Recently, I returned to Facebook after a long absence. I've posted that these social networks appear to have dubious value. My blogging elsewhere has included extensive writing, editing of photos and videos. Obviously time consuming and something best done in the wee hours, or while waiting for the rain to stop so outdoor activities can resume. Of course, one can go the Tumblr route and simply "reblog" someone else's work, so the same photos, GIFs and snippets may circulate through millions of "websites." Is that creating value, or is it simply a datastorm? I'll let the reader decide.
Ultimately, we each face a choice of how we spend each minute of every day. It's subjective to say that something is a waste, yet there is waste. So why would I say that FB has dubious value? What do I mean? How would one determine that? If FB does have value, how best to exploit it and for what purpose? FB began as a closed system which ostensibly had the purpose of facilitating social connections with women on the Harvard campus. Its mission statement has evolved and since 2009 has been “Facebook’s mission is to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.”
Blogging and social networking are work of a different sort. Perhaps part stream of consciousness and part accomplishment. Certainly, measuring productivity of blogging and networking can be challenging. Productivity implies a deliverable that can be measured. In bona fide work, we can always look at our net income and make the statement "I earned (whatever) this week." Or we can point to a tangible product. However, blogging as I have done it, with no ads for 5 years and currently limited Google ads, is certainly not a way to make a living, nor did I intend it to be. If earnings (dollars) are the measure of productivity, then all blogging of this type has no tangible benefit. So was or is there an intention? Or is this all simply entertainment, a hobby and a diversion? I did have a purpose and objective in returning to FB. Nothing nefarious, so readers should not be concerned.
One FB user commented and objected to what she said was my "advertizing" on Facebook. That's a really interesting comment and it did provide useful data about some users at FB. Facebook survives entirely because of the advertizing which proliferates its pages and inundates the reader constantly. My apparent sin was to put a link in a FB post directing readers to specific posts in my personal blog in response to questioning and that's considered advertizing? If anyone should complain it should be Mark Zuckerberg, because any off page links takes the FB user away from all of that advertising which generates FB revenue. Perhaps that was the problem. It seems I was perceived to be a competitor for advertizing dollars? Worse, I am at a Google hosted site, the FB archrival. Horrors! Most interesting, really. I wonder how much FB stock some of the users over at Facebook may have. I'll reminisce about the days when many people pushed Microsoft for that very reason. They had a lot of personal money invested in the stock and it became such a problem in industry that to avoid the possible taint of industry bias I had to issue a company directive; employees (including managers) could not own MS stock; mutual funds containing MS were fine. More recently, this has been a phenomenon with Apple. Greed in America? Can't happen, and I suppose neither the internet bubble or the real estate bubble ever happened.
Blogs and social media can be used as a diary. And of course, as a communications tool. Or a change agent. There are additional uses. However, if the primary purposes of the internet are entertainment and sales, then there may be a competition to keep people watching or reading. I've monitored certain blogs. Stop writing and people stop reading. So there may be pressure to write anything. If so, this can put one at cross-purposes with their commitment, unless clicks and consumer purchases is the desired outcome. However, my visible purpose remains a diary with commentary. While a public diary via multiple streams might be the medium, that does not indicate the true purpose. A public forum does have use but also limitations. It is not always the best approach and to be responsible there is oh, so much I'll never write or publish here. Those communications are reserved for elsewhere; why give away the best to non-committed readers? On the other hand, this is an elegant way to use the cloud. My "home" may cease to exist or become permanently mobile, my hard drives may melt, and yet, this stuff will remain out here. Some day, an internet user may stumble upon one of my blogs and wonder why it hasn't been updated recently. It may be I'm on "vacation," have moved to other interests which better serve my purposes, or I may no longer be on this planet. Or perhaps my blogs will go on automatic and will continue to be published by machine. Perhaps that is already occurring?
Coincidentally, a friend recently asked me why I am "wasting my time" in social media. She's a professional and may not be typical. In my limited experience, most professionals don't see the value of social media beyond marketing, sales or service and would prefer to use a service like Skype to communicate with distant family, etc. Distant might be only 5 miles.
Yes, there is a risk in putting any aspect of one's life on the internet. For many years I took steps to be routinely scrubbed from the public domain. My life is my business and what I put out here is what I am willing to reveal. It's not too difficult to obfuscate. Or perhaps this is a charade. Who is the person behind the blog? Reading my public persona might be misleading. Misdirection? Would anyone on the internet do that?
