Hands of a guy on laptop keyboard

I share therefore we are

Published on 16 April 2012
Updated on 05 April 2024

Facebook’s $1billion purchase of the photo-editing and display platform Instagram has split the digital commentariat, illustrated by two differing perspectives  in the same UK newspaper, the Sunday Observer. An enthusiastic piece in the main paper argues it’s who we are that makes us share and we share because we like it. In early research with Tim Davies and others on the potential of social networking, as we then called it, for UK Youth Work and HIV/Aids Communication  we argued that social media tapped into our essential nature as social animals. And that applies to all forms of content sharing, whether online or via paper leaflets in Tahrir Square, the latter of course an icon both to the mobilising power of online media and the centrality of physical gatherings in achieving change. However, research quoted in the Observer article takes it further and suggests:

Sharing in Tahrir, 2011

“Social media have tapped into something quite fundamental and the sharing urge in human nature may stem from something more basic than anything else: simple arousal and the fight-or-flight response that we share with our distant ancestors. In scientific terms, this means the activation of our autonomic nervous system; in simpler terms, that extra boost of energy, the quickened heartbeat, that tingling of nerves that says something in the environment has caught my attention…..

……. And while the sharing urges aren’t new they are now activated on a near-constant basis. One need only look at the proliferation of sites that are devoted to sharing exclusively – Reddit, Digg, Stumbleupon – to see the phenomenon in action. I see, I react, I share. I become part of a community and your “likes” validate me. I feel rewarded with every retweet and endorsement, while conversely I feel sad if something just kind of plops into a virtual neverland. Was it something I said? In fact, being virtually rejected actually activates the same brain areas that are associated with physical distress, the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior insula.”

As well as going some way to explaining the fanatical following of celebrities on Twitter and other social media it underscores the importance of personalised content for engaging followers and audiences, something which is always going to be difficult for public officials in embassies and MFAs. But it doesn’t follow that we need more  infra-red or cartoonised photos of embassy receptions. It points instead to the ever-increasing importance of  the major platforms as they hunt relentlessly for more eyeballs and fingers.

“Recent internet history suggests it may be a huge haul of overpriced pixels” says the ineffable John Naughton in a jaundiced, but– as ever – insightful perspective on the purchase of Instagram. From a list of recent headline-grabbing acquisitions he argues that,

“”At the moment it looks as though YouTube was the only really shrewd acquisition in the sense that one can at least envisage a way that it might eventually turn into a serious money-pump for Google. ICQ was a disastrous mistake for AOL, as was MySpace for Murdoch. And it’s hard to see how Microsoft will ever get its money back from Skype.”

And then any of us who have uploaded information to Wikipedia may ourselves feel a little jaundiced about last week’s hot story in many African online spaces. That was the announcement that access to Wikipedia will be free on mobiles in Africa and the Middle East. Free for users of Orange phones that is, representing a percentage of the fraction of Africans who have smartphones. While there will certainly be positive outcomes from the deal between the Wikimedia Foundation and Orange and it is at least arguably more important for people’s lives than Facebook’s purchase of Instagram, it is hard not to feel uneasy about the commodification of publicly contributed  content. I retreat to Naughton:

“So what has Facebook bought? Not the platform – Zuckerberg and co could have built that in a weekend. No, what Facebook bought was Instagram’s users. Which illustrates the First Law of Online Services: if they’re free, then you’re the product. Caveat uploader”


2 replies
  1. Mary
    Mary says:

    How can a new Internet social
    How can a new Internet social contract establish balance among sharing, transparency, openness, privacy and security? That indeed is the question. I can’t quite get my head around seeing the words sharing and privacy in the same sentence or, for that matter, the words openness and security. They seem mutually exclusive to me. How can I be private and still share? And surely the more open something is, the more its security suffers? Can any sort of social contract bridge this divide or are we, as SM users, facing a choice between these concepts? In fact, haven’t most of us already made that choice by demoting privacy on our list of priorities in favour of public recognition for what we share?

  2. Jovan Kurbalija
    Jovan Kurbalija says:

    Sharing is as natural as
    Sharing is as natural as hiding. The game “hide and seek” is still very popular among kids. It is a game as old as nature, a competition between predator and prey. Plants and animals optimize their camouflage and increase their chances for surviva. Humans are no different. Since we started wandering on the steppes of the Serengeti, the key to survival has been to see the prey, and not be seen by predators, and with the development of civilization later on, by other humans. Military history is, to a large extent, the history of camouflage and deception.

    These thousands years of our collective memory are deeply coded in human society. They should not be discarded by the excitement of the here and now. As usual, chrono-narcissism is dangerous. Deeper instincts and habits cannot be suppressed. Like water, atavistic instincts always find their way to the surface and surprise us. They usually win against noble ideas and we are left worse off. This is one of the clear lessons of history. Can we learn from it? How can a new Internet social contract establish balance among sharing, transparency, openness, privacy and security, to name a few?

    Taken from: https://deepdip.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/transparency-and-atavistic-instincts-to-see-and-not-be-seen/


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

Subscribe to Diplo's Blog