4 ms·

The good folks of tumblr have a succinct counter-argument to suggestions like this. It is, and I quote: "durr hburr technology is bad fire is scary and thomas

The good folks of tumblr have a succinct counter-argument to suggestions like this. It is, and I quote: "durr hburr technology is bad fire is scary and thomas edison was a witch"

mpitt 11y ago
Except that the author was an early adopter of technology. Definitely not a luddite.
raverbashing 11y ago
I kind of agree "Not having an online presence" makes as much sense as "not having a presence at the pub" or "refusing to talk to people as a principle - isn't that so 'awesome'?" It's fine, you don't need to be on every silly new 2.0 dot com, no issue there. But you're shutting yourself out of a means of communication with other people. The fact that it involved technology is a detail You can go to the pub and not drink, you can use FB with a fake name and not do anything with it and you can choose an email provider that suits you, but shutting yourself out does not make sense
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- andrepd 11y ago
  Precisely. You don't have to be on every new fad website or app, broadcasting your every motion to the rest of the world. But you don't need to go to the extreme of not having email or walking to a library instead of using the amazing repository of information that is the internet.
- teh_klev 11y ago
  > "Not having an online presence" makes as much sense as "not having a presence at the pub" It does make sense, your Facebook/Twitter/... presence doesn't go away when you go to bed or go on holiday, it's always there to be ogled at, poke and prodded, unlike your non-presence in the pub when you stagger off home at closing time.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    I know some people who deactivate their account every night, and apparently it's not that rare either: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/11/08/risk-reduction-strategies-on-facebook.html http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/11/08/risk-re...
- trentmb 11y ago
  > "Not having an online presence" makes as much sense as "not having a presence at the pub" Not quite- if I don't make it to the pub one night, people just brush it off and think "I'll talk to him next time." People seem much more vitriolic if I don't respond to whatever internet/text message they sent with near immediacy- because it's always available. It seems like there's a shut-off valve with the pub, or a land-line and answering machine- not so with facebook, texting, what have you.
  - raverbashing 11y ago
    > if I don't respond to whatever internet/text message they sent with near immediacy- because it's always available I have to agree with you on this one. But I believe it suffices to say that no, you're not looking at email/fb/whatsapp/whatever all the time (and acting like that)
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - icebraining 11y ago
    As someone who barely ever picks up a call or reads an SMS in less than an hour, and often a full day, people are annoyed at first but soon get used to it.
- marincounty 11y ago
  I feel I'm definetly older than most of you. I've had about three long term best friends, excluding romantic relationships. Ride, or die friends. One friend is on FB, but not there much. The main reason I joined FB is I thought I was missing out on meeting new people. I used my real identity on FB for a year. I still wore sunglasses, because I didn't think anyone had a right to see your entire face. Yes--I've got friend requests. I look up that person, and boom--they have 500 friends. Why do they want another one? I even had the cutest Amish girl want to be friends of FB. She had 3000 friends. She was married. What's the point? I don't think I had one person FB friend request that didn't seem to have a selfish agenda? To be fair, I really didn't reach out to people I once really liked. We seemed to go in just different directions. I want to like FB, but I just find the site depressing. The most interesting people, I once knew well, are now just posing for pictures, crafting their comments to get their seemingly so fragile egos the "Likes", and seem to be using FB as some sort of way to control how society views them? Most would be better off just telling the truth, but they can't. Why? Because the better part of the world will be able to see your vulnerabilities, and those bad days that make you human, will never be able to be erased. A few mistakes, and you are that person that will be judged by the rest? And the rest, makes snap judgements, and most will likely remember you by that one bad day. So, it you have any sence of self preservation, you will just post those fishmouth pictures, and be nauseating optimistic. Why--you can't want to be called out as a Troll, or Debbie Downer, or have a negative view on anything the sheep haven't given disscused in committee beforehand. So, what do we have? We have FB. A site that forces people to be superficial, and fake. Aging, if I was younger, I think my time on FB would have less nauseating? Maybe? People promote these sites as the end all. How can you meet anyone if they never show the real person behind the keyboard? I do like HN for obvious reasons. My only complaint is they should pay moderators. Why--it might weed out the moderators that use the site as a power trip?
kbart 11y ago
In this case is more like: "I gave it a shot, but no, thanks".
clock_tower 11y ago
But fire _is_ scary, technology is a mixed bag at best, and as for Edison, well, I'm not sure I'd put it past him after how he treated Tesla. Seriously, I had to read that line twice to realize that it was intended sarcastically. I think I just Poe's Law-ed myself.

