The Running of Life
...or, how technology is not evil and I miss freedom. Or was that in the wrong order?
This was first brought to my attention now, after many a warning from my mum, as I am largely clueless and need a lot of prompting to get things done. She warned me not to bare myself to the internet, mixing this in with a tirade against all "new technology" - yes, even e-mail. This irked me enough to make me want to write something sensible and coherent - this is sensible and coherent, isn't it? Ah, never mind.
I'll deal with the "new technology" bit first, since that's substantially easier to tackle and besides, the second bit doesn't make much sense without it. The evil new technology which mother dearest pointed out as being a canker upon humanity was e-mail, Facebook and Twitter (posted in rough chronological order, or at least I can't be bothered to check which came first). This is my effort to point out that none of them are, in fact, evil.
Firstly, e-mail is like letters and telegrams, only, well...more. It serves to connect the world more quickly, which I argue can't be a bad thing - in this day and age, we pretty much rely on technology and quick communication to keep the world running. Granted, there is the problem of cyberdisinhibition and posting really damn stupid emails (link goes to an article by Cracked, it's hilarious), but I think society will overcome that with time - keep in mind it's relatively new compared to other forms of communication. There's also the problem of nobody checking their damn emails, but that's another kettle of fish. And the problem of companies scanning your emails...I'm paranoid, I know, but I don't like the thought of someone being able to read my private correspondence. (Yes, one can bare all to the world and still be a privacy-obsessed lunatic. The human condition is weird like that.) However, that alone is not a reason to call e-mail evil: it's a reason to call the firms evil, though.
Secondly...ah, fuck it. Defending Facebook is a bit problematic, since it's almost pointless and the only reason everyone has one is because everyone else has one and we'd all like to stay connected. I also see problems in the way it mixes the real world and the internet - I've always strictly delineated these according to "what I show other people" (the real world) and "what I really am" (the internet). The way it gets mixed up means that I show less and less of my real personality and more and more of my fake one. Facebook also tends to make people act in really stupid, artificial ways, and come on. You're basically giving all of your personal details to big business and praying to a mouldy rabbit's foot that they won't screw you over with it. The only reasons to keep it are a) to stay in touch and b) to organise protests. For me, they're good enough reasons to justify everything else.
Thirdly, Twitter isn't completely pointless and doesn't blend the real world and the internet as much as Facebook does - for example, while my Twitter (shameless self-promotion again! YAY!) has my real name on it and sometimes makes references to school and stuff, it's largely my real internet persona which comes out more than my faker "real world" persona (it's difficult to know where to put the quotes there). It's good for keeping up with the world - for example, articles from The Economist (which is better than most so-called "quality" newspapers in Britain) - and also, apparently, for organising protests and revolutions. Those reasons are enough to keep me there.
Technology itself is neutral, just as most tools (apart from weapons) are neutral. Technology can be used to help people - for example, communication - or to harm people - for example, starting a smear campaign. Ultimately, how we use it is down to people, so for the time being it's best to lay off the good/evil labels.
Now, for the second part of the article - internet freedom.
I miss it.
I've known about the consequences of a misplaced word on a blog for a long time now, but I've never really thought that it applied to me, because I aimed not to reference anyone I knew directly. I thought of the internet - and I still do - as a place where people were truly free to say and do what they wanted. That's why I started this blog: because I wanted to show my real self, because I wanted to say all the things bottled up inside me and share them with the world - for ideas on their own, I believe, are almost worthless - they need some form of expression to be truly useful or good. That's a whole debate on its own, though, and I'd rather not get into it.
Now I find that I can't avoid linking the real world and the internet together, since both are linked in me, and I also find myself warned about being an internet exhibitionist for putting my thoughts on my blog. Well, excuse me - what else was I supposed to put there?! Candyfloss?! Although I can't look at myself from the outside, I don't consider myself an attention whore for putting my thoughts up - they have as much of a right to be there as any other thoughts, considering some are quite illogical...besides, it's not like I've put up any drunk photos, naked photos, or drunk naked photos. And now I wonder which is sanctioned more by society: baring your body or baring your soul?
