The Social Media Trendline: Corporate influence

My last post led to an interesting corollary to the controversial issue of social media banning policies. While it makes sense for companies to enforce no-Facebook controls with their employees, it is a curious turn of events when the very thing that is supposed to be a collaborative expression of "we the people" (what else does "social" mean anyway) turns on itself. At the end of last month, Facebook took down the Boycott BP page one of its users had put up. The site was simply an encouragement to all out there to boycott BP brands, stations and products - which, at this point, doesn't seem too objectionable right? I mean, does anyone really like that we've destroyed an entire ecosystem in a matter of days, and the oil is still flowing?To be fair, it is rather hypocritical to boycott BP and fill up at Shell...oil spills can happen to anyone - well, any oil company, anyway. So, the best thing to do would be to boycott oil itself...but that would, of course, require that we actually get in shape to walk or bike everywhere, and that we'd be disqualified from getting a lot of jobs (you don't know HOW many jobs I've been refused SOLELY on the basis of my lack of car, to which I say, culture FAIL, America, culture FAIL).

Anyway...I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels that way. Those striving for social change are jumping on the global warming - or, I guess the politically correct term these days is "climate change" (what a great public relations stunt, changing "crisis" to "change") - bandwagon.  They are realizing that car pollution is actually not OK and is a significant contributor to the challenging changes we (and by "we" I mean the global community since we all have to share this planet, after all) are already seeing.  They are pushing for Feet First instead of cars first.  So, is anyone else wondering why Facebook - an organization that at least started out being run by the people who use it (that's the idealist's definition of social media, I believe) - would suddenly, without warning or discussion, take down a page made by and for the public?  I mean, is it just me, or is that, like, the social media equivalent to taxation without representation?  At any rate, the page is up and running again (after another of the exact same variety was started by the same guy who began the first page); Facebook staff claims that it was a technical glitch, of course.

And then, there's the NFL's attempt at a social media blockade.  Towards the end of last year, the NFL disallowed its fans to reproduce any part of a game  or NFL event (including pictures, scores, play-by-play descriptions), etc. in order to protect their $3 billion contract with ESPN and CBS.  Because of the outcry that social media should remain open to the public (it is social media after all), and the growing cynicism about corporate take-over in this country (or is that just my opinion), the NFL have since revised their policy: now it's the players (and coaches) who can't use social media with complete freedom - and the refs can't use Twitter or FB at all.

So, those are just two examples of how great big corporations actually have more say than we the people, even in we-the-people's arena, not that anyone needed a reminder of the cold hand of The Big Man's greed...