This much is disclosed:<\/p>\n
A Facebook spokeswoman said the data it collected from religious communities would be handled the same way as that of other users, and that nondisclosure agreements were standard process for all partners involved in product development.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This disclosure, by an unnamed spokesperson (Mephistopheles?), should raise a number of concerns among religious leaders and members of religious communities. Facebook has a long history of mishandling data (see the extensive Wikipedia article on \u201cPrivacy concerns with Facebook<\/a>\u201d and, as an e.g., recall the \u201cFacebook\u2013Cambridge Analytica data scandal<\/a>\u201d).<\/p>\n
Mark Zuckerberg\u2019s apology in the New York Times, published one week and a day after the Cambridge Analytica scandal was reported in the same paper (March 25, 2018)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n In addition to Facebook\u2019s data collection and use practices, Facebook can be critiqued for the ways it manipulates attention for advertising revenue, facilitates the spread of misinformation and disinformation, and fragments society through algorithmically intensified divisions. Do we want Facebook \u201cshaping the future of religious experience itself, as it has done for political and social life\u201d? If my pastor or denomination were to sign an NDA with them, that would cause me to reconsider the extent to which I trust my church or denomination.<\/p>\n
(I followed up with my denomination, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which was mentioned in this\u00a0article and became a \u201cFacebook faith partner\u201d last December. This partnership involves a discussion group\u2014a group in which I cannot participate, since I do not have an active Facebook account. A denominational spokesperson told me to follow up with Facebook with my concerns about privacy.)<\/p>\n
I understand that religious communities need help exploring and implementing new strategies for digital engagement. I obtained funding for and led a project about church digital transformation<\/a> during the pandemic, and I contributed to a recent\u00a0ebook<\/a> on the topic edited by Heidi Campbell<\/a>. After reading this Times <\/em>article, and learning that religious organizations \u201cseem undeterred by Facebook\u2019s larger controversies,\u201d I wish I had thought of educating church leaders about companies such as Facebook who would see a \u201cstrategic opportunity to draw highly engaged users onto its platform \u2026 [and] embed their religious life into its platform, from hosting worship services and socializing more casually to soliciting money.\u201d<\/p>\n
All of this, however, is technological prolegomena to the theological questions we should be asking.<\/p>\n
At a virtual faith summit last month, Sheryl Sandberg said<\/a>, \u201cFaith organizations and social media are a natural fit because fundamentally both are about connection.\u201d That equivocation obscures what connection\u2014or, better, relationships, are ultimately for in communities of faith: realizing a greater purpose and world. Facebook has not succeeded, as either a corporation or as a platform, to earn trust related to matters of truth and justice (see \u201cCriticism of Facebook<\/a>\u201d). And its goals, as Sarah Lane Ritchie points out in the Times\u00a0<\/em>article, are not aligned with the values or goals of most faith traditions.<\/p>\n
People of faith could critique Facebook for its misalignment with a variety of theological or religious doctrines\u2014the purpose of creation, hope for the future, ways we create a better world, and how humans thrive in the present. Facebook as a corporation views users as commodities, seems determined to create a word that is dependent on Facebook, and exists to maximize profits. Facebook does not simply exist to connect the world\u2014it seeks to envelope the world with its technology and profit considerably from this dominance. The company\u2019s leaders appear to believe these ends will make the world a better place.<\/p>\n
A few years ago, when critics of Facebook and other tech companies started to promote the idea of time well spent<\/a> free of manipulative platforms, Mark Zuckerberg began speaking of time well spent on Facebook<\/a>. In a more ambitious arrogation, Zuckerberg recently announced his multi-billion-dollar<\/a> desire for Facebook to become a \u201cmetaverse company<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n
The idea of the metaverse is drawn from Neal Stephenson\u2019s dystopian\u00a0<\/em>novel Snow Crash <\/em>(1992). And it was a dystopian idea<\/a>:<\/p>\n
in the book from which the current metaverse craze originates, not only is our world in ruins and most people are eking out precarious lives in dire poverty, but the metaverse itself is a place that is addictive, violent, and an enabler of our worst impulses. It\u2019s an exceedingly dark vision.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
As contemporary commercial hype, the metaverse now has something to do with better interfaces for integrating online and offline experiences. In Zuckerberg\u2019s words<\/a>:<\/p>\n
you can think about the metaverse as an embodied internet, where instead of just viewing content\u2014you are in it. \u2026 the metaverse isn\u2019t just virtual reality. It\u2019s going to be accessible across all of our different computing platforms; VR and AR, but also PC, and also mobile devices and game consoles. \u2026<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t know about you, but a lot of mornings, I reach for my phone by my bedside before I even put on my glasses, just to make sure, get whatever text messages I got during the middle of the night and make sure that nothing has gone wrong that I need to jump into immediately upon waking up. So I don\u2019t think that this is primarily about being engaged with the internet more. I think it\u2019s about being engaged more naturally.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
When Stephenson was asked a few years ago<\/a>\u00a0what he thought of \u201cthe prospect of a Zuckerberg-controlled Metaverse,\u201d he said (after \u201clow laughter and a very, very, very long pause\u201d):<\/p>\n
I would say that anything that gets invented has got results, and some of those are predicted and some are not. There\u2019s no fixed process for predicting the results and controlling what happens. At some level, it boils down to people\u2019s capacity to act as socially responsible, ethical individuals.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If the idea of the metaverse can be responsibility reconceptualized as less of an escapist online reality, and enable a better blending or integration of online and offline experiences, then it could be a constructive element of our\u00a0postdigital<\/a>\u00a0future\u2014i.e., that time when the digital is a regular part of our lives. But an important and more hopeful aspect of becoming postdigital is having critical perspectives on digital technologies, technology companies, our technological society, and the different beliefs that are shaping our future.<\/p>\n
For example, Zuckerberg\u00a0believes<\/a> we are headed in the direction of more experiences that \u201care less anchored physically.\u201d The digital is always physically situated, whether one is staring at a computer screen, wearing a virtual reality headset, or seeing the world through augmented reality glasses. All are physically anchored, and living well across these various forms of engagement\u2014as well as with non-digital forms of engagement\u2014will require wisdom as well as imagination from diverse sources<\/a>.<\/p>\n
![\"Zuckerberg](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/846\/2021\/08\/Zuckerberg-Apology.jpg\")