Why I deleted my Facebook account (again)

Please watch this video in its entirety (before YouTube takes it down). Whatever you think of James O’Keefe, this is serious stuff that he’s exposing, and it affects all of us.

The first time I deleted my Facebook, it was out of privacy concerns. I came back because there were social groups, such as my local church congregation, that organized all of their activities on Facebook and by being off the platform, I was cutting myself out of the loop. So I got back on, rationalizing that I could be careful about what I shared and it wouldn’t be an issue.

The second time I deleted my Facebook, it was because of the negative effect it was having on my life. I was disturbed about the way that social media was programming people, and I could feel it beginning to happen to me. It was around this time that I deleted my Twitter as well.

I came back because I worried that I was becoming too much of an “internet hermit.” There were also some social groups that it was more convenient to interact with over Facebook, but much less so than before. Mainly, I knew that there were people who wanted to reach out to me, and cutting out Facebook entirely seemed a little too extreme.

This time, however, it isn’t just about privacy issues, or even about social programming and the negative effects of social media in our lives. It’s about power, and conscience.

Facebook, Google, Amazon, and other big tech Silicon Valley companies have a massive political and cultural influence on our lives, and I don’t like what they’re doing with it. They’ve become too powerful, and now they’re abusing that power to shape our lives and our communities in ways that I don’t agree with. But the truth is, the only reason they have any power at all is because of us. We give them their power, and we can take it away.

I’m getting off of Facebook permanently this time because I don’t want to give that company any more power than they already have. I’m also deleting my Twitter. If I do come back to social media, it’s going to be through alternative platforms like Minds and Gab.

The next big step is to de-Google my life, and I’m not sure how I’m going to accomplish that. However, with the direction things are going, I believe it’s more important now than ever to do so. As for Amazon, it’s going to be much more difficult since such a large chunk of my income comes from them. What I will probably have to do is limit my dependence on these companies without cutting either of them out of my life completely.

Why I quit Facebook

quit-facebookLast month, I made the decision to quit Facebook. Permanently. As in, the Facebook account that I created eight years ago as a college freshman no longer exists, unless Facebook continues to store and monetize data from its ex-users long after they’ve quit the service. Which wouldn’t surprise me at all, since Facebook is in the data business, which makes its users its product, not its consumer. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

I’ve thought about quitting Facebook for some time. Some of the reasons that have moved me in that direction have been that it’s a waste of time, that it’s the high fructose corn syrup of the internet, that it violates my privacy in creepy ways, that it cheapens my interactions with my friends … the list goes on. However, these reasons alone were never enough to convince me to quit. They got me to scale back my usage and cull my friends list, but never delete my profile outright.

Last month, though, Facebook revealed a new ad program where it downloads its users’ browser histories. With this program, Facebook now collects data straight from your browser–data from your internet activity outside of Facebook’s service–and sells that along with the personal data that you share on their site.

Facebook has always had major privacy issues, with the FTC stepping in in 2010 to force them to change their policies. However, until now, the argument was always that if you didn’t want your personal information to be shared, you shouldn’t put it on Facebook. Now, however, Facebook is collecting information that you don’t share with Facebook–information that they gather straight from your computer–without any reliable way to opt-out.

Facebook claims that this program is mainly for advertisers, but what’s to stop them from sharing this data with the NSA? With the Snowden revelations, we already know that there are entities within the US government that are working to create a surveillance state. Facebook is already practically in bed with these people, who have gathered personal information about Facebook users in the past. And since Facebook already has a dismal history of abusing privacy rights, changing its TOS without notice, and undermining its user privacy settings with unannounced updates, I fully expect them to gather that information and share it whether I want them to or not.

This may not be a huge change from the way Facebook used to do business, but it was a huge wake-up call for me. Since I’m not a huge fan of Facebook to begin with, this was the final straw that pushed me away.

I joined Facebook in 2006 when I was 21. I was just getting ready to head out to college, and at that point only college kids were on the site. It was a cool new thing and seemed like a great way to make and keep in touch with friends. Since I was moving away from home and starting a new phase of life, that was important to me.

