A Tale of Two Posts

July 7th, 2009
  1. ReadWriteWeb, via iStrategyLabs:
  2. How fickle are kids these days? Just when all the grown ups started figuring out Facebook, college and high school users have declined in absolute number by 20% and 15% respectively in a mere six months, according to estimates Facebook provides to advertisers that were archived for tracking by an outside firm. Facebook users aged 55 and over have skyrocketed from under 1 million to nearly six million in the same time period.

  3. Grant McCracken (who mined a database of “politicians, captains of industry, heads of cultural institutions, celebrities, journalists, and academics” and was stunned by their collective lack of Facebook presence):
  4. Or maybe they are MFFB (missing from Facebook) on purpose. Maybe, they don’t believe in Facebook. They don’t believe in social networking in the digital age. It is possible for intelligent people to take this position. Recently I heard four people at a big time advertising age try to persuade me that Facebook is really just for kids, that it’s a passing fancy, that not very far from now it will disappear from fashion. Their position: Ignore Facebook. It will go away.

    I can’t tell you how embarrassing this is for an anthropologist to listen to. I have done the research, and this much is clear. Facebook is here to stay. It has changed selfhood and the social world permanently. (One example: millennials are hard to manage these days because the social network has replaced the corporation has their primary “safety net.” Now that they have Facebook, a job at a big corporation matters much less.) Facebook has changed the structural properties of our culture. We can ignore it. It will not go away.

As the former article points out, Facebook use is still increasing among all age groups. It’s just that fewer seem to identify as high school and college students. There’s no indication of how this identification is measured (Primary network? Any academic network? Self-reported educational status in the profile?). And although 35% of all Facebook users are under the age of 25, 79% of users in this dataset have a current enrollment of “unknown.” Far too many methodological questions to qualify as a substantive finding, much less to justify the stereotypical invocation of young “fickle” whippersnappers.

I think McCracken, though, misses the forest for the trees. Whatever alterations to self, society, and culture have resulted from Facebook are not unique to Facebook. They are ultimately a product and component part of a larger revolution in digitally mediated communication. Young people can and will abandon Facebook if sufficiently alienated (see: Friendster) or attracted to a more innovative competitor (see: MySpace). They are not fickle, but the particular forms and shapes of this larger social trend are. The stubborn advertisers may be able to ignore Facebook if it goes the way of its predecessors, but not if Facebook is able to achieve a stable presence like Microsoft or Google, and they can’t ignore the communicative consequences of this digitally mediated revolution.

Regardless, with SNSs having emerged from subcultural obscurity only a few years ago, MySpace having been dominant 18 months ago, and Facebook having grown from 42 million to 72 million U.S. users in the past 6 months, it seems rash to attempt to articulate any more than the broadest outlines of social change at the moment. As with historical events, the most compelling narratives will only emerge several years after the effects reverberate through society. As sudden and unpredictable as the rise of SNSs have been, they are likely to be understood only in the context of future developments as far beyond the event horizon now as MySpace and Facebook were in 2002.

Twitter:Iranian Revolt::CNN:Gulf War?

June 15th, 2009

[An uncredited photo from the Iranian government's assault on Tehran University.]

I’ve been riveted to the ongoing revolt in Iran. While many mainstream media outlets dropped the ball initially, even those few with brave reporters on the ground have been hampered by a foreign media crackdown. Much of the news is coming from elsewhere.

The Iranian government quickly clamped down on Internet and cell phone use, but intrepid participants have found workarounds. Messages, photos, and videos have been posted on Facebook, Flickr, and YouTube, and all have been instrumental in spreading the extent of the violence and conveying crucial information.

A group of bloggers, most notably Nico Pitney at the Huffington Post, Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic Monthly, and the NIAC’s blog, have been live-blogging since Saturday morning. They are soliciting e-mails from readers with contacts in Iran and publishing these eyewitness reports. They’re also posting links to Farsi-language material, soliciting readers who speak Farsi to translate, and posting the translated texts.

But the most important source of information has been Twitter. Lists of Iranian Twitter users have been compiled and published on the above blogs, and sources on the ground are relying heavily upon Twitter to broadcast their messages. The obvious pun that “the revolution will be twittered” has been mentioned dozens of times, but it is undoubtedly accurate.

