Facebook: Opiate of the 21st century masses.

I have recently, for a reason I can’t tie down to any particular moment, developed a disdain for Facebook.

It is not that I don’t recognise the benefits of the social networking site. As a communication tool, it is revolutionary; indeed, it seems inevitable that our generation will remain in contact with each other more than any that has preceded it. But this isn’t the only reason we use it. Emails are instant and free, and to be a member of any social networking site requires an email account in the first place; so why not stop there?

Clearly the answer lies in the fact that it has now become one of the main forms of entertainment for this generation. Social networking sites are extraordinary in the size of their content. Two minutes after entering my login details, I can look at photos from the night out my old primary school friend had last week; I can join a group encouraging its members to mass buy carrots on a particular day, or I can spend hours browsing the profiles of people I hardly know, snickering at their interests and speculating on their relationship status.

But it is here where the problem with social networking sites lies, two questions in the back of our minds, unasked and unexplored; is this really entertainment, and even if so, is it the sort of entertainment that we should be having?

Facebook is essentially a means of wasting time. Consider the other hobbies and interests people have listed on their profiles for all to see. People pay up to £100 for music and sporting events, considering them life-changing experiences. Climbers will travel miles to scale that perfect rock face, risking life and limb for the feeling of achievement. Has anyone, ever, been this excited about Facebook? Does anyone prioritize using Facebook over any other interest? It certainly seems unlikely. No, Facebook is seen on the computer screens of those with exams, those with essays to write, and those with work to do. Facebook is a means of avoiding productivity; it is entertainment in the weakest sense of the word, used my millions yet enthused about by none; it is the opiate of the 21st century masses.

It might be objected here that this isn’t in itself a problem. Isn’t the fact that millions use Facebook enough to prove its value as a source of entertainment? Does it matter that it isn’t rewarding, exciting, or engaging? Well, perhaps not. But if Facebook is a form of entertainment, weak though it may be, then it is one that does us no good, and one that we would be better without.

One of the signs of an addiction is the consumption the habit has over the other parts of one’s life. Now, before faced with accusations of hyperbole and exaggeration, I am not suggesting that Facebook users are addicted; however the pull Facebook has over one’s life cannot be doubted. Sit in a communal computer room, and watch how many people log onto Facebook as soon as their internet window loads, refreshing the page every ten minutes, waiting for something to happen. Watch people in clubs taking endless photos, the next day to be tagged, captioned and loaded onto a Facebook album, never to be viewed again save for that one profile picture. Consider the fact that you’d be unlikely to hear your grandma use the term ‘mutual friend’ two years ago, let alone all your friends. Perhaps Facebook might be a light form of entertainment, if only it were saved for procrastination from deadlines and duties. When it has become so entangled in our lives, to the point of wasting not only time we can afford to waste but also time we can’t, it is no longer amusing.

The possibilities that Facebook offers, too, are unsettling. Privacy issues aside, isn’t there something intuitively troubling about being able to view someone’s profile, make judgments about them, view their photos etc., without ever having met them? If you are not the culprit of this you may just as easily be the victim. And isn’t there something intrusive about being able to view two people’s conversation? Why is this the sort of entertainment people desire to have? Why is this to be encouraged? Isn’t it really quite pointless to spend time browsing all of someone’s photos from a night you weren’t at, and have no genuine interest in? It seems to me that if there is any entertainment to be had from the habitual browsing of Facebook, then it is entertainment that should be questioned, and even rejected.

The other day I arranged to meet someone on my course to do some group work; upon meeting her, she said to me “I looked you up on Facebook before hand, I recognize you.” Perhaps it is an advantage of Facebook that she could know who to look out for. But this seems like a solution to a problem that was never there, and suggests that in the age of Facebook nothing is being left to the imagination, everything scrutinized and challenged on a computer screen prior to in reality. My friend told me about a text she received from a friend once: “I’ve dyed my hair! Check out the pictures on Facebook.” She laughed about it, but in the end never looked at the photos, saying she would prefer to see it in person, where her reaction would be seen and appreciated; by viewing the photos online, ultimately the surprise and excitement of seeing something new would be absent. And perhaps this characterizes Facebook perfectly; in all the photos, status updates and profiles, despite the speed at which we can access each other’s lives, the surprise and enjoyment of communication are lost and forgotten. We know what we are all doing in two nights time; we know what conversations we had with each other, and we know how terrible we looked last Friday night. Facebook may be a tenuous form of entertaiment, but what it takes away is not worth losing.