![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
This is mostly a criticism of Facebook, but the other "real you" social networking sites are under fire too. Orkut started getting this wrong, and it's spread.
I think it's important to have boundaries in life. My work, training, social life and weirdshit, for example, are pretty distinct things. I might want to be in a bunch of technical groups, training lists, boozehound surf bum groups and creepy gothed-out crazy people lists. And it is legitimate to want to keep those separate: my boss doesn't need to see my party photos any more I need to flash the avatars of gym freaks (c'mon guys, SWF please?) around. I might be in a church and a sports club, and not want the sports club to tag me as the god-botherer.
I might even be doing stuff that some of my friends think is stupid, or irresponsible, or dangerous, or illegal. And of course, I might have groups of friends who hate each other, or who would think a lot less of me if they saw me hanging around with people "like that" - I don't want my dudes to think I'm a suckup if I've friended the boss; I'm not going to explain my futanari group to the vicar.
I can count the number of people who'd get into all of those groups on one stump. So a "real me" social site has to be shallow and thin. It's got to be just safe contacts - the ones from the really real world - and it's got to have nothing terribly challenging. I'd argue that's why the groups I'm seeing on Facebook are either facile or dull - dull because they're already the people you know, so there's no real interest there, or facile in that they're Zombie Of The Week or Fans Of Smeaton; stuff that's got no more weight than a Dilbert strip.
What I love about the web is not seeing my mates' photos and going "Heyy, thats you! Don't you look a right tosser?" It's the other contacts - the people who extend what I think, not merely confirm it. And it's the ability to explore something leftfield with pretty good anonymity. The reality offered by places like Facebook actually kills the unreality which is at the very heart of a rich internet experience.
For me, it's as bad as being beaten up by Thrognath the Barbarian, while hearing his tween voice arguing with his mum about tidying his room. Too much reality where it's not needed really can suck.
I might even be doing stuff that some of my friends think is stupid, or irresponsible, or dangerous, or illegal. And of course, I might have groups of friends who hate each other, or who would think a lot less of me if they saw me hanging around with people "like that" - I don't want my dudes to think I'm a suckup if I've friended the boss; I'm not going to explain my futanari group to the vicar.
I can count the number of people who'd get into all of those groups on one stump. So a "real me" social site has to be shallow and thin. It's got to be just safe contacts - the ones from the really real world - and it's got to have nothing terribly challenging. I'd argue that's why the groups I'm seeing on Facebook are either facile or dull - dull because they're already the people you know, so there's no real interest there, or facile in that they're Zombie Of The Week or Fans Of Smeaton; stuff that's got no more weight than a Dilbert strip.
What I love about the web is not seeing my mates' photos and going "Heyy, thats you! Don't you look a right tosser?" It's the other contacts - the people who extend what I think, not merely confirm it. And it's the ability to explore something leftfield with pretty good anonymity. The reality offered by places like Facebook actually kills the unreality which is at the very heart of a rich internet experience.
For me, it's as bad as being beaten up by Thrognath the Barbarian, while hearing his tween voice arguing with his mum about tidying his room. Too much reality where it's not needed really can suck.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 12:40 pm (UTC)About the only good thing I can think of about it is that a well-known and tiresome troll from my primary fandom has, in all 'her' incarnations (they present online as female, but I'm not convinced), been utterly paranoid about mentioning any details about 'her' non-internet life online, presumably because 'Yes, I live in the sock drawer and leech off the wireless network under the pile of pants' might not be any too convincing. And I'm not convinced it's worth it just for the lack of 'her'.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 01:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 05:03 pm (UTC)Heck, if you weren't doing something like that I'd assume I'd found the wrong Andy - or that you'd been replaced by a pod person from the planet Mars.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 08:57 pm (UTC)I've never suffered from GSF4. Never. It's only ever an issue for me when someone I consider a friend does...
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-07-21 06:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-07-22 08:57 pm (UTC)Right. Anyhow, a lot of the reason (I feel) my journal is mundane now is because I've stopped sharing all the bits that make me who I really believe I am. I miss the ability to speak to people who understand why I feel like cutting myself at times without scorning me for figuring out a way to release the urge without actually bleeding.
These days, I often feel as if sharing because I thought I had that support was all an illusion. When I first started journaling, I believed that I could be 100% who I am and it wouldn't have any negative effect on me. I thought that those who cared about me and said they were my friends would ask if they didn't understand, and everyone else would just move away from me if they felt uncomfortable.
Ah, the grand delusion I labored beneath...
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: