At What Point Ought Communication Technology Have Frozen Forever?

[RadiationTherapy]

Cell phones? Pagers? Television? Telephones? Radio? Moving pictures? Tax funded postal systems? Fountain pen? The written word instead of purely oral history?

Think of what it has meant through the years for soldiers and loved ones. For protests, movements, and unions. For teenagers, lovers, and long lost friends. For parents, grandparents, stepparents, and estranged parents. Political prisoners, authors, and artists - those who are depressed or elated reaching out to speak or write to someone who "couldn't be there".

When I hear, what I perceive to be, hostile, irrational condemnations of Facebook, I often wonder at what point communication technology should have stopped developing. Even what is often their main argument - that we are losing touch with one another in terms of face-to-face, "real" socializing is belied by the considerable slowing of activity on weekends and holidays.

11 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I think communication technology development should have ceased when...(please elaborate)
	1 (9%)
	I think communication technology should continue to develop.
	10 (91%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Egalitarian Thug]

1. Facebook is not communication technology. It is the application of technology

they had nothing to do with creating. That they use that communication technology to suck people in and use the required information gathered to evil purpose is why it is frequently condemned.

[Aerows]

2. +1

Just because technology can be used for evil doesn't mean it is evil in and of itself.

[freshwest]

7. +1

We'd like to see consumer control over the technology and data but it's unlikely. The problems are always based on the attitudes of people with power and not the innovations.

[snooper2]

22. what do you mean consumer control over technology?

What's the last RFC you provided input to?

And did I see you at this event

http://tia2012.org/about/about

[freshwest]

27. I think the person I responded to understood what I was talking about. n/t

[snooper2]

29. can you explain it to the rest of the World

or is this some super secret intel you guys are working with

[DisgustipatedinCA]

41. I've been a network engineer for a long time now

Ive never written an RFC, and neither have you, Little Radia. But I still understood and agreed with what the other poster said. You want to lord expertise over people? Here I am; bring me what you've got.

[snooper2]

42. Okay, you explain it then "consumer control over technology"

please?

Are we talking about the guy I was dealing with a couple weeks back with an Asterix bo open source) and he couldn't get diversion header working properly?

[Egalitarian Thug]

30. We desperately need some laws to deal with this shit. A person should be the clear and sole owner

of their data just as they should own their own biology, period.

OTOH, they should also be educated so as to be able to understand the nature of databases so that they can make an informed decision on what to release and how it can be used. I know plenty of so-called DBA's & database developers that don't.

[freshwest]

33. There have been people who have demanded payment when their personal data is sold.

I thought that was great. The legislator in Florida who said women will need to 'incorporate their uteri' to protect them from GOP lawmakers had the right idea.

With monopolies, simply moving one's money away from these service providers isn't helping much. When dealing with corporations, laws don't do much good, as they are slippery in their operations. They can charter anywhere they want, to escape the laws of any country.

Their power in the marketplace means people will be forced to turn to them eventually. I see websites drying up that had all the features I wanted for privacy (?) because of the predominance of linking to Twitter and FB.

I'm unhappy about the details of both of those services, but I'm getting shut out by not participating in these venues.

[Zalatix]

38. Payment for when personal is sold? EXCELLENT IDEA!

Let's copyright personal information. If you want to make money trading information about me, then I get a cut, and I get to determine its terms of use.

Fuck yeah. Make it a DMCA for personal information.

[LanternWaste]

11. I think this very thing about so many ideas

"ust because technology can be used for evil doesn't mean it is evil in and of itself...."

I think this very thing about so many ideas and philosophies we all of us carry, and tend to apply it consistently.

[randome]

3. Nearly 900 million users are 'sucked in', then.

That's a lot of suckers.

[snooper2]

23. take a look at religion

LOL

[Egalitarian Thug]

28. P.T. Barnum died a very rich man, and the population has exploded, n/t

[Zalatix]

37. +1000!!!