Which brings me to my point. In response to a brief discussion about procrastination and delay, one reader said "......if you were living as today was your last on this planet, you probably wouldn't be wasting time on facebook." That too was an interesting comment. This drew another comment from another FB user "Shots fired!" The person who wrote the original comment may consider all of FB to be an utter waste. That's not necessarily so because life is a choice. Each day we make small and large decisions about how to accomplish specific purposes. I made a decision to run what I could describe as a social experiment on FB (Is it? I'm not going to get specific). Doing so included choices about time, interaction and limits. That experiment has just about run its course. However, the reader who made the comment about FB assumes time can be wasted. If goals or purpose are accomplished, then where is the waste? Or is the reader assuming that time is wasted if new challenges are not created? That's a different question, one that touches upon abundance and perception. For example, can one have "enough" in life? Are there limits or are we to be boundlessly "I want?"
As for two FB users getting involved in a "Shots fired!" discourse, now, that could be entertainment, couldn't it?
There is an old expression "Work smarter, not harder." Can FB be a part of a smarter approach? If so, how would it be used? Some now use it as an online "help desk." I'm not certain I see that as "smarter." Consumers are a fickle group. Service is demanded and expected. There are always going to be bystanders, some looking forward to excitement or carnage. Competitors can view the dirty laundry, too.
Turning bystanders into "buystanders" is not easy. There are costs and benefits to the FB approach for a company. How will that approach turn out? Time will tell and I'm interested in the result. I simply may not find the knowledge is worth the time spent to obtain it. That's not about waste, by the way. It is about allocation of resources.
There is something to be said about "doing" and being in action. However, if we operate as if we are hamsters in cages, then where is the accomplishment in that? In other words, a life should have purpose. That involves choice, goals, commitments and so on.
We each choose how to use our talents. Some are put to use to earn a living. Some are used to entertain others. Some are used in volunteer work. Some are used to maintain relationships. Talents can be used in many ways. Time is not purpose. I suppose the larger question is simply "If we are truly aware that our life is finite, then how should we best spend it?" But it isn't about "spending" time; it is about use. It's about accomplishing goals and purposes. These are the interesting question to ask, IMHO. "Are you in thought or in action?" read the placard over my desk. I've been asking myself these questions for decades. It is useful to do so in purposing oneself. From time to time, we may also repurpose based upon what we have learned or accomplished. Life can be lived in stages and each may have differing goals and purpose. That is the larger question. What is my purpose? In fact, I have several purposes, because my life exists in several domains. Don't we all? The ultimate decision is how much talent (resources) to spend (allocate) in any one domain and in the process what specifically can I or will I accomplish in each domain? This implies having a goal or goals within a pragmatic approach. A larger question might be about commitment.
When a goal is reached, or the data acquired, or if a goal becomes impossible to achieve, these are appropriate times to end a project or task.
If we are to discuss waste, perhaps it should be from the perspective of living or not living a life of purpose.
This is not the time or place to express what I would do if this were my last day on the planet. Nor am I going to go into my purposes, goals, ambitions, etc. Sometimes life in the public domain is like a poker game. A lot of people expect others to show their cards while they do not, or hide behind "anonymous" and trivia.
A reader might assume I would be spending my life differently than I currently am if I were told "your life is over." This implies that we may alter significances when we face the reality of our finite existence. The reader may assume I have not yet done so. But what if I have realized this? What if I live from a place of readiness and completion? Perhaps each morning is both "hello" and "goodbye." Perhaps the things I find necessary have either been accomplished or are in motion and on a trajectory to completion, with or without me. Perhaps I have declared that I do have enough and experience abundance in my life? Is it possible that one might feel no compulsion to do anything "special" if one has lived life fully, has accomplished the things one set out to do, and "has" enough? What if that bucket list has no significance? After all, it is all made up, isn't it? Ah, yes, there is always something to do, or to see. Hollywood will be churning out a new blockbuster each month and does. There will be singing and dancing on America's Got Talent. There will be a new flavor at Ben & Jerry's, a new play on Broadway, a newer car or RV. There will be news tonight, and a weather report. Stocks will be bought and sold, There will be taxes and problems. Etc.
There will always be need. In our western culture "wants, needs and desires" are treated as very important. Life can become about getting these things, or having them. or consuming them, or providing these things to others. Why? What about the quality of one's life? How would we measure that? Are relationships and intimacy important?
As for lifespan, it would seem a lot of people want to live forever. To what purpose?
No comments:
Post a Comment