‘The Social Network’ Reflects A Generation, If Not Defines It

Published 3 years ago by , Updated October 30th, 2012 at 7:50 am,

WE CAN HAVE IT ALL

The Social Network Timberlake Eisenberg The Social Network Reflects A Generation, If Not Defines It

Facebook came along at a time before the recession really hit; a time when “the sky is the limit” was still the prevailing feeling about Internet moneymaking potential. The world had already seen the collapse of the dot-com bubble, and yet there seemed to be the pervading belief (and reality in some cases) that millions of dollars were there to be made on the Internet if one just mined for them properly. And this began a second, smaller, Internet speculation bubble – one that would see MySpace (a company which is still losing money) sold for the astronomical sum of $580 million dollars based on imagined earnings potential. A potential that may have been realized, had the company been properly managed. Sadly, Facebook is in a privileged class when it comes to proper corporate management in the last several years.

There are some who believe that the first Internet bubble burst led to the far more damaging housing bubble and credit crisis. According to Yale Economy Professor, Robert Shiller, who accurately predicted the dot-com and housing busts, the sub-prime crisis is due to, “the irrational exuberance that drove the economy’s two most recent bubbles–in stocks in the 1990s and in housing between 2000 and 2007.” That “irrational exuberance” is defined here (by a laymen wading her way through this mess) as the “fairyland method of financial investment,” -  in other words, the willingness to invest, loan or spend money on a venture that has no practical guarantee of a return.

In the case of sub-prime mortgages, there was pretty much a guarantee of failure, in fact, the investment houses bet on it [check out the wonderful documentary Inside Job for more on that story]. Now, the Dot-com bust was likely due to misplaced confidence and greed, and the housing and credit crisis due to evil. Yet, everyone involved was to some degree culpable in the sense that they (and we) were willing to indulge in unnecessary excess, to the detriment of the collective whole. The willingness to invest in a dream is a beautiful thing; the willingness to haphazardly invest in a dream which has no solid foundation in reality is a dangerous thing.

the social network image9 The Social Network Reflects A Generation, If Not Defines It

Just like other Internet ventures before it, millions of dollars were invested in Facebook, which at the time was just un-manifested potential. As both Zuckerberg and Sean Parker said in the film “we don’t even know what it is yet.” Yes, venture capitalists invest in “un-manifested potential” all the time – in a sense, that is the very nature of their business. But the Internet boom represents an ever-increasing rise and decline of services.

Facebook did become profitable in 2009, which was ahead of the projected schedule, yet it could have just as easily gone the way of MySpace had we as an increasingly fickle consumer base found a different service that we preferred; or if it had suffered the same reckless mismanagement that so many other companies did. Of course none of this is really so new – speculation has gone on for a very long time, as have bubbles and bursts. This is just the current ideation.

-

THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE

Internet money profits The Social Network Reflects A Generation, If Not Defines It

If the Internet were the Wild West, then Internet ventures would be akin to gold-mining and Mark Zuckerberg would represent the exception to the gold-mining rule. The guys that actually found gold. Like Less Than Zero, The Social Network represents the exception, rather than the rule.

Yet it is the exception that most people choose to believe in, that most of us want to believe in. The exception is as seductive as it is elusive, and when there is a failure to temper the dream with a healthy dose of realism, it can be dangerous.

In Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps Gordon Gekko talks about how we all “drank the same Kool-Aid.” For most of us, that “Kool-Aid” was the idea that “no matter what we do, things will only get better.” Many made financial decisions based on the message in that Kool-Aid, and decided to worry about the repercussions of those decisions, as Scarlett O’Hara would say, “tomorrow.” Well, tomorrow is today.

-

WE SHOULD HAVE IT ALL

“Entitlement” is a word we hear used a great deal. Corporate entitlement, personal entitlement, who is entitled to what and why. Much is made of what we may or may not be owed, with little thought to where it came from, or what we owe in return. There is a certain sense of entitlement inherent in the belief that everything should always get better, and that it necessarily will.