[JackRiddler]

82. Large numbers of people are never, ever wrong!

[RadiationTherapy]

4. Facebook is communication technology that has been applied to the exploitation

of marketing data. Even if it was developed with the "evil" purpose of "sucking people in" (whatever that means), it is using communication technology to accomplish that purpose.

[Egalitarian Thug]

31. Read your agreement. n/t

[JackRiddler]

46. Good comment.

[Egalitarian Thug]

48. Thank you.

I'm not sure which is more irritating, modern day Luddites or the clueless true believers.

[JackRiddler]

49. Luddites are the most unfairly defamed group in history.

Their problem was not with machines per se. They were against human beings being made into machine parts, and they were right.

But I'm sure you realize that.

[Egalitarian Thug]

51. No I didn't. I can certainly understand that now that you've told me, but I was lead to believe

that it was the technology itself.

Thanks again.

[JackRiddler]

53. Please read this good short article about the real Luddites ...

Ideologically they were closer to Bernie Sanders than John Zerzan.

The Luddites were working class people who rose up against inhuman conditions of labor. They broke machines to effect labor stoppages at a time when strikes were not just illegal, but a cause for military massacres on domestic soil. It shows the continuing power of capitalist ideology today that everyone knows the name but most don't know the story. The Luddites were brave and innovative pioneers of the modern workers movement. If we had not been collectively misled about our history, today's 99 percent would be identifying more closely with them than with most of the aristocratic, slave-holding "founding fathers." Instead people who sacrificed their lives in the struggle for dignity and human rights are defamed as mindless barbarians attacking "progress" and "technology." It's no different than when the teachers and firefighters and union workers of Wisconsin are called thugs for defending their livelihoods against attack.

What the Luddites Really Fought Against
The label now has many meanings, but when the group protested 200 years ago, technology wasn't really the enemy

* By Richard Conniff
* Smithsonian magazine, March 2011


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/What-the-Luddites-Really-Fought-Against.html#ixzz1xmP1Ppc1

(snip)

Despite their modern reputation, the original Luddites were neither opposed to technology nor inept at using it. Many were highly skilled machine operators in the textile industry. Nor was the technology they attacked particularly new. Moreover, the idea of smashing machines as a form of industrial protest did not begin or end with them. In truth, the secret of their enduring reputation depends less on what they did than on the name under which they did it. You could say they were good at branding.

The Luddite disturbances started in circumstances at least superficially similar to our own. British working families at the start of the 19th century were enduring economic upheaval and widespread unemployment. A seemingly endless war against Napoleon’s France had brought “the hard pinch of poverty,” wrote Yorkshire historian Frank Peel, to homes “where it had hitherto been a stranger.” Food was scarce and rapidly becoming more costly. Then, on March 11, 1811, in Nottingham, a textile manufacturing center, British troops broke up a crowd of protesters demanding more work and better wages. That night, angry workers smashed textile machinery in a nearby village. Similar attacks occurred nightly at first, then sporadically, and then in waves, eventually spreading across a 70-mile swath of northern England from Loughborough in the south to Wakefield in the north. Fearing a national movement, the government soon positioned thousands of soldiers to defend factories. Parliament passed a measure to make machine-breaking a capital offense.

But the Luddites were neither as organized nor as dangerous as authorities believed. They set some factories on fire, but mainly they confined themselves to breaking machines. In truth, they inflicted less violence than they encountered. In one of the bloodiest incidents, in April 1812, some 2,000 protesters mobbed a mill near Manchester. The owner ordered his men to fire into the crowd, killing at least 3 and wounding 18. Soldiers killed at least 5 more the next day. Earlier that month, a crowd of about 150 protesters had exchanged gunfire with the defenders of a mill in Yorkshire, and two Luddites died. Soon, Luddites there retaliated by killing a mill owner, who in the thick of the protests had supposedly boasted that he would ride up to his britches in Luddite blood. Three Luddites were hanged for the murder; other courts, often under political pressure, sent many more to the gallows or to exile in Australia before the last such disturbance, in 1816.

