December 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

Blogs & Sites We Read

Blog powered by Typepad

Search Site

  • Search Site



  • Counter

Become a Fan

Cat Quote

  • "He who dislikes the cat, was in his former life, a rat."

« "Mozart Effect-Shmozart Effect" (Sujatha) | Main | I might respect Sarah Palin now. (Joe) »

May 15, 2010


It's no coincidence that the VP associates what he perceives to be no difference between opt-in or -out with "choice," the grand cliche and sad excuse for the free market. Thus, we choose our identities. Of course, we can never know precisely which identity we've chosen: the one comprised of all of the characteristics into which we've opted, or the one that performs the opting?

The SCOTUS example is bad. The justices ordinarily view those who argue in their Court as babies. Even so, the comment substitutes image for identity, but the one is not coterminous with the other. The same identity can present multiple images.

Facebook defining integrity? Hilarious. It won't even let me post my husband's name on my page because he is not on FB. Yet I have more than 150 "Friends" many of whom I scarcely know!

Zuckerberg's comment just sounds childish to me. We appropriately act (and portray ourselves -- I'm not sure there's a significant difference) differently depending on who we're with and what situation we're in. Taken to an extreme, yeah, that can be dishonest and lack "integrity," but taking Zuckerberg's radical position is absurd. Not everything should be public or uniform in all contexts.

A fabulously good post, Joe -- and comments to go with it.

In the opt-in paragraph, above, the FB veep in charge of public policy is not glib, but full of double-talk. He's probably the same guy who wrote that "Instant Personalization" resulted in a "much richer Web experience." I think what he means is, "More fool you if you're not careful."

I agree, funny for Zuckerberg to be lecturing anyone on what integrity is and isn't.

I am not one of those who has EVER had to be buttoned down at work, and I really do act the same towards just about everyone, but if I had a compartmentalized life, and a buttoned down persona or two, these revelations would freak me out fundamentally rather than sociologically or legally.

The culmination of the process Zuckerberg & Co. are describing is not anything like transparency, with everybody letting everything hang out since they can no longer hide it anyhow. If only. The end-product will be members of society under pressure to present a super-bland and unexceptionable facade, 24/7, whether at parties, at work, at home, or via social media. For who will know who is watching, and why? This measure will be the necessary extreme to preserve secrecy, not the result of abandoning it.

Schrage and Zuckerberg provide two excellent arguments as to why more humanities should be required for engineering and business students. The exposure clearly didn't work in their cases, but I've seen it save a few souls from the internal damnation of foot in mouth disease.

More seriously, I certainly live a much less compartmentalized life than I used to. Sometimes people are a little shocked, but I've found using openness works well as an initial test of maturity. But there remain aspects of me that live in tight little boxes, rarely let out for much more than their once a year walks in the park (normally the Park of Depression).

The comments to this entry are closed.