My first year, I searched out and friended all of the people in my freshman ward at BYU and posted tons of pictures and other updates. It made me feel like I was very close to them! But the next year, I moved and made a new group of friends, and stayed in touch with only one of them. All those other friends just gradually drifted off into other things.

I posted a few more pictures, but mostly just profile pictures because anything else didn’t seem like it was worth the work. Facebook added groups, and I joined a bunch of silly ones just for laughs, but not any serious ones. Friends kept inviting me out to events, and my default answer was “maybe” because it didn’t make me look like as much of a jerk when I just didn’t want to go.

Then I got into a huge political debate with an old friend from high school, and it got insanely ugly. It was weird, because we always seemed to get along so well in person, but online we were just slugging it out at each other. It was very strange. I tried to get him to agree to disagree, but by this point his friends were posting to his wall and goading him on, so he refused. Then he attacked my religion, and the only way I could end the debate was to block him. I haven’t seen or talked with him since.

Facebook changed a lot over the next few years. The biggest change was probably the newsfeed, which replaced the wall. At first, I thought it was a great idea, because I could get all the updates on my friends in one place. Then the feed got swamped with updates from all the friends I’d added over the years. Most of them were people I’d drifted away from–people I’d seen a lot for a semester or two, but hadn’t bothered to keep the friendship up after we’d moved on.

Facebook became a fire-hose, and it started to eat up a disturbing amount of my time. I stayed away from all the obvious distractions, like Farmville and those other games, but it wasn’t enough. The information was just too dense, and though it gave me the illusion that I was staying close to my friends, in reality my interactions weren’t that meaningful.

Facebook developed algorithms to filter the newsfeed, but all that really did was make me use the site more. It didn’t help me to keep in touch with the people who mattered the most to me, since those weren’t the people who were posting the most. Instead, it resurrected a bunch of friendships that had long since faded in the real world and turned them into these weird zombified online relationships where we shared stupid memes, argued politics, and discussed random articles–all without ever seeing each other in person.

By the time I went overseas to teach English, Facebook had become a huge timesuck, and I wanted to break free of it. The first semester, I lived in a large town where I had constant internet access. The center of social life for us expats was a Facebook group called “Georgian Wanderers.” It felt good in some ways to be part of a community where people actually spoke English, but there was a lot of drama and ugliness in that group too. In my second semester, I lived in a tiny village where internet access was spotty, and I didn’t miss much while I was out there.

In fact, living without regular internet access was exactly what I needed. It gave me the chance to step back from my life and see how it had become cluttered. Before going back to the States, I decided to clean things up so as to keep myself from falling into the same rut. A major part of that online decluttering was to go through my 700+ friends list and delete all the people I didn’t want to stay in face-to-face contact with.

I cannot tell you how refreshing that was. At first, it felt like cutting off an arm or something, since I’d been “friends” with these people for so long and how was I going to keep in touch with them? But then, I realized that I didn’t really want to keep in touch with most of them, and besides, dropping them from my friends list wasn’t like disowning them in real life. We could still get in touch with each other in real life and strike up those friendships again.

My newsfeed was decluttered and those zombie friendships had (mostly) been neutralized, but even after all that, it didn’t seem like enough. I just wasn’t getting what I wanted out of Facebook. Every once and a while, I’d have a genuine exchange with someone, but most of the time it was just memes and random articles. I found myself slipping back into useless distractions and frustrating political debates, punctuated only occasionally by major life events from people I cared about.

Over the next year (2013), I found myself using Facebook less and less. Then the Snowden revelations came out, and Facebook seemed creepier and creepier. I’d learned from Douglas Rushkoff that Facebook’s business depended on milking its users for data, and the fact that the government was so intent on the mass collection of data profoundly disturbed me. From then, I suppose it was only a matter of time before Facebook crossed a line where I wasn’t willing to go.

Here’s the thing about Facebook: when you’re using it, it doesn’t feel like a network or a service. It feels like it’s an integral component of your closest friendships. Phrases like “Facebook official” and “pics or it didn’t happen” evince this. We become so entrenched in Facebook that permanently quitting it feels like betraying our friends.