(snip)

As the Industrial Revolution began, workers naturally worried about being displaced by increasingly efficient machines. But the Luddites themselves “were totally fine with machines,” says Kevin Binfield, editor of the 2004 collection Writings of the Luddites. They confined their attacks to manufacturers who used machines in what they called “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to get around standard labor practices. “They just wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield, “and they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.”

[cthulu2016]

5. When people tell me they think Chariots of the Gods is a bad book

I ask them at what point in history they would have smashed all the printing presses.

And that's why nobody talks to me.

[RadiationTherapy]

6. C ot G was a book, not a revolution in the sharing of print media.

[ManyShadesOf]

8. you've got this whole thing wrapped up it looks like

why don't you just tell us what The Answer is?

[RadiationTherapy]

13. Hahahaha!

42.

[ManyShadesOf]

16. At What Point Ought This Thread Have Frozen Forever?

13.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

77. Von Daniken lifted most of his ideas right out of Morning of the Magicians

by Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier which preceded it by nearly a decade and which was acknowledged in the first edition of Chariots of the Gods. And it is generally recognized that Morning of the Magicians was influenced by H.P. Lovecraft.

[Blue_Tires]

9. I dunno...

What year did that monolith drop down on the monkeys in "2001"??

[hobbit709]

10. Smoke signals and drumming.

[Romulox]

12. Why do Facebookers need to be validated by EVERYONE in the universe to be happy?

Your rant reminds of Nelson Muntz' speech from Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington

Nelson Muntz: So burn the flag if you must, but before you do, you better burn a few other things! You better burn your shirt and your pants! Be sure to burn your TV and car! Oh yes, and don't forget to burn your house! Because none of those things could exist without six white stripes, seven red stripes, and a hell of a lot of stars!

[RadiationTherapy]

21. That is not my assertion at all. This isn't about validation, it is about criticising the often

whiny and subjective condemnation of a tool and the people who use it.

[Romulox]

24. The need to not be criticized isn't much different from the need for validation, imo.

Ultimately it's about controlling or being controlled by what other people think.

[RadiationTherapy]

25. Sorry, again, I am criticizing the critiques as irrational and do not "need" to not be criticized

myself. I am stating that the grounds upon which much of facebooks critics base their arguments are flawed and, ultimately, just another manifestation of technophobia.

[JackRiddler]

58. The Facebook cult is feeling wounded because the market didn't validate the IPO price.

First of all, any communications platform can be put to use for different purposes, and Facebook lends itself well to, e.g., networking and mass organizing (coupled with mass surveillance, and until the day the company pulls the plug on movements that it doesn't like).

Otherwise, most people on Facebook enjoy it compulsively, but they know it's a total waste of time. Facebook is a McDonaldization the former Internet. Many of its users feel guilty enough that they perceive others' non-participation as an implicit critique. Which is silly. There are so many other ways people who aren't on Facebook waste their time. (Like writing posts to anonymous others on Internet BBs.)

[Romulox]

62. Narcissistic Personality Disorder isn't a business plan, is it? That's what FB is built upon.

Many of its users feel guilty enough that they perceive others' non-participation as an implicit critique.

I think this is it, precisely.

[RadiationTherapy]

66. While you may have encountered people who find "non-participation" is threatening to them somehow,

but it is unlikely you have met them here on this thread.

[RadiationTherapy]

65. Nonsense. No one is criticizing others' non-participation; by all means, stand out of the way.

What I, personally, am criticizing here is the arbitrary, irrational attitude that FB is somehow inherently evil (the same goes for those who think it is inherently "good&quot . Tools are not "good" or "evil".

[JackRiddler]

81. No one except all the people who get defensive about it..

even in the absence of spoken criticism, of whom I know plenty -- and you.

Look at your OP again - flamebait implying people who don't like Facebook want all technological development to freeze forever. Pathetic. Also counterproductive to your evident mission as a self-appointed Facebook promoter.