The good folks of tumblr have a succinct counter-argument to suggestions like this. It is, and I quote: "durr hburr technology is bad fire is scary and thomas edison was a witch"

mpitt 11y ago

Except that the author was an early adopter of technology. Definitely not a luddite.

raverbashing 11y ago

I kind of agree "Not having an online presence" makes as much sense as "not having a presence at the pub" or "refusing to talk to people as a principle - isn't that so 'awesome'?" It's fine, you don't need to be on every silly new 2.0 dot com, no issue there. But you're shutting yourself out of a means of communication with other people. The fact that it involved technology is a detail You can go to the pub and not drink, you can use FB with a fake name and not do anything with it and you can choose an email provider that suits you, but shutting yourself out does not make sense

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
andrepd 11y ago
Precisely. You don't have to be on every new fad website or app, broadcasting your every motion to the rest of the world. But you don't need to go to the extreme of not having email or walking to a library instead of using the amazing repository of information that is the internet.
teh_klev 11y ago
> "Not having an online presence" makes as much sense as "not having a presence at the pub" It does make sense, your Facebook/Twitter/... presence doesn't go away when you go to bed or go on holiday, it's always there to be ogled at, poke and prodded, unlike your non-presence in the pub when you stagger off home at closing time.
- icebraining 11y ago
  I know some people who deactivate their account every night, and apparently it's not that rare either: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/11/08/risk-reduction-strategies-on-facebook.html http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/11/08/risk-re...
trentmb 11y ago
> "Not having an online presence" makes as much sense as "not having a presence at the pub" Not quite- if I don't make it to the pub one night, people just brush it off and think "I'll talk to him next time." People seem much more vitriolic if I don't respond to whatever internet/text message they sent with near immediacy- because it's always available. It seems like there's a shut-off valve with the pub, or a land-line and answering machine- not so with facebook, texting, what have you.
- raverbashing 11y ago
  > if I don't respond to whatever internet/text message they sent with near immediacy- because it's always available I have to agree with you on this one. But I believe it suffices to say that no, you're not looking at email/fb/whatsapp/whatever all the time (and acting like that)
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- icebraining 11y ago
  As someone who barely ever picks up a call or reads an SMS in less than an hour, and often a full day, people are annoyed at first but soon get used to it.
marincounty 11y ago
I feel I'm definetly older than most of you. I've had about three long term best friends, excluding romantic relationships. Ride, or die friends. One friend is on FB, but not there much. The main reason I joined FB is I thought I was missing out on meeting new people. I used my real identity on FB for a year. I still wore sunglasses, because I didn't think anyone had a right to see your entire face. Yes--I've got friend requests. I look up that person, and boom--they have 500 friends. Why do they want another one? I even had the cutest Amish girl want to be friends of FB. She had 3000 friends. She was married. What's the point? I don't think I had one person FB friend request that didn't seem to have a selfish agenda? To be fair, I really didn't reach out to people I once really liked. We seemed to go in just different directions. I want to like FB, but I just find the site depressing. The most interesting people, I once knew well, are now just posing for pictures, crafting their comments to get their seemingly so fragile egos the "Likes", and seem to be using FB as some sort of way to control how society views them? Most would be better off just telling the truth, but they can't. Why? Because the better part of the world will be able to see your vulnerabilities, and those bad days that make you human, will never be able to be erased. A few mistakes, and you are that person that will be judged by the rest? And the rest, makes snap judgements, and most will likely remember you by that one bad day. So, it you have any sence of self preservation, you will just post those fishmouth pictures, and be nauseating optimistic. Why--you can't want to be called out as a Troll, or Debbie Downer, or have a negative view on anything the sheep haven't given disscused in committee beforehand. So, what do we have? We have FB. A site that forces people to be superficial, and fake. Aging, if I was younger, I think my time on FB would have less nauseating? Maybe? People promote these sites as the end all. How can you meet anyone if they never show the real person behind the keyboard? I do like HN for obvious reasons. My only complaint is they should pay moderators. Why--it might weed out the moderators that use the site as a power trip?

kbart 11y ago

In this case is more like: "I gave it a shot, but no, thanks".

clock_tower 11y ago

But fire _is_ scary, technology is a mixed bag at best, and as for Edison, well, I'm not sure I'd put it past him after how he treated Tesla. Seriously, I had to read that line twice to realize that it was intended sarcastically. I think I just Poe's Law-ed myself.