Until now, Twitter has been known more for its relentless hype, its appeal to shallow trend-seekers looking for the Next Big Thing, its appeal to narcissists who want to broadcast what they bought at the grocery store, and its appeal to self-absorbed reporters looking to scoop one another, self-absorbed politicians trolling for votes, and self-absorbed celebrities broadcasting the minutiae of their lives to fawning fans.

It’s indisputable, though, that this weekend has been Twitter’s finest hour. It’s no longer possible to conclude that Twitter is exclusively a domain for the narcissist or the status-seeker looking to connect with followers. Without Twitter, the extensive reporting that exists on the above blogs could not have happened. While CNN slept, Twitter thrived. Twitter has staked out a place in the geopolitical order, and while the outcome of the Iranian revolt is still in doubt, Twitter has established a usefulness far exceeding the expectations of its many detractors.

The paradox of the social network site is that the initial framework is provided by the organization, but its actual substantive use is determined by the users. Narcissistic users make a narcisstic site, and substantive use makes a substantive site. Twitter has taken a step toward substantive use, and with the continuing turmoil that exists in Iran, a significant re-definition of Twitter may well follow.

[Edit: Twitter plans to go offline for 90 minutes' maintenance tonight at 9:45 PDT. Please protest if you are on Twitter. #twitterfail]

[Edit 2:  Maintenance has been postponed to a more conducive time for Iran. #twitterwin]

12 Steps to Fabricating a Moral Panic

May 27th, 2009

null

Teens and Texting (New York Times, 5/26/09)

Step 1: Select an act, norm, or condition to become stigmatized. The group or subculture primarily associated with this topic should ideally have little to no political power, and already be associated with other deviant behaviors (e.g., teenagers).

Step 2: Write a title stating the topic and its association with harm, but be sure to insert a qualifier (e.g., “may”) so everyone thinks you’re being objective. Then dispense with any objectivity in an opening paragraph that can be read over an ominous soundtrack on the evening news.

Texting May Be Taking a Toll

They do it late at night when their parents are asleep. They do it in restaurants and while crossing busy streets. They do it in the classroom with their hands behind their back. They do it so much their thumbs hurt.

Step 3: Cite statistics inappropriately, such as invoking the mean of a non-normal, non-symmetrical distribution doubtlessly skewed by extreme outliers. Use large numbers to stun consumers with little understanding of scale. If the rate of change is mostly fueled by recent developments (e.g., the ubiquity of the cell phone and proliferation of unlimited texting plans), cite this unsustainable rate of change, knowing that many consumers will erroneously apply linear extrapolation.

Spurred by the unlimited texting plans offered by carriers like AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless, American teenagers sent and received an average of 2,272 text messages per month in the fourth quarter of 2008, according to the Nielsen Company — almost 80 messages a day, more than double the average of a year earlier.

Step 4: Identify the potentially harmful consequences. These consequences should ideally encompass several potential areas of harm (e.g., physical, mental, developmental, psychological, moral). Lumping these consequences together in a list near the beginning of your story is particularly effective.

The phenomenon is beginning to worry physicians and psychologists, who say it is leading to anxiety, distraction in school, falling grades, repetitive stress injury and sleep deprivation.

Step 5: Assemble a cast of authority figures sympathetic to the possibility of harm, When possible, refer to them by their full and impressive titles, to further establish that they Know Stuff.

Dr. Martin Joffe, a pediatrician in Greenbrae, Calif. …

Sherry Turkle, a psychologist who is director of the Initiative on Technology and Self at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and who has studied texting among teenagers in the Boston area for three years …

Michael Hausauer, a psychotherapist in Oakland, Calif. …

Peter W. Johnson, an associate professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Washington …

Step 6: When citing empirical evidence offered by experts, rely upon the most unrepresentative methods possible, such as small purposive samples. Rather than offering relevant information, such as the outcomes of tests of statistical significance, use vague descriptors of quantity, such as “many” or “most.”

… Dr. Martin Joffe, a pediatrician in Greenbrae, Calif., recently surveyed students at two local high schools and said he found that many were routinely sending hundreds of texts every day. …

… Ms. Yager recently gave an anonymous survey to 50 of her students; most said they texted during class. …

… Dr. Joffe says parents tend to be far less aware of texting than of, say, video game playing or general computer use, and the unlimited plans often mean that parents stop paying attention to billing details. “I talk to parents in the office now,” he said. “I’m quizzing them, and no one is thinking about this.” …

Step 7: Rather than relying upon empirical evidence, however, most expert testimony should reflect unverifiable or unverified opinion. Examples include broad, overgeneralizing theories, stereotypes masquerading as broad, overgeneralizing theories, or normative assumptions masquerading as broad, overgeneralizing theories. As these statements are the “substance” of your story, cite as many as possible. To preserve a veneer of objectivity, at least one expert must have crammed his or her opinion with qualifiers and weasel words.