Touchy touchy.

[RadiationTherapy]

89. No; you really must be more subtle and granular in your reading.

"When I hear, what I perceive to be, hostile, irrational condemnations of Facebook, I often wonder at what point communication technology should have stopped developing. Even what is often their main argument - that we are losing touch with one another in terms of face-to-face, "real" socializing is belied by the considerable slowing of activity on weekends and holidays."

I fail to see how this is any more defensive than starting a thread about disliking Facebook. In fact, what you refer to as "dislike" is an understatement considering it is often accompanied by implications of its users' intelligence, ego, and narcissistic state of being. Furthermore, many people seem to imply their own superiority by not using FB - an example of genuine ego narcissism.

[JackRiddler]

104. Give it up already. It's not my comprehension, it's your condescension.

You've got a response to every single reply on this thread, and it's all defensive. I can read well enough, thank you! I read all of your post, not just the part you're helpfully quoting again. I hope Facebook's PR department would do better than this.

[RadiationTherapy]

109. There is little in this post worthy of responding to, but the accusatory tone makes it difficult

to ignore. I suppose I could go the easy route and point out that my starting this thread is no more or less relevant than your participating in it. I may also point out that I didn't criticize your comprehension as much as your blunt restating of my point coupled with ignoring the obvious implicit insults to Facebook users in several other threads. But all of that seems petty and rather off topic. Anyway, unless you have a point, such as outright accusing me of working for FB (I don't) or stating why my OP has no validity and backing up that comment, I am surprised you feel compelled to participate at all.

[JackRiddler]

110. Sir, I have my satisfaction.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=809477

[RadiationTherapy]

113. Last word!

hahahahaha

[Posteritatis]

106. For the same reason you're responding to allegations that haven't been made.

Oh wait.

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. I don't hate Facebook because I object to the advance of communications technology.

I hate Facebook because I'm a deeply introverted person who has no use for a social networking platform that lets people I haven't spoken to in 20 years and never want to again find me; I have no intrinsic need or impulse to share what I happen to be doing at any given moment with friends, acquaintances and strangers, and I find most of what passes for communication on Facebook (or for that matter, on Twitter) to be shallow, banal, and mindless, and not worth my time. If you are the sort of person who enjoys that sort of thing, by all means go ahead.

I rarely use a mobile phone either and really only have one for emergencies. If I want to get in touch with the people I care enough about to want to (who I can count on my fingers and toes), there's email, and instant messengers, and the phone, and any number of ways that don't require Facebook, at all.

[RadiationTherapy]

19. Ok, so you fall into the irrational hatred category, but please realize

that for thousands of years, millions of letters have been sent, millions of phone calls made that were filled with meaningless nonsense that had nothing to do with you. And, just like facebook, you have the means to avoid being exposed to the mundanity of it all.

[Zalatix]

36. Okay then count me in the "irrational hatred" category if that's all it takes.

What I saw in Spider Jerusalem's response was a bunch of practical reasons, but hey, in your universe, those who don't just drink the kool-aid are irrational haters. Gotcha.

[RadiationTherapy]

43. I did explain why it was irrational.

I took the time to explain that the concern about being exposed to others' mindless banalities is unfounded.

"I have no intrinsic need or impulse to share what I happen to be doing at any given moment with friends, acquaintances and strangers, and I find most of what passes for communication on Facebook (or for that matter, on Twitter) to be shallow, banal, and mindless, and not worth my time. If you are the sort of person who enjoys that sort of thing, by all means go ahead. " (SpiderJs post) -

"for thousands of years, millions of letters have been sent, millions of phone calls made that were filled with meaningless nonsense that had nothing to do with you. And, just like facebook, you have the means to avoid being exposed to the mundanity of it all." (my post)

[Zalatix]

45. You offered what you believe was an explanation.

Unfortunately absolutely none of your "explanations" invalidate what Spider Jerusalem said.

