounds of travelling put a toll on the human mind and body, which does impact in the end the means of producing “information”. There is no value on the travelling time or the information that may be produced during this time but rather jet lag is not typically seen as a reason to impact mental labor.

Within business, travelling is considered a normal competent. However, jet lag is often a large issue attached to travelling. With that said, there has been claims for preventing or avoiding jet lag. I included an article below discussing different methods.

http://www.fodors.com/news/10-tips-to-avoid-jet-lag-4457

-->

Is it fair for the traveller to travel and be expected to produce the same means of mental labour? Should there be a regulated “mental” break in between travelling and performing mental labour (for business purposes)?

The Digital Housewife and Lifestreams

Kylie Jarrett’s article on “Who says Facebook Friends are not your real friends? Alienation and Exploitation in Digital Media” first displays a picture of a quote that says,

“Who says Facebook friends are not your real friends? They enjoy seeing you on the Internet everyday. Miss you when you’re not on. Showing compassion when you lose someone you love. Send you greetings on your birthday. View the pictures you upload. Like your status. Make you laugh when you are sad. Share this if you are grateful for your Facebook friends.”

Jarrett says this captures the power of sharing and how to maintain connections through commercial meaning (making or intended to make a profit/engaging in transactions). By way of this, she believes the exchanges one has over social media platforms are supposed to be ‘inalienable’ (unable to be taken away from) but are nonetheless destroyed in a capitalist context, such as commercial digital media. The argument is made that there should be a feminist perspective applied to this, one can look at unpaid consumer content as a form of ‘domestic work’ and act as the exploited ‘digital housewife’.The feminist perspective claims that we can use this perspective to examine roles of consumer labor being exploited, and further act as an agent. This is so we can make socially meaningful interactions to the extent that Facebook friends can be our real friends. 

This made me think of Alice Marwicks' chapter on life streaming in public. Warwick claims, the bigger the lifestream is equal to a bigger the status and that self-branding is a form of work to create our own networks. Marwick discusses publicity, openness of information and transparency being a strategic selection of useful or relevant information to our friends. In discussion of transparency, if one does not provide information online this can be taken negatively by other users. So, users are obligated to provide information to their friends in order to maintain their online identities and connections.

Together, Marwick and Jarretts’ argument can make for a compelling discussion. The work of the digital house wife can be seen as a form of work that allows them to strategically enhance their online selves. Although the digital housewife produces unpaid consumer content, one does so in a way that allows them to take control of their life. One opens their personal life to the public and strategically  selects useful information to employs self agency to become the person their online friends see. For example, sharing pictures on Facebook of your weekend. You can pick certain aspects such as going out for breakfast or going on a nature walk, but refrain from showing the crazy night you had before. This shows that you are still offering a connection to your Facebook friends, but only allow them to see what you want to see, in accordance to the sophisticated identity you desire to maintain.

After reading this, do you think that websites are more a form of exploitation of user content, or an opportunity for users to be agents in maintaining their online identity?

Facebook Friends or Real Friends?

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. 

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? 

Schiller's Information and Commodification

Dan Schiller’s reading, How to Think About Information, aids in our understanding of how we are able to connect commodities with information and how our presence online is the most significant contributor to this. Everything that we provide online contributes to the expansion of companies, because we are their market research. Companies want to create products and services that are attractive to us.  Schiller explains that the way we socialize helps create a type of capitalist organization. He explains that “our product is information.” We make ourselves a commodity by providing this information. This benefits both the company and us because we are making their job easier, and we get products tailored to our interests. We make their job easier by providing information freely, without even knowing we are contributing to their information database.  

An example of this is a membership or loyalty card to a store, like Shopper’s Drug Mart. Employees ask for your Shopper’s Optimum card after every purchase, whether you buy online or in store. This collects information about which demographic is buying what products. Then, we are bombarded with emails with when these products are on sale, and products that we would also like based on our purchases. They are using information provided by us, the buyer, to create specialized promotions that would help sell products quicker.

My question to you is, what is too much information? Do the rewards for customers overpower the usefulness of the cards? Or is it an annoyance to get bombarded with emails?