… “Among the jobs of adolescence are to separate from your parents, and to find the peace and quiet to become the person you decide you want to be,” she said. “Texting hits directly at both those jobs.” …

… Michael Hausauer, a psychotherapist in Oakland, Calif., said teenagers had a “terrific interest in knowing what’s going on in the lives of their peers, coupled with a terrific anxiety about being out of the loop.” For that reason, he said, the rapid rise in texting has potential for great benefit and great harm. …

… Professor Turkle can sympathize. “Teens feel they are being punished for behavior in which their parents indulge,” she said. And in what she calls a poignant twist, teenagers still need their parents’ undivided attention. “Even though they text 3,500 messages a week, when they walk out of their ballet lesson, they’re upset to see their dad in the car on the BlackBerry,” she said. “The fantasy of every adolescent is that the parent is there, waiting, expectant, completely there for them.” …

… Peter W. Johnson, an associate professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Washington, said it was too early to tell whether this kind of stress is damaging. But he added, “Based on our experiences with computer users, we know intensive repetitive use of the upper extremities can lead to musculoskeletal disorders, so we have some reason to be concerned that too much texting could lead to temporary or permanent damage to the thumbs.” …

Step 8: Do not interview or otherwise acknowledge any of the millions or tens of millions of participants who do not suffer negative consequences. Instead, locate multiple outliers, and pretend that these participants are representative.

… Annie Wagner, 15, a ninth-grade honor student in Bethesda, Md., used to text on her tiny LG phone as fast as she typed on a regular keyboard. A few months ago, she noticed a painful cramping in her thumbs. …

… Greg Hardesty, a reporter in Lake Forest, Calif., said that late last year his 13-year-old daughter, Reina, racked up 14,528 texts in one month. She would keep the phone on after going to bed, switching it to vibrate and waiting for it to light up and signal an incoming message. …

Step 9: Interview a social control agent who can testify to the unchecked proliferation of your topic, and his/her institution’s current inability to halt it. [Note: The social control agent may be replaced in certain instances by a victim/concerned parent-turned-moral-entrepreneur.]

Teachers are often oblivious. “It’s a huge issue, and it’s rampant,” said Deborah Yager, a high school chemistry teacher in Castro Valley, Calif.

“I can’t tell when it’s happening, and there’s nothing we can do about it,” she said. “And I’m not going to take the time every day to try to police it.”

Step 10: Include an example of how your consumers can take matters into their own hands. The most effective way is to select an outlier clearly requiring intervention and showing that the intervention has been responsible for the amelioration of negative consequences. If done properly, many consumers will overreact to this uplifting story and impose draconian measures upon those not actually threatened by the menace.

Mr. Hardesty wrote a column about Reina’s texting in his newspaper, The Orange County Register, and in the flurry of attention that followed, her volume soared to about 24,000 messages. Finally, when her grades fell precipitously, her parents confiscated the phone.

Reina’s grades have since improved, and the phone is back in her hands, but her text messages are limited to 5,000 per month — and none between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. on weekdays.

Step 11: Edit the story and sprinkle with qualifiers—enough that you appear to be objective, but not so many that your consumers perceive that the menace is largely fabricated. Every qualification should be immediately followed by a return to fearmongering.

The rise in texting is too recent to have produced any conclusive data on health effects. But Sherry Turkle, a psychologist who is director of the Initiative on Technology and Self at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and who has studied texting among teenagers in the Boston area for three years, said it might be causing a shift in the way adolescents develop.

Step 12: Submit to your editor, and wait for the inevitable flood of copycat stories from other media sources to legitimate your topic. Congratulations, you’ve just created a social problem where none existed before! Rinse and repeat whenever you feel like imposing your normative biases upon hegemonic society.

Learning to Like Facebook

May 6th, 2009

My thesis, Learning to Like Facebook? Effects of Cultural and Educational Capital on the Use of Social Network Sites in a Population of University Students, is now available for download.

Abstract: This study explores the reasons why university students prefer to join or participate frequently in one social network website (SNS) over another. Drawing from previous research into motivations and environmental factors influencing SNS behavior, a theoretical model of SNS selection and frequency of use is constructed and evaluated. Random sampling methods are used to generate a population of students from a midwestern, urban, public university with an enrollment of nearly 16,000. Subjects responded to a questionnaire soliciting information regarding personal characteristics and SNS behaviors, and additional data was extracted from a content analysis of SNS profiles. The results show that attachment, age, and educational capital are the primary factors associated with SNS preference, while the effect of cultural capital is minimal. Limitations and implications are discussed.

“I’m Well-Adjusted.” “No, I’m Well-Adjusted.”

April 1st, 2009

David Gibson at the Complexity and Social Networks Blog hypothesizes about Facebook and (anti) social capital:

I predict that we will eventually want to add something that I am tempted to call anti-social capital, which is a snarky (and imprecise) term for the absence of ties of a certain type, namely those whose main consequence is that you spend a lot of time online communicating with people who, like you, have a lot of time to spend socializing online. It’s not hard to foresee why someone without such connections would fare better at school, in the workplace, and in their family relations than someone with them, other things being equal.

In fact, most studies so far–see Ellison et al. (2007), Steinfield et al. (2008), and Valenzuela et al. (2008)–have reached the opposite conclusion: that Facebook users have higher social capital than non-users, among several other beneficial social and psychological characteristics (e.g., life satisfaction). Tufekci (2008) found a major difference between users and non-users was their attitudes toward social grooming: users enjoyed those types of interactions or at least accepted their usefulness, while non-user attitudes “[ranged] from incredulous to hostile.”

There have, of course, been studies finding negative social or psychological characteristics associated with SNS use, particularly narcissism (e.g., Buffardi & Campbell 2008). But these negative findings, if true, are not incompatible with the positive findings of social capital (I don’t know about you, but socially competent narcissists abound in my circle of acquaintances).

My quibble with Gibson’s formulation is his premise that “you spend a lot of time online communicating with people who, like you, have a lot of time to spend socializing online.” We all spend an obscene amount of time engaging in technologically-mediated interactions (8.5 hours per day, according to this recent study), regardless of age. If we don’t have time for those activities, we make time, and if we don’t spend a lot of time online, it’s because we’re staring at a different screen.

My question is, if we all spend hours each day staring at our screens, what type of screens will those with high social capital prefer? Those that provide the most interactive potential, like cell phone and computer screens. Meanwhile, those with low social capital will eschew SNSs, use their computers for non-interactive ends, or prefer other mediated activities that require no direct interaction (e.g., watching television).

Tufekci’s research supports this perspective, as he found that there was no difference in the amount of time spent on the Internet between SNS users and non-users, but the ways in which they used the Internet varied significantly. Both groups were users of the “instrumental” Internet, performing practical non-interactive tasks such as shopping or research, but only SNS users participated heavily in the “expressive” Internet, which includes e-mailing, instant messaging, blogging, and reading others’ blogs. SNSs are just one of the ways that people with high social capital leverage our gizmos to interact with others.

That’s why I find it kind of silly when people prophecy that technologically-mediated interaction means the death of the face-to-face interaction. The people who spend the most time interacting with others via screens are also the ones who spend the most time talking your ear off in person. As long as we keep being in each other’s physical presence, those with high social capital will keep talking–to our face and through screens–while those with low social capital won’t.

Be Afraid. Read Our News.

February 14th, 2009

MySpace: 90,000 Sex Offenders Removed from Site

When I think of the attitudinal outlook driving moral panics, I think of my experience working as a technology assistant at a one-to-one laptop high school at the height of the MySpace/Facebook sexual predator panic from 2004-2006.

The school organized a series of informational sessions for parents, emceed by the school’s tech coordinator. As a barely-drinking-age, MySpace-and-Facebook-using employee of the school, my job was to de-mystify these sites by demonstrating what these sites do and describing what teens get out of them. My presentation was followed by that of a police officer from a neighboring community who specialized in digital crime, whose role was ostensibly to describe the dangers and provide tips to parents seeking to keep their kids safe.