[RadiationTherapy]

54. Well, if one is concerned about something they have no reason to be concerned with

- in this example, mindless blather (found everywhere by the way) that anyone can easily avoid - I think that is rather irrational. I also wasn't trying to "invalidate" anything, just point out the concern is arbitrary and easily solved.

[Zalatix]

74. You defined a perfectly rational post as irrational hatred.

Let's go over what Spider Jerusalem said.

I hate Facebook because I'm a deeply introverted person who has no use for a social networking platform that lets people I haven't spoken to in 20 years and never want to again find me

What is so irrational about that?

"I have no intrinsic need or impulse to share what I happen to be doing at any given moment with friends, acquaintances and strangers"

That sounds like someone who's not going to qualify as a narcissist. Again, what's wrong with NOT being a narcissist?

I find most of what passes for communication on Facebook (or for that matter, on Twitter) to be shallow, banal, and mindless, and not worth my time. If you are the sort of person who enjoys that sort of thing, by all means go ahead.

A lifestyle choice capped with "you're free to enjoy it if you want". Tolerant, and extremely NOT Luddite. Again, what is irrational about that?

I rarely use a mobile phone either and really only have one for emergencies. If I want to get in touch with the people I care enough about to want to (who I can count on my fingers and toes), there's email, and instant messengers, and the phone, and any number of ways that don't require Facebook, at all.

Again, a lifestyle choice. What is so irrational about that?

Spider Jerusalem hates Facebook like I hate V8 juice. Yet neither of us are saying you shouldn't be able to choose it. "If you are the sort of person who enjoys that sort of thing, by all means go ahead." That's a pro-choice approach, not an anti-choice Luddite attack.

You went off on this poster for no good reason, it was as if you saw the keyword "hate" and auto activated your attack word response algorithm. Like ECHELON, but cheaper.

[RadiationTherapy]

80. What, I don't get a quote!? Dang! hahaha.

It is irrational, as I stated before, because hate often is irrational and the justification for it - as you pasted - is null and void because it is not genuine. The concerns and hatred the person has for FB is, in my assessment, irrational. I fail to see how that is hateful or attacking on my part.

[Zalatix]

83. That was some seriously tortured logic.

I hate eating ground chicken meat but that doesn't logically mean I want it to be banned.

Your argument is frighteningly illogical. Your assessment of Spider Jerusalem is illogical. There was absolutely nothing irrational about what Spider said.

You continue to make the tragic mistake of confusing personal preference with Luddism.

[RadiationTherapy]

91. I have explained twice why it was an irrational statement generated by specious concerns.

I am comfortable with the careful way I chose to express my thoughts and I am comfortable with your assessment of them. Your bland, hypocritical de-fusing of SpiderJ's post that accuses users of "mindless banality" and "narcissism" certainly didn't go over my head, so please don't be silly about who is disrespecting whom in your own example.

[Zalatix]

93. And your explanation is still wrong.

I hate eating ground chicken meat but that doesn't logically mean I want it to be banned. That is perfectly logical and it completely invalidates your argument.

Spider Jerusalem's post was spot-on and completely correct. The argument did go over your head, and you have no logical point to put forth in this discussion.

Your arguments have been utterly deconstructed as an attack on personal choice.

[RadiationTherapy]

94. I am comfortable with your assessment, my word choices, and their implications.

[Zalatix]

95. You stay comfortable with your deconstructed arguments, and have a nice day!

[RadiationTherapy]

97. You too.

[Spider Jerusalem]

111. I'm sorry, your "assessment" is full of shit and so are you.

I don't like Facebook because I have no use for it. I don't care if someone else happens to use it and enjoy it; that's fine. I don't and won't. That's not "irrational". What's irrational is your apparent need to criticise those who disagree with your opinions of Facebook for perfectly valid reasons.

