My twitter stream turned up these two videos regarding Facebook.
If you haven’t already seen it (I think it went pretty viral when it came out) then you may also want to view this fabulous video.
Facebook is dangerous. Period. It isn’t just Facebook, its ANY ONLINE SERVICE that services you (usually free of charge) in exchange for a little (at first) piece of your life. Facebook simply happens to be the most vicious service that preys upon the largest group of people who are unaware of it’s predatorial motivations cheated out of their privacy.
The second video suggests that things would be somehow OK if Facebook were simply to adopt a privay policy in which:
What happens in the Facebook stays in the Facebook.
That suggestion is an expression of the most lethal aspect of Facebook. It isn’t so much the ignorance of the suggestion itself (the purpose of Facebook as a business is to make a profit off private information – expecting it to do otherwise is like asking it to terminate itself – not very likely). The greatest danger about Facebook is the absurd thought of even its open-eyed critics that they have a voice about how Facebook should behave.
Claimer: The more I think about it the more I realize it isn’t fair to blame this on Facebook (though it is satisfying) – it is actually a dangerous illusion fostered by modern day “free thinking” cultures.
The only voice you have regarding Facebook is through your participation in or abstenance of it. Period:
- Participation = support (all in – there are no half measures).
- Abstenance = objection.
- Leaving = protest
- Get others to leave or stay away = rebellion.
If you participate in it and speak against it thinking you can change it you are either ignorant or insincere full of shit.
However I do believe it is important that you do have an online presence. The ONLY way I know of to have a safe online presence is to (1) own (=pay for) it; (2) use open-source software that is not owned and cannot be accessed by any other person or corporate or other legal entity; (3) be thoughtful and vigilant about what you publish online.
It should be said that, as with everything in life, “Safe” is a relative term. The kind of online presence described aboveis still vulnerable on two fronts – legal and illegal. Legal channels may enable others to access your information – though in most modern legal systems (ahum) this requires a vigorous process of justification. Illegal channels are basically hackers breaking in.
My online presence (the website you are now visiting) is compromised of (a) renting space on an online server; (b) running my site on WordPress and (c) adhering to a strict policy of a deliberately intimate sharing of my life without exposure of technical-bureaucratic offline information about me or my online social circles … and you still no nothing about me:
My only deviation of this policy comes from using Twitter – but I do so in a limited way and with the hope that WordPress will eventually offer an alternative to it’s social interaction (meanwhile I make it a point to collect and archive my Twitter activity within my WordPress website).
I invite and urge you to get your own WordPress website. WordPress still isn’t a substitute for Facebook but it can get better. Facebook is only going to get worst.
There are thousands of people who can you help you get started with WordPress. If you are an interesting and passionate person maybe I can help too.
One Trackback
[…] Note: the same technical system that makes the Free Internet possible is also used by corportaions to make islands (some as large as continents) where this freedom is systemically revoked. These islands, much like the rules of governance to which they are subverted, are an inhibited form of freedom that is subverted to other, usually commercial purposes. I believe these areas of the Internet to be a dangerous illusion of freedom because (a) people do not recognize the illusions – they pay no taxes that remind them of the presence of a governing body and (b) that governing body is a corporate entity who’s interests and purpose are supportive of only those aspects of freedom that can be exploited and opposed to aspects of freedom that may inhibit exploitation. I strongly encourage participation in the Free Internet I vehemently discourage participation in its compromised-freedom-inhibiting areas. […]