Last week (and for years now, really) a rumor burned through the status updates of gullible people throughout the world. While the rumor, which claimed that Facebook would soon be charging users for its service, was debunked, such fact stating rarely has any affect on trolls . In fact, that variety of behavior appears only to encourage them.
So in true /b/tard style, no time was wasted in posting images encouraging friends to believe the rumor. Here is an excellent example:
Admit it - that's really pretty funny. At any rate, it appears some lulz were had by a large number of people - myself included (contact lulz?).
What's interesting for me, however, is not so much the trolling, but rather the outrage some people felt when first encountering the rumor. Seriously - outrage. It seems a silly thing for me to think that Facebook would have the "audacity" to charge users. After all, why would they risk alienating the product they are selling? And furthermore, at what point did communicating via social networks become so utterly important to some people? To be sure, I use the shit out of Facebook, but at the end of the day I would certainly be able to survive without it.
This ought to be a point of interest for young sociology and/or communications majors (holy crap, a wild thesis opportunity appears!). At what point did users of internet-based social services become so dependent upon said services, that they began to blur the line between physical and digital interaction? Sherry Turkle has at least started the ball rolling, but I think this realization is set to become an increasingly studied area of human interaction.
As a final thought, consider this delightful meme, which I think sheds some light on the curious nature of this rumor's popularity:
I certainly think there is some truth in this statement. Why do you think some people freak out when presented with trivial (and false) rumors, but shy away from complaining with the same fervor when learning that our banking institution caused the recession we are now experiencing? And don't be foolish - Barack Obama did not tank the economy. George W. Bush did not tank the economy. The economy tanked because a few people in the private sector decided to behave badly (that moral hazard issue . . .). Where are the complaints about that?
I think the lack of fervor is pretty interesting, but I certainly don't have an answer for why it is often lacking. I only have suspicions; Suspicions I'd be happy to share in the comment section.
0 comments:
Post a Comment