[RadiationTherapy]

112. Calling people "banal and mindless" may seem like nothing to you, but

it is easy to see the underlying insinuations. The fact is, is you couldn't let this facebook thread go without commenting on it. When you commented you couldn't do it without insulting others. I BARELY called you out for it, pointed out that your "reasons" for disliking it and users of it was silly and nonsensical, and categorized those reasons as irrational. If you read the thread it is clearly not me who has his undergarments in a slosh over this. Hahahaha.

And, again, very few pro-Facebook threads appear on DU and this is not one of them. This thread is in response to the very regular, very irrational, "can't-keep-it-to-themselves-how-stupid-Facebook-is" comments that appear very regularly here. The passion and intensity of some of the comments in this thread demonstrates a great deal of irrationality surrounding this topic and I am glad to have started this thread.

[Spider Jerusalem]

114. Most of Facebook IS banal and mindless.

That's a simple statement of fact.

banal adj. Drearily commonplace and often predictable; trite

mindless adj.2. requiring little or no intellectual effort

My reasons for disliking it are neither silly nor nonsensical, and I said nothing of the people who use it, merely of the sorts of things people use it FOR (there is a difference). Why should I be expected to LIKE something that is completely useless to me?

[hobbit709]

115. Another prime example of Sturgeon's Law.

[RadiationTherapy]

116. No one is expecting an "extreme introvert" to 'like' social media.

As someone just mentioned, 90% of everything is crap, however I am pointing out that those who criticize FB as filled with banality and mindlessness (the definitions of which there was no need to provide, but I realize you probably actually thought I did not know what those words meant - part of your superiority trip) participate regularly in their own banal and mindless activities thus making them hypocrites and, as many of us are, irrational. Also, you said you "hate" facebook - even more evidence of irrationality.

[JackRiddler]

108. Yeah. I hate Facebook because it is a step back in communications technology.

[dionysus]

117. or, you could just use it to chat.. all but 3 of the ppl i talked to using AIM ditched it

for facebook's awful chat program

[coalition_unwilling]

15. As my father says in explaining why he refuses to have a phone, "It

takes the bad news longer to reach me."

William Wordsworth said it best:

THE world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers:
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
The Sea that bares her bosom to the moon;
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers;
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not.--Great God! I'd rather be
A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn.

[ManyShadesOf]

17. A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn

has a FaceBook page!!

[fishwax]

18. one can hate facebook and not think communications technology should have stopped developing

I don't hate facebook, personally, but I think the premise that hostile, irrational condemnations of facebook suggests communication technology should have just stopped developing is flawed. That's not to say there can't be overlap.

[snooper2]

20. Don't worry your face to face will be coming back soon...

uri dialing, unified communications, presence, video between carriers..it's all coming -

in ten years everyone will have the little video icon on their phone so you can just click it if you want to see video of the other end. Same number will be for your work, home, cell if you like. In that time a lot of people will have video phones in the office as well. Does that evolve into just a SIP client on your laptop and a video codec and no more standalone phone? Or is it a cisco videophone? combination of the two? just an app you download to your tablet that has a camera built in? Time and the market will tell

[RadiationTherapy]

26. I am very excited about where technology is bringing us in this regard.

McLuhan and the global village and so forth...

I am also seeing technology trying to fill what we lack in terms of instant full shared experience AKA telepathy.

[ManyShadesOf]

32. The Haves and the Have-Nots

[FarCenter]

34. All my stuff has an on/off switch.

[randome]

40. Yes, but how do you know that 'off' really means 'off'?

[FarCenter]

44. That's what aluminum foil is for...

[Zalatix]

52. Only a Luddite would want a true 'off' switch!

[Zalatix]

35. It should never stop developing.

Not until we all have mandatory wireless microchip implants that network us into a giant collective, overseen by marketers, law enforcement and thought police.

[RadiationTherapy]

57. The word "mandatory" belies your paranoia.

While FB may be being used nefariously, it is by no means mandatory. It can't even turn a profit because so many people can opt in and out easily.