But Facebook’s business doesn’t depend on strengthening our friendships, it depends on monetizing them–on collecting and extracting data to sell to the highest bidder. And since there’s nothing that most of us wouldn’t do for our friends, we grin and bear whatever terms Facebook feels like offering us. We tolerate the most egregious violations of our privacy because we want to keep our friendships, even as the quality of our interactions gets worse and worse.

Not only does this give Facebook incredible license to take liberty with our personal data, it gives them the power to shape and mold our interactions with each other. Just after I deleted my Facebook account, news came out that sociologists had engaged in a massive experiment to see if they could manipulate the mood of its users. The experiment confirmed that yes, Facebook most certainly can manipulate the emotional state of its users. Does this also mean that they can manipulate friendships? That over time, they can make you draw closer to some people and further from others? I’d be willing to bet that they can.

Instead of merely reflecting our relationships, giving an online dimension to friendships that exist in real life, Facebook is increasingly manipulating and constructing them. This in turn makes us more dependent on Facebook as a medium of social exchange. And the tighter we latch on to the network, the more they milk us for everything they can get.

The fundamental problem with Facebook is a misalignment of incentives. In order to make money, Facebook either has to get really creepy about the data it collects and what it does about it, or it has to control what we see on the site in order to create an artificial scarcity. Because it’s a publicly traded company now, it has to do both, because Wall Street is pressuring them to make more money.

When I was a user of Facebook, I felt like I was constantly being used. But now that I’ve quit, it feels much better. I haven’t noticed any sort of deterioration in my friendships, and I’m keeping in touch with my more distant friends just fine. Because that’s the thing about a truly close friendship: it doesn’t matter how much time goes by or how much distance comes between you–when you finally meet up again, it’s like you were never apart at all.

I don’t need Facebook to help me maintain my friendships, and I certainly don’t need it to help me make new ones. It’s one way to keep in touch, sure, but at this point, the benefits just aren’t worth the costs. And so, after eight years of being on Facebook, I deleted my profile and left for good. I doubt I’ll regret it.

Thoughts on Twitter

twitterOh man, I used to hate Twitter so much.  It’s amusing (and a little bit embarrassing) to look back on some old threads on the Kindle Boards and see how snippy I would get with everyone who raved about it.  I guess it’s just my contrarian nature.

Well, in the last month or so, my opinion of Twitter has done a 180.  Most of that has to do with getting a smart phone and having quick and easy access to it.  Back when I first signed up, I had lots of ideas for short, pithy tweets, but mostly when I was away from a computer.  Because of that, Twitter became just another chore, like checking email or keeping up with Facebook updates.  But now that I have easy, instant access, I can drop in whenever I want, without opening a browser and starting up another relentless cycle of timesucks.

About a year ago, I got involved in a huge discussion on the Kindle Boards with Nathan Lowell.  It all started when he credited his success as a writer to Twitter.  That hit me like a bombshell, since he’s following a very similar career path, and has had a tremendous amount of success at it.  He shared a ton of helpful tips on that thread, all of which I carefully filed away for later.  I didn’t really have much of an opportunity to try them out, since I was in Georgia and had limited internet access, but since getting back I’ve been slowly trying them out.

What I’ve found in the last few weeks is that Twitter is a great way to get into interesting online conversations that don’t require a high degree of time or commitment.  The 140 character requirement makes it hard to say anything of any substance, but that’s actually a strength, because it makes it easier to follow what others have to say.  Instead of channeling all your time and energy into a handful of comment / forum threads, you can start a dozen new conversations, or follow a dozen new people, or drop out for a while and do something else.  Less substance means less commitment and more flexibility.

It makes me think of something Cory Doctorow mentioned on a panel at Worldcon 2011.  He called Facebook the high fructose corn syrup of the internet–which is actually a very relevant comparison.  Facebook is very information dense the same way that HFCS is very calorie dense.  Both of them are fairly addictive (“compelling without being satisfying” is the way that Cory Doctorow put it).  And just as HFCS is not very nutritive, Facebook is not a very good way to stay genuinely close to the most important people in your life, especially when you’re following hundreds of people whom you barely even know.

