Human- October 17th
What is the lowest military rank? The answer is PRIVATE... ever wonder why?
In reading the article posted below something significant occured to me with regards to the privacy debate. While on the one hand, individual privacy makes sense, it can also perpetuate the underlying social-psychological problem: our inability to unite for our own common good.
In order to fuck over the powers that be, people cannot be totally PRIVATE, they must work together and organize meaningfully, to some extent at least.
I have spoken before of the paradox of rebellion in an individualistic society, in that a society of self-serving individuals could never (by definition) unite in order to preserve their collective wellbeing from the dominant elite that was HIGHLY organized, not without some escape from the compartmentalized and alienated existence they lead in the metropolises.
So when they write articles like the one below that talk about not wanting your boss to see your party photos, and at the same time cheering (and advertising) the recent Facebook changes which allow you to more selectively choose which of your friends get to see what, what its doing is feuling the underlying belief that a) Your boss should give a fuck about what you do on your own private time and b) You should fear your boss and the judgements of others. Thats the drawback to the whole privacy discourse, for starters, it fuels the selfish, self-conscious, self-censoring, iTard mindfuck, and secondly it acts as if the main thing we should fear is our "boss" or the opinions of our aquaintances and not the establishment itself.
Its funny how privatization gets a free plug here, in advocating for internet privacy, we concurrently advocate the privacy of Facebook. DAMN!!! What we should advocate in plains terms is privacy from the people who own us, and not each other.
PS!!!
In 2009 Josh Harris made a documentary called we live in public, in which he conducted an experiment that corralled about 50 people in an underground environment that was totally cut off from the rest of the world. Within this environment there are cameras everywhere, an authoratarian/ panoptic overtone and everything people do is public. In exchange for participating everyone is provided endless drugs, food and anything they need to party and go tribal. After about 30 days people start freaking out, the politics start to become unhealthily orwellian, replete with intimidation rooms. Oddly, not many people wanted to leave.
What is the lowest military rank? The answer is PRIVATE... ever wonder why?
Consider the example of military Ranks. Private (lowest) < General (highest). Private (specific)< General (Broad). Private (compartmentalized) < General (integrated), Private (less) < General (more) Private (part) < General (whole). Get it? Now think about 'fearing for your privacy', fearing for your position at the bottom (!). Everything from 3 square meals a day, to weeks that are 7 days long, is bullshit.
In reading the article posted below something significant occured to me with regards to the privacy debate. While on the one hand, individual privacy makes sense, it can also perpetuate the underlying social-psychological problem: our inability to unite for our own common good.
In order to fuck over the powers that be, people cannot be totally PRIVATE, they must work together and organize meaningfully, to some extent at least.
I have spoken before of the paradox of rebellion in an individualistic society, in that a society of self-serving individuals could never (by definition) unite in order to preserve their collective wellbeing from the dominant elite that was HIGHLY organized, not without some escape from the compartmentalized and alienated existence they lead in the metropolises.
So when they write articles like the one below that talk about not wanting your boss to see your party photos, and at the same time cheering (and advertising) the recent Facebook changes which allow you to more selectively choose which of your friends get to see what, what its doing is feuling the underlying belief that a) Your boss should give a fuck about what you do on your own private time and b) You should fear your boss and the judgements of others. Thats the drawback to the whole privacy discourse, for starters, it fuels the selfish, self-conscious, self-censoring, iTard mindfuck, and secondly it acts as if the main thing we should fear is our "boss" or the opinions of our aquaintances and not the establishment itself.
Its funny how privatization gets a free plug here, in advocating for internet privacy, we concurrently advocate the privacy of Facebook. DAMN!!! What we should advocate in plains terms is privacy from the people who own us, and not each other.
PS!!!
In 2009 Josh Harris made a documentary called we live in public, in which he conducted an experiment that corralled about 50 people in an underground environment that was totally cut off from the rest of the world. Within this environment there are cameras everywhere, an authoratarian/ panoptic overtone and everything people do is public. In exchange for participating everyone is provided endless drugs, food and anything they need to party and go tribal. After about 30 days people start freaking out, the politics start to become unhealthily orwellian, replete with intimidation rooms. Oddly, not many people wanted to leave.