[Zalatix]

61. Your 'head out of the sand' approach to things is downright hilarious.

[RadiationTherapy]

63. McLuhan was often criticized for not criticizing the "inherent evils" of TV

in his many analyses and hypotheses about modern, electronic communications. I strive to meet that same level of objectivity, despite its comedic value for you.

[Zalatix]

67. Back then, TV didn't watch you.

And if you think it doesn't do so now, try working for a cable TV provider. Their stuff is now digital and it tells them all of your viewing habits. Plus the Internet itself watches you - especially in China. Every few months or so we get another bill that comes down the pipe asking for the Government to watch what you do online. There's also Comcast and a bunch of other company's deals with the MPAA to shut off your Internet service if they think you're pirating. Still, though, you don't think anything can go wrong with technology, or that there should be limits.

[RadiationTherapy]

68. I'm sorry you got that impression. While I am not happy with the privacy issues surrounding TV and

internet, there is hardly the cause - or the means - to eradicate them. Our country is philosophically ingrained to market, be marketed to, and to make a profit any way one can. These problems you are listing are a consequence of that ingrained philosophy, among other things - none of which involves the very existence of a thing. Facebook can disappear tomorrow, but sharing and communicating easily and "instantly" is unlikely to follow.

[Zalatix]

72. But you asked 'at what point should this technology be frozen".

I contend that it should be frozen where intrusions into privacy are concerned. THAT was the obvious point behind my satire "it should never stop developing".

[RadiationTherapy]

73. So no cameras of any kind, then? Your position regresses into futility quickly.

Many, many technologies can intrude into one's privacy, theoretically. Too many to list.

[Zalatix]

76. And your point regresses into a Corporate surveillance state.

I guess you're a big fan of Google's streetview, eh?

[RadiationTherapy]

78. I definitely think it is pretty cool, but it is just uploaded pictures, really.

Again, America, philosophically, endorses this "corporate surveillance state" not engineers, entrepreneurs, and inventors.

[Zalatix]

84. FYI Google street view is totally involuntary. Which presents another problem.

We don't have a choice as to whether or not to participate in this centralized, organized distribution of pictures of our houses and property. Individuals take photos of houses, yes, but this is one organization making it dead easy for stalkers to know what your home looks like, and even to scope out the property.

In the past, stalkers had to go through some modicum of effort. Now between Google and Zillow it's all just a matter of point and click.

You won't think this is a problem, of course, until some nutjob Googles your address on a whim and decides to take action against you, since now the barrier to doing so is so LOW.

The Department of Defense, of course, has banned Google. Paranoid bastards.

[RadiationTherapy]

87. What do you propose be done about it? Shall the technology be forbidden until then?

Do you blame cameras or the internet for Google and Zillow? Or should certain businesses be illegal? Or shall we just navigate these dangerous waters as humankind always has had to? I will continue to do the last.

[Zalatix]

88. I propose we do what the Department of Defense did.

Unless you'd like to call them Luddites, too?

[RadiationTherapy]

90. I do not use the word 'Luddite'. The DoD has a different need for privacy than an average citizen,

but I will use this dramatic example since it suits you. Simply stated, any person, just as the DoD does, can block google and zillow from their home computers if that suits them. Even more simply stated, however, you cannot stop people from photographing and uploading.

[Zalatix]

92. The DoD has a different need for privacy than an average citizen HAHAHAHAHAH

That hilarious craziness aside, there is another big problem with your reasoning: you simply refuse to read.

Once again I will point out to you that the difference between Google and a person with a camera is that Google is aggregating these photos into one large centralized database which any person can browse for free. No one person with a camera has the ability to do that to an entire nation. Do you get it yet? Before Google streetview and Zillow, if you wanted to scope out a property you had to go do your homework and probably go so far as to visit the place. This represents a big barrier to stalking someone. Now? It's all point and click. Do you get the difference yet?

And if you're out photographing every house in the neighborhood the residents have good reason to confront you. That's what thieves and stalkers do.

