Second Life 1 Facebook 0

[Kylie Jaxxon]

---

WADE1 Jya wrote:

Deltango: "

Do our feelings/outlook of such things (online exposure, privacy) have anything to do with our politics?"

Perhaps, I just see facebook links to many dangers... a looming police state, rise of identity theft, stalker enablement...

---

 

To be clear to anyone who gives a flying f*** my comments are just directed towards the danger of stalkers, etc...identity theft, police state are different matters.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Eloise Baily wrote:

@ Peter. I just can't see them ever being competent enough to organise that.

@ Maddy. There is a 100% chance that someone will die today. It's still not likely to be you. I'm happy to take my chances because it's much more fun for me.

---

Eloise, there's a 100% chance someone will die of cancer today, but it's not likely to be me. Does that mean I shouldn't donate to cancer research? If we only react to things that are likely to happen to us, rather than things that are likely to happen at all, a lot of bad things are going to happen... to us.

If the downside of surveilance is unlikely to affect you, and so you're happy to take your chances, is the upside also unlikely to affect you? If so, why allow your tax dollars to be spent on it?

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

I made the "no specific government" comment just so US citizens wouldn't make their usual

mistake of assuming

everything is about the USA.

---

 

So, you think you know what people are thinking?  You assume this prescient power based upon the nationality of others? 

Yet, people in this thread were not focused on the US, so why would you think your comment was neccessary?  

I'll tell you what I think.  I think that you don't actually know much about how *I* a US citizen thinks.  Nor, do you have any idea of what I read or what I know.  (unless I post here and tell you)

So, I suggest that you leave your mistaken assumptions behind...instead of telling others to do so. 

[Kylie Jaxxon]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

---

 

If the downside of surveilance is unlikely to affect you, and so you're happy to take your chances, is the upside also unlikely to affect you? If so, why allow your tax dollars to be spent on it?

---

Hi Maddy...you are definitely a deep thinker and you make a lot of sense.  :smileytongue:  :smileywink:

btw...still haven't forgot to drop in on you for the flickr project---been busy moving and getting re-set up, will do it soon

 

[Void Singer]

so you're saying that british conspiracies are mostly the realm of the private sector and rather small and bungling fueled by greed more than anything? actually I can say the same about american ones (governmental or private).

Occam's razor, the bigger and more complex a cabal is, the more likely they are to be discovered and exposed. any real conspiracy is going to boil down to the self interest of a few if not one.

 

@Del
I don't think of authors as particularly driving social change myself, but rather as taking the trends of their times and extending them out to the their (il)logical conclusions...  for every trend, and author, and the authors we later see as preditive are the ones we picked out as matching most closely to the current state of affairs, increasing their popularity... all they need is a chance in a million, and we call them brilliant if they succeed in guessing right.

 

@Eloise:
glad my efforts have an impact =)

 

@FB vs SL
I think the biggest problem with FB is that it's media... it doesn't really show who you are, just what you did, and then immortalizes and sensationalizes all the worst (and on rarest occasion, the best) of that... In SL, that doesn't stand out as much... only major sins or achievements tend to get carried forward, and you still have a chance to change, and be judged for who you are now... if you blow it, you can start agin without the impact to RL... if you succeed brilliantly, you can connect to your RL and reap the rewards

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Void Singer wrote:

 

@FB vs SL

I think the biggest problem with FB is that it's media... it doesn't really show who you are, just what you did, and then immortalizes and sensationalizes all the worst (and on rarest occasion, the best) of that... In SL, that doesn't stand out as much... only major sins or achievements tend to get carried forward, and you still have a chance to change, and be judged for who you are now... if you blow it, you can start agin without the impact to RL... if you succeed brilliantly, you can connect to your RL and reap the rewards

---

You have just written the perfect ad for SL!     *laughing* 

[PeterCanessa Oh]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

You assume this prescient power based upon the nationality of others? 

---

I'd call it presumption rather than assumption.