There is also a deep sense of entitlement inherent in the characters depicted in The Social Network.That sense of entitlement is perhaps most effectively expressed when Zuckerberg attests that the Winklevoss twins are upset because, “for the first time in their lives things did not work out how they were supposed to for them.” How many of us have felt that things as they are right now “are not like they are supposed to be?”  If we really look, we will see that our idea of “supposed to be” was likely based on a fantasy.

Social Network Winklevoss The Social Network Reflects A Generation, If Not Defines It

Entitlement is an undercurrent that runs through every aspect of the The Social Network. Mark Zuckerberg felt entitled to co-opt the germ of the idea for Facebook, and effectively outmaneuver the originators of the idea. The Winklevoss twins felt entitled to 65 million dollars for coming up with the vague idea for what was essentially nothing more than a Harvard exclusive dating site. Eduardo Saverin felt entitled to maintain a massive stake in Facebook, despite that fact that he had (according to the film) a diametrically opposed vision for its future.

Sean Parker felt entitled to stake a claim in a company he had no part in the inception of, and to oust one of its co-founders. With the creation of Napster, Parker also helped to propel the now mass assumption that we are all entitled to free media – that we are entitled to simply take what others worked their whole lives to build and create. Parker looked at “bringing down the record companies” as something that gave him bragging rights, that set him apart, and made him special with no sense of consequence for what he did. No sense of care for, or even awareness of, the lives and livelihoods that his actions affected.

sean parker The Social Network Reflects A Generation, If Not Defines It

The Real Sean Parker. Photo credit: Vanity Fair

Change can, and must, happen. Change can be positive, even if it comes in the form of a temporary dismantlement of what was previously established. What is disturbing in The Social Network is the flagrant disregard for the real-life people impacted by the changes these characters were affecting.

Continue to social networking’s value to society…

« 1 2 3»

TAGS: the social network

33 Comments

Post a Comment

  1. I have to quibble with your depiction of Napster versus the Music Business. The music business was engaging in predatory practices with its “talent” since the early 80′s.

    In the late 90′s when the CD format had matured, rather than investing and taking a chance in risky talent, the business had staked its growth on easily digestible new artists and increasing high record sales upwards of $18 for a single CD in order to make a profit. After all, most artists at the time were lucky to make $.50-$1.00 per CD at that wildly inflated retail price for something that could be manufactured for $.25.

    The plan was backfiring. CD sales were slipping before Napster. Napster was just a technological expansion of cassette swapping with friends on a more global scale.

    The music business could have fought back successfully by pricing their wares at a better perceived value, but refused. They could have also developed more artists that were riskier and explored niche tastes more, but they refused to let artists develop over time.

    Instead, they made criminals of those who would most likely buy their music. The business also made paupers of those artists that would sign with labels, but instead of riches, most artists were left with huge debts for inflated marketing & production costs.

    • Absolutely – its not so much that the music industry was in the right, not at all. It’s been predatory for years and the artists are the least protected in almost any creative field. The change was positive in many respects. And I believe its best to go with change as much as possible. I am really talking about his attitude (as depicted in the film, I don’t know him personally). There seemed to be no awareness of how his actions affect other people, or care – and I see that as a general trend. No where near as bad as the investment bankers who has NO care for their actions and who they impacted, and definitely knew better. But still, reflective of a general attitude.

      Also, it is somewhat predatory to the artists to take their work without paying anything for it. It costs money to live, and it costs money to make anything creatively – music, books, films – what have you. If artists are choosing to give samples for free, that is one thing, and in many cases it is the best thing to do in our current structure. But, what I was talking about was a pervading sense of entitlement. One of the way’s that comes out is in this generations disregard for the work and effort it takes to make something and the belief that we are entitled to take without giving. That we are owed something for nothing. I’m not saying I am not guilty of the very same thing. Cause I am.
      Thanks!
      Roth

      • Hi Roth,

        There is a problem with the music industry paradigm. An artist does not make money on their work until they pay off their debt. Basically the artist takes an “advance” on royalties paid, this is supposed to be for the artist to live and create the art that the company will market. In addition to that, music business charges them for the following things: audio production costs, pressing costs, video production costs, touring production costs, and publicity/marketing costs. All that rolls into “the bill” that artist must pay off via royalty before an artist sees one penny. The music business does not assume any of that risk per se for those costs, just the costs for distribution and corporate overhead.

