Facebook has become an integral part of daily life, with over 800 million active users worldwide. However, its algorithm-driven platform and data-driven business model have created a public sphere that is exclusive, colonised, and smothered by instrumental rationality.
According to recent statistics, there are approximately 2.5 million Facebook users in Zimbabwe, which is about 16% of the country’s population.
This number has been steadily increasing over the years, with a growth rate of 15% in 2020 alone.
Facebook is widely used in Zimbabwe for both personal and professional purposes, including social networking, news consumption, and online marketing.
The platform has become an essential tool for many Zimbabweans to connect with friends and family, both locally and in the diaspora.
This write-up will explore the adversarial effects of Facebook on Zimbabweans through the lens of Jürgen Habermas’ concept of the public sphere.
The Public Sphere; A Conceptual Framework:
Habermas defines the public sphere as a domain of social life where public opinion can be formed and it is open to all citizens.
The public sphere is a communicative space that resides between and mediates the different interests of the system (market and state) and the lifeworld.
In critical theory, the public sphere has ceased to be an inclusive communicative space for rational-critical debate, and is now a venue for the instrumental rationale of the system.
Facebook as a Public Sphere:
Facebook constitutes a public sphere, but one that is tailored in a certain way, inviting certain forms of interaction and participation.
Its algorithm-driven platform and data-driven business model create an environment that prioritises certain users, semiotic expressions, and communicative acts over others.
The platform’s design and algorithmic logic encourage users to react quickly and emotionally, rather than engage in thoughtful and reflective discussion.
The Exclusive Nature of Facebook’s Public Sphere:
Facebook’s public sphere is exclusive because it prioritises certain users, semiotic expressions, and communicative acts over others.
The algorithm-driven news feed and emphasis on engagement metrics create an environment where users are incentivised to produce content that generates high engagement, rather than content that promotes rational-critical debate.
This creates a power imbalance between users, where those with more followers and engagement have more visibility and influence.
The Colonisation of Facebook’s Public Sphere:
Facebook’s public sphere is colonised because it is driven by the economic interests of the platform, rather than the interests of the users.
The platform’s data-driven business model creates a power imbalance between Facebook and its users, where users are seen as data points rather than citizens.
This has led to concerns around privacy, surveillance, and the exploitation of user data for advertising revenue.
The Smothering of Facebook’s Public Sphere:
Facebook’s public sphere is smothered by instrumental rationality because it prioritises efficiency, speed, and profit over critical debate and rational discussion.
The platform’s design and algorithmic logic create an environment where users are encouraged to react quickly and emotionally, rather than engage in thoughtful and reflective discussion.
Addiction:
Facebook’s algorithm-driven platform and data-driven business model have also led to addiction.
The platform’s design and algorithmic logic create an environment where users are encouraged to spend more time on the platform, engaging with content that generates high engagement.
This has led to concerns around addiction, mental health, and the impact on democracy and public discourse.
Clout Chasing:
Facebook’s algorithm-driven platform and data-driven business model have also led to clout chasing, where users prioritise engagement metrics and online popularity over critical debate and rational discussion.
This has created a culture of online narcissism, where users prioritise their online persona over their real-life relationships and interactions.
Criminal Use:
Facebook have also led to criminal use, such as the spread of harmful content and online harassment.
The platform’s design and algorithmic logic create an environment where users can spread harmful content and engage in online harassment with impunity.
Conclusion:
Facebook’s public sphere has adversarial effects on Zimbabweans, as it creates an environment that is exclusive, colonised, and smothered by instrumental rationality.
Furthermore, Facebook have also led to addiction, clout chasing, and criminal use.
To promote a more inclusive, democratic, and rational public sphere, Facebook must prioritise transparency and accountability, encourage critical debate, empower users, and foster inclusivity.
Recommendations:
- Promote transparency and accountability: Facebook should be more transparent about its algorithmic logic and data-driven business model, and be held accountable for its impact on democracy and public discourse.
- Encourage critical debate: Facebook should prioritize content that promotes critical debate and rational discussion, rather than content that generates high engagement.
- Empower users: Facebook should give users more control over their data and their experience on the platform, and prioritise user interests over economic interests.
- Foster inclusivity: Facebook should also prioritise inclusivity and diversity and create an environment where all users feel welcome and valued.
The adversarial effects of Facebook on Zimbabweans highlighted in this epistle suggest that the platform’s benefits may be outweighed by its negative consequences.
The exclusive, colonised, and smothered nature of Facebook’s public sphere, combined with its potential for addiction, monetisation, clout chasing, and criminal use, pose significant risks to democracy, public discourse, and individual well-being in Zimbabwe.
To mitigate these risks, Facebook must prioritise transparency and accountability, encourage critical debate, empower users, and foster inclusivity. Additionally, policymakers and regulators in Zimbabwe must take steps to ensure that Facebook and other social media platforms operate in a responsible and ethical manner that prioritises the interests of users over profits.
By taking these steps, we can promote a more inclusive, democratic, and rational public sphere that harnesses the potential of social media to benefit Zimbabwean society as a whole.