On "The Facebook Effect"

I have a lot of admiration for Michael Geist. He is one of the most active public intellectuals in Canada, particularly when it comes to discussions around how the Canadian legal system has been handling new technologies. His comments on Canadian camcording legislation (which you can see on his blog) injected a sober voice of reason into that heated discussion

His most recent effort, setting up a Facebook page to draw attention to a simple-minded piece of Canadian copyright legislation, attracted more than 20,000 members in a matter of a few weeks. When word came down last week that the Canadian government was going to delay putting the legislation through the House of Commons until the new year, many -- including yours truly -- suggested that Professor Geist should earn many of the plaudits for encouraging people to think seriously about how changes to copyright legislation could affect their lives.

So it is with the utmost respect that I have some serious disagreements with one line of argument, published in a column in the Toronto Star, that Facebook had a major role to play in the victory.

In his article, Geist explains that Facebook "is far more than just a cool way to catch up with old friends; rather, it is an incredibly effective and efficient tool that can be used to educate and galvanize grassroots advocacy, placing unprecedented power into the hands of individuals." He also acknowledges that while not alone in raising the issue, "the momentum was unquestionably built on thousands of Canadians who were determined to have their voices heard."

Two things are worth noting here. First, I draw your attention to the end of the piece -- the part that says " This scenario cannot be repeated for every issue." Second, I should point out that I have just completed David Edgerton's fantastic book "The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History Since 1900". These two things -- Geist's legal disclaimer and Edgerton's measured account -- mean to me that a more subtle explanation is needed for what has just happened here.

This is because Geist's analysis recycles what Edgerton calls "an innovation-centric" account of new technology. Here the Facebook group plays a key role in the story, driving government action. Then the column ends up with another trap Edgerton discusses, that is not being able to distinguish between the significance and use of new technology. The thinking goes like this: Since there are all of these people signed up to Facebook, and since it received a lot of attention in the press, it must have had some significant effect on the final outcome. For Edgerton, these "claims for significance", are made long before any historical analysis can be undertaken. Since this column comes a mere days after the copyright delay, it looks like Geist has just grounded into a triple play.

Are there other explanations for why the copyright issue "stuck"? Here are three possible explanations:

1 Minority governments are sensitive: Even though the Liberals aren't mounting much of an opposition these days, let's remember that we are dealing with a minority government. This is a government that is particularly sensitive to situations that attract a lot of negative attention, on Facebook or in other arenas. Would this effort have worked with a majority government that could simply ram the issue through Parliament? There are lots of Facebook groups devoted to a lot of issues -- like the environment. This hasn't had much an effect on the Conservatives, has it?

2. Language matters: Remember the linguistic gymnastics that turned "estate taxes" into "death taxes" in the United States? It works in Canada, too. Copyright is a complicated legal issue, one which is difficult to explain to the general public. However, framing the issue as a case where "Hollywood lobbyists" were influencing Canadian copyright law is a stroke of rhetorical brilliance (as opposed to, pointing to the influence of, say, Canada's actors unions) that would get a lot of Canadians into a lather. This is because it combines the concerns of creators and users of cultural materials with those of Canada's cultural nationalists. The influence of America on Canadian government policy is also the Achilles heel for the Conservatives. Many Canadians are still suspicious of the Harper government when it comes to relations with the United States.

It also doesn't help when the big voices in favour of the move were representatives of the music and broadcasting sector. These forces combined to made copyright a hot-button issue and a reminder of the "hidden agenda" label that follows the Conservatives.

3. Old media still matter: The Facebook part of the story really took on its shape when it was picked up by the dreaded mainstream media -- including newspapers, television stations, and the public broadcaster. These outlets are always looking for cases of technological determinism. So, not surprisingly, the story about copyright became a story about Facebook. It's fascinating to see how newspapers play such an important role in legitimating new media

4. Hey -- what about the blogs? Remember those places which were giving people unprecedented access to the political process? I raise this point to draw to another point of Edgerton's - that some of the most effective new technologies are the ones which are only marginally better than their predecessors. That seems important here, because Facebook's ease of use is one of the reasons for its ridiculous popularity. Since the interface is so simple, it is also easy to download applications and join groups with just the click of a button. Now there's no more need to send an e-mail to "subscribe-L@whateverthelistnamewas.com" or having to deal with an inbox flooded with messages when you're away. Facebook's brilliance, I suggest, lies in simplifying things for the general user, whether it's del.icio.us links or last.fm accounts. If Facebook has done anything here, it is that it made political participation easier. So on this point, Geist may be right. But remember, use and significance are two different things. So are we any more informed about the impact of Facebook on political action as we are with other and older technological forms? I don't think so.

A few things to keep in mind here. First, this was a column in a daily newspaper, so there's only so much one can cover in this format. Second, let's also keep in mind that I am in favour of any action which put an end to this copyright bill, and I applaud the tremendous efforts of people confronting the Industry Minister, writing letters to members of Parliament, protesting, and of course, joining the Fair Copyright Facebook group. So I'm not trying to rain on the parade here. But to suggest that Facebook was responsible, in the absence of any of the other factors, for what has just taken place seems a little rich, even at this time of the year.

I'll let Edgerton take it the rest of the way: "Thinking about the use of things, rather than of technology, connects us directly with the world we know rather than the strange world in which 'technology' lives".