        Now if the artist’s work is not released or if there is little marketing effort to get the work noticed, the artist is still on the hook for these costs. Additionally, the music business has some very creative accounting to look at downloads, radio airplay, media use, and units sold versus units damaged/returned, so getting a clear understanding of the royalty situation can be very difficult. Hence, why some popular artists end up declaring bankruptcy.

        So from that perspective, the amount of financial damage that a service like Napster did to artists is minimal compared to the financial damage done by the music business itself to those artists. If anything, Napster helped expose artists to a wider audience and helped sell more units of music that a particular audience thought was good.

        Think of it this way, would a major media corporation produce a film where Sean Parker would deliver this message about how the music business exploits artists and how he viewed himself as Robin Hood? I think not. No media corporation would want to open that Pandora’s Box.

        Artists produce art, whether they are paid for it or not. The music industry just exploits musicians in a certain way due to that fact. Thanks to Napster and the internet, more artists see now that they can get their music out to an audience without the intermediary of a music label. Any independent artist will tell you that they make more money that way in the long run versus being involved with a label, unless you are a really huge artist that the label needs to financially succeed.

        So to call the advent of Napster – a generation’s disregard for the value of art is a very flawed argument. They still pay for the art, just in different ways and after trying before buying.

  2. Well written article..cery well written but do you think you could have made it a little longer? :)

    • Lol – I’ll give it a shot for next time ;)

      Thanks!

      Roth

      • I hope youre being sarcastic LOL!

        • I am ;)

  3. This is a very observant article and a good read. I have not seen the social network yet but I do plan to. To your opinion I would say that most of it is spot on. Our generation is plagued by entitlement largely because of the media (imo). I say this because most images in modern media suggest that “man” should be stylish, affluent and aggressive. Sports cars used to market fast food, prime time slots filled with shows about greed (lone star recently cancelled on fox) Murder (take your pick csi to criminal minds and middle class inadequacies (the office, community etc.).

    If we are to take responsibility for this more rewards should be given to those who achieve socially responsible greatness. There is no reason why intangible entities such as facebook and myspace should have more worth than green mountain energy. As long as the elite run the media and commerce we will continue to stray down this path. Intrinsic value sums social networking up for me. I feel as though you should have to have face to face conversations not along for the sake of quality interaction but also to develop empathy. Speaking from my own experiences most techies I know are social inadequate people who for one reason or another just don’t mix well with human beings. The lack of skills seem to bleed over to their real world where spells are casts to kill other wizards or you can make 500 million “friends” should we really take generation defining communication tips from these folks?

    I am for all claims a late 70′s baby. I played in outside and made my friends. I also have facebook and a myspace but not an obsession with either. It’s because of this I feel at times that I don’t belong with the majority of air breathers these days. I just can’t relate.

    My 2cents pardon any typos thanks if you bothered to read.

    • Thanks!

      I agree that our media and collective images have a lot to do with it. It becomes cyclical, because if we watch or buy into certain things then they will continue.

      I have a facebook account and think that it is really fun, but yeah, its so important to keep things in perspective. Some things seem to talk on a value that doesn’t make a lot of sense in the bigger picture. Thanks for your comments! Good to read.

      Roth

  4. Very good read. And not only do I completely agree with your point about people having a misguided sense of entitlement in this day and age, I can relate to it.

    Years ago, some friends and I made a series of original animated shorts akin to Homestar Runner cartoons and shared them with our friends, family and anyone who wanted to watch. We weren’t looking for fame or fortune, it was all done off-the-cuff, in our spare time and for the purpose of flexing our creative and artistic muscles. It was fun.

    So when youtube was unleashed on the world we saw it as an opportunity to share our work with more people. So we threw them on the site, gained some fans and that was that. But then we began to notice other users were getting more views and more praise than us with videos we thought were extremely poor. We were bit by the jealousy bug. Why them and not us? Sure, we weren’t Pixar, but certainly what we were making was better than some guy crying into his webcam.

