4 ms·

Not sure what that has to do with the topic, but I think you mean pseudo.com - there's a very entertaining documentary about it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki

Not sure what that has to do with the topic, but I think you mean pseudo.com - there's a very entertaining documentary about it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Live_in_Public https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Live_in_Public

Fnoord 8y ago
Yep, that's it, and that's the documentary I've seen on it as well. Here is why I find it relevant. The article starts with: > What could the internet have been? [...] That's what the article is basically about. Now, let me quote about the documentary: > The film’s website describes how, “With Quiet: We Live in Public, Harris proved how, in the affiliate future of standard life online, we will willingly trade our privacy for the connection and peer recognition we all deeply desire. Through his experiments, including another six-month stint living under 24-hour home security camera systems online which led him to experience nervous breakdown symptoms. Josh Harris displayed the demonstration effect of the price we will all pay for living in public.” [1] The art project we discuss proves that the way it has become (privacy-wise) was inevitable because people are willing to make that trade off. "The cloud", Facebook, and recently Facebook paying kids 20 USD to install a "VPN" (Onava) on their phone logging everything are just one of the many examples of that. It needn't have gone that way, if we learned earlier from that documentary and applied legislation. We can still learn and adapt, if we vote for electorate who don't listen to the big money (basically, the "cloud providers"). [1] http://weliveinpublic.blog.indiepixfilms.com/ http://weliveinpublic.blog.indiepixfilms.com/
- goodmachine 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure you can't legislate against narcissism/voyeurism, which are flipsides of the same coin. The tech just made the magic mirror globally accessible, pocket-sized and always-on, and the business model (ad-sponsored) just made it free. We have 'corporate voyeurs' as a result, but for that kind of thinking Guy Debord was more pointed than the pseudo.com guy IMHO

Fnoord 8y ago

Yep, that's it, and that's the documentary I've seen on it as well. Here is why I find it relevant. The article starts with: > What could the internet have been? [...] That's what the article is basically about. Now, let me quote about the documentary: > The film’s website describes how, “With Quiet: We Live in Public, Harris proved how, in the affiliate future of standard life online, we will willingly trade our privacy for the connection and peer recognition we all deeply desire. Through his experiments, including another six-month stint living under 24-hour home security camera systems online which led him to experience nervous breakdown symptoms. Josh Harris displayed the demonstration effect of the price we will all pay for living in public.” [1] The art project we discuss proves that the way it has become (privacy-wise) was inevitable because people are willing to make that trade off. "The cloud", Facebook, and recently Facebook paying kids 20 USD to install a "VPN" (Onava) on their phone logging everything are just one of the many examples of that. It needn't have gone that way, if we learned earlier from that documentary and applied legislation. We can still learn and adapt, if we vote for electorate who don't listen to the big money (basically, the "cloud providers"). [1] http://weliveinpublic.blog.indiepixfilms.com/ http://weliveinpublic.blog.indiepixfilms.com/

goodmachine 8y ago
I'm pretty sure you can't legislate against narcissism/voyeurism, which are flipsides of the same coin. The tech just made the magic mirror globally accessible, pocket-sized and always-on, and the business model (ad-sponsored) just made it free. We have 'corporate voyeurs' as a result, but for that kind of thinking Guy Debord was more pointed than the pseudo.com guy IMHO