Though I have not done as much of the reading as I would like, partly due to confusion about what is supposed to be read for class, there are some seemingly important issues brought up both in class and in the readings.
"The full implications for privacy in the age of Facebook and social media are still unknown, especially since the landscape is evolving at a rapid pace. Understanding this distinction in meanings of privacy among different groups, however, is a crucial first step." - Kate Raynes-Goldie: Understanding Privacy in the Age of Facebook
In response to critiques on exhibitionism, I'd have to go back to earlier debates and say that it depends on the use.
Putting a ton of information out in public about oneself can be damaging, yes, many studies, experiences, and practical reasoning can lead to that conclusion. However, how that information is used, and what it's value to the individual is, matters most in determining problems with exhibitionism.
The article by Kate Raynes-Goldie talked some about how privacy is circumvented for various reasons, and how the choice to be part of the exhibition facilitator Facebook is heavily influenced by peer pressure, and so is less of a choice, and more of a demand. Privacy circumvention, at times can be good. Say you want to show someone what your friend looks like to see if you have a common acquaintance, and send them a URL off of someone's private Facebook page. You could also use that circumvention ability to induce mutual hatred in an ex, rival, or someone you'd like to bully. It depends on how we use it.
Another article, titled A Web of Exhibitionists, said "What goes on the Internet often stays on the Internet. Something that seems harmless, silly or merely impetuous today may seem offensive, stupid or reckless in two weeks, two years or two decades. Still, we are clearly at a special moment."
While it is true that we are always searching for the "next best thing", and that is sometimes also the "easiest, most convenient thing" doesn't mean an end to innovation and creativity. Moreover, if we facilitate ease in technology in a way that allows us to concentrate our efforts on things not tedious, and more interesting, these aspects are actually an improvement on society.
The Roson reading insists that our culture is modifying technology to be easier to use without education, and that technology facilitates a sort of desensitization to our strong desires.
Interestingly, Roson uses children's ability to learn these technologies quickly as a bad thing, but it is simply different. We are currently in the middle of the most quickly advancing technical revolution that we know of, and yet many people jump to the conclusion that the difference from generation to generation forebodes a dystopian future. One argument against this idea is that we simply do not know yet what the tech savvy children and young adults today are going to look like when they're older. There is nothing to really point out what problems or benefits lie ahead, because there has never been such an era in history.
The last sentence in the article by Robert J. Samuelson was, "Thoreau famously remarked that 'the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.' Thanks to technology, that's no longer necessary. People can now lead lives of noisy and ostentatious desperation. Or at least they can try." Though privacy seems less of a concern, perhaps it is because the ease of access and freedom of expression via exhibitionism (such as that on Facebook and blogs etc) deters people from really paying attention to those who are "noisy and ostentatious" on the internet. In fact, it surprises me when I'm told by an acquaintance in person about their opinion of one of my posts, let alone gone through my timeline on Facebook or read through my profile. It was quite amusing when my relative blatantly asked, "So you're a Buddhist now?" I immediately replied, "No" with a chuckle, because I had labeled myself as a Theist, and then put underneath a list of general beliefs such as agency of choice, etc. as a hopeful indication of my religious fence sitting. She then said, "Oh. Well I suppose I'll have to look through your Facebook more thoroughly." Again, this made me laugh, because reading through the profile, my statements about myself and others, did not mean a better understanding of my own beliefs, and often times that is where the internet falls short; in human assumption.
On the other hand, as my roommate pointed out, there are detriments to technology, as Roson and others are wary, if not blatantly obstinate about. Simply watching
Digital Nation will give you some idea, such as our inability to focus on one thing, quick addiction to gaming as a replacement for face to face interaction, or how advertising works. Another idea, pointed out by my roommate who is a CNA at a local assisted living home, was in the form of a question: "How much stimulation will your generation need in old age? You guys are always listening to music and or on some sort of device, like a phone or computer. What will happen when that isn't so easily at your finger tips?" We take this rapid change so lightly sometimes, or even criticize it as a horrible detriment, without thinking outside of even our access to such technologies.
It is much too easy, as the article Nanolaw with Daughter pointed out, to use information against people these days, and it is sad to see such things permeate every area of our lives. Though I have never personally looked into lawsuits, hoping to avoid them but feeling increasingly fatalistic in terms of probability, it seems like the use of information is more a misuse and abuse of copyright and stifling of creative opportunities. The simple notion that a ten year old could be sued in 57 different ways, per day, is staggering, and makes one wonder, have I been sued and don't know it, and what does that say about me and my actions? How can someone owe something without doing anything?
