Social media and tech companies

I'm old. 

I remember the days before the Internet - before PCs, even. My high school maths class was the last to learn how to use slide  rules and the first to learn how to use a computer (one that ran off stacks of cards). When I finished uni, I recall the joy when the first company I worked for got one electric typewriter ... and then a telex ... and then another company I was at got a fax.

And here's the really scary bit: I also remember the days when everyone was fairly naïve and idealistic - Google really did start off with a determination to "not do the evil thing", YouTube had more of an interactive, community feel, and then there was the - clunky, unsophisticated and unpolished to modern eyes - early versions of social media, like GeoCities (which I never used, but heard a great deal about), LiveJournal (which I think I briefly tried), and MySpace (which I also tried, I think). 

I started using Blogger in 2007, and it had a less polished, less functional, but far more friendly feel, in my opinion.

The Blogger platform keeps getting tweaked, and, although I have no doubt that helps new users, it is often at the expense of the functionality that more established users like myself rely on.

Still, social media and working online has become big business now, so catering for the majority is important for profit (the "bottom line"). 

This is not unique to the Internet or related tech companies: I've seen, for instance, small engineering companies that were friendly and effective (albeit with some key flaws) get sold to bigger companies, lose their identity, and become part of a big, self perpetuating machine aimed at improving profitability. As more people come in, the limited social bubble gets blown apart - for better or worse, depending of the quality of character of the residual and the new people, and how people-focused the systems and people-aware the managers are.

This has led to a lot of problems in many organisations when basic humanity and decency become subservient to the amount of profit being made - destroying Indigenous sites, for instance, or underplaying or ignoring psychological abuse (possibly due to white male effect?), and sexist abuses of the type being fixed by this activist shareholder group. 

The one difference between those companies and the early Internet platforms is that the companies had making money as a key part of their ethos right from the start: the Internet platforms weren't as mercenary - but, IMO, it is unlikely we would have seen the development and spread of the Internet and social media platforms without more money. 

The problem is, the human side got lost in the "strategic vision" ... 

To turn to facebook, I've always been wary of that platform. 

As an initial point, I objected as a matter of principle to a for-profit company collecting personal details they did not need. I've read stories suggesting that might be a hang over from facebook alleged origins as a way to "pick up chicks" - certainly the original "facemash" seems to have been in that mould, but it doesn't matter what the origin is: I have always tried to protect my privacy, and I am prepared to go without the latest fad / craze / fashion if I have to. 

At that time, many years ago, I was told by some people they "just entered false details". Well, there is a point in the process where you have to - in my words - promise that you have told the truth. I won't lie, even if others mistakenly think they are "just lying to a machine". If other people want to sacrifice their ethics, so be it: I'd prefer not to. 

Shortly after that, the cultural problems started becoming apparent on facebook - the racism, the misogyny, the LGBT-phobia, and so on, and I felt quite relieved. 

I have to admit to being flabbergasted by facebook's incredibly clumsy "responses" - reactions that really did give me the impression of an almost schoolboy mentality straight out of facemash. 

They still struggle with this - banning photos of breastfeeding because breasts can be seen????!!!!! FFS! 

Even the egregious influence of the far right (especially the religious far right) in the USA doesn't explain those problems. 

And today, in response to our national government's (flawed) attempt to stop our journalism industry being completely destroyed, facebook has instituted what I consider an extreme, vindictive and dangerous (health pages on COVID and emergency services pages - and the weather - were taken down, as were pages from ONE political party and government departments and human rights bloggers [but not homophobes . . . ] ) shut down in Australia. 

Google, perhaps remembering it's origins of "don't do the evil thing", chose the exact opposite path. 

I've lost a great deal by choosing to stay off facebook: I've been effectively shut out of a policy committee and other groups (to the extent that I left), I've lost an incredible amount of opportunity to promote the various interests and non-paying work I have, and interactions with people who have decided to stop using email has been limited. 

Today I feel that price is worth it. 

I wonder how many people will join me after today . . .