Anyone worth spending time following on Facebook left after their mom, dad, aunt, uncle, cousins, neighbours, teachers and co-workers joined.
EDIT: From my entire experience anyway. I do not mean to offend anyone who loves facebook.
Moderator: Aesthetics
NewBattery wrote:Anyone worth spending time following on Facebook left after their mom, dad, aunt, uncle, cousins, neighbours, teachers and co-workers joined.
EDIT: From my entire experience anyway. I do not mean to offend anyone who loves facebook.
MAXIMUS MISCHIEF wrote:a worse evil than the internet is the attitude 'hopelessness/despair'
Cupz wrote:A worse evil then hopelessness/despair is compliance/mindless obedience.
Valotonin wrote:Cupz wrote:A worse evil then hopelessness/despair is compliance/mindless obedience.
I side with Cupz again. I would write me another essay but it would be no use.
What has the internet actually got us? We could communicate before, we could share pictures before, we could share music before. This illusion that it is creating opportunities that never existed before is bullshit. It is just homogenising and digitalising things that already existed. As much as I adore wikipedia I can't help but feel I would be in the vaults of an archive room right now, in a real environment, looking at handwriting and observing the decay on older studies, speaking to other people there for similar reasons. Now research is just sitting alone in front of the little glowing bits of electric current. As is or will be everything else. This seems to be the agenda whether intentional or not.
- Spoiler: show
drillkicker wrote:The internet hasn't changed as much as you make it seem, though. Sure it separates people a bit, but anyone who is lonely due to the internet likely would have been lonely for other reasons a century ago. If you'd rather be searching documents in an archive, there's nothing keeping you from doing so that wouldn't have been a hindrance before the internet existed.
Also, in response to your spoiled line of text: this is a highly objective statement. "Company" is something that is only real when it is perceived. Whether you are alone depends only on whether you feel alone. I'm often more alone when I'm in a large and crowded city than when I'm in my house with no other humans present. Company is an emotion and can come from anywhere.
Cupz wrote:Everybody deserves the right to be offline if they wanted to.
Valotonin wrote:Each to their own. However, archives of the present will appear only digitally in future. If you feel isolated in a crowd it is a sign of being incompatible with your friends. Is the illusion of company really preferable to company? Also humans are supposed to be in tribes of around the size of a large school class. Being alone is a side effect of society, not of technology. So yes, they probably would have been alone but only within society. My problem is mostly that.
drillkicker wrote:[I'm not incompatible with my friends, I love being in a crowd when I know everyone present. I feel the most alone when I'm in a crowd of antisocial strangers, which is exactly what cities are. I'd much rather have illusory company than that. Anyway, I side with Genesis P-Orridge who said that the future is going to shift the opposite direction at some not-so-distant point at which people will begin to value the ephemeral and intimate aspects of real life again. It may take a somewhat different form, but it certainly will not die.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests