Blog Post #2 Facebook and Connection Formation

As Jasanoff states, the concept of sociotechnical imaginaries refers to the way in which “scientific and technological visions enter into the assemblages of materiality, meaning, and morality that constitute robust forms of social life” (2015). The sociotechnical imaginary thus functions as a vision into a desirable future in which there is a shared understanding of social life, encouraging social progress. Facebook acts as an illustration of a sociotechnical imaginary as it has become one of the most popular platforms for people to connect and maintain social bonds with others. This is ultimately the main function of Facebook as Zuckerberg explains that the service was meant to facilitate helping people connect and learn more. Zuckerberg envisioned Facebook as a utopia for its aim to foster ‘connections.’ Further, his idea of “connection” operates as a socio-technical imaginary because it promotes the flourishing of building personal relationships through a technological material. However, the platform has instead become more of an ideology.

This idea of “connection” embodies and performs the relationship between the concepts of ideology, myth, and utopia. When first created, Zuckerberg saw Facebook as a platform which could help people connect but this function has changed significantly. As he states, “the purpose of [Facebook] is to help people stay in touch with family, friends, and communities.” While it still fosters connections, Facebook is not completely a utopia but rather has become more of an ideology. This is because the service has converged the interests of different actors such as advertisers, businesses, and consumers into a virtual space where connections can still be fostered, but for a particular purpose. For example, the platform now incorporates advertising techniques which were not primary goals associated with the service. As Flichy notes, “when utopians become experimenters they are confronted not only with the technique but also with other social actors who have a different view of it” (pg. 10). This is illustrative of Facebook as Zuckerberg saw the service as a connection based platform, however, other actors such as advertisers have come to view the service as an avenue to reach consumers, as a way to fulfill their own goals of advertising. As such, although the service was created for a single purpose of connectivity, other actors have become involved and shifted the utopia ideal to an ideological one by incorporating aspects to Facebooks system to benefit their own interests.

As Taplin suggests in Move Fast and Break Things, the internet was originally created to promote democracy. However, this goal was “hijacked by a small group of right-wing radicals to whom the ideas of democracy and decentralization were anathema.” This is reflective of Facebook because Zuckerberg originally created the service for the purpose of promoting connectivity. However, over time the service has changed and now incorporates unwanted elements such as large quantities of advertisements which work to manipulate users into making purchasing decisions – enforcing the concept of ‘tech for profit.’

Personally, I feel that this is an effective rhetorical response to criticism because Zuckerberg acknowledges the changes to the service but reaffirms that he desires Facebook to be as utopic as possible. He recognizes that users may not want to deal with multiple and unsolicited advertisements but notes the control and autonomy that users have over how this information and data is shown to them.

The most significant contradiction that limits Facebook’s effectiveness comes from its lack of transparency and deceit of information collection. While the company claims that they do not keep unnecessary information or sell consumer data, this is highly contested. For example, Zuckerberg himself is contradictory by stating that the service does not sell any consumer information but then follows that they give advertisers data information.