Blog Post Question 2 Reply

Patrice Flichy (2007) describes the relationship between utopia and ideology as “two poles of the social imaginarie, one trying to maintain social order and the other trying to disrupt it. Hence, there is constant tension between stability and change” (p. 8). When we consider Marc Zuckerberg’s development of Facebook in terms of his intention behind creating the platform, the construction and implementation of the platform and the ever-changing results of his vision, the strength and legitimacy of these opposing forces become far easier to see.

Zuckerberg begins his statement with a brief recount of the beginnings of Facebook, claiming that he “wasn’t trying to build a global company”, his intention had been to build a service that “connects” people. However, this had been his vision for the platform prior to the actual implementation of Facebook itself. Namely, his intention of connecting people had stemmed from what Flichy (2007) describes as the utopian phase of the project (p. 9). Towards the end of Zuckerberg’s statement, he says: “If you believe 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”. In this phase of the project, connecting people is a part of the socio-technical imaginary, one in which the constraints of reality do not limit possibilities, but instead, are used as intersections in which change can be made possible.

Moving into the second phase of the project is where the implementation of the utopian vision experiences the opposing forces of ideology. Flichy (2007) describes the concept of a project leaving the short-term dimension and evolving into a long-term collective vision or imaginarie. What changes about it in this stage is that the platform achieves another dimension—this being users (pg. 4). In order for Facebook to thrive and remain a long-term imaginarie, the opinions and concerns of these users are necessary for Facebook’s designers to consider and apply to their vision moving forward. (Flichy, (Flichy, 2007)07, p.10-11). As Flichy (2007) explains, this phase can be recognized as “a time for construction of the technique and its users but also a phase in which the utopian discourse is reconstructed and bases its claims on the exemplarity of the trails performed” (p.11). Zuckerberg’s idea of “connection” in this phase, now faces the problem of having to sustain itself financially without excluding users by charging for access—resulting in advertisements. Drawing on Ricœur’s three levels of concepts outlined by Flichy (2007), the advertisements operate at the political level of ideology (p. 9). Additionally, as Zuckerberg acknowledges in his statement, Facebook must appeal to the masses of the users, as well as maintain content that attracts advertisers in the first place. This ideological influence operates at the social level (Flichy, 2007, p. 9), resulting in human and artificial moderators of content, filtering through what content can and cannot be considered appropriate.

After analyzing Zuckerberg’s technical conception phases of Facebook, I think that Flichy’s (2007) writings can be used effectively as a neutralizing strategy. I think that Zuckerberg’s statement does a good job of describing his utopian vision of connecting the world, and at the same time, does a good job of diffusing criticism by highlighting the fact that connecting such a large number of people can only be done with those people in mind. Therefore, a compromise between the designers and the users becomes necessary in order to achieve the goals of the project, while sufficiently benefiting all of the stakeholders (Flichy, 2007, p.10).  However, Zuckerberg suggests his users see this business model as a trade-off in which their personal data is traded instead of money.  

The only contradiction I see here is that this trade off results in extremely ideological content on your timeline. Referring back to Flichy’s (2007) six types of utopian or ideological discourse, the utopian goal eventually becomes so diffused, “aspects of reality are readily concealed in order to promote the new technique. In this case, I refer to a mask ideology” (p. 11). In this phase, the effects of the tension between ideology and utopia have resulted in Facebook—"a service for connecting”. I emphasis ‘service’ because the constraints of ideology have altered the utopian vision, Facebook is a business. Despite Zuckerberg’s goal in “putting power in the hands of as many people as possible”, power is legitimized by ideology (Flichy, 2007, p. 11)

This is not to say, however, that Facebook was not a step in the right direction. As Flichy (2007) rightfully acknowledges, “utopia constitutes an alternative to the power in place” (p. 8). Facebook offers a space for people to connect with others from all over the world, and to share their opinion on a scale much larger than anything prior. These realities in themselves validate the sheer possibilities of future socio-technical imaginaries and lay a pretty solid foundation for what should be considered “Tech for Good”.

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