Question 2 Response

Zuckerberg’s idea of ‘connection’ operates as sociotechnical imaginary in that Facebook, the communication technology he designed, is reflective of our shared understanding of social life and social order. Humans are social beings; yearning to connect with those near and far. A shared vision of the future where ‘connection’ is rendered limitless, effortless, and virtually free of charge, is not lost on Zuckerberg, who continues to sell his service as a way for people to ‘connect and learn about each other’. However, it seems the more we learn about the way he and his company operate, the more we come to realize that Facebook functions more as an ‘ideology’ as opposed to a ‘utopian vision’.

Using Flichy’s ‘technical conception phases’ model on page 10, we can grasp a better understanding of how Zuckerberg’s shared utopian vision of ‘connection’ has morphed into a mobilized ideology. For the longest time, both users and producers of Facebook have been complicit in the way the social media giant has operated as a tool for connectivity. Yet when we look past its exterior and delve deeper into its business model, we can clearly see how Zuckerberg and Facebook embody neoliberal ideology.

Chapter 1 of Taplin’s Move Fast and Break Things offers some insight into how the early installment of the Internet was the epitome as ‘tech for good’. Originally a tool for democracy and decentralization, the Internet was, as Taplin puts it, eventually “hijacked by a small group of right-wing radicals to whom the ideas of democracy and decentralization were anathema.” Silicon Valley entrepreneurs like Peter Thiel and Zuckerberg have created technological applications that on the surface appear to make our lives easier, or in some sense, strive to reach the shared utopian goal of a more connected society. However, as Taplin points out, this sense of “shared social responsibility is not part of the libertarian creed” that they abide by, and has resulted in ‘tech for profit’.

As Jasonoff notes on page 26, law “emerges as an especially fruitful site in which to examine imaginaries in practice. Legal disputes are in their very nature moments of contestation between disparate understandings of good.” Zuckerberg’s 2018 testimony before US congress is a perfect example of this idea. If Zuckerberg’s app is indeed a model of ‘tech for good’, then there would have been no hearing in the first place. At the root of the ordeal is the absence of government regulation, and while I’m hopeful that both sides will work to find some sort of solution to this long overdue problem, I’m uncertain as to whether or not it will happen anytime soon. Facebook is simply too powerful and too entrenched in our collective understanding of 'how we can and should communicate', that I think it will be years, if not decades before the issue of regulation is resolved.