Within the cybernetic aspect of our society, Facebook has speedily evolved as a dominant fad. But it has also acquired a social theme status. Indeed, it is brought forward during discussions among friends, colleagues or individuals queuing for a service. People are openly admitting that they have become Facebook addicts.

This social networking software is downloaded on millions of computers and its homepage intrudes for billions of times on PC and mobile phone screens on a daily basis. It is a meeting place, a show-case and an excellent way to kill time. Via Facebook people manage to revive "lost or dormant" friendships, meet new people (who, on this program, are immediately acknowledged as "friends"), upload recent and nostalgic photos or videos, provide news and personal updates, further develop their networks and also chat while playing the farmer or the aquarium enthusiast.

This program offers diverse options within the virtual and communication parameters. Most probably this is one of the main reasons why it has become so widely used. Presently, we are fascinated by matters that are multi-purpose and that are characterised by "compunication". Technology made it possible to have miniature, personalised, integrated, diffused and autonomisation devices and programs.

Take our mobile phone sets. They started off as phones but in a short time developed into multi-purpose devices. Now, the challenge is for their manufacturers, who are expected to incorporate as many functions as possible in as little space as possible. In a way, this same concept may be applied to Facebook. So far so good!

Broadly speaking, this is the result of the process of globalisation, which simplistically can be boiled down to the time-and-space principle. My query is whether we have ever considered the risks associated with these devices and programs? And if we do, what are our reactions?

Personally, I have a Facebook account but, more often than not, I used it silently to observe what is happening to "friends" in my list while formulating opinions and asking questions. From day one, I promised myself I will only accept as "friends" people who I really consider such.

Lately, through Facebook I have discovered that a "friend" of mine had a baby, that a locally known person got married because a common "friend" uploaded a photo of his wedding on her homepage and that a school friend has broken up with her boyfriend because she changed her status and her "friends" were automatically notified.

The other day, a colleague told me that he accepts as "friends" almost all those that happen to send him such a request, even if he doesn't have any idea of who they are. His challenge is to maximise his "friends" list. Half-smiling he told me that gaining access to catch a glimpse of other people's business and whereabouts is "cool". In a way, I admired his sincerity; few of us admit such desires.

The question is whether we are reflecting on these actions, which, without realising, are most probably affecting our behaviour. I don't think we are! But I am unsure whether we bother to this extent. Possibly, we are so enthusiastic about the whole concept that we don't want to reflect any further.

Meanwhile, the public-private life division is, to a certain extent, being distorted. Is this withering away taking place consciously or unconsciously? Lately, when we are requested to provide certain information, it has become convenient to say: "Sorry, I can't on the basis of data protection". However, many of us expose their private life publicly.

On Facebook, even if you are cautious who to accept as "friends", it doesn't guarantee control over who is viewing your uploaded information. Probably, people are hesitant to give other people's mobile numbers without firstly obtaining consent but little do people worry about privacy before they upload a personal photo including a group of people on Facebook.

Is this the way things should be? Besides, are we aware that the content uploaded with the date and time registered on the terminal used can reveal a lot of information to our employer and superiors? Or to prospective employers? Just to mention two examples.

I was further induced to write and publish this opinion because of the fact that, while I am scrolling my homepage, I continually encounter swans, cats, pink cows and fish, which are either looking for a shelter or are for sale. I am not sure what people attain by playing these Facebook-based games and exposing their results.

Does this mean that people have a lot of free time? Or are they freeing their time for Facebook? Is this the way in which they are enhancing their computer literacy and confidence in the hi-tech world? Or are they exhausted with their daily routine and find these games amusing? Perhaps they find it convenient to take part in "competitions"' without being accused of being gamblers.

Probably, one thing is for certain, that the majority of the people prefer to spend their time on "trouble-free", "free-of-charge" activities than worrying on matters politicians argue and write about on a daily basis.

In my opinion, we have developed Facebook in a social phenomenon, which is still evolving and that ought to be analysed within sociological and psychological parameters because it is influencing individuals' modes of expression, encounters, relationships, expectations and desires.

The author is an advanced sociology researcher.