Facebook must die

Hi TigerSoap,

I respectfully disagree that people arent becoming more selfish and narcasstic. They are, very much so. Nothing strikes me as more obvious in the uk today than how important superficial crap is to the average person.

Online friendships dont have any of the complications of the real life ones. Real life friendships are hard work and require alot of effort at times. I think people see this effort as too much trouble nowadays. People only wants ups, not downs.
Its all about showing the good side to yourself. Pretending everything is ok, to keep up with the 'jone's'.
Its conditioning. If everyone is conditioned to feel ok, theres never going to be enough to complain and make a difference.

You said "It seems to me that data mining from a marketing perspective is very important. So anyone sharing personal information, as trivial as they seem, is a potential target because if they know your habits, what you like, dislike and so on it will be easier for them to find the product that you "absolutely need".

- Well, i dont even think they need to do that anymore. They could probably market a pile of dog shit for £9.99 and as long as it became 'the norm' people would buy it. As long as enough people said it smelt and tasted nice, the rest would follow.
Look at the ipod - its a pain in the arse to use, and costs a fortune. And really.... who actually likes 1,00000000 songs? Yet half the world bought one because it became 'cool'.
Look at the ipad - what a waste of money that is. Yet people will buy it.
People complain about the economy being rigged yet have £500 to spend on something as rubbish as an ipad?! What the........!!!
Seems to me like people just want more money. They arent intrested in the real victims here - the kids/adults in 3rd world countries.

Anyways, sorry went off-tangent a bit there. :)
 
melatonin said:
I respectfully disagree that people arent becoming more selfish and narcasstic. They are, very much so. Nothing strikes me as more obvious in the uk today than how important superficial crap is to the average person.
Click to expand...

Ah sorry If I wasn't clear enough but to me Facebook isn't the culprit in itself but the people unaware of their narcississtic tendancies are using such tools to bolster their self-image and idea of themselves.
Although there is nothing wrong with sharing pictures of your loved ones or cats for example, it all depends on why you are doing it osit ;)
But I don't think you can paint everybody in broad strokes like that, many people are fed up and tired of the system as it is and they're looking for alternatives.
 
Facebook is all about status imo.
You could keep in touch with forum members on MSN. You dont need Facebook to keep in touch with people.
I mean... if you like someone that much on a forum, you could even take the next step and just keep in touch by phone. Why the need for Facebook?

Same with Twitter, thats even worse. Since when have grown men been intrested in other guys lives? I cant remember men walking down the street with a copy of 'womens own' or 'take a break' magazine before. (which is essentially the same thing) Its SOOOOO WIERD! :lol: :lol:
 
I agree with melatonin.

Facebook = Bad! Getting our data is just a smokescreen in my opinion - everybody is so excited about the whole protecting there privacy that I think it's a smokescreen. In all honesty in the objective reality in which we live, did we ever have any privacy in the first place - the reason why I think this whole privacy thing is so effective is because it connects to the ego, that is why the PTB are playing that card like there is no tommorrow, OSIT. It's too obvious for it to be the main aim. Why do they need our data from facebook? Yah, sure it can help out afew marketing companies but that counts for nothing. There are more important games being played in this field, IMHO.

I respectfully disagree that people arent becoming more selfish and narcasstic. They are, very much so. Nothing strikes me as more obvious in the uk today than how important superficial crap is to the average person.

Online friendships dont have any of the complications of the real life ones. Real life friendships are hard work and require alot of effort at times. I think people see this effort as too much trouble nowadays. People only wants ups, not downs.
Its all about showing the good side to yourself. Pretending everything is ok, to keep up with the 'jone's'.
Its conditioning. If everyone is conditioned to feel ok, theres never going to be enough to complain and make a difference.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. I think it's a sad truth but I think FB nowadays plays an even bigger role in exacerbating the above qualities especially among young adults and young people.
 
Is it possible that Facebook could be playing a role in boundary formation or identity formation? Is there a sort of something that is exclusive to those who are connected through facebook? Is there something that is being created by those connected through facebook?

