In "How Less Alienation Creates More Exploitation? Audience Labor on Social Network Sites”, Eran Fisher analyzes Facebook as a highly developed form of media - such as television - that sustains themselves via audience exploitation. In Fisher's analysis, Facebook and other social media engage in de-alienation against traditional forms of audience exploitation in that the user is tasked with crafting their own persona and actively engaging with other users, thus enabling them to self-actualize to a degree.

They are, however, still exploited in that Facebook harvests their labor in order to produce value. Because Facebook is able to do this to an unprecedented degree of detail and accuracy, and because the user is hardly aware of their own exploitation, if indeed at all, it forms an ideal system of exploitation.

Fisher’s argument hinges on the dialectic between de-alienation and exploitation. Although alienation and exploitation are closely associated terms in Marxist discourse, Fisher asserts that they are not identical and that is possible for de-alienation and exploitation to exist in a dialectical relationship in the same space. He demonstrates sufficiently that both are present in Facebook, but fails to thoroughly analyze the ways in which Facebook may facilitate alienation, mentioning only briefly that others have investigated how Facebook may hamper de-alienation.

In my view, this greatly weakens his argument. Most of the popular level discourse surrounding social media emphasizes the ways in which it contributes to alienation by drawing users to interact primarily through virtual means rather than in person and distracting them from their environment, i.e. constantly checking one’s phone or scrolling through Facebook during conversations and meetings.

Fisher touches on the ubiquity of social media due to the proliferation of smartphones as a reason for the success of Facebook’s model for exploitation but fails to address its contribution to alienation. Thus, although his analysis is fairly novel in its discussion of de-alienation in tandem with exploitation, his argument is weakened by his failure to adequately address alienation as the third member of this triumvirate.

In response to this, I suggest that it would be more helpful to establish a user-dependent dynamic of these three elements. That is, the way in which individual users engage with Facebook determines whether it is (primarily) a means of alienation or de-alienation for them. If a user employs Facebook to stay in touch with distant relatives, to connect with others who share similar interests, to express themselves, to exchange ideas in a novel way, or even to connect with others who are geographically separated but can provide some form of empathy and emotional support, and if the user does all these things in a way that does not hinder or significantly infringe upon other areas of their life, then it will primarily be a means of self-actualization and thus de-alienation.

If, however, a user goes on Facebook as a means of escape from reality, cutting them off from their “real world” relationships and wrapping them in a virtual world of angry discourse and disparaging the personhood of their third cousin’s roommate for her views on the capital gains tax, or if the user spends an excessive amount of time on Facebook and/or uses it in such a way as to disrupt their normal life, then it is primarily a means of alienation for them.

Exploitation, on the other hand, exists somewhat independent of these factors.

The degree to which one is exploited by Facebook is primarily a function of how much one uses it, followed by the particular way in which it is used.

The degree to which the user is exploited has little bearing on the user’s life, except that the user may be pushed to use Facebook more than they normally would due to Facebook’s drive to push users to spend more time on the site. Exploitation is thus an abstract concept in this scenario, and because of this I propose that it is less helpful as a category of analysis than Fisher seems to think.

Fisher’s analysis of Facebook as a means of consumer exploitation acting in a dialectical relationship with its function as a means of de-alienation is insightful, but fails to satisfactorily address Facebook’s potential for alienation. By paying attention to the habits of individual users, one is able to achieve a more nuanced understanding of how Facebook operates and how users are affected by its business model.