You have a choice not to use facebook, I suppose. I can't see a single complaint against this system that doesn't end in bullshitting someone else (i.e. deception). Someone sends you a message, you read it, don't act on it. Now the other person can see you didn't act and ask WTF.
It'll cause some friction, sure. People will get over it.
I certainly do have a choice not to use it... but then again, not really (I even said people are forced to stay in it due to network effects).
Theoretically speaking, maybe I love Google+ but none of the people I want to keep in touch with use it, and thus the lock-in. I get what you're saying. And I really only use Facebook for two things - keeping in touch with family and friends that do not live near me, and posting Anti-Facebook articles to my News Feed.
you're kinda authoritarian aren't ya?
basically, if I got it right, you think that if anyone uses their freedom as an individual to act in any way you and the collective consciousness you follow disapproves then it's ok to limit that person rights
and you also think it's ok to just embed your vision of the world as a framework(like, facebook forcing this behaviour down everyones throat) because if everyone would just think like you do, everything would be better?
Well I don't agree and I'll never do and I'll also stand up against, otherwise it may well happen!
No, you don't have it right. First of all, I don't see how "rights" ever enter into it. How is it a right, in any sense of the word, to have hidden when you've read someone else's message? That's what this is about.
>and you also think it's ok to just embed your vision of the world as a framework
Just.. no. I never said that, or hinted at it. Stop reading motivations into my beliefs that do not exist.
well I was just trying to make the point on the implications some forms of viewing things and doors they leave open
but I guess this is also aching to political/ideological views, as I am very libertarian... Anyway, this argument has lost its purpose, better let it die, be good!
Comments
I value freedom of choice over "doing the right thing" as freedom is not subjective while moral high roads are.
You have a choice not to use facebook, I suppose. I can't see a single complaint against this system that doesn't end in bullshitting someone else (i.e. deception). Someone sends you a message, you read it, don't act on it. Now the other person can see you didn't act and ask WTF.
It'll cause some friction, sure. People will get over it.
I certainly do have a choice not to use it... but then again, not really (I even said people are forced to stay in it due to network effects).
Theoretically speaking, maybe I love Google+ but none of the people I want to keep in touch with use it, and thus the lock-in. I get what you're saying. And I really only use Facebook for two things - keeping in touch with family and friends that do not live near me, and posting Anti-Facebook articles to my News Feed.
you're kinda authoritarian aren't ya? basically, if I got it right, you think that if anyone uses their freedom as an individual to act in any way you and the collective consciousness you follow disapproves then it's ok to limit that person rights
and you also think it's ok to just embed your vision of the world as a framework(like, facebook forcing this behaviour down everyones throat) because if everyone would just think like you do, everything would be better?
Well I don't agree and I'll never do and I'll also stand up against, otherwise it may well happen!
this is a nice article that touches this topic: http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127...
No, you don't have it right. First of all, I don't see how "rights" ever enter into it. How is it a right, in any sense of the word, to have hidden when you've read someone else's message? That's what this is about.
>and you also think it's ok to just embed your vision of the world as a framework
Just.. no. I never said that, or hinted at it. Stop reading motivations into my beliefs that do not exist.
well I was just trying to make the point on the implications some forms of viewing things and doors they leave open
but I guess this is also aching to political/ideological views, as I am very libertarian... Anyway, this argument has lost its purpose, better let it die, be good!