Bud says think of the opposite. What would the world be without facebook? What do people do on facebook that they dont do in real life or find it harder to do in real life... People stalk friends on facebook - it would be interesting to find out exactly the definition of "friend" in this case because I think "friend" is a word that has lost its meaning just like other words such as "love" have been co-opted to mean something else other than what they actually are. People look at pictures of girls or guys depending on sexual orientation or curiosities. Only difference being, you are connected to the people you are looking at. They are not some far away celebrity or model thousands of miles away. They are a friend or a friend of a friend or colleague. People can easily figure other people out by going through there posts/pictures/statuses to see what the other person is about - eventhough the pictures/posts/statuses might not accurately portray the other person. Facebook also gives people anonymity in that I can stalk, I can look over countless pictures of people(friends or friends of friends) and do alot more without the person finding out - I can see who they are talking to and what they are talking about. It can be a place where subcultures grow or fringe aspects of our own culture grow. People can chat but what do people chat about?? One thing I have found out about internet instant message chatting is that, it is 8/10 times superficial because nothing deep or overly meaningful can be communicated through a chat window. Only certain aspects of the personality can thrive in such an environment not the more deep, meaningful part that actually constitutes real value or substance about a humanbeing so you find people on facebook being superficial and carrying there superficiality onto the real world in real life interactions and basing relationships on such superficialities thus enforcing the false personality of both themselves and other people. When you have a huge mass of people doing this and the behaviour being validated by officialdom like media, movies, marketing, celebrities then it becomes normal humanculture that is prefarable and everything else becomes pushed to the side being frowned upon and given negative connotations as boring, uncool, weird or just not normal behaviour and things that used to be understood before just simply get forgotten. Other people thus start getting sucked into this artificialy created homogeneity and boundaries/identities start forming. Certain people start hiding or suppressing parts of themselves inorder to get into the formed borders or try to fit in and before you know, we have all kinds of unhealthy situations going on. OSIT.



_http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/grail_4.htm

"[The origins of violence] are located in identity formation, arguing that imagining identity as an act of distinguishing and separating from others, of boundary making and line drawing, is the most frequent and fundamental act of violence we commit. Violence is not only what we do to the Other; it is prior to that. Violence is the very construction of the Other. This process is tricky: on the one hand, the activity of people defining themselves as a group is negative, they ARE by virtue of who they are not. On the other hand, those outsiders - so needed for the very self-definition of those inside the group - are also regarded as a threat to them. Ironically, the Outsider is believed to threaten the boundaries that are drawn to exclude him, the boundaries his very existence maintains. Outside by definition, but always threatening to get in, the Other is poised in a delicate balance that is always off balance because fear and aggression continually weight the scales. Identity forged agains the Other inspires perpetual policing of its fragile borders. History has shown that in the name of our identities - religious, ethnic, national, racial, gender - we commit and suffer the most horrific atrocities. ...Acts of identity formation are themselves acts of violence." [Schwartz, 1997]
Click to expand...

Another thing that I think makes things like facebook so very successful is that, people make the material, they do things themselves, they think they are the originators of the "creativity" on the pages. They are in the driving seat. Nobody is telling you what to read, what to watch, what to think. You are essentially making all this decisions yourself. Thus, once the ideas form, they become unbreakable because denying them after they are formed equates to admiting something that would shatter ones own fabric of identity, OSIT.

It reminds me of the movie inception where for inception to work, that is, idea plantation, it must be made to appear as if the subject came up with the idea all by himself because as soon as he figures out that the idea came from a foreign agent, he would deny the idea. Again I think this is what facebook might be about, IMHO. So, if this is remotely true, then what are the ideas being planted and what will they end up growing to?? How does one even begin to identify them...

Thing is, in my honest opinion, I think facebook is just one of the many tools at the tip of the iceberg. So eliminating it would not cause like systematic failure either to the whole planetary/cultural system or system of control within a person. If anything, it is just a new tool that makes things run more smoothly, more efficiently and is design specific for this specific time and at some point a new tool would have to be created for a different point in time..

On a different note, I also think, that what would make the "bad guys" fail is if they "failed" at making people choose the wrong option. The wrong option being to think there false personality is them or equates to there identity or that the false personality doesnt even exist a.k.a the predators mind. It might just be that, that is a big part of the game, identity connection, who or what you think you are or what you think constitutes your being and again I would say facebook is designed to make one identify with a part of themselves that might not exactly be "them" if you know what I mean. OSIT.
 
Hi Luke Wilson,


You said "Is it possible that Facebook could be playing a role in boundary formation or identity formation? Is there a sort of something that is exclusive to those who are connected through facebook? Is there something that is being created by those connected through facebook?"
- You have nailed it there.