While I apologise to you for the offence I have caused I further presume I cannot expect reciprocal treatment from those who are guilty.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

You assume this prescient power based upon the nationality of others? 

---

I'd call it presumption rather than assumption.

While I apologise to you for the offence I have caused I further presume I cannot expect reciprocal treatment from those who are guilty.

---

Perhaps you like to clarify that last sentence Peter.    You wrote, "from those who are guilty".     

Guilty of what?    Am I to infer from your sentence, that someone is guilty of causing "offence"?  

Or am I to infer that someone is guilty of this:  "I made the "no specific government" comment just so US citizens wouldn't make their usual mistake of assuming everything is about the USA."  (which you decided was worth commenting on, even though no one was actually doing this)  

 

Hmm, come to think of it, before you mentioned the US...hardly anyone else had!   *laughing*   So, perhaps it's your preoccupation with another country and it's citizens that is the issue here.  

 

[PeterCanessa Oh]

Causing offence by making their usual mistake of assuming everything is about the USA (which I decided was worth commenting on to ensure no one thought I was 'having a go' at the government of the USA)

If you don't believe that this often happens on the forums or that it is a cause for offence then we shall have to agree to disagree.  In either case it is not something I wish to discuss with someone incapable of accepting an apology with good grace.

[Anaiya Arnold]

People are really rather stupid about this.

As a herd, they seem to think that because a high level of freedom happens to be their whole experience, that an opressive tyranical regime is unlikely.  In fact it is free societies that are aberrations.  They do not come into being by themselves, and they cannot continue to exist in such a state unless there is a dedictated and ongoing effort by society to retain the state.

It seems Western society has become so glutted on a life dining on freedom that we have failed to comprehend how precious and fragile freedom really is.  Apparently it seems so natural to us, we fail at the group level to have any sense of just how unlikely, rare, and  vulnerable a free society is.  It astounds me that this generation has rushed to give up freedoms for fear of their safety, seemingly without any comprehension of just how precious and rare what they are giving up is, and just how impossible what they expect to get in return is.

 

We're all safer free than under some meglomaniac's opression.  We will never be completely safe, but by goodness we came so close building truley free societies.  Too bad that era is probably over, given away by people too ungrateful to honour the sacrifices of generations past, too apathetic to care about the effects in the short term, and too selfish to bother considering what they have stolen from future generations

 

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

Causing offence by making their usual mistake of assuming everything is about the USA (which I decided was worth commenting on to ensure no one thought I was 'having a go' at the government of the USA)

If you don't believe that this often happens on the forums or that it is a cause for offence then we shall have to agree to disagree.  In either case it is not something I wish to discuss with someone incapable of accepting an apology with good grace.

---

I asked for clarification because it was not clear to me what you were actually saying.  

You wrote this:  "While I apologise to you for the offence I have caused I further presume I cannot expect reciprocal treatment from those who are guilty."   

That does not read like an apology. 

Someone who has the good grace to make an apology, does not preface it with conditions nor do they toss in their presumed "guilt" of others. 

So, to be clear here.  You made an unnecessary crack about US citizens and then you made a half-assed deflection type comment as an apology.   Yup.  Got it. 

 

[PeterCanessa Oh]

:-)  Nice one

I'm not sure I'd use 'ungrateful' at the end as you have but only because I'd put 'oblivious'.  Were the majority of people ever concerned with more than their farm, family, village though?  Throughout most of history and the world, of course, they didn't know anything else but if they had would they have cared more?  *Sigh* an endless question unfortunately :-(

[PeterCanessa Oh]

I am relieved that even you have finally 'got it'.  Well done.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

I am relieved that even you have finally 'got it'.  Well done.

---

 

Ahh, yes..so, now you make a parting shot which is thinly veiled sarcastic put-down.....I mean this is your parting shot right?

