Tag Archives: Twitter
The dawn of it was ‘LIKE THIS IF YOU HATE CANCER!’ pictures. Then came the ascent of those Facebook status games, where women – and only women – were expected to post seemingly esoteric statuses such as ‘I like it on the floor!’ as part of word-of-mouth (or, more accurately, Facebook message) games, allegedly intended to raise awareness of breast cancer. And now the unofficial awareness campaign du jour is a spate of ‘make-up free selfies’ on Facebook and Twitter; that is, the selfie reappropriated as a two-click crusade for awareness, replete with ‘cancerawareness’ hashtag.
All trends see a backlash eventually, but few have been as quick to mobilise as this one. Yet while it may seem churlish to denigrate those who have participated as ‘slacktivists’ and narcissists, the backlash brigade have some solid arguments. A common reaction to the pictures has been to wonder what bare faces have to do with breast cancer. Are participants suggesting that they are as brave for baring their natural faces on social media sites as they would be to undergo chemotherapy and face its side-effects? Is it a clever attempt to latch onto a ubiquitous trend and eke some good from the vanity of Generation Y?
If the latter, it has been hampered by a lack of direction. ‘Awareness’ is an unhelpfully vague term, for starters. A lack of further information from the majority of participants suggests the awareness it seeks to promote extends only to the existence of the illness, which is superfluous given how prominent an illness it is. Tireless activism from charities and survivors over the past few decades have made it one of the most well-known types of cancer, yet their efforts to embed it in public consciousness have been consolidated by awareness of not only the disease itself, but of how to increase one’s chances of diagnosis, and therefore of treatment and survival.
In the past, cancer survivors have bemoaned online ‘awareness’ trends, suggesting that they trivialise the illness. With only a picture and a supportive hashtag, but no useful information to clarify the aims of the ‘movement’, the same criticisms can be levied at this one. This is compounded by the fact that, unlike similar non-sequitur charity efforts – how are pink ribbons constructive for breast cancer research? How does growing a moustache in November do anything to help those with testicular cancer? – it has also been undermined by lacking a direct fundraising initiative. Without raising money to enable scientists to seek breakthroughs in cancer treatment and prevention, it is easy to come to the conclusion that the movement is little more than an excuse for people to make themselves feel good with the barest minimum of effort, while indulging narcissistic tendencies to plaster their faces across the internet.
Possibly the most important qualm of all is the fact that this is, once again, a ‘movement’ aimed solely at females, meaning that male breast cancer – yes, men can get it too – is entirely overlooked. While it may be a rare cancer, the feminisation of the breast cancer movement is such that most are totally unaware that men are susceptible to a form of it too; it is difficult to argue that this is not more in need of having awareness raised. Although the selfies aren’t a Cancer Research initiative, the charity is itself guilty of marginalising male breast cancer by making the Race For Life a female-only event.
Despite the incoherency, the narcissism and the misandry, and despite Cancer Research not having come up with the idea, it’s actually sparked a huge influx of donations to them. Social media users are often accused of having negligible attention spans, with shameless clickbait the only way of grabbing their attentions. The fact that they are able and, more importantly, willing to seek further information off their own initiative is a pleasing riposte to this claim and proves that, while awareness selfies may be a nonsensical, self-absorbed exercise, they do appear to be doing some good.
But while a few days of selfies may cause a spike in donations, it will ultimately tail off – a trend is, at the end of the day, a fad. Cancer charities need more than a brief surge of financial input; they require constant fundraising. Fundraising requires effort. A minute’s posing and posting does not constitute effort. Running or walking the Race For Life, volunteering for a research charity or suchlike would probably elicit more substantial donations from friends and family than a selfie would. Yes, it isn’t always possible to do this if you lead a busy modern life, but by failing to truly engage with the illness or aims of the charities that look to cure it, we’re failing to truly educate ourselves. And educating ourselves really would raise awareness.
Donate to Cancer Research UK here
Sign up to Race For Life here
Learn about male breast cancer here
. Isn’t it great how social networking sites and blogs give platforms to anyone and everyone’s opinion? It’s forced people to educate themselves into having an opinion – or, at least, reading someone else’s opinion to carry it off as your own. The problem here lies in the latter, as people have increasingly ceased to formulate their own opinion, instead jumping on righteously outraged bandwagons left, right and centre. Twitter especially boasts something of a gang mentality against certain singers, who receive intense amounts of adoration from fan girls, but also equal measures of ire from their detractors.