And what you said about a smokescreen - again well said. Why are people obssessed about privacy unless their a drug-dealer etc etc anyway?
Again - its brainwashing people to think privacy is the issue here (by feeding their ego with more self-importance).
Like ive said before - the government couldnt give 2 hoots what the average Joe is doing - they will let cops on the beat deal with people like that.
Theres so much manipulation going on from so many bloody angles here that i cant even get my head round it.

Its far more than 'just another method of communication', im totally shocked that this isnt evident to more people.

And the fact that no Facebook member has ever given me 1 good reason to be on it, (as opposed to using MSN for example) yet most (not all) are totally obssesed with it, strikes me that theres some pretty heavy brainwashing going off there.
I can never remember the same issues when friends re-united was started. Its not that different, and looks a damn sight better.
Or when mobile phones first came out. Back then people respected your choice.
Now its becoming more and more like those who arent on it will be alienated.

IMO its a tool that is part of an agenda to create (in a very subtle way) a narcasstic egotistic society that will cry out for more and more money, even if we have to start illegal wars to put it in their pocket.
 
luke wilson said:
Bud says think of the opposite. What would the world be without facebook? What do people do on facebook that they dont do in real life or find it harder to do in real life... People stalk friends on facebook - it would be interesting to find out exactly the definition of "friend" in this case because I think "friend" is a word that has lost its meaning just like other words such as "love" have been co-opted to mean something else other than what they actually are. People look at pictures of girls or guys depending on sexual orientation or curiosities. Only difference being, you are connected to the people you are looking at. They are not some far away celebrity or model thousands of miles away. They are a friend or a friend of a friend or colleague. People can easily figure other people out by going through there posts/pictures/statuses to see what the other person is about - eventhough the pictures/posts/statuses might not accurately portray the other person. Facebook also gives people anonymity in that I can stalk, I can look over countless pictures of people(friends or friends of friends) and do alot more without the person finding out - I can see who they are talking to and what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

I think this is an important thing to consider. I recently made a big change on my Facebook page, basically restricting all but a small group of friends from seeing any pictures of my daughters. Unless I know the person personally, or have had significant interactions with them, I didn't feel it was appropriate for them to see my daughters. I didn't go through an rigorous selection process, most of it was just blinking. I also restricted more males than females in this sense, especially if I didn't know them that well, or had fallen out of touch with them over the years.

My motivation for this comes from Anna Salter's book Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists and Other Sex Offenders where she talks about the risk of having pictures of one's younger daughters on display in public places (such as an office). She considers this a risk factor when it comes to pedophilia. Since the book is older, she obviously doesn' t mention Facebook, but I think the same would apply there.

Just to clarify, I did have my daughter's pictures restricted from viewing to some degree already, but this change narrowed the viewing range down even more. I think I feel safer this way.
 
melatonin said:
Hi Luke Wilson,


You said "Is it possible that Facebook could be playing a role in boundary formation or identity formation? Is there a sort of something that is exclusive to those who are connected through facebook? Is there something that is being created by those connected through facebook?"
- You have nailed it there.
Click to expand...

I think there is a valid point or two on both sides of the issue and that this is possible because to a large extent, the medium (facebook) cannot be separated from the message (everything its used for). In some instances, Information Theorists offer the idea that the medium IS the message, so in this case its all intertwined.

But that just seems to indicate to me that since people are now exposed to social networking, if it were'nt for Facebook, it would just be something else (like Grouply for example), because it seems to provide for filling several 'needs' at once - including, but not limited to, anything from dealing with boredom to socializing and yet having a bit of distance from people at the same time, OSIT.
 
I think this is so clever. They create an online society where people can tell everyone about their lives (and most do) , AND at the same time they get those same people to complain about their privacy.
I mean seriously............. how does that make any sense whatsoever?!
 
RyanX said:
I think this is an important thing to consider. I recently made a big change on my Facebook page, basically restricting all but a small group of friends from seeing any pictures of my daughters. Unless I know the person personally, or have had significant interactions with them, I didn't feel it was appropriate for them to see my daughters. I didn't go through an rigorous selection process, most of it was just blinking. I also restricted more males than females in this sense, especially if I didn't know them that well, or had fallen out of touch with them over the years.

My motivation for this comes from Anna Salter's book Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists and Other Sex Offenders where she talks about the risk of having pictures of one's younger daughters on display in public places (such as an office). She considers this a risk factor when it comes to pedophilia. Since the book is older, she obviously doesn' t mention Facebook, but I think the same would apply there.