    What we eventually realized was we were still caught in our pre-youtube way of thinking. A few years ago it was a huge deal for someone to create original content online, but nowadays anyone and everyone can do it. It’s wrong to think success, true success, comes easy or is overnight. Exceptions happen, and they’ve happened before the internet, too. But it’s not guaranteed, and the chances of it happening to you are 1 in a billion. Best to enjoy what you have, not envy what you don’t.

    • Hey LL,

      Thanks, and yes I can relate to it as well. It feels like something that is so deeply ingrained that I must really be consciously aware of when it it coming up and why. And then try and see what is valid and what isn’t, it just sort of seems like it is everywhere in out culture to some degree. Thanks for your comments!

      Roth

  5. Enough Facebook/The Social Network talk. Please. It seems like half the articles here are about that.

    • @Alex

      Well you don’t have to read them all, bud :-) .

      And BTW: We only had 4 Social Network articles for the ENTIRE MONTH of Sept(including our review). Considering it was the big marketing window for the movie, that’s limited coverage, to say the least. :-)

      • That’s it? Just four? It feels like 50. ;) Maybe because, living in Los Angeles, I hear about it EVERYWHERE and I’m just sick of it. Probably one of the reasons I don’t wanna watch it. If I see that “You don’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies” poster one more time I’m gonna… gah! :)

        • Hey! you can’t say that stuff on ScreenFace…uh, FaceRant…um, well, maybe you have a point. Not particularly regarding this site’s coverage, but yeah, it’s been pretty overwhelming here in So. Cal, but ScreenRant always does a great job of reviewing and analyzing movie related “hot topics” so cut em some slack. Let’s you and I go out and put “why so serious?” stickers on those posters, yeah? ;)

          • Ahh, that eases my anger. I think I’ll watch The Dark Knight tonight and get my face paint ready. ;)
            And I agree on ScreenRant’s coverage. I love their reviews and up-to-date topics. It’s just this movie that strikes a thin cord with me. I don’t want to see Eisenberg’s face anymore nor hear how the rich Facebook people are getting richer.

            • Actually – that sentiment is a lot of what the article is about in a lot of ways.

              Thanks!

              Roth

              • Hmm, excellent point. I didn’t see it that way. Article now accepted. :)

                • Lol :D Well, thank you :D! Being accepted does feel good :D

                  Roth

          • I live here too and yeah, I sort of talk about how funny it is that the movie is taking something that should just be fun so seriously. But when you look at the dollars involved – it starts to seem kinda paradoxically serious. Thanks for your comments, I do know how ya feel – but I feel like that about most movie advertising here. It makes sense but one of the first things I noticed when I moved here was how many ads there were for movies — eeeevvverrrwhere. :)

            Roth

  6. Roth youre so cool! You comment back i love that!!! 8-)

    • Why thank you :D!

      • No problem :D !

  7. Roth,
    Over all an excellent article with some salient points. Especially early on when you point out that this movie is about the myth of the creation of Facebook. But later you say :
    “It is impossible to say if any of the characterizations of the real-life people involved in the founding of Facebook are “real” or “true.””
    No it isn’t impossible to say. In fact there have been several stories on NPR on just that topic featuring persons who personally know that the real life Mark Zuckerberg and have said the character in the movie doesn’t even resemble him. That the story has been dramatized is no surprise in a Hollywood movie but it surprising how literal at least some people are taking it. It isn’t a documentary.
    That said, this was a very enjoyable read and you’ve almost convinced me to go see this movie. Beyond that you’ve covered some important issues that the movie highlights. Particularly money and our (this contry’s) weird sense of perspective when it comes to spending it. We often hear arguments about how we can’t afford it (universal health care, unemployment benefits, space exploration, alternative energy, environmental protection…) but we rarely hear the comparisons to the trivial things we do spend our money on as a very rich and privileged country. For example did you know that American women spent more money on makeup from 1960-1969 than NASA spend on the entire space program?
    As always, you are awesome, so keep writing and I’ll keep reading!

    • Hey Elizabeth!

      Thanks! Well I suppose it is impossible for ME to say, because I wasn’t there and I do not know those people. Anything I hear is second hand, be it from the people who know him who are speaking on NPR or from any other source. We are complex beings. If you were to ask three different people about my character, that knew me from three different areas of my life – you would get three very different responses. Everything is context and perspective.

