It used to be such a pleasant, easygoing place.

You could talk and chat and laugh, and even poke gentle fun at your friends in a virtual community where, like that famous bar in Cheers, “everyone knows your name”.

There was the occasional argument, sure, but it was harmless and you could take the edge off any angry sounding rebuttal with a friendly wink.

So what, may I ask, has happened to Facebook?

Why are a few mean-spirited old prunes trying to suck the fun right out of it? That’s right: “fun”. It is allowed, you know, to have fun even if (gasp) you are over 40. In fact, I thoroughly recommend it; it can do wonders for one’s disposition.

Sure, people can choose to act like village gossips, pursing their lips and tut-tutting at others if that’s what makes them happy. I know several people who don’t feel comfortable with the concept of FB, which is fine. After all, no one is forcing them to join or participate, just like no one can make you go to a party and socialise if you’d rather stay home alone and read a book.

If it was simply disapproval of the whole idea, I could respect that, but why ruin it for others? Frankly, I think people who are so sour about FB simply just don’t get it.

Snoop dog

Being anti-FB is one thing, but apparently there is a new phenomenon where people are snooping around using false identities in order to lurk there without actually “being” there, if you know what I mean. The thing is that unlike, say, an online comment, with FB there is no hiding your identity when you post remarks. Your name and photo come up each time, and you have to take full responsibility for what you post. The fake identity (with the use of a generic photo) however, allows you to post comments and flick through everyone else’s profile, while no one can flick through yours because you have been careful to keep information to a minimum. Which, basically, is the antithesis of what FB is all about, and which also means you can spot a fake right away. The whole point of this social network is to socialise; hence the name. It was not created or intended for spies, and yet that is how it is being used.

Photos are being lifted and whole conversations are being copied and posted elsewhere on the web, with derogatory comments being posted anonymously. Even the fact that one belongs to a FB group is being ‘used’ against people. Let me take myself as an example.

I am a member of the group LGBT Labour, which advocates gay rights. Now, let’s just say this innocuous information were to be ‘used’ to insinuate that I am a lesbian. Now, I wouldn’t find this the least bit offensive because, obviously, I don’t think there is anything wrong with being a lesbian, so I would just shrug. In fact, anyone who thinks they could ‘insult’ me by calling me a lesbian would be revealing more about their own homophobia than anything else.

What this example does illustrate, however, is just how easily FB can be insidiously used in order to ‘get at’ people. This has already been pointed out by fellow columnist Noel Grima, last Sunday. We have all chanced upon photos of people we know in the public eye which, were we so inclined, could be put to nasty use. We don’t do it, because – well, what kind of person does that kind of thing anyway?

The result is that people are terrified in case they happened to be at the “wrong” party so they have gone into shut down mode on their profiles, deleting posts and removing photos. The very air on FB has been made toxic as a new form of intimidation creeps in with the use of Big Brother tactics.

There are those who argue that by posting a photo on FB you have lost your claim to it, but surely FB was devised on the premise that everyone who is a member of this community will behave in a way which is civilised and decent? Sharing a photo does not mean you are ‘asking for it’, because that is starting to sound dangerously like those men who claim that a woman wearing a sexy outfit is begging to be raped.

Let’s face it, lifting trivial information off someone’s profile and passing it on for it to be used in a destructive way is nothing short of despicable.

Democracy rules

On the flip side, FB has proven itself to be the ultimate democratic tool. Because you control your own profile, you can decide whom to add, whom to block, who can see your profile, what comments to delete and what applications to hide from your news feed. It is the only medium where there really is free speech because there is no hidden moderator who decides what gets to be uploaded and which comments to censor. It is, literally, uncontrollable in that way, which must be galling for control freaks who want their carefully marketed image to be in their own hands.

But once you have put yourself out there on FB you cannot really control what people say about you (there have even been several instances of personal arguments being fought out on the public wall). In fact, that applies, even if you are NOT on FB and happen to be a public figure. And if a programme presenter asks for feedback, he has to be prepared to take all the criticism and not just bask in the fawning “prosit tal-programm”.

A case in point is the talent show L-Isfida. A

talented and popular contestant was voted off this week and some fans on the FB page were up in arms. After a while, it was announced that the same contestant would be reinstated on the show and other fans were equally in an uproar about the reversal of this decision. Accusations and allegations are still flying back and forth as I write.

Which brings me to another point that some people keep forgetting: since you can only see the comments of your network of friends (and friends of your friends unless they have a private profile), what you are reading at any point in time is only a slice of a much bigger picture.

In fact, despite the attempts being made to ruin FB, it will never happen. The sheer number of people who are on it and the way the concept works makes it an almost unassailable fortress. And thank God for that.

Opinionated

Another interesting aspect of FB is that breaking news stories are being posted immediately and people are starting to discuss them in real time, long before the evening news or the next day’s papers.

The blurring of the lines between the various media means the agenda of what is to be discussed is no longer in the hands of those who own newspapers, radio and television. FB has also shown that public opinion is no longer so easily malleable because it is not being dictated by the chosen few. Of course, there are those who lament the fact that the Internet means “everyone” with a computer now has an opinion. What’s so wrong with that? You can choose to skip over those who ramble and talk nonsense but there are a lot of sharp people behind their keyboards out there who know exactly what they’re talking about and who don’t let anything slip past them.

This reminds me of the way radio and TV phone-ins suddenly gave a voice to people who used to be too shy to speak if a microphone was thrust in front of them in Republic Street.

The explosion of opinions on the airwaves meant that Joe Public was no longer the passive listener or viewer who had to sit there and fume while the same few opinionated windbags had their say night after night.

Similarly, FB has caused a revolution in how news is spread, what aspect of the news strikes the public’s imagination and what concerns the average person. Any politician worth his salt should know this by now. Those who have chosen to shun FB have only themselves to blame if they are completely and utterly out of the loop.

[email protected]