Blog Question #2

Mark Zuckerberg’s idea of connection on Facebook embodies and performs the relationship between “ideology, myth and utopia” (Flichy, 2007). Flichy states that “ideology legitimizes power, whereas utopia constitutes an alternative to the power in place” (p.8). Zuckerberg defended Facebook’s business practices by demonstrating the intentions of the platform. He states that his vision for Facebook is not corporation-based nor focused on promoting a consumer’s ideology. Instead, Zuckerberg’s intentions for developing Facebook was to bring people closer by building a service that helps people share and connect more.

Moreover, Flichy’s ideas of a utopian phase resemble Zuckerberg’s intentions to build connections amongst people. They both relate to each other because they both perform the value of people connecting with each other. Zuckerberg states that Facebook is a place that gives everyone equal opportunities as he believes  “in a world where everyone gets an opportunity to use their voice and an equal chance to be heard, where anyone can start a business from scratch, then it’s important to build technology that serves everyone”. With this being said, Zuckerberg follows Flichy’s utopian phase as the value of connecting people closer together is part of the socio-technical imaginary. Flichy would see Facebook as the utopia of new technology where more opportunities are available for people to connect then there was before.

The second phase of Flichy’s project is where the “utopians become experimenters are confronted with other social actors that construct a boundary-object that can associate with multiple partners, making their experimentation go beyond their workshop (Flichy, p. 10, 2007). The second phase is also when utopia is confronted by ideology where the project then becomes what we witness as a collective vision or imaginaire (Flichy, p.4, 2007). Zuckerberg suggests that Facebook must keep the advertising model in order to stay marketable to users, therefore, they allow users to “change their preferences” on the ads that show up on their Facebook feed. The second phase also when the alternatives to existing technical devices is constructed as the models roughed out in the preceding phase become full-blown projects (Flichy, p.9, 2007). Facebook, at first, helps people stay in touch with families, friends, and communities, but has to keep advertisements in order to keep the platform financially stable.

As I have explained how Zuckerberg’s development of Facebook embodies Flichy’s phases of utopia and ideology, I will now explain how Flichy’s statements on ideology and utopia can be effective to neutralize critiques towards Facebook.  Zuckerberg does prove a point that Facebook has to appeal to the masses to keep people interested, therefore, keep people financially invested on Facebook. This is why the development of Facebook involves both the content creators and the users to debate on what can keep Facebook’s purpose as “connecting people” and at the same time, keep Facebook financially stabled. With this being said, Zuckerberg does a good job proposing his business model of Facebook to users as they would be exchanging their data use as free labour to figure out how his team can make Facebook more satisfying for users.

            What Zuckerberg proposes to Facebook users should be considered “Tech for Good” because it demonstrates the potential socio-technical imaginaries that Flichy describes. Facebook gives users more potential outcomes in all dimensions especially social and economical. The internet is capable of almost anything, therefore, it should be considered “Tech for Good” because it enables users to do anything. For example, if I had a clothing brand I would promote it on Facebook because I would be promoted and advertised to users who consume and are interested in other brands that are similar to mine.

Works Cited

Flichy, P. (2007). Introduction. In P. Flichy, The internet Imaginaire. Cambridge: MIT Press.