      Also, there is a bit of a PR campaign to combat the film. I don’t know him so I can’t say…and even if I did – it would still just be my perspective. People are mysteries, even people we have known for years and intimately are still ultimately mysteries to us…Part of the nature of being human, in my experience anyway.

      And several times I say I am not talking about Zuckerberg the person, but the archetype as depicted in this film. And it is a really good film :)

      That is interesting about NASA and makeup :). Yeah, I think I was just more interested in how the movie relates to us a society and where we are right now in general. And less interested in who was “right: or “wrong” at the inception of FB. It’s actually pretty gray in the film and I don’t think he comes off as a bad guy. Just very young, and very brilliant, and very, very driven – which, I mean, it seems like he is…yes? But not a saint. Who is though?

      Thanks!

      Roth

  8. I enjoyed reading this article. The comparisons between “The Social Network” and “Less Than Zero” especially peaked my interest. Then again in regards to “The Big Chill.” How a generation truly is versus what they actually do.

    I’m 23 and I’ve had my own personal conversations about my sense of entitlement. I want what I want when I want it. I felt like I had to be somebody by the age of 23. Why aren’t my goals for my life just falling into my lap? Everything I want I should get. It’s a hard cycle to break.

    I really enjoyed this article. Its nice to know that other people are seeing this happen and are recognizing entitlement as a flaw. Although it could be a flaw with potential if people started thinking that instead of being entitled to free media they are entitled to clean air and renewable resources.

    • Thank you Jessie! I can really relate to how you feel, because I have the same questions and feelings and find myself needing to sort of “talk myself down”, and it is a really hard cycle to break. I think it’s pretty amazing that you are so self-aware and I really commend you. I was telling a friend tonight about how cool these comments have been. I absolutely loved reading your comments, I found them really inspiring and honest – so thank you.

      All The Best!

      Roth

  9. Interesting how noone sees fit to mention the racist miscasting in thei movie of Divya Narendra and yet Shyamalan was virtually lynched over it? Hmm, makes you think doesn’t it? I wonder how many more examples of this will continue to come up. Maybe Sacha Baron Cohen as Freddie Mercury (who was Parsi Indian). Or Vincent Gallo as an Afghan. They just keep coming don’t they?

    Why Shyamalan and not these guys? Stinks a little – of what I’m not sure…

    • Hi,

      Well, a couple of things – I can tell that this is something that bothers you in a general way, because you mentioned a couple of examples. That makes sense and I can understand that and I mean this legitimately when I say – if you see a lack of coverage – you should write something. I mean that seriously, and then you can get it out there for a discussion.

      For me, I was already taking on a complex and lengthy discussion, that part of the filmmaking would have just felt out of place in the flow of my piece – it just wasn’t what I was talking about.

      I really wasn’t really talking about the merits of the film – though I do think it is a good one.

      Some people are talking about how women were portrayed in the film, that could be a whole article on its own.

      I think perhaps one reason you are not seeing MUCH coverage on what you are talking about is because he was such a relatively minor role in the film. That might work better in a larger piece with some of the other examples you were talking about.

      With M. Knight – I think the reason it got so much coverage is because A) They were the leads in the film and B) It was such a glaring divergence from the source material. I mean it was an entire village of Inuits and three random (very) Caucasian people, who happened to be the stars of the film. It was a really obvious choice. Though I personally did not write about it – I did notice it when saw the film. Also that film was getting a lot of criticism in general and perhaps a floodgate was opened to more.

      In any case, I really do encourage you to write something about it if you see a disturbing trend.

      Many Thanks!

      Roth

  10. Well this seems insulting.

    • Hey,

      Not sure I understand what you mean – insulting to who?

      Thanks,

      Roth

      • Sorry didn’t mean to be rude. Just the idea that this is a reflection of my generation is sad to me. It’s a little heart breaking that this is how my generation is viewed. Especially since pretty much all the people in this film are pretty much low lifes.

    • Daniel, what are you talking about?

      Vic

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

Be Social, Follow Us!!