Social Factories By Marc Andrejevic Analysis

Marc Andrejevic presents a strong case against the powers of the social networking sites. A consistent theme through his piece is the idea of a social factory. What can be described as insignificant when examined at a micro-level, the loosely connected web of videos, images and digital bytes of memories that make up our collective identities online creates an environment ripe for monetary exploitation. “Those who control the means of online sociability thus have the power to set the terms of access to these resources.” (86-87) By granting access to what many would consider today to be a necessity, we have little negotiating power in the terms of what rights we give these metadata factories when enrolled. With clauses for continuous updating

“(89) Should our ideas or thoughts shared online be permitted to be aggregated with millions of other individuals and sent to marketing firms? While we accept the terms of the agreement, can it really be said that we are accepting their practices, and what would the boundary defining ethical and legal behavior be set at? With that said, it should be noted the author does not necessarily believe domination always results in exploitation. “The mere fact that someone benefits from the efforts of others does not, in itself, constitute exploitiation….it is not reducible to whether or not individuals feel they are the victims of exploitation” (91). This is an important point to address, as it ties directly into the idea of privacy and life in our 24-7 connected world. In the end, ones interpretation of Andrejevics piece comes down to whether one believes the social media platform as a whole (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkdIn, etc.) are necessities of everyday life. One viewpoint is believed to be a “choice” in whether avoiding online social presence would negatively affect ones social life, job prospects, and potential connections to former and present contacts, then the idea of exploitation holds little merit. Andrejevic does submit that “in signing up to use such services….users arguably knowingly agree to submit to such forms of monitoring and manipulation and there is no law that says they have to join sites like Facebook.” (96) In stark contrast, if the opposite belief is held, there most certainly exist varying levels of exploitation in this oligopoly. The difference between the two viewpoints comes down to an personal level, with each individual having to determine for themselves whether signing over data rights as self-inflicted or not.