Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
apologies if someone has posted this before, but an interesting read:
but I mainly use facebook to organise things?
I occasionally dip into it to send messages to people who don't use email. And myspace just for music...
Didn't mean to caps before you all start crying.
Makes few valid points. The sad freaks who spend all night on Facebook have no real friends anyway.
but from what I read, yeah, it was intertesting, but do I really care? I like facebook just because it's cheaper to use it to organise my social life than the phone, and it's a great way to share photos. And I think most people know by now that it's stupid to put confidential information on the internet. Also, does anyone actually pay attention to the shitty adverts?
personally, i think it's 90% bollocks.
It's basically an ill informed, badly researched rant by someone who dislikes facebook and technology before they even sat down to right the article.
The constant neocon/conspiracy is tenuous at best - but that the vibe throughout of 'technology is killing real life!!!11' and 'facebook wants you to only talk to your friends through them' is saddening.
Quote: "Why on God's earth would I need a computer to connect with the people around me? Why should my relationships be mediated through the imagination of a bunch of supergeeks in California? What was wrong with the pub?"
Replace computer with telephone and think how silly this statement is. I mean really?
is complete crap.
3 Anyone can glance at your intimate confessions
Pretty standard legal disclaimer, they're not an online bank, they can't ensure 100% privacy. The second part about your caching is a technical issue, it's just not possible to ensure someone will be removed from cache in every place. This also applies to backups, i believe GMail has a similar clause. At least they are being honest
5 Opting out doesn't mean opting out
This is going to be a legal requirement, there will be instances were they are obligated to contact you regardless of preferences - hence this clause.
6 The CIA may look at the stuff when they feel like it
Err, this applies to all US websites? DMCA act anyone? Hello? Oh wait, you wanted to push your conspiracy agenda further and ignore rationality.
as if nobody goes to the pub any more or dances or socialises because of facebook. I hate luddites like that.
Breaking borders, keeping in touch with friends further away, a wider circle of friends, etc.
I'd argue it something like facebook broadends social groups rather just hanging out with, as the author puts it, 'mates down the pub'.
"Thiel is trying to destroy the real world, which he also calls "nature", and install a virtual world in its place, and it is in this context that we must view the rise of Facebook."
...makes me think the piece was slipping into bizarre everything the man does is cartoon villainy rant territory.
Yes i probably would disagree with his neocon 'fuck the lot of you theres money to be made' and anti-multiculturist tendencies but this piece just makes him look like the Mr.Burns of the internet. You can almost see the writer frothing at the mouth as he hammered it out using Word on his Dell PC.
anything the opposite. Most people i know mock other people who have loads of 'friends' on facebook - because as you look into it it turns out most of them arent even people they have spoken to in real life or online, freind of a friend etc.
oh they did the same course as me, never spoken to them.
It’s an interesting article. Despite the conspiratorial tone the article was pretty accurate on the neocon character of backers of new technology. And this hasn’t been commented on as much as it should be.
But it goes back further than facebook and Thiel. The whole ‘internet’ meaning ‘the web’ which is now the internet has for a long time been dominated by rather right wing organisations dressing themselves as prophets of virtual freedom.
For example, the electronic frontier foundation is a futurist organisation that created the net bill of rights etc and is has been championed by many liberals as a vanguard against internet censorship etc..however EFF is itself a Rebulcian Party think tank.
Before 1992 the internet had different interfaces to the real world, the ‘web’, boards, telnet etc. The web won, and the web won because of the Wired magazine- which was the neocons buy-in into net and geek culture. Wired magazine populariazed the web and only featured companies that had shares in wired. It also promoted paypal when paypal was nothing. It was also the soundbox for that nutter negroponte.
So, this article is quite correct in all of its assertions, however, it is not specific to facebook and the author is pretty disingenuous by narrowing this problem to FB.
I’m also tired of this ignorant ‘consumer rights’ shit people come up with nowadays. People saying things like ‘I’m not signing on to google mail because they take my details’ even though they signed up to facebook..why? because they don’t care about the issues..its because they just happened to read another article attacking googlemail..not the one attacking facebook. It’s just an nonsensical as ‘I’m not gonna support nike cos they use sweatshops..but ill go to GAP because Adbusters haven’t outed them!”. It’s just lazy activism by proxie.
I’ve lost the thread.