. While I’m not a fan of Justin Bieber’s music, I feel that as the anti-Bieber brigade becomes increasingly rabid/sadistic, it becomes more akin to bullying, which is apparently justified because Bieber is rich, famous, has millions of pubescent girls fawning over him, and spawns deeply unimaginative pop music. These are not reasons that should excuse or justify bullying. Universal revulsion should be reserved for cases where justice needs to be brought against horrific acts that contravene others’ human rights. You’d be forgiven for forgetting, amid all the articles besmirching him, that Bieber isn’t an operator of mass genocide, a serial rapist or the head of a brutal sex-trafficking ring – he’s a slightly bland, seemingly undereducated pop star. (And no, much as you’d like to exaggerate, listening to ‘Baby’ doesn’t actually violate your human rights.)
. Yes, it’s a shame that more creative music is routinely ignored by radio stations, music television stations and large swathes of the record-buying public. Yes, it’s almost as worrying that millions of teenage and tweenage girls deify a young man who, living his entire life in the spotlight and under the control of his record company’s management, probably has his entire image, sense of self and interview answers constructed by other people, and definitely has aired dubious views on abortion following rape – though it’s been stated that these comments were taken out of context. Yes, it’s just plain annoying when his fans, the self-styled ‘Beliebers’, make him trend daily on Twitter – and verges on chilling when they consider his cold to be more important than the death of a child with leukaemia.
. But let’s get things in perspective here. If frenzied loathing Bieber has elicited from the public were instead used to rally against serious human rights abuses, what damage could be done there? Are the repetitive, soulless lyrics of “Baby, baby, baby, oh” (…because “She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah” is so much more poetic…) really more pressing an issue than the fact that homosexual activities in 8 holiday-worthy Caribbean nations are still punishable by prison sentences of over 10 years (in Barbados, it entails life imprisonment), or the fact that rape victims in the US army – where an alleged 19,000 incidents of rape are recorded annually – are denied abortions? Is it, indeed, not more worrying that Bieber, among others, has been the victim of a death hoax which, apart from being desperately irresponsible, is upsetting to the star, friends, family and fans, and downright cruel?
. Evidently not. The crime that tops all crimes these days is writing a pop song without lyrical nous or creative orchestration. Rebecca Black’s ‘Friday’ became a joke and its singer a figure of fun last March. Not a problem – the video to ‘Friday’ was absurd, unintentionally parodic and amusing as a result. What was unacceptable was the way that the responses to its 13-year-old chanteuse – who didn’t even write the song, conceive the video or its non-sequiturs, or choose to Autotune her voice into oblivion – became more poisonous and personal as its YouTube views spiralled into the millions. The most vicious trolls told her to cut herself and “get an eating disorder so [she]’ll be pretty” [revealed here]. Less extreme, but very common, responses were that she was smug for smiling during the video and was ugly, with many responses taking a violent tone. Surely it’s infinitely more disturbing that adults judged – and criticised – how a 13-year-old girl looked on a sexualised scale, or were threatening violence towards her for enjoying an experience her parents had paid for her to have, than the fact the lyrics and video were stupid? So many people were casually saying they’d like to punch her that others did too; as it became normalised, it became acceptable. With bullying a more pressing issue than ever, now cyber-bullying has the power to attack behind closed doors, it seems irresponsible to promote and normalise it.
. You don’t have to like rubbish pop music. By all means, dislike it. Dislike what it stands for, dislike the AutoTune, dislike the lyrics, generic beats and the artist’s management-constructed, conservative interview answers. But know that jumping on an anti-artist bandwagon is often the ultimate hypocrisy – by constantly squawking about how bland and boring Justin Bieber is, does that not make you bland and boring as well? More importantly, at the end of the day, Bieber’s music might be crap, but he’s not a woman-beater who wallows in his own martyrdom and makes young girls think that domestic violence is OK. The anti-Chris Brown bandwagon, at least, has something important to say.
There’s an unwritten rule that the only acceptable way to celebrate a new Facebook layout is to complain about it. They change ‘become a fan’ to ‘like’? Time for a moan. They bring in that stupid sidebar to tell you that your friends are commenting on posts by people you don’t know? Post a furious status threatening to delete your account. They fiddle around with the privacy settings, claiming to make them easier to use but actually just making them more complicated? Back in a moment, just getting a pitchfork and joining the lynch mob that’s headed for Mark Zuckerberg’s house. [There’s an Oatmeal cartoon that accurately describes these events here.]
But Timeline is different. Whereas most Facebook layout changes are relatively small, so that users can adapt to them with minimal effort – and forget what the ‘old’ Facebook looked like within 15 minutes of their profile making the change – Zuckerberg et al. have taken a huge gamble by changing what it is people use Facebook for. Although the original aim of the original site, Facemash, was to serve as a Harvard ‘Hot or Not’ application (as shown in 2010’s Best Picture Oscar-nominated film The Social Network), it evolved into a broader social network with the mission statement “Connect with friends faster, wherever you are”. Timeline’s name says it all – it’s looking to make the Facebook user profile into a timeline of their life. It’s a huge departure from merely being a social networking tool; Facebook is now asking you to record your life story on there. It wants to know everything, be your autobiography of sorts and, courtesy of the ‘cover’ picture at the top of the page, individualise your Facebook experience a little bit. It’s a cool idea. In theory.
…Unfortunately, cool ideas in theory aren’t necessarily good ideas. The electric tricycle, The Sinclair Research C5, was a cool idea. Concorde was a cool idea. Smell-O-Vision, a 1960s cinema ‘add-on’ of sorts which released odours in conjunction with what was on the screen at the time, was a cool idea. All of these ideas failed commercially. Although Timeline’s situation is not really comparable to those of any of these examples, its advent is a strange and dangerous move by Facebook’s management, particularly considering that 7 million North American users – nearly 1% of the site’s entire users – became inactive in May 2011 alone. Will a hefty site rejig really stop the rot?
This isn’t the first time I’ve thought that Facebook was on thin ice courtesy of changes. The last ‘big change’ previous to Timeline was the installation of the sidebar that I mentioned in the first paragraph; despite promising improved privacy settings, a sidebar that tells everyone in your friend list what you’re saying to anyone if you don’t have tight privacy settings was hardly upholding the mores of personal privacy. Although it’s easy to tighten your settings, it doesn’t tell you beforehand that your information is being publicly displayed if your privacy settings extend further than ‘Friends’. Even as a bit of a Facebook stalker myself, I find that amount of information being readily available to my stalking senses deeply uncomfortable. And don’t get me started on Subscribers…
…But, still, the gamble might be paying off. Certainly, the majority of tech websites and blogs have been having geekgasms over it since it was released on December 15th. The Guardian released a startlingly sycophantic article in support of it, including gushing over the fact that you can jump back to the day you were born on your ‘timeline’. In all honesty, I can’t think of anything I’d require less on the website. With most of Facebook’s 800 million users yet to adopt the new layout, the wider public’s opinion is yet to be known.
However, speaking as someone with little knowledge of computer complexities, over 4 years’ worth of Facebook experience and the Timeline installed for a fortnight now, I’m going to make the bold prediction that 2012 is going to be Google+’s year, and (eek) the beginning of Facebook’s downfall. Industry analysts predict that Google+’s user base will reach 400 million – half of Facebook’s – by the end of this year, and a radical change of Facebook profiles is almost certainly going to lead to that number increasing. A quarter of Google+’s users signed up in December 2011 alone – the same month that Timeline was released. Especially considering that users aren’t being given the option to revert their profiles to the ‘old’ layout, I doubt that’s just a coincidence. Let’s just say that, given the choice, I wouldn’t have kept my profile in that state, and – had I not already been on Google+ – I would have signed up for it there and then.
Essentially, with Timeline, Facebook is asking too much of its users. Sure, it was fun having a play around with the map feature when I realised I was stuck with the damn thing. I tagged where I’d been in my life – which came to disaster when I somehow, embarrassingly, managed to tag friends as being in Abu Dhabi airport with me right at that moment (despite entering the date of this visit as July 2009) – and had a cheeky stalk of myself from years past (result: oh Christ, the embarrassment of being an angsty 15-year-old…). But – maybe I’m too old to spend ages arranging my profile into a specific order, maybe I’ve grown out of the website, or maybe it’s just jumped the shark now – it all seems forced, unnecessary and, to keep their information on the site to a minimum, alienating. Many users keep their profiles merely to keep in touch with distant friends, share articles (cough) or remain on the social radar, to be invited to events. What exactly does Timeline do for them?
Other parts seem to be overkill even from the most avid stalker’s perspective. What does knowing when someone liked a page do for anyone? The only use for it that I can think of may be a misguided assumption in any case; assuming that someone started liking a band at a certain point because they became a fan of them in October 2009 could be wrong for any number of reasons. Over the years I’ve cut back my musical Likes on my page either out of embarrassment, lapses in support or by mistake (alternatively, just to cut back the sheer number), so if you’re assuming, for example, that I only became a fan of McFly in 2008, you’re so wrong. (February 2004, actually.) While some of the information you can dredge up from your history on Timeline is interesting, enlightening or amusing, there’s no point having it if it’s plain wrong or utterly useless/tedious.
On a more serious level, the option to add sensitive life stories to the profile such as ‘Death of a Loved One’ seems like a serious misjudgement on Facebook’s part. Sharing Likes was one thing; sharing deaths is quite another. Perhaps I’m being old-fashioned or over-analysing things here, but I was under the impression that family or friend deaths aren’t the sort of trivial things that one would want to share with the world, or even your whole friends list. Sure, you can decide not to put it on there, or you can hide it from certain people you wouldn’t want to share it with, but the fact that it’s even an option lends the disturbing conclusion that Facebook wants to know all your secrets, including the most painful and traumatic ones. In my opinion, that’s the sort of information that people should have to earn through trust and proper friendship, not just from being a casual acquaintance that boosts one’s numbers. In the days of yore, when it was just Likes that one could flaunt, Facebook’s sharing facilities meant that people who didn’t know each other that well could base a friendship on a mutual interest, or at the very least discuss it. Sharing deaths turns Facebook from being a refreshing, light-hearted opportunity to socialise into a potentially solemn and awkward experience. After a frenetic stalking session, I once discovered a friend’s father had died several years before we’d met; it leaves you feeling guilty, overly-intrusive and puts you off stalking a little bit. And without stalkers to read your life story, Timeline is utterly redundant.
Sometimes Facebook’s changes are for the best. Who can really say that they miss Superpoke! or Gifts? But I honestly don’t think the new layout is more attractive than the old one; two columns of links or comments overwhelms the user with an overload of information where the previous layout’s single column neatly presented information at a digestible pace. The ‘cover’ idea is alright, livening up the top of the page, but I can’t help but be reminded of MySpace’s garish backgrounds and HTML stars falling down the page when I see it. The jumbled and random placing of activity boxes, recently listened to music and recently read news articles is incredibly confusing, as are the privacy settings; ok, you can decide how private each speck of information is, but more options leads to more confusion. Admittedly, I do like the fact that it has incorporated news applications into the site – although a lot of the articles I find myself reading on there are utter trash, some of them are quite interesting or informative and it’s never a bad thing to know that a supposedly ignorant age group are educating themselves on world affairs in between stalking.
I think the main problem here is that Facebook’s monopoly on social networking has made its directors want to incorporate the USPs of every other social networking website into it so that it fulfils every purpose and continues to be a necessity in modern life. It copied the ‘what’s on your mind?’ question in the status box after Twitter got big (though both have now changed this), introduced a Spotify-merger music profiling system that rips off LastFM (to a less successful extent – there’s no way of combining it with one’s iTunes listens, making its catalogue of music plays unrepresentative for many users), and has the option to ‘tag’ one’s location that Foursquare provides. The one thing that it doesn’t provide is a comprehensive search engine; this gives Google+ a major advantage.
Google is the only website higher up in the Alexa rankings (detailing the most visited websites in the world) than Facebook, and is ubiquitous to the point where it has its own verb in the Oxford English Dictionary (“To google (2): 1. intr. To use the Google search engine to find information on the Internet.”), something that Facebook has yet to achieve; as such, it reaches an even wider target audience than Facebook. But what really gives it the edge is Google+’s USP: it strips back most of the excess that Facebook has accumulated in trying to be everything to everyone, and instead gives you a clean, uncluttered interface. It provides a similar service to that which many people originally signed up to Facebook for; connecting and interacting with friends. There’s none of this Timeline nonsense, except your birthday, schools and jobs – if you want to share them – and there’s no ‘share the death of a loved one’ obligation. It’s simpler, nicer to look at and is comfortingly ‘old-school’, but simultaneously fresh. At the moment, it gains over half a million users per day; that number looks set to increase as other social networks drive out their users with unnecessary changes.
Of the people I know who have explored Timeline, the overwhelming majority dislike it. When it becomes a compulsory layout for all, they won’t be alone; surely this will tie in with a surge of people deactivating their accounts and leaving the website, maybe in their millions. After all, how long until the next set of changes? How many times can people watch their profiles being messed around with? Somewhere in Los Angeles, Tom Anderson from MySpace is sitting on the sofa of ex-social network overlords, cackling at the schadenfreude of it all, and getting the popcorn out as he watches the drama unfold. He’s waiting for Zuckerberg to join him.