*laughing*   

 

[Void Singer]

one should never be guilty of the exact same offense one is accusing another of.... especially in the same post as the accusation

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Void Singer wrote:

one should never be guilty of the exact same offense one is accusing another of.... especially in the same post as the accusation

---

If I want to toss a little sarcasm at someone I think has been as ass....I'll do so.  If I want to do it in the same comment where I point out them using sarcasm...I'll do so.  There aren't rules for posting, other than TOS.  

This guy pissed me off.  

Grrrrr....

BTW...that eye rolling face thing is annoying...

[Void Singer]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

[...] There aren't rules for posting, other than TOS. [...]

---

 well there is always common sense.... unless you wanted to look like you trying to embody your signature?

if so, please carry on; mea culpa.

[PeterCanessa Oh]

It would be impolite not to respond.  However, I fear I am thinking in English and you are not.  There does not seem to be any subject between us worth the effort of translation so please don't trouble yourself.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Kylie Jaxxon wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

---

 

If the downside of surveilance is unlikely to affect you, and so you're happy to take your chances, is the upside also unlikely to affect you? If so, why allow your tax dollars to be spent on it?

---

Hi Maddy...you are definitely a deep thinker and you make a lot of sense.  :smileytongue:  :smileywink:

btw...still haven't forgot to drop in on you for the flickr project---been busy moving and getting re-set up, will do it soon

 

---

Thanks for the compliment, Kylie. I prolly swim the fine line between deep thinking and over thinking. Either way, I'm all wet.

No hurry, my home fire's always burning. Enjoy your decorating.

;-)

[Sy Beck]

I've just a small observation or rather a recounting of a story to add.  

I once had to chaperone a senior French bishop around London for 2 hrs before a meeting.  At one point in our travels around the sites he remarked with some obvious displeasure about the number of CCTVs in place wherever we went.  I paraphrase from memory his questions, "Why did we need so many?  Were we waiting for crimes to appear on them so we could justify their placement?  Why did British people suffer this intrusion into their everyday lives?".  I tried to inform his questions as best I could without expressing an opinion. 

A question then occured to me that I had to ask in turn.  "You don't find it odd or contrary then that you accept an all seeing, omniprescent God that watches over you all the time and can even see into your soul?".  His response was cursory and dogmatic and along the lines of that you cannot question the wisdom and acts of God.

I draw no conclusions from the incident, but found it an interesting juxtaposition.  I suppose as Peter has pointed out, surveillance is fine when it's good people controlling it, but what happens when bad people get control of it?  And even aetheists would agree that any particular religion's Godhead is going to be around for a while by definition.

[Void Singer]

it's a shame they don't teach religious leaders critical thinking anymore, or the bishop might have popped back with a comparison of "God's" beneficence (and the fact that we have no control over that) and humans fallibility (which we don't need religion to demonstrate, and can do something about).... but I suppose that would be expecting too much.

[Argus Collingwood]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

Soon everyone will wear glasses with heads-up displays that show all our personal information floating above our heads. Name, relationship status, occupation, interests, biological / birth gender, criminal record etc. 

But when it comes to this kind of technology, Google is a much bigger privacy threat than Facebook imho. At least Zuckerberg and his henchmen rely on people to voluntarily provide their photos and personal information, whereas Google just takes whatever it wants. 

---

Contacts with HUD viewable within users brain;-)

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

It would be impolite not to respond.  However, I fear I am thinking in English and you are not.  There does not seem to be any subject between us worth the effort of translation so please don't trouble yourself.

---

 

Hmm, more sarcastic insults.  *shakes head sadly* 

[Deltango Vale]

@ everyone

We seem to be stuck on Big Brother. I'm more concerned about little sister. How many of you are happy to leave your family photo album at the office? How many of you shrug when you lose your purse in a shopping center? Do you really want your family tree posted on the corkboard of a public library?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8018329.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/7914415.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-15018284

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14527103

The problem, in my mind, is not so much a steel-helmeted police state. It's the way people casually give their personal information to the entire bell curve of the human race. I truly believe this trend will collapse within the next five years.

[Void Singer]

my focus was more on criminal miuse, so about middle of the road from those.