We Live In Public from IndiePix on Vimeo.
From New York Times
The Many Faces of You
By CLAIRE CAIN MILLER
Published: October 16, 2010
It’s a little odd to see your own photo in the “people you may know” box, but I have two Facebook profiles, for work (Claire Cain Miller), and for my personal life (Claire Miller Cain).
Having two accounts allows my friends to see my wedding pictures but not the pitches I get from publicists, and my boss to see links to articles I find interesting but not the photos my friend posted after our vacation in Mexico.
That need to put up a digital wall between work and life is an obvious reason that Facebook recently introduced an easier way to make posts and photos visible only to certain groups. Concern about privacy was one of Facebook’s motivations, but it was also reflecting the way we live our lives offline.
“The problem with traditional social networks 1.0 is all the relationships are flat,” saidCharlene Li, founder of the Altimeter Group, which researches Web technologies and advises companies on how to use them. “Everyone is the same level, whether I’m married to you or you’re someone I went to high school with or somebody I met at a conference.”
That online reality does not reflect human nature, said Zeynep Tufekci, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County who studies the social impacts of technology.
“Your mom and your boyfriend are rarely in the same room,” she said, “and that’s why Christmas and Thanksgiving are such a stressful time for people, because their worlds collapse. On Facebook you’re in a long extended Thanksgiving dinner with everyone you ever knew, and people find that difficult to deal with.”
Meanwhile, people’s offline social lives have evolved to become more segmented and specialized, said Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project. In recent decades, real-life social networks have changed, he said. People now turn to one group of friends for financial advice and another for political or spiritual discussions, for instance.
Facebook’s new ability to split friends among groups takes a step toward addressing this reality. But it still has a lot to learn about the way people live their lives.
Anyone can add a member to a Facebook group, for instance, but only that member can remove herself. So what happens when your sister separates from her husband and he doesn’t remove himself from the family group?
READ MORE
The Many Faces of You
By CLAIRE CAIN MILLER
Published: October 16, 2010
It’s a little odd to see your own photo in the “people you may know” box, but I have two Facebook profiles, for work (Claire Cain Miller), and for my personal life (Claire Miller Cain).
Having two accounts allows my friends to see my wedding pictures but not the pitches I get from publicists, and my boss to see links to articles I find interesting but not the photos my friend posted after our vacation in Mexico.
That need to put up a digital wall between work and life is an obvious reason that Facebook recently introduced an easier way to make posts and photos visible only to certain groups. Concern about privacy was one of Facebook’s motivations, but it was also reflecting the way we live our lives offline.
“The problem with traditional social networks 1.0 is all the relationships are flat,” saidCharlene Li, founder of the Altimeter Group, which researches Web technologies and advises companies on how to use them. “Everyone is the same level, whether I’m married to you or you’re someone I went to high school with or somebody I met at a conference.”
That online reality does not reflect human nature, said Zeynep Tufekci, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County who studies the social impacts of technology.
“Your mom and your boyfriend are rarely in the same room,” she said, “and that’s why Christmas and Thanksgiving are such a stressful time for people, because their worlds collapse. On Facebook you’re in a long extended Thanksgiving dinner with everyone you ever knew, and people find that difficult to deal with.”
Meanwhile, people’s offline social lives have evolved to become more segmented and specialized, said Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project. In recent decades, real-life social networks have changed, he said. People now turn to one group of friends for financial advice and another for political or spiritual discussions, for instance.
Facebook’s new ability to split friends among groups takes a step toward addressing this reality. But it still has a lot to learn about the way people live their lives.
Anyone can add a member to a Facebook group, for instance, but only that member can remove herself. So what happens when your sister separates from her husband and he doesn’t remove himself from the family group?
READ MORE
RSS Feed