Just to clarify, I did have my daughter's pictures restricted from viewing to some degree already, but this change narrowed the viewing range down even more. I think I feel safer this way.
Click to expand...

Thanks for mentioning this, RyanX -- I'm just at the beginning of starting an account, which will probably take awhile anyway, but this is something I've been wondering about, and I'm going to adopt your strategy.
 
Im probably giving a bias opinion on facebook.
I once had a great job, house, car , Motorbike, social life, and friends who i thought were loyal. Id been there for them through good and bad times.
When i brokedown and confronted my trauma, everyone of them (bar none) disapeared into the sunset. Just being a friend (when i didnt ask for anything) was too much.

If anything i dont understand the obssession with people (rather than facebook itself).
I met up with various other people who had also been isolated by 'friends' after having a bad time.

I would say that about 1 in 257 people are worth knowing at any meaningful level.
Im pretty good at 'the game of life' , and i can talk crap as good as anyone else.
But since my breakdown ive seen how fake and see-through life is, aswell as 99.99% of people in it. Its no longer very satisfying.
 
I think that most of the points brought up concerning FB are valid and true, but that some of you are focusing too much on them instead of seeing why and in what way WE are using this tool. Yes, it can be another Big Brother data gathering technique, mind numbing, all you want. But we have no choice but to work within the system if we want some truth to spread around. We have all the websites, but not everybody finds them because they don't even know they have a choice! WE need to go out there, and spread information for those who may benefit from it. Facebook allows us to do that in a very clever way, posting "normal" stuff, pictures, etc. together with important articles and short texts that people can easily digest.

I have noticed in the past few months that a lot of my friends, who used to just ignore my page or disagree, have started liking what I post, asking questions about the diet and starting to make some changes. They are starting to get used to this kind of information, and I think that if we can just accomplish that, then we can consider it "mission accomplished!". In the same way people would buy dog poo if everybody buys it, they can start reading good information if enough of us like it and promote it. They will just do it as good "sheeple", followers, etc. But after being exposed to the truth for some time, they may very well start asking questions. Or the day when they get fed up with reality, they may remember what you have been posting. For all these reasons, I think it is a very valuable tool for the moment.

Personally, I don't care if "they" know some personal stuff about me. They knew it already anyway, I'm sure. I see it as a way of stopping the fear of what people are going to say. When they accuse us of being a cult, for example, it is easy to see that we are normal people with nothing to hide. Those who visit our pages and have half a brain will see that. Those who don't, well, they were never meant to join us in our work. OSIT.

So let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
 
I had an unpleasant experience with an internet "stalker" once, and this in turn added to my decision to never use my real full name on the internet nor give out my exact address on any info. Do have have anything to hide? No. It's like, if a cop pulls you over and then asks to search your car, and you tell them "no." Automatically, they think you have something to hide when really you are simply exercising a basic right to privacy. On the internet, you can't trust that anything you post or type will be kept private, so you have to take precautions. Besides, with the technology that is supposedly out there, it doesn't matter anyway. They can spy on you with a satellite. Or whatever.
 
Two months ago, Sott's FB page had less than 1500 friends, or 'likes' or whatever. Today it has almost 3000. That is the result of daily interaction in terms of posting articles and comments and interacting with FB'ers in an intelligent and informative way.

Please be aware that we are not advocating creating a FB profile in order to play Farmville or chat about the latest celebrity gossip or tell someone you don't know what you are doing. There are however 500 million people on FB who ARE being lead astray in this way.

People on this thread are happy to sit, like armchair generals, and opine on how evil FB is, while we are trying to do something about it.

Sanctimonious pontificating from what you THINK is the safety of your anonymity is hard to listen to for those out there on the front lines.

If I hear another word about how 'evil' FB is in the context of criticizing Sott.net or forum members for having a FB profile, I think I might have to :headbash:
 
Perceval said:
People on this thread are happy to sit, like armchair generals, and opine on how evil FB is, while we are trying to do something about it.
Sanctimonious pontificating from what you THINK is the safety of your anonymity is hard to listen to for those out there on the front lines.
Click to expand...

Anonymity is a double sided sword. It can protact against personality driven judgements and other attacks. But it can also facilitate personality driven "opinionating". There is just a minor difference between forum lurkers and "armchair generals". IMO nobody who does not dare to speak truth publicly under their full name has the right to judge those who stand on the front line and do speak truth. Anonymity does not know how much courage and stamina it takes to persist in public.

:rockon: all sott.net FB publishers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom