I am a member of several online Yahoo Groups regarding homeschooling, various curricula, dyslexia, etc. Recently, there was a debate with one group as to whether or not to switch the Yahoo Group to a Facebook Group. This is not the first time the subject has come up among the Yahoo Group crowd. A few of the Yahoo Groups I belong to have already made the switch. However, this particular group held firm.
There were several interesting posts throughout the debate. However, one really stood out to me. So much so, that I asked the original poster if I could reprint it here. It was written by a homeschool mom, who also happens to be a University of Maryland professor. She granted me permission, but wished to remain anonymous other than the information I've disclosed. The following is her post regarding whether or not the Yahoo Group should switch to Facebook....
If I may, I would like to
clarify a couple of points in the Facebook (ie, social media/mobile) vs Yahoo
(ie, email-based) discussion.
I have been a professor
of Computer Science for a very long time, and I have developed and taught a
course specifically on social media.
Now, my focus is more on technology and less on psychology, but it's not
possible to separate the two because they interact and interweave
thoroughly. It may be convenient to
think of the "under 30" crowd and the "over 30" crowd, but
those are not the true demographics.
Statistically speaking, the "over 65" age group has a higher
percentage of people online than the "50-64" group. The new digital divide is not between
"those who do" and "those who don't", but more along the
lines of frequency + location and high-speed access at home, which reflects
more of an urban and rural divide.
Anyway, the research
about these frequent discussions is truly not about comfort level with
technology or age or anything else. It's
more a matter of time and reflection.
Some platforms are better for quick, immediate response. For example, finding directions or replying
to an RSVP does not require much thought or consideration. Facebook and Twitter and other
"broadcast" media work fine for those sorts of conversations. They are not the place for a considered
response to a question or for anything that should demand reflection.
Social media has only
been in "always-on" mode for less than 7 years. The first iPhone was released in 2007 and
took some time to spread, due to the global economic crash, production
problems, and lots of other things.
While those who are "under 30" might feel as if they have
always been connected, it's more of a habit than a reality. From an academic perspective, the issue of
social media vs email is of a different nature.
Social media, by its very nature, is "ME" centered and
addictive; the psychological rewards are immediate. Imagine a spider web of connections (this is
the engineering model of a social abstraction), but "ME" is always at
the center. Social media is about a
broadcast (in the media sense) of something that concerns "ME" and
spreads to whoever is connected to "ME". Email is more closely related to blogging,
except that blogging is really one-directional (going outwards) while email is
bi-directional. Email demands more time
and more attention and more consideration.
It's not surprising that email and blogging are the preferred platforms
for those for whom words and critical thinking matter, but are not as popular
with those who want an 8-second reply.
As an aside, the current
lifespan of a FB post is considered to be 5 hours, although most of the
"reach" happens within 2 hours. Their algorithm ranks the priority of
items to add to a news feed, and anything over 5 hours old does not rank
highly. Most users believe that they are
seeing everything that their connections produce, but that is not true. Research shows that FB users see only 57% of
the total posts made by their connections due to the ranking algorithms. FB decides what is relevant to you, based on
what you typically click on.
Another current big
debate is that of "opting out".
At this time, Facebook is almost a global directory of everyone online,
and it is not only pervasive, it is ubiquitous. It's everywhere, and it's convenient. Choosing to "opt out" means that
you are no longer "in the group".
You have to decide how important this is to you. Many groups fall apart over this because one
crowd will not yield to the other; the mobile/social crowd will not accommodate
the email/group crowd, and vice versa.
There are a multitude of ways to connect and many hybrid platforms as
alternatives, but they usually don't get this far.
The most significant
problem is that the billions of users think that FB (and other social
platforms) is free. It is not. The overwhelming majority of users believe
that it is supported by advertising. It
is not. When you choose to use FB (in
particular, although this applies to any large platform), YOU are the product. You sign a "Terms of Service"
agreement, and in that agreement you allow FB to own whatever content you
upload. You do not own your words or
your images or anything at all. FB owns
it all, and they sell it in various ways.
A great many researchers pay to use the data that FB provides because
never before in history has such an overwhelming amount of data been
available. There have been a number of
huge experiments allowed without informing the users by FB that have been in
the news recently; one even went so far as emotional manipulation to test the
theory of "contagion". Another
point is that when someone dies, their online content is not something that can
be willed to someone else. It is owned
by the social platform. Because the user
is no longer providing a benefit to the social platform business, and
maintaining information is expensive, nearly every company disables the account
and deletes its related content. There
have been a number of recent court cases on this issue. At the moment, FB allows a page to be
converted to a "memorial", but that will be changing as the number of
"memorial" pages approaches and exceeds the number of
"active" pages.
Finally, the other major
concern is that of security and privacy. Never before have the professional
lives of a person intersected their personal lives so completely. For example, if a person "likes" a
homeschooling page or a diabetic recipe page or a coping with depression page
or whatever on FB, that will influence opportunities in the career world. There are no clear boundaries on social
media, and there should be. Social media
advocates often talk about complete transparency, but that is not possible
without full loss of privacy. The
"anonymity" and "Real Name" debates are headed to the courts.
There are no easy answers
to any of these questions, but decisions should be fully-informed rather than
based on personal preference, personal convenience, and unconsidered emotional
reactions.
I really appreciated this poster's perspective. I felt it was a thoughtful and educated response. There are so many things to consider before hopping online. In this media driven world, our quest for bigger, better, faster, may not always produce the best long term results. Hopefully, this post gives food for thought.
I should note, I am not a Facebook user. Apparently, I'm in the "email/group crowd". I do love words!
