Comments on: Facebook and the neocons http://neilstewart.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/facebook-and-the-neocons/ Web 2.0, libraries, probably some obscure music and films, general thoughts. Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:40:22 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: neilstewart http://neilstewart.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/facebook-and-the-neocons/#comment-4497 neilstewart Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:56:39 +0000 http://neilstewart.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/facebook-and-the-neocons/#comment-4497 Yeah, I was challenged on Google last night when talking about this, along the lines of "well, if you're going to object to Facebook, what about Google"? I didn't really have much of an answer, despite having thought about Google a fair bit. There does seem to be something particularly insidious about Facebook, though. There's something creepy about it- being trapped in the walled garden perhaps? Yeah, I was challenged on Google last night when talking about this, along the lines of “well, if you’re going to object to Facebook, what about Google”? I didn’t really have much of an answer, despite having thought about Google a fair bit. There does seem to be something particularly insidious about Facebook, though. There’s something creepy about it- being trapped in the walled garden perhaps?

]]> By: Tom http://neilstewart.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/facebook-and-the-neocons/#comment-4496 Tom Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:27:44 +0000 http://neilstewart.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/facebook-and-the-neocons/#comment-4496 Yeah, the Guardian article is a bit over the top, saying that Facebook was concieved as "a social experiment" is to say the least, overstating it a bit. But then I think charactersing Thiel as a neo-con is only a little out. My understanding is that neo-conservatism is basically neo-liberalism with a side order of nationalism, an aggressive foreign policy and a bit of millenarian spice. Thiel is definately a neo-liberal as I understand the term (free trade, privatisation, deregulation). Hodgkinson is using the term as a slur though and it weakens his case. (Also i don't think the distinction between neo-Cons and plain old Cons is really too subtle for general discussion, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about though, it wouldn't be the first time) Having said that, the Potlach article neatly points out the flaw in the article when he lists "Enabling people to poke each other online, write on their friends walls, play Scrabulous and tag photos of themselves." as a feature of neo-conservatism. It's not always obvious how the politics of a CEO relate to the end user experience of something like Facebook because it's really not simple. Hodgkinson doesn't effectively address that, relying instead on his usual Fearnly Wittingstall-esq luddism to carry the article. However, by focusing on the innocuous end uses of the site site Potlach is in danger of ignoring what's going on under the bonnet. Kind of like saying there's no ethical problem with a company like <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3096893.stm" rel="nofollow">coca-cola</a> or <a href="http://www.toolness.com/nike/faq.html" rel="nofollow">nike</a> because all they do is make lovely fizzy drinks and help people to run better, maybe. I don't know, my thoughts on this are still only half formed but my gut is telling me that I don't a part in making facebook any bigger than it is. Google, now that's a whole lot more tricky. Yeah, the Guardian article is a bit over the top,
saying that Facebook was concieved as “a social experiment” is to say the least, overstating it a bit. But then I think charactersing Thiel as a neo-con is only a little out. My understanding is that neo-conservatism is basically neo-liberalism with a side order of nationalism, an aggressive foreign policy and a bit of millenarian spice. Thiel is definately a neo-liberal as I understand the term (free trade, privatisation, deregulation). Hodgkinson is using the term as a slur though and it weakens his case.

(Also i don’t think the distinction between neo-Cons and plain old Cons is really too subtle for general discussion, maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about though, it wouldn’t be the first time)

Having said that, the Potlach article neatly points out the flaw in the article when he lists “Enabling people to poke each other online, write on their friends walls, play Scrabulous and tag photos of themselves.” as a feature of neo-conservatism.

It’s not always obvious how the politics of a CEO relate to the end user experience of something like Facebook because it’s really not simple. Hodgkinson doesn’t effectively address that, relying instead on his usual Fearnly Wittingstall-esq luddism to carry the article. However, by focusing on the innocuous end uses of the site site Potlach is in danger of ignoring what’s going on under the bonnet. Kind of like saying there’s no ethical problem with a company like coca-cola or nike because all they do is make lovely fizzy drinks and help people to run better, maybe.

I don’t know, my thoughts on this are still only half formed but my gut is telling me that I don’t a part in making facebook any bigger than it is. Google, now that’s a whole lot more tricky.

]]>