It was a recipe for disaster. A mere college student cognizant of the dangers but sympathetic to the innumerable teens who use these sites safely didn’t stand a chance against an authoritative cop telling lurid tales of sexual abuse cases and making no secret of his distaste for these sites. Without fail, the Q&A sessions devolved into public witch hunts in which I was expected to defend the entire population of social network site users and explain why parents shouldn’t forbid their children from any and all online interactions.

One interaction sticks out prominently in my mind. An outspoken Luddite father attended one of these sessions and launched into a diatribe in which he all but accused me of abetting sexual predators in their quest to rape his daughter. I began my response by noting that he had grossly mischaracterized my beliefs about the dangers of social network sites.

“What do you believe?” he challenged.

“I believe that most parents overreact, and most teens underreact.” The audience responded with audible murmurs of approval.

His face contorted in disgust. “I don’t know how you can overreact to the things you hear in the news,” he snarled.

I try to make a point not to ascribe to simplistic grand theories of social behavior. But it’s hard for me not to interpret the articles written in the wake of this finding as a basic lesson in the populist theory of media bias.

The appeal of the article is entirely dependent upon the preexisting panic parents feel about strange Internet practices and the inability of most consumers to accurately assess scale. We know hundreds, or at best a few thousands of people over the course of our lives. In that context, a football stadium full of sexual predators is downright menacing.

But in the context of the 76 million unique visitors to MySpace in the U.S., this accounts for a whopping rate of a little of one in a thousand: 0.118%.

No one in their right mind would dispute that some teens are ignorant of the dangers of socializing with strangers on the Internet. Nor that one incident of sexual predation is already one too many. But only two types of reporter would broadcast a 0.1% incidence of deviant behavior as a significant finding: (1) one who is as ignorant as the masses that (s)he seeks to inform, or (2) one who knowingly understands that his or her audience would be awed by the raw figure of 90,000 deviants in a scary context.

“What’s this world coming to?”

Carlin and Marx

February 3rd, 2009

Teaching a class on Marx tomorrow, wishing I could show this video (skip ahead to about 1:20).

A great Marxist rant, from class struggles all the way to false consciousness. Too bad that typical Carlin profanity and patriotic irreverence makes it inappropriate for classroom use…

[Edit: I showed it to them anyway. Got some good discussion out of it too.]

Carrying Your Culture

December 28th, 2008

Last night, with eyes sagging and sinuses hanging out of my nose, I nevertheless spent hours customizing a new iPhone.

Tools like that fascinate me, and not just because I can play Katamari on them. It’s clear that our society’s most beloved toys are progressing toward holding more and more data, as quickly as hardware capacity and organizational software will allow. The course of this progression reveals much about how we define ourselves as social beings.

We would expect personal data and modes of interpersonal communication to figure prominently in these devices. What surprises me is how much of what we consider personal data is actually our cultural consumptive preferences. Besides demographics, nearly every social network profile asks for your favorite books, music, TV shows, movies. Computers, the iPod/iPhone, TiVo (“It’s your life, simplified!”), Amazon Kindle: all of these devices are valued for their ability to store our cultural products.

To put cultural consumption on par with other identifying features, like demographic traits or social roles or friends and family, is pretty ambitious. Clearly, many of us see something significant in the cultural products we choose to consume. We announce these choices (or lie about them) in social network profiles, our public face to the digital world, and relentlessly snatch up any device that stores these choices in greater quantities with greater efficiency. We use them to create a cultural constellation that broadcasts a requisite conformity coupled with a minimal and nonthreatening amount of individuality, a harmonious image of “me” through products that are functionally complementary yet symbolically similar.

And these taste preferences, in turn, illuminate the demographic traits and social roles also revealed in our profiles, and which are usually the first things that most people learn about us. Many of those traits and roles are ascribed or privy to inaccurate or demeaning stereotypes, but we can counter them by presenting our cultural constellation to demonstrate our complexity. Conversely, if we’re proud of one or more of our traits or roles, we can reinforce them by presenting cultural products resonant with those characteristics.

These cultural choices are not “us” per se, but they are the most conspicuous things that are “ours.” Unlike other information contained in profiles, we have complete control over them at all times. They are the subjective elements that interact with the objective traits and roles to create a more accurate (or inaccurate) picture of “us” to others. We prize these preferences because even if they are not as revelatory as something more central to our identity–such as our deepest fears or dreams–the juxtaposition of just a few of them generates a diverse, easily understood metaphor for the norms and values most important to us. Thanks to the ubiquity of data storage and the social network template, the makeup of our cultural consumption is a simple language with considerable flexibility that we all speak.

