Skip to main content

Facebook: Are we missing the "point"?

2300: Log in to Facebook.

Go through posts

Go through even more posts.

Block that annoying "True meaning of your name" app.

Check out that interesting post on 9Gag

Hey, it's 0100, I'd better log out.

I'm a dork for wasting two hours on this shitty thing.

Ever happened to you? You end up spending hours on Facebook, and still end up dis-satisfied? Happens every time with me. I wonder why I still login...

If the movie is to be believed, most people head over to Facebook just to see the relationship status of that special someone. Not so much of a concern for me. I'm voted most likely to be single for life. I mainly log in to Facebook to catch up on what people are doing; in other words, to stalk people.

People are all awesome. They post the best parts of their lives online, leaving the not-so-interesting parts out. Have a look at any profile picture. If it is a real picture of someone, it will be a face radiant with happiness and joy. Check out pictures of people hanging out in a group, laughing away to glory. Hey, I just had a fight with that guy out there, why is he so happy. Guess no one really likes me; hardly 10% of pictures of me are like that. In any case, I just feel awkward laughing at the camera, or whenever I'm in a group. Sigh! My life sucks...

Thumbs up if this has happened to you. Do you get affected thus whenever you see your Facebook stream? Apparently, a study has shown that spending time on Facebook can make you depressed. Not surprising considering the scenario I painted above. Happens every time you feel like crying and you see that happy, smiling face looking back at you. Almost makes me feel as if the other person is gloating over my sorrow.

Actually, seeing "friends" get along with their lives not giving a damn for you can be a disconcerting experience. And when you see 500 odd people not give a damn about you, but fill your screen with everything "awesome" that they did, be it getting in relationships, a dinner party to which you were not invited, or a movie, or strumming the guitar; all this information is essentially noise, which gets thrown at a person using Facebook, which the person absorbs like a sponge. Think of the amount of brain damage done to the person.

People reading this blog would be quick to point out that I am partial towards Google+ when it comes to social networking. My response would be the same as always. Google+ and Twitter are micro-blogging platforms, and posts on these platforms generally are not personal, but intelligent. If I follow someone on Google+ or Twitter, it's because the person is awesome, and I wish to follow him/her. LinkedIn is a professional network, and hardly anything other than work-related-stuff is posted there. It's different with Facebook though. Facebook has grown to be a platform where everyone posts everything about their awesome lives, where one may still go and look at the relationship status of the special someone, stalk people, and get depressed.

You know what, deep down, you are awesome. It's just that not all moments of your life can be awesome. That is where Facebook lacks. People do not post the non-awesome parts of their lives. Facebook does not publish the non-awesome parts of a person's life. If it did, people would leave.

We've missed the whole "point" about being social.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On Harry Potter and why I dislike the series

There could not be a better time for this post. There could not have been a worse time for this post. Now that the penultimate movie of the series is out, and my facebook wall filled with people who loved the movie. But this is something I really wanted to say, and I shall say it anyway. Harry Potter is pathetic literature. Now, you must be wondering why I say that. There are many reasons. Firstly, the storyline itself is flawed. When a writer sits down to write anything, he/she must set up some essential rules about what is happening. These rules must remain constant irrespective of how many times he/she changes his/her mind. This is so that the readers are allowed to have some sensibility in what they are reading. In the fourth book, Rowling goes ahead and kills Cedric. Then, at the end of the book, the horseless carriages are there again. Nothing special. We all knew that they are horseless. But then comes the fifth book, and BAM, the horses are actually winged beasts that only thos...
18 comments
Read more

On the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard

This is a post that I have been meaning to write from quite some time. Long hours spent typing code on my computer left my hands fatigued, and left me with a lot of pain in my wrists and fingers. That is when I decided to use the Dvorak. But I have got the same bad habit as Dr. Watson, to tell a story backwards. Of course, you must be wondering what the Dvorak is. The story of keyboards starts with the invention of the typewriter. Christopher Sholes, the inventor of the typewriter, tried with a two row piano style keyboard. But then, he got into many difficulties with the design. Then he finally settled for a four row design. This was similar to the QWERTY layout that most computers and typewriters today possess. The engineers at Remington, to whom Sholes had presented his design modified the layout a little further, and then the QWERTY was born. As typewriters became popular, people got used to the layout, and started practising touch typing, i.e. typing without looking at the keys...
Post a Comment
Read more

The paradox of government

I'm fascinated by the concept of government, and the paradoxes it presents. On one hand, governments grant us a certain set of rights or liberties. On the other hand, they work to strip us of the very liberties they promise. Now, I don't mean that all governments strip people of liberties, but there are liberal regimes, and there are sufficiently restrictive and dictatorial ones. Both models may have results to show, it does not mean that people in a restrictive regime are unhappy (refer to Dan Dennett's TED talk , where he states that ideas or memes can be dangerous when taken from one part of the world, where they are widespread, and, using the virus analogy, where people are immune to the memes; to a part of the world where they are foreign, where people may not be immune to the memes and where people may get infected). History has shown that people were sufficiently satisfied with autocratic governments with a benevolent dictator, and that people in other parts of the ...
Post a Comment
Read more