Also, you might want to discuss your irrational anti-choice arguments with nations like Austria or the Czech Republic. Both nations have banned Google streetview for privacy reasons. But they're not America, so I guess they mean nothing, eh?

[RadiationTherapy]

96. I certainly advocate for privacy, and even can see your point about Google. Perhaps the process

should be made illegal. That speaks nothing to the technology involved though. If facebook were to be forbidden to share users' private data, I wouldn't dispute it. If facebook was itself forbidden due to privacy concerns, I would fight that.

[Zalatix]

98. Thing is, nobody said Facebook should be forbidden.

[RadiationTherapy]

99. No, of course not. That would be easy to dispute were it said.

The OP is about irrational dislike and hostility toward its users. Zombies, narcissists, mindless, banal chatterboxes with a need for validation of their pet technology...I thought we already disagreed about this elsewhere.

[Zalatix]

100. It would seem that your OP was much ado about nothing.

[RadiationTherapy]

101. I don't know. I personally find irrational, arbitrary lines-in-the-sand regarding technology

to be a fascinating characteristic of humans and progress. I enjoyed this thread very much.

[Zalatix]

102. Then I hope you're comfortable with chasing imaginary boogeymen! Have a nice day!

[RadiationTherapy]

103. You too.

[Tom Ripley]

71. Why are you using a "cutting edge thinker" from 50 years ago?

[RadiationTherapy]

75. Did I call him "cutting edge"? Anyway, McLuhans books and lectures are providing many relevant

ideas and extrapolations that are being applied to the social/communication studies of the internet. Also, many thinkers ideas endure well beyond 50 years.

[NoPasaran]

39. When Lauren Bacall asked Bogart if he knew how to whistle

[JackRiddler]

47. At what point should you stop pumping this flailing stock?

[RadiationTherapy]

55. I have no vested interest in facebook outside of its value as a communication technology.

It is a field of interest for me.

[JI7]

50. isn't this like saying one opposes Television Technology because they think American idol or some

other show sucks ?

[RadiationTherapy]

56. No, it is more like saying one opposes television technology because

people are missing out on the "theatre experience"... live, in-person, etc.

[Tom Ripley]

59. I like electricity, but that doesn't mean that I think the electric chair was a wonderful thing

[RadiationTherapy]

64. Electricity is a form of energy and an electric chair is a tool.

That is not analogous to criticizing electricity as a "nefarious" replacement of steam power, for instance.

[Tom Ripley]

70. It is more analogous than your "logic", and obviously far more succinct

y'know, that whole brevity and wit thing...

[RadiationTherapy]

79. Sorry, I compared a revolution in comm tech to other revolutions of comm tech.

You compared electricity and a tool that runs on electricity. Brevity, perhaps, but one's wit must make sense.

[Zalatix]

107. ^^^^ Sense. That response made none.

[4th law of robotics]

60. Next year

always next year.

[sarisataka]

69. Big Black dial phones

and telex. It let us do everything needed. Since then the mantras have been "Do more with less" and "We need it yesterday"

[JHB]

85. Hand gestures

History will record that vocal cords were a mistake.

Whatever history records that on, however, will be ironic.

[porcinaalbastrucaine]

86. Communications Advancement should have stopped at

Strings and Cans and Smoke Signals.

For the Apple Fans the Electric Telegraph would be the stopping point.

[Posteritatis]

105. Obviously it shop have stopped at the first thing I'm personally unfamiliar with.

That does seem to be the cutoff for most people complaining about one medium or another here. The FB stuff is less staggeringly idiotic than the Twitter moral panic though, so there's probably hope yet.

There are a few media and platforms that I Simply Don't Get at this point, but the mature thing to do is understand that plenty of other people do and just go about my business. I don't understand people who are so very offended at something in use that they don't understand, especially when they wind themselves into hyperbolic panics about The Death Of All Communication And Civilization over every little thing.