It’ll be interesting to see what kind of identity gadgets are created in the near future. Moore’s Law will keep chugging for at least another 10-20 years, and the software to manage all of that hardware will surely follow, so the connectivity of a Facebook or cell phone will continue to converge with the storage of a TiVo or Kindle. With a few more orders of magnitude, we’ll be able to carry our entire library of cultural consumption in our pockets (whether the RIAA likes it or not). I wonder how simplified we’ll feel our lives are then?

[Edit: From a discussion about generational identities on Grant McCracken's blog: "For my peer group, identity is constructed around personal taste (art+music+film/use of recreational time), professional (or non-professional) employment, kinds of education, and what each of us wants to accomplish in our short time here. "

In other words, identity is a Facebook profile. It would be interesting to test whether the centrality of taste preferences to perceived identity varies with respect to age.

Original post here and discussion here.]

Clearly…

December 19th, 2008

I need to learn how to function at a level that includes time for blogging.

But my time away was certainly productive. A partial list:

  • Applied/am applying to half a dozen sociology Ph.D. programs around the country, which will remain nameless until such time as I’m able to write a gloating/despondent post about how my future has been arbitrarily decided by a smattering of committees.
  • Collected data for my thesis. Going well so far. I’m now in the process of organizing and decoding everything. And then. The Writing.
  • Got hired to teach a summer class at my current institution after I graduate: Sociology of Deviant Behavior. I’m very excited about this–this will be my first class at the university level in which I’m the primary instructor. Any lurkers with experience/suggestions? (Any lurkers at all?)
  • Conducted a neat little ethnographic study of behaviors in academic libraries. I can’t publish it, because of an agreement with the human subjects committee, but it made a nifty writing sample to those Ph.D. programs who lean qualitative. The basic research question was, “If technology has rendered the library’s function as a central location of information obsolete, why do people still go there?” and my basic answer was, “To insulate themselves from that same ubiquitous technology, which is perceived as a threat to their productivity.” Fun exercise, except for the endless note-taking.
  • Decided to get a certificate in university teaching, which I didn’t even know was offered until the beginning of this semester. This led to me taking an educational psychology class and attending an array of workshops and conferences. Next semester I have to keep a weekly response log and get observed as I do my TA thing. If you say so…

Anyways, I’ll likely be around a bit more, as I’m on break for another month and then ABT + TA next semester. I already have a few ideas that I’m looking to delve into during the next few weeks…

Facebook Tastes

October 2nd, 2008

This uproar and boycott over the new Facebook is pretty interesting in the context of my thesis.

One of the major differences between Facebook and MySpace is its design, layout, and overall aesthetic. As danah boyd colorfully notes, MySpace is ridden with “flashy…Las Vegas imagery,” while Facebook is akin to a “poshy Scandinavian design house.”

The connection between taste preferences and socioeconomic status has been explored by Thorstein Veblen, Herbert Gans, Pierre Bourdieu, and others. SES becomes an identity which must be displayed by distinctive consumption, whether of material products (food, clothes, etc.) or cultural products (music, movies, etc.). This correlation between taste and SES is one of the reasons boyd suggests that MySpace and Facebook are reflecting class divisions.

One of Facebook’s reasons for redesigning its website was to regain the ascetic Facebook aesthetic, after the addition of applications made profiles significantly more cluttered (i.e., more like MySpace):

Among Facebook’s goals with the new design were to reduce the clutter of members’ profile pages and restore the social network’s clean and organized layout.

At first, I thought that the majority of complaints about the new design would come from Facebook users who prefer a MySpace aesthetic. But the article above points out that the redesign does incorporate at least one element that clashes with the Facebook aesthetic:

Fishbein, like many redesign critics, dislikes the new tabbed interface because she feels it forces people to do too much clicking around to see and find things. She preferred the more consolidated look and feel of the old design. She also finds the overall effect of the new design to be “very in-your-face,” whereas the previous layout was, in her view, less strident and more discreet.

Though my proposal has already been approved by the human subjects committee, I’m going to try to get approval for a new question asking Facebook users to rate their opinion of the new Facebook on a Likert scale. It’ll be interesting to see, when I begin collecting data during the next couple of weeks, if there’s a correlation between socioeconomic origin and opinion of the new Facebook’s design.