Communicate trough Facebook ?

The 16th of April was another success for Hêbê Debates with an attendance of over 40 people coming to listen to two teams battling it out.

Facebook is a social network has proved a success with almost 200,000,000 members worldwide. But is it really an appropriate tool of communication? This was the question both teams asked themselves.

The battle was fought between the following teams.

The Tree Huggers : Johannes Schilling & David Garlot

The Advokatos : Miguel Ongil and Nadine Krysostan

After introductions and a short explanation by our moderator Liesa Siedentopp on the rules and regulations, the Debate was launched, starting with David’s presentation on PRO.

For the first two and a half minutes David presented the success story that created Facebook,  which had even allowed Hêbê to organize the Debate of the evening. Facebook, a highly versatile tool, allowing people to keep in touch, bringing people of the world closer together, a means to share common interests. And what’s more, every person can manage the amount of privacy he or she desires, all controllable by a mere mouse click.

Nadine immediately countered on this point. The privacy terms were full of loopholes. The terms of use, full of complicated jargon that a 13-year-old would never be able to comprehend. Their information and private details would remain on the internet forever. And instead of being a social tool, Facebook was being used to promote antisocial behavior: peer pressure, bullying, spreading rumours...

Well, the Treehuggers weren’t going to let them get away with this! Johannes argued that complicated terms of use were a general problem to be found all over the internet. Many terms of use actually harboured much more serious consequences. And as for bullying, removing Facebook would not prevent such behaviour. It is a general social problem. Each person takes their own responsibilities, young people have to prepare for their own life. He finished with the comment that the Advokatos’ argument was not valid only specifically for Facebook.

Advokatos’ rebuttal was impressive. Miguel read out loud the recently changed controversial terms of use currently on Facebook, a convoluted sentence, with neither a beginning nor an end. This he ended with a humorous and innocent: “So did you understand anything?”, adding that a 13-year old could not be expected to bear such responsibility, nor do young adolescents have the capacity to fully comprehend the implications of their online behaviour.

To this David answered with a quote from George Orwell, which went down well with the audience. He repeated that the information put up is individually chosen and can be easily controlled and removed at will, but Miguel maintained that this was what Facebook wanted you to believe. In actual fact, he stated, today, the controversial terms of use were still in force. Facebook owned all the information.

At this point, Liesa quickly stepped in to ease the tension that had been building up. She took two questions from the audience:

1.       Facebook seems to be controlled by the users, when one sees the backlash that occurred when the terms of use were changed?

2.      What do you think is the future of Facebook?

Johannes started the answer session. Indeed, he argued, the users bear the ultimate responsibility. The system works, the uproar and criticism forced Facebook to suspend the new terms of use.

On the question of the future, Nadine argued, that indeed, people will get tired of being bombared with useless information. Facebook was getting overbearing. However, something new was bound to replace Facebook in the near future.

Miguel argued that all the information you give to Facebook, remains with Facebook. The controversial terms of use are still in force. They have the power to even sell your valuable, private information to third parties.

David finished the first round of questions. Human beings are social creatures. We need to socialize. Today, social networks need to improve. New technologies will emerge. Perhaps someday soon we will communicate using holograms.

Liesa then interrupted once more to take another 3 questions from the floor:

1.       How can anyone have 500 “friends”? Isn’t this hypocritical?

2.      Isn’t there a parallel to 2^nd life? Are we losing touch with reality on Web 2.0?

3.      Is the full potential of Facebook actually being used? For example, couldn’t it be used to spark a revolution, change a closed society?

Contra started the second question and answer round. Indeed, Nadine said, it was highly questionable that one could have so many “friends”. The idea was hypocritical, since users even added friends, they don’t even like!

As to the second question, indeed 2^nd life resembles Facebook.

Users can lose touch of reality, damaging their mental health and stability.

Johannes was quite of the opposite opinion. As a Treehugger, he argued that Facebook was a new tool and we just need to find the right way to use it. Indeed, the education system should teach the young generation how to use communication tools such as Facebook responsibly.

David added that having “300 friends”, didn’t mean “friends” as such. It was merely a short term to indicate the people you know, your contacts. The word “friend” wasn’t to be taken literally. Facebook is a great tool to unite people with a certain passion, for example, a passion for debating like here tonight.

10 seconds left for the Advokatos, 6 seconds left for the Treehuggers to argue! Miguel made a final remark, but was reprimanded by Liesa for going over the time limit! David opted to let the last seconds pass without comment.

Both sides were then asked to present their concluding remarks:

Miguel and Nadine concluded: Facebook is could be a good tool, but there is much room for improvement, particularly on the privacy side.

Johannes and David concluded:  Great tool, best way to communicate, and even to open up society. It should be used to its full potential.

At this point, the voting began. Everyone handed in their choice for best argumentation, best debating style and best use of humour.

After the count, the results were:

For best argumentation: The Advokatos

For best debating style: The Treehuggers

For best use of humour: The Treehuggers

Thus the overall winners of the evening were the TREEHUGGERS! A round of applause went to all the participants, who were already indulging with the audience in the nibbles, titbits and wine.