Unlike Facebook, Twitter is a great way to connect with people who aren’t much more than strangers or casual acquaintances.  The value is not in what you’re able to share, but how many people you’re able to connect with.  If I tried to make myself accessible to everyone via Facebook, I would quickly become overwhelmed.  With Twitter, I am accessible simply by being there, and I can reach out to just about anyone and expect a response.

Some things I’ve found that have helped improve my Twitter experience:

  • Follow anyone who seems interesting, and unfollow them as soon as they stop being interesting.  If you’re not getting much from Twitter, it’s probably because you’re following the wrong people and not following the right people.  A follow isn’t a huge commitment, so no hard feelings if you break it off.
  • Reply to tweets that strike a chord with you.  Don’t just consume–start a conversation.  Add something, and you’ll get even more in return.
  • If you’re going to include a hashtag, try to offer something of value.  Don’t just do it to get attention, or to draw people to some link or something.  Do it because you want to contribute something meaningful.
  • Don’t approach it like a chore.  If you want to bow out for a while, that’s fine–you don’t have to follow every tweet, or reply to everyone who tweets at you (at least, not right away).  There isn’t any “right” or “wrong” way to use it–there’s just the way you use it.

So yeah, I plan to be much more active on Twitter in the future.  I probably won’t go crazy fanatic with it like some people do, but I’ll be on there, so if you want a quick and easy way to keep in touch, that’s a great way to do it.

And as for Facebook, that’s pretty much only for my close friends now.  When I got back from Georgia, I deleted more than half of my Facebook friends.  With Facebook, Dunbar’s number (aka the 150 friend rule) is probably a good upper limit.  With Twitter, I now agree with Nathan Lowell that it’s more of a lower limit than anything.

Why I am not afraid of the Noise

One of the biggest concerns for writers considering indie publishing is the fear of being drowned out by “the Noise”–all the obnoxious crap that will inevitably pile up because everyone thinks they can write a book.  After all, if anyone can self publish, anyone WILL self publish, including all the hordes of terrible, terrible writers.  In such an environment, how will anyone find you?

I’ve been thinking a lot about this, and reading a lot of author blogs to hear their take on this issue.  While I was afraid of the Noise at first, I’m not that worried about it anymore.  Here’s why:

1) The Noise has always existed.

The Noise is not a new problem.  Anyone with a printer and/or internet access can submit their stuff to agents and editors–and they do.  It’s called the “slushpile.”

Under the old system, good stories would never find their audience unless they got picked up by one of a handful of editors.  Problem is, this creates a huge bottleneck that only amplifies the Noise, making it even harder to get noticed.  Editors outsourced the slushpile to agents, but this only made it worse, like adding an extra level of bureaucracy to an already inefficient system.

The way I see it, if I’m going to have to fight the Noise one way or another, I would rather have direct access to my potential readership than be forced to submit to an overworked editor who doesn’t have time to give my work fair consideration.

2) Epublishing gives books more time to find their audience.

Traditional publishing works on the “produce” model, where new books have only a few months on bookstore shelves before they’re pulled to make room for something new.  In sf&f, it’s more like a couple years for paperbacks, but it’s still the same thing.

If your book doesn’t find its audience in those first few months–and therefore doesn’t sell very well–it’s considered a failure. With epublishing, though, there’s unlimited shelf space, and that means the book will ALWAYS be available.  It might not sell for the first few months, but that’s okay–it has as much time to find its audience as it needs.

I believe that given enough time, the good stuff always rises to the top of the heap.  I would rather follow the model that gives me that time, rather than gamble on the arbitrary timetable established by the traditional publishing establishment.

3) The revolution is social.

At LTUE this year, Tracy Hickman astutely pointed out that bookselling is no longer about creating artificial marketing hype so much as making a direct and personal connection with the reader.  With modern social networking platforms, writers can connect directly with their audience in a meaningful, peer to peer manner, expanding their readership naturally.

