The Study of the Social Networks Phenomenon: A Comparative Analysis

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Positioning the Purpose
Lack of Privacy
Availability and Capabilities
Conclusion
References

Introduction

In this era of high technological achievement, the daily and ubiquitous use of electronic devices, the Internet, and computer equipment no longer seems surprising. Every day people are confronted with a dozen new inventions with the potential to change their way of life qualitatively. A considerable role in this context should be given to social media: perhaps the digital age’s most significant innovation. Although just a few decades ago people from different cities and even countries could only maintain rare telephone contact, modern opportunities with social networks’ help make it possible to learn, with almost zero delays, news relevant to a completely different region. Nevertheless, it is worth acknowledging that media themselves can be evidence of an intensification of loneliness among users and an illustration of anonymous alienation (Patulny). In this regard, it is interesting to critically analyze interpretations of the social media phenomenon through the prism of two films: the semi-biographical The Social Network by David Fincher and the documentary We Live in Public by Ondi Timoner. Thus, this essay acknowledges that the films represent the current possibilities and challenges of social media. The purpose of this writing is to conduct a comparative analysis of the two works mentioned.

Positioning the Purpose

The first criterion necessary to compare the two films is the establishment of a clear purpose that the filmmakers followed in the production of the film work. Ondi Timoner, in the making a documentary about the life of “Internet pioneer” Josh Harris, illustrated that the man’s plans to conduct sociological experiments on people within the art were based on the idea of the superiority of social networks and their manipulation of human personalities (Timoner). This is mostly about voluntarily giving up one’s personal and private life for the pleasure of an unorthodox experiment. While it is worth realizing that the developments shown in the film — such as Quiet or a room full of recording devices — are not social networks in the purest sense, they do outline the basic properties of networks, namely publicity, lack of privacy, and honesty.

A similar idea underlies The Social Network‘s composition, in which David Fincher showed the technological side of the life of the most extraordinary visionary of our time, Mark Zuckerberg. In particular, the film is built on the view that the social network as such has a severe impact on human relationships and can even cause conflicts and quarrels, as illustrated for Zuckerberg and his friend, Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin (Fincher). Again, this film does not show the use of social media as such, but like in We Live in Public, Fincher used the concept of it. Through the technological development of a platform for people to communicate virtually, the director shows facets of communication, including the negative. Thus, both films follow the central idea of the unconditional participation of social networks in the modern individual’s life, indicating that this effect can bring a variety of consequences.

Lack of Privacy

Inextricably linked to the exploration of the social networks phenomenon in the two films, the second key motif is the problem of the lack of privacy. First of all, it should be recognized that in today’s Internet environment, even the most secure platforms do not guarantee absolute security for the user (Sobers). This is especially true for networks such as Facebook or Instagram, in which a person tends to tell as much about his life as possible. Hence, one cannot rule out the possibility that many Internet platforms actively cooperate with law enforcement services for public order purposes (Walsh and O’Connor 2). For Timoner and Fincher, similar issues have not been an inscrutable problem, so they have clearly shown how social media can harm user privacy in their film work.

The film We Live in Public showed experiments, among which the loft, which was furnished with thirty surveillance cameras and even more microphones, is of particular interest in light of the criterion of comparison under discussion. To heighten the effect, Harris personally moves into this studio with his girlfriend so that they can be watched around the clock. Such an experiment is very much intertwined with the plot of the now-classic The Truman Show by Peter Weir, in which the whole life of the protagonist was also not a personal and intimate phenomenon (Weir). Timoner did an excellent job of showing how initially the enterprising girlfriend was enthusiastically willing to settle into this loft, but after a while, they began to worry about the discomfort and mental breakdown provoked by the abundance of cameras. This seems to illustrate the whole point of social media in the best possible way. In the beginning, the user happily registers with them, filling in as many fields as possible about his personal life, including education, place of work, beliefs. After the account is replenished with old friends, former classmates, and acquaintances, it becomes a full-fledged virtual social unit. In the end, the person traps themselves, as a result of which they willingly told the public about themselves, losing all privacy.

A similar narrative is evident in the analysis of The Social Network, in which the nature of human relationships was shown through the theme of social networks or their likeness. In particular, according to the film’s plot, at the very beginning, the protagonist is confronted with the breakdown of the romantic connection between him and his girlfriend. As a result, in an intoxicated state, an embittered Mark creates a platform that allows judging the attractiveness of local female students by comparing two photographs obtained by hacking into the private dormitory system. This objectification of women through their images, stealing confidential material, and using it in the public domain reveals the problem of privacy. Since the creation of Facemash, the photos no longer belong to their owners and have become the public’s property, many of whom are young men looking for a new relationship. Thus, it is possible that the girls depicted in the photos became very popular after publication, although they did not want it themselves.

Availability and Capabilities

The third criterion for comparison, which is impossible not to discuss, is the open opportunities that are provided to users of social networks. Indeed, the two films analyzed did not set out to describe the functional and social benefits from the platforms, but they indirectly touched on this. This is especially noticeable when comparing people’s lives before they interacted with social media and after.

In the Quiet experiment, Josh Harris convened a hundred artists, who were settled into a honeycomb-type housing structure, where each participant was allocated a small private room. However, it is a mistake to assume that this was the artist’s intimate space: dozens and hundreds of video cameras recorded almost every participant’s movement in the experiment. Despite the control and lack of privacy, people also received many social benefits for leisure time, including ongoing communication, a canteen, recreational spaces, and a shooting gallery. In other words, the artists traded the comforts of private life for a social one, coupled with some pleasures.

In Fincher’s film, similar advantages of the social network, or more precisely of its technological development, become apparent when comparing the protagonist’s life and his environment before and during his work. It is worth recalling that Mark and Eduardo were ordinary students who stood out little from the rest of the Harvard student body. However, once the social networking site Facebook entered their lives, mild distractions such as social parties, drugs, and alcohol, became contributing factors. Certainly, it is difficult to assess such negative aspects of life as a positive effect of social networks, but it is worth taking the details of Fincher’s film critically and pointing out that behind such distractions is a metaphor for any pleasure available to social network users.

Conclusion

Ultimately, it is worth noting that social media’s phenomenon cannot be unequivocally assessed as something negative or, conversely, purely positive. Undoubtedly, networking technology development allows to solve communication and makes virtual communication possible for people in entirely different regions and even time zones. In addition to communication, users receive the benefits of leisure, exciting pastime, and related activities available on the platform. However, the individual has to pay for this with their privacy and the comfort of their personal life since social networks are not compatible with the notions of security and privacy. These facets became apparent in the critical analysis of the two films directed by Fincher and Timoner. To summarize, both films explore similar social issues while taking a different approach to storytelling. Whereas The Social Network tells the semi-biographical story of Mark Zuckerberg and the personal experience of designing the Facebook platform, We Live in Public describes the journey of pre-Internet visionary Josh Harris through the lens of his artistic achievements.

References

Patulny, Roger. “Does social media make us more or less lonely?”University of Wollongong Australia, 2020. Web.

Sobers, Rob. “Social Media Security: How Safe is Your Information?”Varonis, 2020. Web.

The Social Network. Directed by David Fincher, performance by Jesse Eisenberg, Columbia Pictures, 2010.

The Truman Show. Directed by Peter Weir, performance by Jim Carrey, Paramount Pictures, 1998.

Walsh, James P., and Christopher O’Connor. “Social Media and Policing: A Review of Recent Research.” Sociology Compass, vol. 13, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1-18.

We Live in Public. Directed by Ondi Timoner, performance by Josh Harris, 2009.

Click Here To Order Now!