Because you are all desperate for another blog entry about Facebook, here you go!

I was first hired to work for Provincial Health Care to help transition the change from paper files to digital files. When I showed up to work that first day I walked into was a spat between doctors and administration about file management. The doctors had been hand writing notes and assessments for eons and the thought of taking people’s private information and uploading it to the computer was considered irresponsible. Administration, meanwhile, was trying to explain that uploading this information would help in the management of the public’s health care, for example, if a person was in a car accident and ended up in the hospital, the ER docs could see what medications they were taking and make sure not to give the patient another medication that might clash. Electronic files would provide a new level of continuity of care that had previously not existed. Nothing management said could sway the doctors; the risk of information being obtained by anyone but themselves and the patient was too high, plus the doctors didn’t like the way the information was broken up into sections as it meant the receiver of the information might chose to read only one part of a file rather than having to read through the file in its entirety, leading to possible miscommunication.

It was over the years that I worked there that I noticed a shift in perspective. After using electronic files for about two or three years, some of the doctors actually asked me to help them learn to use the new system of electronic files rather than depending on me to do it for them, and they adapted to quite quickly, although they were always ultra-cautious about what information could be uploaded. It was also around this time that email became the main form of communication for the provincial government and patients were asking for email addresses rather than phone numbers as it was easier to track information this way. Patients were also using online resources more often to educate themselves about illnesses and some were even joining online support groups. Information that would have been kept from the rest of society in past years was suddenly being shared online and stigmas that would previously have been associated with certain diseases and disorders were slowing disintegrating.

At the same time societal perspective was changing as well; celebrities who had formerly been hidden away for rehab purposes started plainly stating what problem they were being rehabbed for. Billionaires admitted learning disabilities and MIT grads admitted to Aspergers. People were making millions selling memoirs about their struggles with drugs, alcohol and mental illness. The social wall that would have previously contained that information was breaking down. This was good news on some levels, bad on others; most likely this change was maybe partly due to individuals trying to educate the public about their issues, also partly due to changing media boundaries and the inability to hide certain aspects of a person’s life and lastly due to the public’s desire to know too much personal information about individuals and people using this to cash in on their own personal story. Stories about sickness and disorder sell, and sell again and again, even if the person is lucky enough to recover or unlucky enough to not recover. Think Mary Kate Olsen’s miraculous recovery from anorexia and cocaine addiction after 30 days in rehab and Anna Nicole Smith’s tragic death from overdose. It is like people got wise to Kierkegaard’s media “dog” and started turning weaknesses into strengths, a sort of “I’m-just-a-simple-mortal-seeking-answers-to-the-big-questions-just-like-you-viewers-out-there-in-TV-Land-we-all-have-problems-we-are-the-same” approach.

I think the idea that there is some personal information that previously would have only been shared with a close network of people relates well to the success of Facebook. I recently saw a friend post a scanned copy of a diagnosis from a mental health professional on his page. It wasn’t like the diagnosis was shocking or bad or anything. Most people just made funny comments and some even complimented him on his bravery. I felt conflicted about the whole thing. It is his information to share so who am I to tell him what to do with it, but at the same time it is such an affront to my own personal beliefs about what personal information is appropriate to share (and I am struggling to find out what it is that I find troubling about it - is it just a matter of simply finding it distasteful or a protective feeling that the information could be misconstrued?). How am I supposed to know if it is an act of bravery or a cheap grab at attention or a reflection of someone’s self-deprecating humour? The information has no context in the Facebook format. This is not the first time I have felt this way about what my “friends” have posted - there are some pretty incriminating photos and comments. I actually had a friend email me to delete a bunch of comments he had left because he was afraid it could affect his career.

Anyway, I guess that this is one of the flaws of information technology: when information is broken up into bits and pieces the context can get lost, leaving interpretations to be screened through the bias and prejudice of the receiver and comprehension of the issue as a whole can be lost. I guess the fear would be that this can be used to manipulate the public, as one becomes able to back an opinion or idea with portions of a story rather than a whole. Maybe Facebook is just an example of our willingness to interact with fractured, decontextualized information or our expectations of how media will deliver information even if we are the ones personally distributing it.

Please let me know if I am overcomplicating this whole thing. Midterms have made me a little bit nuts. Blargh.