Tag Archive: Philosophy


Facebook Privacy and Mind-Reading

I have always believed that, as a culture, mind-reading was the solution to all of our problems.

This sounds like a joke, but I prefer to think of it as a thought experiment.  Imagine, if you will, that everyone in the world could read minds. Think of the changes and the effect that would have on our culture.

Oh sure, there would be some growing pains as we get used to it.  The first few weeks would be terrible—every dirty secret you had, or thought you didn’t want to acknowledge, would be instantly known by everybody.  It’s hard to imagine a worse fate.

…except when it happens to everyone else too.  How can your boss judge you for secretly wanting to dress up like Jem and the Holograms when you know all about his illicit fantasies involving Hulk Hogan?  No one would ever be able to judge another person, lest they be judged.  Every single character flaw you had would be laid out for all the world to see, and no one could say a thing—because you could see every bad thing they’d ever done.

How could we ever argue? We’d instantly form a complete understanding of the other person’s point of view.  How could we hurt one another? It’s impossible to imagine being cruel or hurtful someone when you feel every pain as if it were your own.  We couldn’t lie, cheat, steal or murder—because everyone would instantly know what we’d done.  The more you think about it, the more you realize…once you get used to it, it might just be a perfect world.

I guess what I’m really trying to say is, I don’t care what Facebook does with my privacy settings.

Now I’ll be the first to recognize that Facebook trying to profit off of my personal information without informing me is serious bad news.  I disapprove whole-heartedly of this behavior.  But in general, the concept of using my personal preferences in order to better market to me things I might be interested in? That doesn’t bother me in the least.

The fact is these days, it’s getting harder and harder to keep secrets.  Everyone in the universe has a camera in their phone, so no matter what I do there’s a good chance it’ll wind up posted on Facebook somewhere.  Even if I want to keep some illicit activity a secret, all it takes is one photo-tag and everyone I know has found me out.  I can’t do anything too dastardly, even if I wanted to—because there’s no way to keep it a secret from my loved ones anymore.

Privacy is disappearing, and quickly—and I agree that this is difficult, painful, and disruptive to our lives.  But if we ever really got there—I mean really got there, where privacy truly was a thing of the past, and no one could keep any secrets anymore….well, would that be so bad?

Gaming as a Social Phenomenon

As I write this post, I’m sitting in the room with six other guys.  Two of them are playing BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger.  The rest of us are watching, shouting, and offering commentary.  But all of us are “gaming”.

A little while ago, some friends and I were doing this for a different game (I think it was Shining Force, one of my old favorites), and my father came in.  He expressed some concern that there were five or six of us in the room, but only one person had a controller.  Perhaps, he said, it might be more polite for us to play a game in which more than one person could participate.

I was honestly surprised.  I mean, I hadn’t even stopped to consider that this situation might not be fair, and neither had any of my friends.  I suddenly realized that I belonged to a generation that treats gaming as a social phenomenon—a group of people who can all sit in a room together while one person plays some crappy old Genesis game, and when asked, can still legitimately say “We’re gaming.”

Gaming has always been a social phenomenon for me, and I may be unusual in that gaming (for me) is an exclusively social phenomenon.  Even single player games are only REALLY fun for me when I can play them with my friends.  I don’t like playing on portable game systems, because it’s too hard for people to look over my shoulder—and too hard for me to look over my friends’ shoulders.  I think this is part of the reason why I started playing World of Warcraft.

Fact is, World of Warcraft is kind of a boring game.  The solo content, while very good in comparison to other MMOs, is really pretty boring in comparison to a high quality single-player game—but unlike those games, WoW is automatically social.  In fact, the reason why I started the game in the first place is because a friend of mine moved away to San Francisco for college—and WoW was a good way for us to stay in touch, and continue to do things together.

The social nature of WoW is also the reason why, when too many of my friends stopped playing WoW, it just wasn’t fun any more.  There’s a lot of single-player content in WoW, but most of it is about advancing your character and getting better gear.  And if you’re working towards the eventual goal of being a better player in groups with friends you care about, then great—but if you’re just playing by yourself, and there isn’t any long term goal, then who cares?  It wasn’t until I finally convinced my brother to pick up a copy of WotLK and start playing again that the game once again became fun for me.

I find this to be an interesting counterpoint to the (now, fortunately, very uncommon) belief that gaming is an inherently anti-social behavior, and that the best thing you can do for your kids is to shut down the game system and make them go outside.  I now belong to an entire generation of people for whom gaming IS a social activity.

Fairness vs. Justice

My aunt, Ann Monroe, is a writer who focuses on sustainable agriculture and ecology, especially how they relate to economics and to food (her website is at http://www.annmonroe.com).  I follow her on Twitter, and I noticed a post she put up today:

RT @gfriend: Is Dobbs losing it? RT @grist: RT @huffingtonpost Lou Dobbs freaks over 1 day/wk of vegie school lunches http://bit.ly/3Lctsd

The post is here: http://twitter.com/ann_monroe/status/5041257805.  I encourage you to read the linked article before you continue.

The article is a short read, but the gist of it is this: there was a CNN segment on Monday Night on the “Meatless Mondays” program that the Baltimore city school district has implemented—the students are being served a vegetarian lunch one day a week.  CNN noted that “…they found no parents who objected to the policy”, but then went on to describe an opposing viewpoint—offered by the American Meat Institute.  The AMI expressed concern that “students are being served up an unhealthy dose of indoctrination”, and that students (and their parents) were being deprived of “choice”.  At the end of the segment, Lou Dobbs apparently described the situation as “a real political storm in the making.”

I would like echo the Huffington Post’s reaction here, and say: …really?

This is an egregious example, of course, but it’s something that happens all the time in American media, and by extension in American culture: Fairness is being substituted for Justice.  CNN is determined to remain a fair, and unbiased news source, and what that means (apparently) is giving equal time to both sides of an issue.  Media outlets don’t make value judgments—they show you the facts, and then “let you decide”.

The trouble is that fairness is not justice.  The story that is receiving coverage here is not a debate.  One of the sides represented is a group of teachers and parents who want their kids to have a vegetarian meal once a week.  After all, it’s a good idea to encourage vegetable-eating habits at a young age—my wife often laments the fact that her family didn’t eat right when they were kids, since if they did it might be easier to eat healthy today.  The other side is a multi-million dollar lobbying organization, with a vested financial interest in the continued sale of meat products.  One side is interest in the health of children, the other side is interested in increasing its own profits.  This isn’t a “2 sides to every argument” kind of debate.  Or perhaps it is—and those sides are “Good” and “Evil”.

Attention media outlets: You don’t have to offer equal time to everyone.  The axiom “There are two sides to every story” is false.  Two is an arbitrary number.  Give us the number of sides to the story that there legitimately are—however many that may be.  This may require you to make a value judgment.  So be it.  Value judgments, from time to time, are your responsibility as a journalist.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.