Imagine a world in which Facebook causes you to do good for humanity.  Oh wait, you say–you’re already a decent person who does decent things!  Of course you are.  Yet Facebook’s eternally silly Superpoke application is dismissed as silly because two better examples of social networking’s elusive fruits exist: electing Barack Obama and meeting in groups of twenty to talk about finances.  Srsly?

Come on people!  The reason Obama was elected is this: 2x the “McCain’s a dud candidate” than “Obama for iPhone rocks”.   And people have long worked in groups to dissect social economics.  It’s called Economics 101–you might’ve even attended it yourself when you were in college. Churches and synagogues offer personal economics ministries–and so do tax planners, for that matter.

If we’re looking for shining examples of how social networking is going to change the world, are these really the ones we’re putting on a pedestal?   The article I linked to espouses admiration to people who do good things and get virtual karma points, all because of social networking.  A-hem.  Human decency doesn’t need Facebook.

We’re searching, it seems, for some greater purpose to social media. But why do we have to think we’re going to solve world hunger because of Web 2.0. Why can’t it just be fun?