For this blog post I thought that I might try something that
I have been considering for quite some time: withdrawing from Facebook. In its
place I thought that I might give Diaspora a try (the social media platform
that Fuchs recommends towards the end of his book). I have been considering
making this shift for years due to being aware of the serious ethical issues
with social media sites such as Facebook but have not done so due to a lack of
viable alternatives. Thanks to our class (and the various Marxist authors that
we have explored – e.g. Fuchs and Gehl) I have been more seriously toying with the
idea of trying Diaspora
In a nutshell Diaspora is a social media site that aims to
address many of the concerns raised by some of the authors that we have
explored. First and foremost it is a non-profit site suggesting that no monetized
exploitation of affective labour is taking place. Second: it is open-source and
thus attempts to address the lack of transparency inherent in many major sites
that we currently use. Finally it is structured to allow the user to select
where/how their data is stored and to have complete control over it (including
but not limited to the ability to actually have this data deleted). If a user
is so inclined they can even host their own diaspora network on a computer that
they own.
More specifically I thought that it might be interesting to
conduct a small experiment or exploration for (at least) the remainder of our course.
This will entail me refraining from using all common social media sites for
personal reasons. Unfortunately, as some of my formal volunteer/professional
needs require traditional social media accounts, I will not be able to fully
withdraw from engagement. Instead I will shift my personal social media
interaction to Diaspora. Time permitting I will attempt to post to our blog again
with a small update in a couple of weeks explaining what the whole experience
has been like for me. Although only time will tell I suspect that I will
encounter challenges when trying to convince my friends to follow me to the
site and that I will miss the instant messaging feature.
Regardless I invite all of you to join me in this endeavor.
If you would like to find me on Diaspora please click this link:
https://diasp.org/i/5838a6f241f4
If you would like to take a look at the larger
structure/set-up of Diaspora itself then the more general information can be
found here:
https://diasporafoundation.org/
Please let me know what you think about my little
experiment. I am honestly looking forward to experiencing this entire shift. It
might be even more interesting if some of us take this on together and then
discuss it later.
Works Cited
Fuchs, Christian. Social Media: A Critical Introduction.
London: SAGE Publications, 2014.
Gehl, Robert. Reverse Engineering Social Media: Software,
Culture, and Political Economy in New Media Capitalism. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 2014.
Good for you Santiago! The chapter where Fuchs mentions Diaspora* was actually part of my presentation. When I was making my presentation I toyed with the idea of creating a Diaspora* account to show the class. Ultimately, I decided against it because it was a little more involved than I bargained for.
ReplyDeleteI really like the idea of using an alternative social media platform, especially one that is non-profit. Just out of curiosity, where did you decide to store your data? I know that Diaspora has ‘pods’ that you can join that will store your data for you, but you can also create your own pod. I know you are technologically savvy, so I’m curious to see how you navigate the pod situation.
You bring up an interesting point when discussing how it is probably going to be difficult to convince people to join you on Diaspora*. What makes social media sites so engaging for the user is the fact that they can see what everyone else is doing while simultaneously letting those same people know what they are doing. Interaction between users is a major emphasis on social media sites. Since Diaspora* is not as popular as Facebook, I foresee you running into communication issues. If someone is not on Diaspora*, then you will not be able to communicate with them via social media.
I wonder if there could ever be some sort of social media network that can access Facebook without being a part of Facebook. For example, can you access Facebook through an alternative URL perhaps and somehow have access to Facebook users without necessarily going through the Facebook platform? I am quite technologically illiterate, so perhaps what I’m saying is nonsense.
For now, it seems that the only way to make Diaspora* work on a macro level is to convince people to make the switch from Facebook—which is no small task. I am very interested to hear how your experience with Diaspora* turns out!
I agree with Santiago that diaspora* begins to adequately address some of the concerns that we raised in class, such as exploitation and privacy. However, we should not get lost in valorizing diaspora* for these qualities – we need to be critical of diaspora* as well. In response to Santiago, I want to offer two critical reflections about diaspora*.
ReplyDeleteMy first critical reflection concerns the affordances of diaspora* as a decentralized network. According to diaspora*, “decentralization” means that “diaspora* is a true network, with no central base”; “[i]nstead of everyone’s data being contained on huge central servers owned by a large organization, local servers (“pods”) can be set up anywhere in the world.” The decentralized nature of diaspora*’s network, however, makes it difficult for diaspora’s core team to remove content from a given node or “pod” in the social networking site. This particular affordance of diaspora*’s decentralized network has enabled Islamic State activists to promote their activities on diaspora* (https://goo.gl/hZtLeH); since diaspora* does not have a central server, it is difficult for diaspora’s core team to quickly remove what they deem to be inappropriate activity. While diaspora* may not always be used for such deplorable activities, it affords a heightened possibility for them to occur unchecked.
Second, diaspora* claims to be based on the philosophies of “freedom” and “privacy”. One of the ways in which diaspora* claims to embody a philosophy of freedom is as follows: “diaspora* is completely Free Software. This means there are no limits on how it can be used. You can even take the source code and change it to make it work in the way you want to, and help us improve the network.” Regarding privacy, diaspora* claims that you can “[c]hoose where your data are stored by choosing a pod you’re happy with. If you want to be really secure, you can set up and host your own pod on servers you control, so no one can get at your personal data”. Despite diaspora*’s techno-optimistic rhetoric, there are limits to how diaspora* can be used at present. For one, Windows users cannot host their own pod because diaspora* does not currently support Windows software for pod-hosting purposes. While diaspora* is open-source and thus affords the possibility for someone to develop such a function, Windows users must currently store their data on pods hosted by other people. Although a corporation (e.g. Facebook) is not controlling the data that users post to a given pod, those who host pods have control over the data that is in their pod. This leaves Windows users without the option “to be really secure” on diaspora*.
I am interested to hear what you (Santiago) and the rest of the class thinks about these critical reflections.
Note: all quotations are taken from diaspora*'s "home" page and "about" page.
Interesting idea Santiago! I look forward to hearing about your experience using diaspora*.
ReplyDeleteAfter taking this course, (I don't think i'm alone in saying this) I have also considered leaving Facebook for an alternative platform. Although there are a variety of alternative platforms out there that provide different affordances, I have been unable to bring myself to switching. When toying with the idea of leaving Facebook my decision ultimately came down to the power of the network on Facebook.
I just can't understand what the purpose of an alternative platform is if my network is not also on it. What does one do on a social networking site when the large majority of those they wish to communicate with are not on the platform as well? I primarily use Facebook these days to communicate with family back home and stay in touch with our cohort via our Facebook page. If these individuals are not on the alternative platform then the platform is of little value to me. As Castells discusses, the function and meaning of a network depends on the programs of the network and on its interaction with other nodes in the network.
Additionally, as Metcalfe's Law outlines, the value of being in a network increases exponentially with the size of the network. What value does a platform like this provide without a large network? Additionally, even if the network on the platform is larger, if my motivation for using a social networking site is to communicate with friends and family that are not also connected to the network, then what purpose does it serve for me?
I understand that this is a very problematic way of understanding alternative platforms, as one of the best ways to truly change the exploitative practices of Facebook is to persuade the "multitude" to switch to a better platform. Thus, I wonder how this is to be accomplished? How do "we" obtain control over our data and labor if the network of Facebook continues to be exponentially more powerful than any alternative? How would this switch of platforms be facilitated en masse?