This was first brought to my attention now, after many a warning from my mum, as I am largely clueless and need a lot of prompting to get things done. She warned me not to bare myself to the internet, mixing this in with a tirade against all "new technology" - yes, even e-mail. This irked me enough to make me want to write something sensible and coherent - this is sensible and coherent, isn't it? Ah, never mind.
I'll deal with the "new technology" bit first, since that's substantially easier to tackle and besides, the second bit doesn't make much sense without it. The evil new technology which mother dearest pointed out as being a canker upon humanity was e-mail, Facebook and Twitter (posted in rough chronological order, or at least I can't be bothered to check which came first). This is my effort to point out that none of them are, in fact, evil.
Firstly, e-mail is like letters and telegrams, only, well...more. It serves to connect the world more quickly, which I argue can't be a bad thing - in this day and age, we pretty much rely on technology and quick communication to keep the world running. Granted, there is the problem of cyberdisinhibition and posting really damn stupid emails (link goes to an article by Cracked, it's hilarious), but I think society will overcome that with time - keep in mind it's relatively new compared to other forms of communication. There's also the problem of nobody checking their damn emails, but that's another kettle of fish. And the problem of companies scanning your emails...I'm paranoid, I know, but I don't like the thought of someone being able to read my private correspondence. (Yes, one can bare all to the world and still be a privacy-obsessed lunatic. The human condition is weird like that.) However, that alone is not a reason to call e-mail evil: it's a reason to call the firms evil, though.
Secondly...ah, fuck it. Defending Facebook is a bit problematic, since it's almost pointless and the only reason everyone has one is because everyone else has one and we'd all like to stay connected. I also see problems in the way it mixes the real world and the internet - I've always strictly delineated these according to "what I show other people" (the real world) and "what I really am" (the internet). The way it gets mixed up means that I show less and less of my real personality and more and more of my fake one. Facebook also tends to make people act in really stupid, artificial ways, and come on. You're basically giving all of your personal details to big business and praying to a mouldy rabbit's foot that they won't screw you over with it. The only reasons to keep it are a) to stay in touch and b) to organise protests. For me, they're good enough reasons to justify everything else.
Thirdly, Twitter isn't completely pointless and doesn't blend the real world and the internet as much as Facebook does - for example, while my Twitter (shameless self-promotion again! YAY!) has my real name on it and sometimes makes references to school and stuff, it's largely my real internet persona which comes out more than my faker "real world" persona (it's difficult to know where to put the quotes there). It's good for keeping up with the world - for example, articles from The Economist (which is better than most so-called "quality" newspapers in Britain) - and also, apparently, for organising protests and revolutions. Those reasons are enough to keep me there.
Technology itself is neutral, just as most tools (apart from weapons) are neutral. Technology can be used to help people - for example, communication - or to harm people - for example, starting a smear campaign. Ultimately, how we use it is down to people, so for the time being it's best to lay off the good/evil labels.
Now, for the second part of the article - internet freedom.
I miss it.
I've known about the consequences of a misplaced word on a blog for a long time now, but I've never really thought that it applied to me, because I aimed not to reference anyone I knew directly. I thought of the internet - and I still do - as a place where people were truly free to say and do what they wanted. That's why I started this blog: because I wanted to show my real self, because I wanted to say all the things bottled up inside me and share them with the world - for ideas on their own, I believe, are almost worthless - they need some form of expression to be truly useful or good. That's a whole debate on its own, though, and I'd rather not get into it.
Now I find that I can't avoid linking the real world and the internet together, since both are linked in me, and I also find myself warned about being an internet exhibitionist for putting my thoughts on my blog. Well, excuse me - what else was I supposed to put there?! Candyfloss?! Although I can't look at myself from the outside, I don't consider myself an attention whore for putting my thoughts up - they have as much of a right to be there as any other thoughts, considering some are quite illogical...besides, it's not like I've put up any drunk photos, naked photos, or drunk naked photos. And now I wonder which is sanctioned more by society: baring your body or baring your soul?
Comments
Post a Comment