If we still had to rely on old, top-down marketing models, the Noise would certainly be a problem.  But with social networking, the audience is becoming much more interconnected, revolutionizing word of mouth and making it easier for writers and readers to connect than ever before.

4) Success comes at a much lower threshold.

For my purposes here, I’ll define “success” as making a full time living as a writer (>$20k/yr, though that will probably change when I’m married).

Under the old model, a $20k advance for a new writer like myself would be quite good, especially in my genre.  However, that money would get paid out over the course of several years, and I probably wouldn’t get a contract for another book until after the first book proved itself.

But the $20k is really just an advance against royalties, and the royalty rates run pretty low (<12% hardback, <8% paperback).  At those rates, I probably wouldn’t start to make a full time living until my devoted readership (those who buy my books in hardcover) numbered at least between 5,000 and 10,000.  And even then, my publisher might still drop me.

Under the current indie publishing model, though, the author gets a 70% cut.  That means that I could significantly undercut traditionally published books in price and still make more money per book. A $5 ebook earns as much at 70% as a $25 hardback at a 14% royalty rate, and will probably find its audience a lot faster because of the lower price.  With paperbacks, the difference is even more stark.

An audience of 5,000 is a drop in the bucket compared with the population of all readers.  The Noise might keep me from reaching everyone, but I don’t need to reach everyone to make a living–just a few thousand.

5) Transformational growth will greatly expand the market.

Right now, we seem to be on the verge of transformational growth in the publishing industry.  With epublishing, not only are avid readers buying more books, but more people are becoming avid readers.  This means that now, more than ever, publishing is NOT a zero sub game.

Sure, the Noise will get louder as more people self publish–but that Noise will also be spread out across a much larger market.  Even if my piece of the pie gets smaller, the pie itself is getting much, much larger, and that’s good news for everyone.

I have other reasons for not fearing the Noise, but these are the biggest ones.  Promotion is still a major question in my mind, but for now I’d rather get back to writing.  After all, that’s what I do–I’m a writer.

New About page

Traffic to this blog has been picking up a bit, and I decided it’s time to change my “about” page.  This was the old one:

In some ways, I live a double life. By day, I study Political Science and Arabic at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, but by night I’m an aspiring writer of science fiction and fantasy. And I have NO IDEA where all of this is going to take me.

A lot of people dream of writing and being a writer, but the motivations vary. Some people are just enamoured with vague ideas of the bohemian lifestyle. Other people are looking for fame and the joy of seeing their name on a book. It’s different for me, however. I write simply because I can’t NOT write. I wrote my first story in 5th grade and I haven’t been able to stop since. Stories just flow out of me–it’s a part of who I am. Most of them are fleeting and pretty crappy, but hopefully, somewhere in there is a story that can bring something meaningful to somebody.

And so I write, not with any illusions of the fame, fortunes, and friends it will bring me, but because it’s who I am. And yes, writing is not glamorous. It’s about hard work and consistency. It’s about rejection. It’s about realizing that the story you love so much reads like crap because you have a LONG way to go before your writing is any good. I know that. I’m experiencing it now. And I can tell you that it’s not without reward either.

So join me as I blog about my struggles, frustrations, adventures, and successes as an aspiring writer. Read about the agonizing and exhilarating process of writing a novel. Keep me honest in my writing goals. Check out my book reviews as I try to learn what I can from what’s come in the sci fi / fantasy genres before. Get caught up in my imagination as I share the story ideas that pop into my head. And please, if something strikes you, drop a comment and let me know what you think!

Goals:

  • Write and submit at least one novel per year.
  • Finish 1st draft of The Lost Colony by 25 April 2008. ACCOMPLISHED
  • Write three polished novel drafts before World Fantasy 2009 and attend the conference.

I don’t know if the new one is much better, but you can check it out.  Hopefully, it’s enough to give a good, honest impression of this site.

Also, I bit the bullet and finally signed up for twitter!  My username is onelowerlight; you can check me out here.