
The extended ‘chilling’ effect of Facebook (2016) - nosuchthing
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296637938_The_extended_%27chilling%27_effect_of_Facebook_The_cold_reality_of_ubiquitous_social_networking
======
scotch_drinker
Another way to think about a chilling effect is just the social norms that
civilization and culture enforce on people. While this research (and much of
the discussion of social network sites) focuses on the surveillance factor,
society can't just have people expressing their so called real self and still
function in the way it does today.

So the question to me becomes where is the line drawn between free expression
and societal norms enforced by our culture. Once upon a time, that line was
drawn by your family and your community, people who you saw every day
probably. Now, it's being drawn not just by your close contacts but likely
also by the anonymous data collection of social network sites.

That would seem to be the true scary part of this chilling effect, that it's
no longer being enforced by people we know and interact with but instead by
people who we may barely know at all as well as by the marketing and news
information that we are fed through the algorithms of social networks.

~~~
mtnygard
To extend your point just a bit farther: participants in social media have to
also be aware of _potential_ enforcement in the possibly distant future. E.g.,
college kids worrying about employers, potential politicians managing their
image for a future decade's voters, or threatened/marginalized populations
worried about future political environments. Anyone thinking in that mode has
to aggressively manage their presentation to avoid offending someone they
_might_ know or who _might_ have power over them.

~~~
drinkjuice
> threatened/marginalized populations worried about future political
> environments

Including not only oneself, but all future current and future friends, lovers
and offspring.

But the real kicker is that ultimately, it's not just about managing your
presentation, but about the (impossibility of) managing the interpretations of
others, according to rules, quotas and/or programs they defined and which they
will always be somewhat in the dark about. So if in doubt, if you haven't seen
others say it and be rewarded for it, maybe don't say it. How's that for a
great outlook.

------
scotty79
It stands to reason that people participating in social networks and being
aware of how a silly thing might get blown out of proportions will limit their
offline behavior to reduce the possibility that someone will publish that and
paint a target on their backs.

I think It's not so much use of the social networks that makes people more
careful. Just awareness how much of a WMD gossip machine they are.

------
muninn_
Hmm. I'm not sure about this. From my experience people are a lot more likely
to speak their mind or engage in highly emotional behavior online, but in-
person are a lot more reserved than you would think based on what they say
online.

~~~
strken
The problem with Facebook is that you are usually talking to a very broad
audience. You have to tailor what you say so that neither Casually Racist
Uncle Jim nor Guy Who Posts Marxist Memes will be angry at you, and so that
Your Boss won't see anything embarrassing.

I'd believe that habit of thought could transfer to offline life, e.g.
worrying about getting caught at a strip club, as per the paper.

~~~
muninn_
Yeah I just don't see it

~~~
headShrinker
Just knowing my self I don't post a lot of gay stuff on my feed even if it's
inane because there so many straight people who just wouldn't associate. Most
of my content has a universal appeal by design. This is the same for most,
which explains the high rate of dog/cat, baby, food and vacation pics on fb.
They are safe universal topics that everyone can "like". After "likes" are the
currancy we are trading

------
headShrinker
Just knowing myself I don't post a lot of gay stuff on my feed even if it's
inane because there so many straight people who just wouldn't associate. Most
of my content has a universal appeal by design. This is the same for most,
which explains the high rate of dog/cat, baby, food and vacation pics on fb.
They are safe universal topics that everyone can "like". After "likes" are the
currancy we are trading

~~~
keyboardhitter
> Most of my content has a universal appeal by design.

Maybe you've just gotten used to this idea? It is possible your data is vastly
different from other individuals, even if it appears universal on the surface.
It is very easy to feel exempt from scrutiny if one thinks their data is only
included into "safe" or "popular" categories or topics.

(Not entirely related, but this type of uncertainty helped me rationalize the
deletion of my Facebook account.)

------
interpol_p
The paper describes an effect called "context collapse" which the authors
claim is observed in people who use social networks. The effect is described
as people self-censoring their posts on social media because their audience is
potentially represented by a multitude of groups (parents, friends,
colleagues). So people self-edit their content in order to satisfy a lowest
common denominator.

The authors proceed to measure if this self-censoring behaviour extends into
real life for people who are thinking about social networks versus people who
are not. The method surveyed the participants about either a trip to an adult
night club, or a theme park. Half the participants were "primed" with Facebook
— meaning they were shown photos of the trips they could take as a mocked-up
Facebook event, and they were told they would need to add the trip
representative to their Facebook so their photos could be tagged for
promotional reasons.

The measure they used to determine self-censoring behaviour is called
Negatively Directed Impression Management (NDIM). Online this means removing
yourself from tagged photos, deleting social media content that may be
offensive, or other forms of removal.

To measure it offline they asked participants how much they would need to be
paid to take part in the trip, and whether they would be interested in a
follow up trip (the payment stuff was worked into their cover story).

The Facebook-primed group showed significantly higher offline NDIM for the
adult night club trip. The theme park trip showed no significant difference.

The participants were composed of 80 male Facebook users at a UK university,
about 20 years old.

------
Spooky23
It's easy to picture the current state as what will rule the future.

I doubt it. IMO, Facebook as it is today is a fad that is already cracking --
FB constantly has to adapt to retain engagement with younger people and new
users.

------
YPCrumble
I just deleted Facebook. All my photos are gone forever, according to them.

It felt like Snapchat except the timer was set to ten years.

~~~
headShrinker
?? You can't delete your Facebook account, only deactivate it. And all
friends, posts and pics are saved for when you return. If I am wrong I would
love to know how.

~~~
jackcosgrove
You can, and you can also download all of your content before doing so.

[https://www.facebook.com/help/224562897555674?helpref=relate...](https://www.facebook.com/help/224562897555674?helpref=related)

------
problems
I used Facebook for about a year or two - but when I did I made 2 separate
accounts, one for friends I was close to and one for family, colleagues, etc.
Fake name on the friends one. Is this not a more common way to get around this
issue?

~~~
bogomipz
I believe they have made the practice of an "alternate" account much more
difficult and also shut down accounts they believe are not tied to "real
names."

------
blubb-fish
Is there anything out there which might have at least the slightest chance to
grow into something becoming dangerous to Facebook?

([https://prism-break.org/en/categories/gnu-linux/#social-
netw...](https://prism-break.org/en/categories/gnu-linux/#social-networks))

~~~
ColanR
Doesn't look like it...

